We 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
Saturday, September 29. 2018
I had not noticed the witness's odd baby talk before this.
Tracked: Sep 29, 19:29
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I noticed the little girl voice right away. Highly unusual for a 50 + professional woman. I think ii is used by those wishing not to be held responsible for what they are saying. Women obviously not men.
I didn't watch but I heard her on the Glenn Beck show. It seems men were more persuaded than women. Real women saw and heard through it.
I was listening to her on the radio driving around taking care of my errands. I was shocked at what I heard. Perhaps those that didn't notice were watching her on television or a computer. It was obvious that something was seriously wrong with a woman of that age talking like she was three or four years old.
Have you ever seen the movie "Dead Again?" One of my favorites. Derek Jacobi plays a hypnotist antiques dealer who hypnotizes people to get information about antiques they might remember. There is a funny scene with an old lady who knew Theodore Roosevelt. She is hypnotized to try to find something out about a desk. She talks in a little girl voice when hypnotized and regressed to her childhood.
The hearing reminded me of that.
My view watching was she elicited sympathy, but was not credible. The prosecutor blew some huge holes through her testimony that showed she is fundamentally lying about a number of things, including her motives and how this all developed. Most basic, her account still doesn't line up, even the polygraph leads you just to question what did the polygraph claim she was not deceptive on, since there were two different versions of the facts just in the polygraph test recitals and the attached written statement which supposedly was the basis for the polygraph. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which a certain Democrat senator said was the test.
Especially irritating was what I call the "batting the eyes" look. Looking down and looking innocent while shifting her eyes up at you and blinking. Fundamental flirting 101. I really hate that look from women, it usually means they are playing cute to try to get something out of you. Always a big alarm with me for women. She was doing that all the time.
Nothing against her story, but she does seem like a peculiar person. On the other hand, world is full of peculiar people.
Wow. I hadn't gotten around to watching any of this shit show. This changes my mind (not the body language analysis per se but how Ford comes across to me). First impression - Glenn Close boils the rabit in fatal attraction. Second funnier impression: Dorothy Shaw (Jane Mansfield) flirting with Mr. Pritchard as "Lorelei Lee" in the court scene except, Mansfield looks 60. Nice "memory" she reads there. I mean c'mon can't she even read like she knows where her own story is going? Now I don't think any thing happened to her at all.
I hadn't watched any video of her until I saw this clip, but this body language expert does a great job of pointing out all sorts of things. As far as the voice, I heard the little girl voice on the radio the day of the testimony and couldn't believe she was talking that way. It seemed pretty clear to me from that tone of voice that this was a well-rehearsed act.
I think it would be very interesting to hear a sample of her voice when she teaches to compare her voice in her testimony. I expect it would be very different.
Oh I get it, it’s a flash gaf as Michael Crichton would say, a scam. Pretty well done actually, but I bet the Republican Senators are already in the know, briefed by the specialist prosecutor. Hard to counter, in terms of public perception.
This is a woman who teaches in graduate school and apparently cooperatively with the Stanford Medical School. She gets up in front of a class or at least a group of people and talks like a little girl who is too innocent to confront them directly. If I were speaking to a group about traumatic events and wanted them to agree with me and support me, I'b be pretty forceful and determined, not innocent little girl. Very odd.
The goo-goo talk drove me nuts, but I took it as the necessary attitude of someone who wants to explain why she waited decades to bring all this out: she's stuck in childhood by what she describes as a traumatic event. She's still all trembly and overwhelmed after all this time. PTSD! Depression! Anxiety! Claustrophobia! Intermittent fear of flying! Relationship struggles! It would have been a lot better for her if she'd dusted herself off, waited for the boys to sober up, and then given them a tongue-lashing.
Oddly enough, if I saw it on video and thus were 100% sure it happened, I'd say it showed bad judgment on the boy's part, but I'd be baffled if a woman took more than a few minutes to process it and move on. To the young man, I'd say, hey, it may seem like fun and games to hold a girl down, but it's uncol, and you're going to get in trouble if you don't learn to handle your liquor. Then, after a few decades of his living a blameless life, I wouldn't give this youthful screw-up another moment's thought.
I just can't stomach it. Judge Kavanaugh convinced me that, if it happened, he wasn't there. Even if it had happened, this is ridiculous. Half the country seems to have lost its mind. Well, I hope it will turn out to be less than half, and that the mood at the mid-terms will be "ENOUGH." Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?
The age inappropriate demeanor is only part of it; it's the manipulation.
When a person remembers a place they have been, they make involuntary movements, the analyst pointed it out because CBF wasn't testifying from memory, like a normal person. Instead, she was reciting a carefully contrived narrative. The dog that didn't bark, is that she never made an assertion that could be corroborated or cross checked. Everyone will have to decide for themselves if they think that is consistent with a genuine and sincere victim.
That babyish voice is a real turn off for me, too. I also hate the looking up flirtatiously. Probably because I am tall, and saw other girls do this in high school, but I was obviously not able to do that! I tend to look down at most people.LOL
How do you think she acted/sounded when she was being interviewed for a job as a "university professor"? Get the background info. What is her positions at the university? How many hours a term does she get paid for? Is it an evening class, an extension course, online, part of a seminar series? You cannot tell me that this gal is a full fledged tenured professor. Where are the research papers? She is 50 years old--she must have written at least five papers by now that have been published in "real" journals. What is her specialty? How did she get to that specialty--in other words where did she study for her specialty, why, and how much academic background did she have behind her when she went into that field? I have seen hundreds of women like this--she is a fraud.
Due diligence, please.
Her grandfather and father are involved with the OSS/CIA. Her husband is involved in pharma developing drugs for traumatized children that have something to do with Stanford's medical school/MK Ultra history.
She has four degrees, is not a licensed psychologist as many of her background materials stated before her testimony, but now have been scrubbed from EVERYTHING. She works with trauma statistics (notably 9/11 and terrorism), but didn't have counseling herself until 2012 when remodeling her home to accommodate Google interns so upset her that she had to go to family counseling with her husband? BTW, the remodel permit was taken out in 2008, not 2012 -- why wait so many years?
That's just the beginning of the sham. There is plenty of coverage now on the high school cheerleader/party girl turned California surfer who travels the world by plane to pursue her hobby. What a maroon!
Now ask, "Why? Why now?"
That's just the beginning of the scam.
Cause it's about the 5th seat and about abortion $$$$$$.
The permit date, I had not seen that before. I did hear about the promiscuous cheerleader. Her high school nickname, BJ Blasey. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Facebook and Google, helped with the professional scrub job of her past.
I find it interesting that virtually no one who knows Ford has come forward to support her. Especially people who would have known her from the days in question. And where's her family? Where's her husband?
Kavanaugh has had literally hundreds of people who knew him in high school and Yale and after come out and deny he would have acted like that. Ford has no one.
Senator Graham came out today and said he has known Kavanaugh for 20 years and knows these are lies.
I listened to segments on the radio. The pathos of that tearful little Valley Girl voice was immediately evident. It's not natural in a middle-aged woman. Something ain't right there.
When I recall my extended family, it's primarily women I think of. Capable, truly courageous women, such as the aunt who buried a newborn and an adult daughter. I don't remember a single one of them dribbling all over the place. They took their lumps in life and did their weeping in private.
Not to say that public sorrow is wrong. But using it to irresponsibly destroy is a betrayal of women in general. How can anyone think of women as strong, and reliable in a tight place, when whimpers in little-girl voices become more powerful than truth?
I don't hold with angst. Emotion makes a good servant, but a poor master. And as an adult, I have labored over the decades to train my mind, to balance my feminine nature with reason and logic, and above all, a strict allegiance to truth. I don't always succeed (ask my husband) but I do not consider those attributes to be inherently male.
And now, after this latest theatrical drama in Washington (it gives "Assassination at Ford's Theater" a whole new meaning), I see all that hard work diminished, debased beyond repair as our society submits to stereotypical female hysteria: I am Woman: Neurotic and Overwrought, unstable as water, and about as reliable as a stalk of boiled celery.
As Homer put it: "In the extravagance of her evil she has brought shame both on herself and on all women who will come after her..."
I just wanted to thank you for this comment. It is exactly how I have approached life, and how I feel about not only this latest incident, but all of the "female hysteria" that the left has embraced and encouraged as their standard MO. You captured it all beautifully.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. For years, I have not been able to be as precise as you in defining my code--my way of managing the challenges in life. You have done a beautiful job and I am grateful. More women like us need to organize our response so that our voices together become louder.
I'd like to see Ford have a specialized polygraph with chemical enhancements on board. The type of polygraph they give to a spy who might have been compromised.