Brett Kavanaugh is a Bad Man (edited to get name right - mea culpa)

I believe his accusers. Sadly, I don't think the furor surrounding his nomination is going to do a damn thing to help sexual assault victims. Neither major political party is going to propose laws or policies to help the millions of people who have been sexually assaulted. But they are happy to distract us from that fact, and from all the other policies and programs that America needs because as long as Cavanaugh is the only thing the media talks about, every other issue, from #MedicareForAll to Raising the Minimum wage, and yes, even to laws that protect sexual assault victims and make it easier to prosecute sexual predators, will be ignored. Something to ponder while we gear up for what will likely be the most expensive mid-term election in US history.

Here's my video about our latest media obsession:

My Patreon link: https://www.patreon.com/stevendbt

Share
up
20 users have voted.

Comments

He probably is a privileged frat boy and all around asshole BUT..
A generation old accusation by a Democratic activist "confirmed" by a classmate whose confirmation is "everybody knows what they were like" is just plain McCarthyism.
It's a stain on the Democratic Party. You or I could be the next accused. No proof, just accusation. A witch hunt.

up
8 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness

I don’t consider this a witch hunt because the accusation is a generation old, and there is no proof. And I especially don’t dismiss it because ‘you or I could be the next accused’. I believe there is every reason now to reveal Kavanaugh’s behaviour. Yes, teenage hormones in combination with alcohol is often a catalyst of bad behaviour, but even under those circumstances 17 year-olds are capable of making different choices. What kind of man is one who (even in that state) is totally unaware of the pain (rather than pleasure) he is causing the other? I find Kavanaugh's behaviour believable, especially in light of his stance on women’s rights. The world needs better men in all places, and in my observation that is happening to a great extent with the younger generation.

up
27 users have voted.

@janis b
I grew up a few miles from Hillary. I can claim that she kidnapped me and made me her sex slave in High school. Would you believe me?

up
8 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness

But as I said, it is believable in light of his view of women.

up
18 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@janis b Is it Roe v. Wade as enunciated during the hearings? Oops, that didn't get much air time. I agree that denigrating a woman's right to choose is demeaning. But their are other parts of the issue, such as unequal wages for equal work, voting rights, equal enforcement of law--INCLUDING sexual assaults, harassment, or discrimination. What are BK's views on these issues?

The Dims busily are collapsing the bases of their support (other than rich donors), by diluting the too often used accusations of racism and now #Metoo. The boy-who-cried-wolf effect is robbing legitimate complaints of their impact.

As one YouTuber stated, the Dims will cast aside Blasey Ford and Ramirez as soon as the BK hearings are over. Blaze Ford will be met by retribution, type unknown as yet, for daring to shoot her arrows at BK with an almost empty quiver.

A good many here do not realize that El Trumpo is winning the coup. Some here may not believe there is a coup in progress. News of the coup is openly discussed on Fox Spews and even is trickling into the MSM. Many of us understand the Klinton Krime Korporation has dispatched many souls across the River Styx--but will DJT do the same--sending his opponents to Gitmo? Where's Tony Podesta? Where's Joseph Mifsud? Trump is eliminating his enemies mostly in plain sight.

up
7 users have voted.

Sadly, this type of accusation only hurts sexual assault victims. How many of you remember clearly what happened to you 35 years ago on a drunken night partying?

up
7 users have voted.

If it was easy, everyone would do it.

CS in AZ's picture

@Crazytimes

I was 14, a sophomore in high school. I do not remember the day of the week or the calendar date on which it occurred, or the exact time. I don’t know what clothes I wore or what the weather was like that day. What I know is it was in the late summer of 1973 and it took place in the afternoon, at my home, and I remember the attack very, very clearly.

No the police were not called. I felt shame and wanted to forget. I did tell my mother, who didn’t believe me (it was her live in boyfriend who attacked me, and she didn’t want to hear it). I spent years being a near-suicidal mess after that day. I gained 100 pounds within a couple of years. Self protection. Therapy and time helped me pull myself together, but you never forget.

My attacker finally croaked from a heart attack when I was in my 40s. I drank a glass of champagne with my spouse to quietly celebrate that the piece of shit was no longer using up oxygen on this planet. That was it for me in terms of justice.

Thankfully, no one ever tried to put him on the Supreme Court. If they had, I might finally have been driven to speak out. But as we can see in today’s news and articles and comments, doing so would be a mistake — the victims who speak up only get attacked yet again, while the predators go on with their business. Same as it ever was.

up
33 users have voted.

@CS in AZ As a survivor myself, it’s been hell of a week. Reading all of the #WhyIDidntReport stories has drained me dry, infuriated me, and also given me some hope and further strength. Here’s to you for carrying on. Stay strong.

up
23 users have voted.

@TB mare "Boys will be boys." Girl get drunk at a frat party - "Sluts will be sluts." You're right, same as it ever was.

up
25 users have voted.

@lizzyh7 @lizzyh7 why a 15 year old girl went to a small drinking party?

Can you explain why a college student participated in a drinking game?

I thought the entire purpose of drinking games/parties was to get plastered and engage in debauchery.

up
4 users have voted.

dfarrah

snoopydawg's picture

@dfarrah

It appears that you are blaming the girl for drinking underaged, but not the boy for doing that too. You might as well say that "if she hadn't worn those clothes then she wouldn't have been assaulted." Or one could go the other way. "Why did he drink so much that he assaulted a girl or that he blacked out?"

I'd think that most of us would have moved beyond that line of thinking. And I think you thought wrong. Just my opinion though.

up
16 users have voted.

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg K at that age and beyond is being savaged. If it is character versus character, why not question Ford's character?

After all, she lied to her parents (or someone) about the party. She probably lied about her age to the other partiers. She further concealed her activities from her parents.

Tell me, why should we believe this liar? (this is a rhetorical question)

And a different thought - she said she didn't tell her parents because she was afraid of getting into trouble for drinking. So, IMO, that tells you right there that she was more concerned about her parents than the assault.

up
3 users have voted.

dfarrah

snoopydawg's picture

@dfarrah

sexually or otherwise because you have no clue about how it affects people. People. Men and women alike. Count yourself lucky ...

up
14 users have voted.

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

@snoopydawg

the respect that I have for you, I'm struggling with whether you or others are saying there is no possibility that Christine Blasey Ford is fabricating. My personal view is that at we can't know at this point because we're not the jury or the members of the Senate who have to hear and decide about this.

But are you saying that all people who have been sexually assaulted are telling the truth? Or are you saying that all people who say they have been sexually assaulted are telling the truth?

up
5 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@Linda Wood

and hearing gossip about drunken frat parties and the shenanigans that went on at them (I stayed out of that whole scene because I was there to get an education). So yeah, the story sounds credible (which is not quite the same thing as whether it is true).

up
8 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

@snoopydawg early '80s. I have been molested 3 times (not egregiously), and I have been exposed to. I immediately filed a police report with the Houston Police Department.

I had a longer comment to you last night, but the stupid computer wigged out and came up with an error message. And Caucus99 was taking forever to change screens, so I went to sleep.

up
3 users have voted.

dfarrah

zoebear's picture

@dfarrah

From the Political kabuki of the Kavanaugh hearings, I would like to comment on your very personally revealing post. It is estimated that there are more women who do not file a police report after being sexually assaulted then there are who do. Since i cannot corroborate your claim, i will have to politely believe you and refrain from attributing your possible deception to something more covertly nefarious.

You see how that works?

up
5 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

@zoebear a release from me for the Houston Police department?

I'll be more than happy to provide one, then you can request the records.

I'll even be happy to provide a release form from the hospital that collected the rape kit, Houston Memorial.

Get me the forms, and I'll sign.

up
1 user has voted.

dfarrah

zoebear's picture

@dfarrah

At detecting snark, are you?

up
4 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

@CS in AZ
And maybe he try something back then. And maybe not.

I'm not a lawyer but trying to take someone's panties off is not rape. Rape requires penetration. It's illegal, but some other charge. Struggling with an insistent guy at a party isn't anything like what happened to you.

up
5 users have voted.
zoebear's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Anyone who is forcefully trying to take my clothes off against my will is SEXUALLY ASSUALTING ME.

So, please, spare us your trenchant legal definition of what rape is when sexual assault does not require penetration for it to be aggravated molestation.

Ugh.

up
24 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

dkmich's picture

@zoebear

I have been groped, held down and forcibly and partially disrobed, and had many other unwanted and uninvited sexual advances verbal and physical. The earliest event that happened was in elementary school when a hand in the crowd on the stairs reached up and touched me somewhere that was no accident. I never told anyone about any of them.

I also have three grandsons, and I want proof if someone is going to accuse them of anything. I am not going to believe anyone just because of their genitalia. VoiceintheSquare was attacked for expressing his opinion and struck back. Unfortunately, his anger was misdirected.

I absolutely agree BK is an elitist frat boy asshole wrapped in a flag on a cross. In his case, I'm not sure I even care if his accusers are lying. When I'm in a no holds barred brawl, fight fire with fire. If it was good enough for Franken and Conyers, it is good enough for this asshole.

up
8 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

*donate to c99 *like us on Facebook *follow us on Twitter

zoebear's picture

@dkmich

about this subject before. My point was NOT in relation to the political shit show reference in this thread. My point was to clarify an obtusely false definition of sexual assault to someone responding to another's posters personal story.

As an aside, now that you have poked the hornets nest, what kind of proof would you require if your daughter came to you accusing your husband of assaulting her?

up
8 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

@zoebear 'rape.' Not sexual assault. Rape is a more specific charge than sexual assault.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

Raggedy Ann's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness
You must be and have never been sexually harassed or assaulted. Until it happens to you, with all due respect, STFU.

If you are a woman and have never had been sexually harassed or assaulted, write a book about how fortunate you are because you are the EXCEPTION.

up
17 users have voted.

"If there is not justice for the people, let there be no peace for the government." Emiliano Zapata

snoopydawg's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness

I'm not a lawyer but trying to take someone's panties off is not rape

She is accusing him of assault because he threw her on a bed and pinned her down with his body, put his hand over her mouth so she couldn't scream and tried taking her swimsuit off. Gee. Why do you think he was trying to do that? Just wanted to see what was underneath the swimsuit? He also turned up the music so that no one could hear what was happening in the room. This is pre meditation to hide his actions.

up
16 users have voted.

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

Centaurea's picture

@snoopydawg

Don't forget the part about him grinding his body against hers, while pressing her down into the mattress and groping her. Masturbating against her body, in other words.

I actually believe he may have been telling the truth about being a virgin. If true, his sexuality at that time consisted of getting drunk at frat parties and using drunk women, by force if necessary, as masturbatory accessories.

He says that as a teenager, his only relationships with females were as friends.

Except for the women at the frat parties, I guess. But hey, they were drinking at frat parties, so they were obviously not "nice girls" like his female friends.

up
14 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

@Crazytimes I agree. Given the social atmosphere in those elite circles at the time, it seems it would be impossible to establish what happened and both sides know it. It doesn't look good when your lawyer tries to scrub your HS yearbooks before going public, however: https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-hig...

up
8 users have voted.
edg's picture

@Bring Back Civics

up
2 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Bring Back Civics

which states this

On Monday Sept. 17th, Christine Blasey Ford’s high school yearbooks suddenly disappeared from the web. I read them days before, knew they would be scrubbed, and saved them. Why did I know they would be scrubbed? Because if roles were reversed, and Christine Blasey Ford had been nominated for the Supreme Court by President Trump, the headline by the resistance would be this:

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND THE DRUNKEN WHITE PRIVILEGED RACIST PLAYGIRLS OF HOLTON-ARMS.

And it would be an accurate headline. That’s why the yearbooks have been scrubbed. They are a testament to the incredible power these girls had over their teachers, parents and the boys of Georgetown Prep, Landon and other schools in the area. In the pages below, you will see multiple photos and references to binge drinking and the accompanying joy of not being able to remember any of it.

****
While preparing this report, I came across a biased viral article from Heavy.com that portrays Christine Blasey and Holton-Arms as the very essence of high school purity. As for the school itself, when Blasey attended it, nothing could be further from the truth, as you will see below.

There are no other links on this website, but there sure are a lot of blacked out photos of Ford on it. Who knows who removed the yearbook photos or who blacked out the photos? Could it have been the owner of the website! There is no evidence that the attorney scrubbed them.

Regardless of what the girls or boys said in the yearbook that wouldn't have given anyone of those in attendance at the parties the right to assault someone. Male or female.

If what is on this website is true don't you think that more websites would be reporting on it and even possibly the main stream media? I'm pretty sure that if they were real then someone from the GOP would have shown them by now.

up
10 users have voted.

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

@snoopydawg also scrubbed her social media.

What is she hiding? Could it be exculpatory evidence?

up
2 users have voted.

dfarrah

snoopydawg's picture

@dfarrah

Or maybe it wasn't her that did it.

up
3 users have voted.

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

@snoopydawg

up
1 user has voted.

dfarrah

WindDancer13's picture

@snoopydawg
No surprise that Alex Jones has hopped on this.

An article here (sorry, forgot how to post links) https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/09/20/right-wing-fever-swamps-are...

states: "The yearbook pages in question don’t include any information that reflects negatively on Ford or contradicts any part of her account, but she is now being smeared over their contents. Those launching the attack include prominent conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who baselessly identified a photo of a girl wearing a skirt as Ford in order to claim she was promiscuous in high school -- as though such a claim would in any way excuse or negate sexual assault."

up
6 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

@snoopydawg Do you honestly not believe that those are actual pages from SCRIBE '82, '83, '84? The heavy redacting of names and faces probably explains the lack of wide circulation -- fear of defamation-like liability. I prefer to assess the nature of the evidence and not the source who publishes it, so your attempts to discredit the sources are not persuasive to me.

This evidence speaks to the binge-drinking culture in which these events allegedly occurred. The culture does not excuse anyone taking advantage of an incapacitated person, but it should be considered when people are attempting to reconstruct 35 year old memories.

up
1 user has voted.
The Aspie Corner's picture

Fuck both of them.

up
5 users have voted.

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Raggedy Ann's picture

male dominated society, women will continue to be sexually assaulted.

I have lived 66 years and I cannot recall the number of times I've been harrassed. I've been almost raped twice, groped, received unwanted smooches, been touched inappropriately (which is different than groped), and spoken to in unwanted tawdry terms.

Until women teach their sons to respect all other women, women will continue to be sexually assaulted.

When my son was in 5th grade, we were watching TV when an ad for sanitary napkins came on. He looked at me and asked me what those were. I decided it was a good time to teach him about the woman's cycle. I told him that many young girls in his classes would now begin their cycles and I wanted him to be a defender of them and not a teaser of them. It has to start somewhere.

Until men figure out that women are human beings who do not want sexual advances unless they signal that desire, women will continue to be sexually assaulted.

I was with my grandson shopping for some clothes. He began telling me of an incident of a skimpily clad woman, and how if she dresses like that, boys can do or say what they want. I looked at him and asked him why men can wear whatever they want and not get harassed. He didn't have an answer. He looked at me and said, "I never thought about it that way." I told him that most men, and women, don't think like that, but they need to start thinking like that.

Bottom line - it's up to men to control themselves. Until that time, women will be diminished in every way possible.

up
24 users have voted.

"If there is not justice for the people, let there be no peace for the government." Emiliano Zapata

@Raggedy Ann Go vote for Hillary so she can castrate all of us. You can live in you manless heaven then.

up
1 user has voted.
The Aspie Corner's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness This has nothing to do with Billary, and even if it did, Billary would back Kavanaugh. She's a literal manifestation of an Aunt from The Handmaid's Tale. A woman with an unusual amount of autonomy in a heavily patriarchal society propped up to keep the system looking legit. That's Billary to the T.

up
21 users have voted.

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

@The Aspie Corner

This has nothing to do with Billary, and even if it did, Billary would back Kavanaugh.

This sleazy hit has all the earmarks of a David Brock special.

But hey, I guess it's all OK so long as the tawdry sex smear isn't directed at someone we like, like say Bernie or Julian Assange.

up
3 users have voted.

The drama of the deep state in full factional meltdown makes Mario Puzo look like a dime store hack.

The Aspie Corner's picture

@Not Henry Kissinger And now the pigs are doing it again. But hey, if you wanna let the pigs get away with giving a corporate frat boy a lifetime appointment from a man-child who claims to be our president just because you hate another pig, feel free.

up
4 users have voted.

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

@The Aspie Corner

But hey, if you wanna let the pigs get away with giving a corporate frat boy a lifetime appointment from a man-child who claims to be our president just because you hate another pig, feel free.

Because they got the same treatment from the same scumbag whose tactics you now defend.

And they will again because short sighted political roid ragers like you who think politics is all about survival of the most hysterical can't see that promoting sleazy politics of personal destruction has killed any chance for Progressive change this country.

So enjoy your two minutes of hate. I know how you love to wallow in it.

up
1 user has voted.

The drama of the deep state in full factional meltdown makes Mario Puzo look like a dime store hack.

The Aspie Corner's picture

@Not Henry Kissinger Or perhaps he was in on the con all along considering he's been pushing the Russia narrative right along with them. Assange is in business for himself, or he'd actually release the dirt on the DNC he supposedly has.

up
1 user has voted.

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

zoebear's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness

a good lay. You seem pretty uptight

up
17 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

@zoebear I think what Voice in the Wilderness is exercised about is this crazy notion that anyone making or denying such allegations is entitled to be automatically believed, as some here suggest. It seems to me that such allegations and denials should be taken seriously and the supporting evidence should be considered, but how do you even do that when the allegations are 35 years old, there appears to be no corroborating witnesses, and the allegations are too vague (where, when, who was there)to be proven true or false? At this point, nobody deserves to be believed.

up
8 users have voted.

@zoebear

up
1 user has voted.

dfarrah

zoebear's picture

up
4 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

mhagle's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness

How to show love and compassion for all. Yes, there is the innocent hormone driven not really trying to hurt anybody types. Then there are the sorts who need to boost their egos by conquering the weaker.

One group is acting as nature intended. The other is only selfish.

The dilemma is protecting the former while converting the latter.

up
12 users have voted.

Marilyn

"Make dirt, not war." eyo

Raggedy Ann's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness
why women don't report. You are attacking me for things that have happened to me? I feel sorry for you.

Do you have a mother or daughters? I feel sorry for them.

up
20 users have voted.

"If there is not justice for the people, let there be no peace for the government." Emiliano Zapata

@Raggedy Ann any male relatives?

If your husband was accused, would you automatically believe the woman?

up
2 users have voted.

dfarrah

zoebear's picture

@dfarrah

Of sexual assault. Often times by their teenage daughters/step daughters. Too many times their wives didn't believe their husbands accusers. Even when it was true.

Your point?

up
13 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

The Aspie Corner's picture

@zoebear The Duggars did exactly that. Worse still, the daughters internalized it and the authorities in that situation gave Josh Duggar a slap on the wrist. Had a lower class person done the same, they'd already be serving a life sentence or they'd be shot dead.

up
6 users have voted.

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

@zoebear How would you like it if your brother, father, husband, son, etc., was accused on such flimsy evidence?

Can you answer that, or do you want to continue to deflect?

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

Raggedy Ann's picture

@dfarrah
A very silly person are you.

up
7 users have voted.

"If there is not justice for the people, let there be no peace for the government." Emiliano Zapata

@Raggedy Ann that if someone wanted an issue adjudicated fairly, I would be easily chosen over you based on our comments on this site.

I hope you are never chosen for jury duty involving a man vs woman situation, whatever the situation. And I hope you have the good sense to stay off such juries.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

@dfarrah
Take a look at the statistics on rapes v. reported rapes. Then look at the % of reported rapes that go to trial. Then take a look at the number of convictions.

up
7 users have voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

@dfarrah
you can just shut the fuck up. You are making so much noise about this you must be guilty of lewd behavior. Thank you for identifying yourself on this site. I will b e wary of you and any comment you make in the future. You are not a credible person.

up
5 users have voted.

"If there is not justice for the people, let there be no peace for the government." Emiliano Zapata

zoebear's picture

@Raggedy Ann

Dfarrah's comments. She is a female poster who shared her personal story in one of these threads. Of course, as with anything on these boards, we have to take the veracity of those claims at face value, but she seemed to suggest that since she did the "right" thing after her assault by reporting it to the police, other women should be held up to those standards.

I'd chalk her insults up to a manifestation of her constricted view of "right" and "wrong", with the emphasis being that she is "right", and you and everyone else here who contradicts her is "wrong".

up
4 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

@The Voice In the Wilderness Man Hater. Used whenever necessary to shut any woman down. Man Hater. Lesbian. Castrator. Keep labeling until something sticks, lather, rinse, repeat.

up
18 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness

to say that RA is a man hater after she has been exposed to this during her lifetime.

I have lived 66 years and I cannot recall the number of times I've been harrassed. I've been almost raped twice, groped, received unwanted smooches, been touched inappropriately (which is different than groped), and spoken to in unwanted tawdry terms.

It seems to me that you are saying that after she has experienced that she should not have the right to feel that her body is her own and that no man has the right to it without her permission. You are way out of line. I can't believe that we are having this discussion again.

up
15 users have voted.

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

@The Voice In the Wilderness about the man-hating.

As a female feminist since grade school, (and I came to my positions on my own - my parents did not brainwash me), I find the womens' stance, to always believe women, to be absolutely reprehensible.

Do they have any idea what would happen to our legal system or life itself if every unsupported claim in any setting became actionable against the accused? No, they apparently don't, nor do they care.

I never gave the man-hating charge much thought. But observing the hysteria, irrationality, and hatred directed toward men, I now believe there is definitely an immoderate slice of the female population who hates men with a white hot passion.

And this includes Gillibrand, who eyes almost popped with rage as she ranted about how she believes Ford. And it includes that senator from Hawaii who said 'men need to shut up." Can you imagine the reaction had someone said, women need to shut up; blacks need to shut up; muslims need to shut up? She is telling 1/2 of her constituency to shut up!! I hope the men vote her out of office, the sooner the better.

up
8 users have voted.

dfarrah

snoopydawg's picture

@dfarrah

You are saying that Raggedy Ann has no right to feel the way she does after she said this..

I have lived 66 years and I cannot recall the number of times I've been harrassed. I've been almost raped twice, groped, received unwanted smooches, been touched inappropriately (which is different than groped), and spoken to in unwanted tawdry terms.

From that statement you agree that she says that she hates men? Just wow. I sincerely hope that you never experience what way too many women have and what has left scars that never really heal.

BTW. This has happened. Where have you been that you haven't noticed it?

Can you imagine the reaction had someone said, women need to shut up; blacks need to shut up; muslims need to shut up? She is telling 1/2 of her constituency to shut up!!

I hope the men vote her out of office, the sooner the better.

I'm going to refrain from addressing this.

up
13 users have voted.

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg You are leaping to a completely unsupportable conclusion.

I said nothing about anyone's 'right' to have feelings

There are certainly instances where people have turned into haters of some group that wronged them (like during wars, not to mention all the people who hate other groups just because). So, I concluded that man-haters do exist (for whatever reason), where previously, I thought the charge was hyperbole. But it isn't. The man-haters may as well admit what they are.

Anybody who tells half of their constituency to shut up has no business being a representative.

up
7 users have voted.

dfarrah

@dfarrah
I am in agreement with you here. I've been struggling with this since yesterday after hearing a radio discussion in which a woman supportive of Blasey Ford said that victims of sexual assault "have to be believed." Wait. What?

I feel that people who say they have been sexually assaulted have to be taken seriously, have to be heard, and have to be respected. But the evidence against the alleged attacker has to be weighed and considered, in case the accusation is untrue. Maybe I misunderstand this, but at times in this conversation it sounds like victims' advocates are saying every person who makes such a claim is automatically telling the truth, in which case, why do we need a hearing or an investigation?

up
7 users have voted.

@Linda Wood who are saying this, women all over are saying the same.

It is outrageous.

Further, no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room: women's behavior in these situations.

What the heck is a 15 yo doing going to a drinking party with either 4 or 2 guys? Why did this girl do this? Well, women of all ages are sexually aggressive and suggestive, too. Another thing that intrigues me is what was she (and the guys) doing upstairs in the bedroom area of the house? She says she was pushed into the bedroom, then escaped to the bathroom, and waited until they went downstairs. She says they were banging the wall on the way down. She does not say that she was dragged upstairs to the bedroom area of the house; she does not say that she was using the bathroom upstairs before they pushed her into the bedroom.

So, what causes/compels these people to go upstairs next to the bedroom so that she was push-able into it?

I believe that she was there, things got hot sexually, and got out of hand.

If this is true, this does not excuse Kavanaugh. However, I was thinking about how we are forced into believing her or believing him. If someone brings claims to court, someone wins, someone loses.

Maybe there is a better approach that doesn't create a winner/loser situation. I believe there is a concept in product negligence that could be useful, where the complainant can be partially responsible for what happened. The complainant can get relief, however, the relief can be reduced depending on if they contributed to the problem.

Maybe such an approach could be applied very narrowly where parties and liquor/drugs are involved. Guys can admit they got out of hand; women can admit that they contributed to the situation, and justice can be meted out based on this instead of win/lose. Obviously (I think), this approach couldn't be used in ordinary assault cases - this might lead to victim blaming.

That said, I don't believe what Kavanaugh did is egregious enough to deny him the SC seat. There is this concept of redemption, where one pays dues (does prison time or whatever); his behavior since seems to be okay.

And I don't care if a guy exposed himself to a woman at a drinking party that was sexually charged (some guy supposedly had a plastic penis); and I simply don't believe the gang rape stories - the woman's claims are ridiculous on their face (further, she should be charged for whatever criminality she engaged in when she observed all the illegal drinking/drug use and gang rapes without reporting the crimes immediately).

up
2 users have voted.

dfarrah

Deja's picture

@dfarrah

Further, no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room: women's behavior in these situations.

Yes, let's! Let's talk about how good girls never get raped, assaulted, groped, ogled, or harassed.

What the heck is a 15 yo doing going to a drinking party with either 4 or 2 guys?

She was doing what the other 15+ year olds were doing there – drinking (maybe doing some drugs) and probably hoping to have fun. Probably a no-no even if her parents were absentee parents. Very few, if any had their parents’ blessings, I’m pretty sure. If you claim you never did something your parents told you not to do, or would have forbidden had they known, then I know, without a doubt you are a liar! Just because you didn’t get assaulted or worse when you did it doesn’t mean she should be held responsible for anyone else’s actions. Period.

Why did this girl do this? Well, women of all ages are sexually aggressive and suggestive, too.

You sound like a very bitter woman-hater. I don’t know what a woman or women in your life did or have done to you so that you feel the need to imply that this girl must have been an oversexed whore looking for some dick, otherwise she would have been home reading her Bible and serving her father and brothers food and cleaning up after them, but it/they caused you to at least sound as if you have a very judgmental filter for women and girls, almost exclusively. Why not ask if she was on the pill or what she was wearing. Or better yet, call her the name you know you want to. What year are we in again? Jesus fucking Christ! Call me a whore all you want, but I like sex. It's fun! And I'll be damned if I'm going to wait around until I'm given some sort of signal that "it's time" for sex from a partner. I'll never force it, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to initiate it when I'm in the mood. You sound like you think females of any age who enjoy it or want it are whores who deserve to be assaulted. You are twisted, and your bitter woman-hating comments are letting everyone know just how much.

“. . . what was she (and the guys) doing upstairs in the bedroom area of the house?

Have you never been to a party? You’re implying she went up there eager for some boy parts. Maybe they were being goofy teens and nosing around. Maybe they were doing drugs.

As a teen, I once arrived at a party early to help set up, so when some neighbors of mine showed up (3 guys), they asked if I wanted to snort some coke and asked where we could do it. I led them to the master bathroom of which I already knew the location, and we all did a couple lines each. By Monday, back at school, I found out that I had been gang-banged by them, and had led them to where it could happen. Not only had I never kissed the guys, but I’d certainly never fucked any of them. They were my friends. However, a nasty, jealous bitch who wanted to fuck one of them (he wouldn’t have touched her even shit-faced drunk) wasn’t invited to the bathroom, and told everyone at school that I initiated the gang-bang.

You’re starting to remind me of her due to your judgement from your pedestal of virginal all-sex-is-bad-and-nasty-and-any-female-who-doesn’t-agree-is-a-slutty-cock-loving-whore, even if sex wasn't ever on this girl's mind, as well as girls-should-be-chaperoned-until-their-marriage-night-when-their-fathers-hand-them-over-to-be-properly-deflowered by Prince Charming.

I'm not even bothering with the rest of the bullshit in that post. I certainly hope you never reproduced and spread your beliefs that men and boys are always good unless an evil slutty whore is around, then they get a little out of hand, but it's the whore's fault if it happens bullshit.

up
3 users have voted.

"The gatekeepers must change."
Prince

snoopydawg's picture

@dfarrah

You responded in agreement to the VitW's comment that accused RA of being a man hater because of her experiences with men hence my comment to you.

I never gave the man-hating charge much thought. But observing the hysteria, irrationality, and hatred directed toward men, I now believe there is definitely an immoderate slice of the female population who hates men with a white hot passion.

I would think that it's the actions of some men that people hate not men in general.

Some of my best friends are men. /s

up
11 users have voted.

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

mimi's picture

@dfarrah

up
1 user has voted.

dkmich's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness

up
1 user has voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

*donate to c99 *like us on Facebook *follow us on Twitter

mimi's picture

@dkmich
yesterday:
Petition to the White House demanding Kavanaugh's nomination for Supremet Court to be withdrawn

What I am asking myself is how many persons could be suggested for the Supreme Court, for whom could be found similar accusations.

(Auf Deutsch gesagt, zum Kotzen das ganze).

up
2 users have voted.
mimi's picture

@Raggedy Ann
just to round up this discussion's thread here.

In some cultures (tribal environments) men are foregiven, if they use 'the offer' a woman gives a man who happens to pass by, when her skirt or dress uncovers coincidentally her genitals while she is asleep. I even heard therapists of those cultures and tribes saying that 'a man can try' making it sound like a trivial offence (peccadillo?). (This is one example I consider an example for therapists not being capable of giving therapy to persons not being part of their own culture, race or religious ethnicity).

Just saying ... I guess most women are on the losing end trying to change attitudes, as one never knows how deeply those attitudes are ingrained in their surrounding cultures. And I do believe that fathers are more important to try to ingrain in their sons respect for women, which of course just works, if they themselves live that kind of respect in their own real life.

Be well, Raggedy Ann, I wish you the inner peace you deserve so much. Hugs.

up
8 users have voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

@mimi
Pleasantry

up
4 users have voted.

"If there is not justice for the people, let there be no peace for the government." Emiliano Zapata

arendt's picture

an enabler of the imperial Presidency. It is the man's politics that are the reasons why he should be defeated. You have standing to say his politics are "bad". It is way more dubious that you have standing to say this typical piece of entitled 1% sleeze is a "bad" person. Making charges like that is easily parried in the political arena by pointing to all the "bad" things done by Hillary, Rahm Emmanuel, Adam Schiff, and all the other lying neoliberal warmongers.

This he-said/she-said fiasco is playing directly into the GOP's hands, while turning off any non-GOPer who thinks that class struggle and saving what little is left of the Constitution is more important than identity politics. The Democrats have pulled another Washington Generals move. But that's their job - to be the fake opposition to corporatism, when in reality they are paid to lose. Please, Corey Booker grandstanding and looking like a fool is helping Dems how?

The whole point of this 35-year old accusation is to crowd out any discussion of the law, and how BK interprets it. The Democrats barely touched on BK's jurisprudence. Instead they pull out this classic smear. And, when the accusers get shot down, in the same manner as Anita Hill - because its a party line vote - the Dems will have allowed yet another proto-fascist onto the SCOTUS, plus they will have further alienated the "deplorables" demographic that the neoliberal wing kicked out of the party when the Clinton Crime Family came onto the scene.

Politics has degenerated into emotionalism. Emotionalism is what caused Trump to win, that and the fact that the Dems excuses for Hillary were intellectual garbage. But, since the Dems cannot simultaneously be logical and support lying neoliberal warmongers, they have fallen back on emotionalism ("It's my turn." "You must vote for the woman" - unless its Cynthia Nixon). They and the GOP, both of them the bought and paid for servants of the corporatists, have agreed that politics is now nothing more than an emotional fight.

But, guess what? There is just as much emotion on the GOP side as the Dem side in this matter. The end result is polarization, not honest debate of issues.

And, even here at c99p, there is emotionalism, like this OP.

I refuse to take part in this argument about what may or may not have happened 35 years ago as the sole reason why someone should not be appointed to the SCOTUS. I think posting this OP is inciting a useless and polarizing argument. It think you ought to delete this entire thread and post something about BK's horrible politics in its place.

ON EDIT: Changed BC to BK throughout. My mistake.

up
17 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@arendt

We might as well at least get his name right, since he’s almost certainly going to be on the supreme court in the near future.

up
5 users have voted.
arendt's picture

@CS in AZ

I will go back and correct the OP.

And, yes I recognize that we are talking about a SCOTUS appointment. But the process here is a complete farce.

up
11 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@arendt

Nothing at all new about that, of course. These so-called “hearings” are always political theatre.

up
8 users have voted.

@arendt when women are attacking the very notion of fairness and when women are attacking the presumption of innocence based entirely on their feelings/experiences.

The argument that the Supreme Court is so important, that we can make decisions based on one person's word, holds no water. There is no reason that the template established to adjudicate matters, which has worked in the US since the beginning, cannot be used to adjudicate this matter.

Are we really to live in a world where a woman's word is always better than a man's word just because?

up
7 users have voted.

dfarrah

arendt's picture

@dfarrah

The argument that the Supreme Court is so important, that we can make decisions based on one person's word, holds no water.

I completely agree. And if you add "without evidence" to "one person's word", I would say that applies to any situation.

There is no reason that the template established to adjudicate matters, which has worked in the US since the beginning, cannot be used to adjudicate this matter.

What "template"? This entire process, as I said somewhere here, is a farce. The Dems, because they are corporatists, will not attack BK for his actual politics. But they must attack BK or lose the support of their constituents. So they go with this IP crapola.

The only "template" here is a bizarro-world version of Anita Hill. Clarence Thomas was a cipher, a non-entity; and Hill was proven right by history. BK is no cipher, he's a Harvard professor and a sitting Federal judge. His supporters can point to his long public record. Meanwhile, his accuser is a public cipher. The CT committee was controlled by Dems, who were easily rolled by IP. The BK commmittee is controlled by the GOP, who have dined out so many times on IP.

While the media and the proles love this he said/she said voyerurism, our politics demands better. We aren't going to get it. Hence I have tuned the whole thing out.

up
5 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@arendt

We're about to get another rotten excuse for a human being shoved onto the Supreme Court just because the party in power wants them there and will not listen to any reason why they should not be there. And our lives are about to get harder as a direct consequence.

It's been a long time since anyone in power gave a flying fuck about anybody but themselves and their paymasters. That is not going to change in the foreseeable future.

up
12 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

@arendt Ford wanted Kavanaugh to go first in testimony. She wanted to set the questioning process.

We have a process that has worked for two centuries in US courts; there is no reason that that process shouldn't be mirrored for Ford's accusations.

up
2 users have voted.

dfarrah

CS in AZ's picture

@dfarrah

The so-called “hearing” is a political event. Period. He’s not on trial. The worst that might happen to him is he maybe doesn’t get a lifetime job making decisions that affect all of our lives.
He’ll have to make do with a federal judgeship. Boo hoo.

She’s not facing a fair judge or jury, she’s going before openly hostile senators who have said their decision is already made, and who are out to destroy her. This is not a criminal court with procedures in place to theoretically ensure fairness of any aspect of it. (Not that they do either.) You appear confused about the difference.

up
8 users have voted.

@dfarrah

prosecutor in a criminal case do go first in court--because the accuser or prosecutor has the burden of proof.

FWIW, I don't think that the accuser should automatically be believed, nor do I think that the accuser should automatically be disbelieved.

up
5 users have voted.

@dfarrah
is a concept the state is required to exceed when convicting a person in a criminal case in court.

Senators are going to have to make a decision based on whether the charges are more likely than not, if they have the decency to rise above politics.

up
3 users have voted.

@FuturePassed

Let's put aside for a moment, if we can, any issue of Ford's credibility or lack thereof and focus only on the professional politicians and specifically, the Democratic US Senators currently in office.

I imagine that Democratic politicians behaved this way when the FBI came up with Anita Hill. Once she testified, Democrat Biden decided not to allow testimony of others seeking to corroborate hers and a Democratic majority Senate confirmed Thomas's nomination by a Republican President, despite Anita Hill's testimony. (Not to mention that every last Democrat, white, black or "other," let Thomas get away with calling a Senate hearing on a SCOTUS nomination a high tech lynching of an uppity black man, which demeans the suffering of victims of an actual lynching and their survivors.)

Given the above, do Democratic politicians think the final outcome will be any different this time, with a Republican chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee and a Republican majority Senate voting on a Republican President's Supreme Court nominee? Right now, I cannot even imagine that they do.

Then what does explain their current "deja vu all over again"-inducing behavior? Is it yet more empty, anti-Trump posturing from Democratic politicians ahead of a midterm election--a midterm election from which Democrats obviously hope to benefit from votes cast because of anti-Trump sentiment? Is this, for Democratic Senators, all about their attempt to repeat or exceed their dramatic success in the 2006 midterms, when Democrats benefited from anti-Bush 43 votes? Right now, I cannot think of another explanation.

up
5 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

@arendt I agree with this point which is something I highlighted in Alligator Ed's essay. To be clear, I do not agree with everything in your comment, but this is and should have been the primary focus of the Democrats.

The whole point of this 35-year old accusation is to crowd out any discussion of the law, and how BK interprets it. The Democrats barely touched on BK's jurisprudence. Instead they pull out this classic smear.

This is not to diminish sexual assault allegations, because they are important. But by focusing almost soley on the sexual assault allegations from 35 years ago, the Democrats have given Kavanaugh a pass on his severely lacking jurisprudence on many issues that he will be ruling on for decades to come. This diminishes the importance of these legal issues in favor of trying to play an emotional card in an attempt to push Kavanaugh out of consideration.

This is a very risky strategy. On one hand, if the Democrats are successful, then we the people got lucky that a very poorly qualified judge was not appointed to the Supreme Court. However is Kavanaugh does get the appointment, then it appears that the Democrats only cared about the alleged sexual assault to the exclusion of his many judicial faults.

We are going to be stuck with this man for several decades. It is appalling to me that the major focus of the Democrats has been only on this sexual assault issue when they should have also been calling the attention of the people to his known stances on issues of corporate power, women's reproductive rights (Rowe versus Wade), and Citizens United.

up
14 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

arendt's picture

@gulfgal98

We are going to be stuck with this man for several decades. It is appalling to me that the major focus of the Democrats has been only on this sexual assault issue when they should have also been calling the attention of the people to his known stances on issues of corporate power, women's reproductive rights (Rowe versus Wade), and Citizens United.

Completely agree.

up
11 users have voted.
ggersh's picture

@gulfgal98 http://wallstreetonparade.com/2018/09/kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-dark...

And one must remember the Labor Day surrender
by chuckie all of trumps courts picks, poor D's
and chuckie just wanted to get home

up
7 users have voted.

The US markets will be closed tomorrow in honor of George H. W. Bush.

We should have a memorial day for the truth, which we have allowed to be led down the blind alley of our willful delusions, and strangled.

Lord have mercy on us.

Mark from Queens's picture

Thanks @ggersh
"Kavanaugh’s Fox News Interview: Dark Money Transforms Him into a High School Virgin Who Went to Church Every Sunday"

The Kavanaugh self-portrait on Fox News stands in stark contrast to how Kavanaugh describes his high school days on his yearbook page and how his close friend and former classmate, Mark Judge, has described the high school experience in two books he authored – one titled Wasted: Tales of a Gen-X Drunk. The humble, respectful-of-women profile Kavanaugh carefully crafted last evening also stands in sharp disagreement with the sexual assault allegations against him that have surfaced from at least three women.

Given this study in contradictory personas, it’s relevant to note that Kavanaugh has serious dark money backing his nomination and has undergone an extraordinary amount of coaching at the White House since he was first nominated in early July. That coaching has become even more intense as the sexual assault allegations surfaced.

According to an August 30 report in Politico, two of the very Senators who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee who will vote on whether to move Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination forward, Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch, actually participated in the White House coaching sessions with Kavanaugh. Politico reports:

“Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Rob Portman of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska have all helped Kavanaugh practice and critique his performance, according to people familiar with the sessions. Another source said that Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah — a former Judiciary Committee chairman — played the role of chairman in a mock hearing, which included GOP senators standing in for Judiciary members and zeroing in on topics that Democrats are expected to grill Kavanaugh about.”

That serious conflict of interest would explain news reports that the all-male Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were planning to bring in a female sex crimes prosecutor to do their questioning of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, one of the female accusers of Kavanaugh, at a hearing scheduled for this Thursday. Ford’s lawyer has now written to Senate Judiciary Chairman, Chuck Grassley, to oppose that decision...

Donald McGahn is White House Counsel who has presided over pushing through the Kavanaugh nomination. McGahn has dutifully sat behind Kavanaugh in the confirmation hearings. He is one of the 12 lawyers who, in one fell swoop, packed themselves up from the big corporate law firm, Jones Day, and headed to the Trump administration on Trump’s very first day in office, January 20, 2017. Jones Day is the long-tenured outside law firm to Koch Industries, a fossil fuels conglomerate that has funded climate-change denial front groups for decades and sought to weaken Federal environmental regulations.

One of the more recent Koch Industries’ front groups is Freedom Partners. According to Public Citizen, two of the Trump administration’s key hires from Jones Day, McGahn and Ann Donaldson, Chief of Staff to McGahn, both previously represented Freedom Partners.

All but one of Freedom Partners’ 9-member Board of Directors is a current or former Koch company employee. The Board Chair is the same Mark Holden that is the General Counsel of Koch Industries.

We don’t have to wonder about what Koch Industries and Freedom Partners wanted to get from the Trump administration. They made that patently clear when Freedom Partners’ President, Marc Short, was named by Trump as his Director of Legislative Affairs on January 4, 2017. (Short stepped down from that post this past July.) Concurrent with Short’s appointment, Freedom Partners issued a formal memo demanding that Trump roll back a long list of Federal regulations, particularly those involving greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Regarding the Paris Climate Accord, the memo states: “The agreement was neither submitted nor ratified as a treaty in the U.S. Senate. President Trump can submit the agreement as a treaty for ratification in the U.S. Senate where it will fail or he can withdraw the U.S. from participation.” Trump withdrew the U.S. from participation in the Paris Climate Accord after less than six months in office. The decision was assailed by U.S. allies around the world.

On the exact same day that President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, another front group that has been heavily funded with Koch money, Americans for Prosperity, released this statement:

“Americans for Prosperity will commit seven figures to paid advertising and grassroots engagement in support of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Door and phone scripts have already been deployed to each of the 36 AFP state chapters, and a first round of mail and door hangers will be deployed in the coming weeks in West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin..."

Kavanaugh has been a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for the past 12 years. During that time, he has repeatedly issued decisions that benefit fossil fuel interests like those of Koch Industries.

If you’re trying to understand the heavy-handed push to rush Kavanaugh through the confirmation process, kill any further FBI investigations into his background, and deny background witnesses to appear at the same hearing as his accusers, look no further than the money trail that has gotten Kavanaugh this far.

up
14 users have voted.

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:

THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"

- Kurt Vonnegut

zoebear's picture

@Mark from Queens

The big Think Tanks and the money that is being funneled into destroying our planet, Hollywood is capitalizing on "normalizing" the idea of a plan "B" once oour planet is made uninhabitable with numerous movies about interstellar life. Huzzah!

up
7 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

@gulfgal98 But I don't think nominees of presidents, for any position, should be tanked based on politics.

When repubs win the presidency, they nominate from their side. When dems win the presidency, they nominate from their side.

IMO, unless there is something egregiously wrong with a nominee, the nominee should be confirmed without a circus. Nominations used to be fairly uncontroversial; the winners and losers were able to deal with their wins/losses.

up
3 users have voted.

dfarrah

arendt's picture

@dfarrah

MO, unless there is something egregiously wrong with a nominee, the nominee should be confirmed without a circus.

If that were true, the words "advise and consent" would not be in the Constitution. Besides, what exactly is the definition of "egregiously wrong". That definition itself has become a political football.

In 2016, the GOP escalated their war aginst any Dem appointee by refusing to even hold hearings on Merrick Garland. Before it became absurd, both parties would reject extemist nominations because they knew it would start a fight they might lose. But, since the Dems rolled over for the lying corporatist ideologues Roberts and Alito, the GOP feel free to nominate ever more extreme extremists, like BK. That happened because the Dems refused to be political in the correct sense of the word.

It is the height of naivety to think that an appointment to a lifelong position of great importance and power will not involve "politics". The problem is that real politics - people's political positions - has been replaced by smears and emotions.

When Robert Bork's nomination to SCOTUS was rejected, genuine poltical arguments were used. He was exposed by his own writings and actions (Saturday Night Massacre) as an authoritarian who had no respect for the separation of powers. That is how the process used to work.

The Dems are going to lose this fight because the public is really angry about the excesses of IP. In the process, the Dems will have deliberately missed the chance to educate the public about corporatism, the imperial presidency, and the importance of Roe V Wade. Opportunities, like a SCOTUS nomination, to teach a focused public something are rare. The Dems have squandered this one by further polarizing the country with self-righteous IP nonsense.

up
9 users have voted.

@arendt to give you my sister's phone number? She took me to the hospital. I have the phone number of my boyfriend at that time. Do you wish to talk to him? Also, my former brother in law (husband of sister) didn't go to the hospital with us; however, he knew the situation, and I'm sure I can track him down in Houston.

Just email me, and I'll send you the phone numbers.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

arendt's picture

@dfarrah

It's a dupe of one sent to someone else.

I have stayed completely away from personal stories.

up
2 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

@dfarrah in which the home team always wins.

Appointments to the Supreme Court are for life. Unfortunately, both sides have made a political circus out of this by failing to carefully examine the judicial qualifications of Kavanaugh, which should rightly include his stands on issues that are going to affect this country and all of us citizens for the length of time he sits on the court.

Since the sexual assault case cannot be proven or unproven, due to the length of time that has passed and the lack of evidence, it is simply a shiny object to deflect attention away from Kavanaugh's jurisprudence which is what he will be exercising on the Supreme Court. The Democrats are simply using the sexual assault to grand stand, instead of asking the tough questions. And now as I just learned, Democrats should have been delving deeper into Kavanaugh's debt and financial issues which could make him a target for compromise.

Kavanaugh is not just a conservative, but he is deeply flawed in many ways, all of which are documented on the record. This is where the Democrats should have been going IMHO.

up
11 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

mimi's picture

the only question I have is, why there is and was so much binge drinking among highschool kids and later on? Why can't they stop after a couple of beers or gin or whatever. With that kind of drunkenness, who would be able to remember anything? I do believe that if a woman or girl was sexually harrassed against her will and if she herself was not senselessly drunk, then the harrassment alone will never be forgotten and is remembered like a trauma, be it a rape with penetration or not.

I don't feel at all comfortable to participate in this thread. Could say more, but for reasons I don't know myself, I don't want to. Politically it makes no sense to me, because as much as on a personal and emotional level talking about it may help those who have been assaulted or harrassed against their will, it will not help to prevent such men as Cavanaugh to get power in politics. But may be those discussions help to get men like Cavanaugh out of power, but I doubt that and have little hope it will.

up
5 users have voted.
arendt's picture

@mimi

A quick google turned up this interesting article from 2016: How Helicopter Parents Cause Binge Drinking.

This article points to the much tougher competition for slots in elite schools, slots that lead to elite jobs. Its all part of that "gotta make it big or you won't make it all" attitude that today's teens and twentysomethings have. (Not to say that, in our horrible economy and society, there isn't some reason for that attitude.) Their parents are not quite "juku-mama" (cram school mothers), but they are heavily invested in the kids' success.

Professional-class parents and their children are tightly bound to each other in the relentless pursuit of admission to a fancy college. A kid on that track can’t really separate from her parents, as their close involvement in this shared goal is essential. Replicating the social class across a generation is a joint project. That’s why it’s so hard to break into the professional stratum of society: The few available spots are being handed down within families. From this has flowed a benefit that parents love—deep emotional closeness throughout adolescence, with no shadow of a future parting. Kids don’t rebel against their parents anymore; why would they? Would you rebel against the concierge at the Hyatt?

Furthermore, the college admissions process is part of the problem.

the Good Parent who naively assumes that preventing a teenager from drinking will help him or her in the college-admissions stakes is dead wrong. A teenager growing up in one of the success factories—the exceptional public high school in the fancy zip code, the prestigious private school—will oftentimes be a person whose life is composed of extremes: extreme studying, extreme athletics, extreme extracurricular pursuits, and extreme drinking. Binge drinking slots in neatly with the other, more obviously enhancing endeavors. Perhaps it is even, for some students, necessary. What 80-hour-a-week executive doesn’t drop her handbag on the console table and head to the wine fridge the second she gets home? Her teenager can’t loosen the pressure valve that way—he has hours of work ahead. A bump of Ritalin is what he needs, not a mellowing half bottle of Shiraz. But come Saturday night? He’ll get his release.

The top colleges reward intensity, and binge drinking is a perfected form of that quality. Moreover, it’s highly correlated with some of the activities admissions officers prize most, such as varsity sports: High-school athletes are less likely to use drugs and more likely to drink alcohol than their fellow students. Colleges complain like hell about binge drinking, but their admissions policies favor the kind of kids most likely to take part in it.

And, once they get to college, the same elite, professional crowd is at the heart of the problem.

Who are these students? By and large, they constitute the most privileged subset of undergraduates, and those who would (unwisely) emulate them. The students at the center of this culture are most likely to be the children of white, college-educated parents, young people whose free time is probably spent not working to help support themselves, but rather participating in certain activities, most notably Greek life and athletics.

Anyway, I think the article is a good starting place to answer your question.

up
10 users have voted.
mimi's picture

@arendt
actually for almost any paragraph you quoted from that article, I have witnessed examples in the late eighties in my personal life, that supports what has been said. Sadly.
I just don't want to look back.

Thanks for that link. I appreciate your help in getting a good analysis about it.

up
5 users have voted.

certainly not start when helicopter parents came into being.

It has been around forever, at all levels of society.

up
4 users have voted.

dfarrah

Unabashed Liberal's picture

will reserve my opinion until after the Congressional hearing. Unfortunately, won't be able to hear testimonies in real time, so, hoping it'll be posted online (somewhere).

Don't know if it's for real, but it's being tossed around (Cable News) that Blasey-Ford may not show up, after all. They claim she's upset about the female sex crimes attorney/prosecutor doing the questioning for Repub Senators. Personally, I think that both sides should have this type of representation, instead of a bunch of idiotic, preening Senators!!!!!

Smile

Blue Onyx

"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche

up
6 users have voted.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
--George Bernard Shaw, Irish Dramatist & Socialist
"We [corporations] are the government!" Actor John Colicos (1978)

janis b's picture

between not only genders, but in relation to decency in general. I don’t understand it, but I also don’t think it needs to be settled here. I think the point is to consider and reflect, and grow in appreciation and respect of each others perspective with a willingness to learn.

up
13 users have voted.

@janis b Thanks as always for your wisdom.

up
3 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

@janis b Thank you Janis.

up
3 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

Unabashed Liberal's picture

@janis b @janis b

my earlier comment was made prior to a number of more contentious ones that followed.

Wink

Seriously, I'll reserve my opinion until after I have a chance to view the hearing video, or, read the transcripts.

Without a doubt, there'll remain many dissenting views, even after the airing of the evidence/testimony. Hopefully, the views expressed afterwards will be civil and respectful, since all of us view matters through the lens of our individual life's experiences. And, they vary widely, I would think. Smile

Blue Onyx

"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche

up
2 users have voted.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
--George Bernard Shaw, Irish Dramatist & Socialist
"We [corporations] are the government!" Actor John Colicos (1978)

incident was that they found -- overnight -- 65 signatories for the letter of exaltation from women with whom he went to high school.

i doubt if i ever even spoke to more than 30 different girls in high school, and i doubt if i ever had an actual conversation with more than three or four. (off the top of my head, i can only think of three). i mean, yeah, i wasn't an outgoing guy, and i played chess and D&D, and i had some major issues with the whole girl thing, but 65? really?

and didn't get laid? hell, if i'd had any faith in myself, i probably could have had sex with 2 of 3 aforementioned young ladies.

up
7 users have voted.

Sigh

It is difficult to articulate how I feel about this, and I think most people will not agree with me, but I will try to explain. I want to start by saying, I think we can all agree that men/boys should not treat girls/women in that way ie: take advantage of them when they are vulnerable.

However, the sad truth is that men DO these kinds of things. It is not new, and in fact, it has been that way forever (or what seems like always). I am not excusing the behavior, but I want to point out that as a woman, if you put yourself in a position of being drunk at a party and expect that nothing will happen to you, that is naive behavior. That is not saying that it is not WRONG for it to happen, but it should not be outside the realm of expectations.

Women need to take some responsibility for the decision that she makes to put herself in that position as well. I can't believe that parents would not teach their daughters these things. And before anyone gets all righteous on me, yes I have been to parties, and been drunk, and I have definitely had unwanted advances/touching/grabbing etc.

I believe that part of our job as women is 1. Learning how to successfully deal with such threats, because they exist whether we want them to or not, and 2. Teaching your own male children to be better.

We can say all day that a woman shouldn't have to deal with men treating her that way, but the reality is she does and that is not new.

All that being said...Did something happen with this woman and the judge when they are teenagers? Maybe yes, maybe no..but the point to bring this up now, some 30 years later and expect to be believed is a little ridiculous to me.

up
7 users have voted.

If it was easy, everyone would do it.

@Crazytimes

for saying all of this and for saying it so well. I do agree with you and also have the same kind of experience to inform that agreement. Alcohol and drugs are a big subject, or are 2 big subjects that have the the potential to divide this forum. I want to say not only, where are the parents, although that's easy to say with hindsight, but also where are the schools? I wonder how much public education could help to enlighten all of us about the harm of using alcohol, not to mention drugs. Big subjects. Very important in this discussion.

up
2 users have voted.
zoebear's picture

@Crazytimes

We, as a society, have come up with "explanations" for why men/boys comment violent acts against women/girls even as we all agree it is wrong.

I have yet to hear the "explanations" come forth about a female's behavior that doesn't include her loose morals or her stupidity.

A girl goes to a party and drinks, is sexually assaulted, and we are mystified why she would be so reckless.

How perversely myopic that we spend so much time focused on our differences, when species wise, the degree of differences between males and females is far less significant than our commonality. In fact, it would be much more accurate to say we are markedly different from Zebras rather than each other.

up
5 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

@zoebear
I agree with Crazytimes. I don't think she's saying all men are potential rapists, whether under the influence of drugs or alcohol or not, but I think she is saying that young women, and in particular girls, should be aware that alcohol increases the potential for such behavior in some people. She says it so well here:

as a woman, if you put yourself in a position of being drunk at a party and expect that nothing will happen to you, that is naive behavior. That is not saying that it is not WRONG for it to happen, but it should not be outside the realm of expectations.

This conflict or dilemma is just part of partying, not always, but enough so that it's why parents get nervous about their kids going out without supervision, among other concerns like drunk driving.

Scientists in human genetic migration puzzled over the fact that sometimes female genes showed up in large numbers separate from their traditional geographic location, and they thought maybe that represented tribes traveling through the Hindu Kush, trading goods, and then marrying women from distant tribes. But then they realized that women were traded, chained in gangs, and traded like cattle, and that would explain the large numbers. We've come a long way since then. We see it as progress that women are now free of that kind of oppression (except under regimes like ISIS). But we're not going to get anywhere if we think women can get drunk and that it's men's responsibility to have evolved to where none of them are abusive. We're not there yet.

up
1 user has voted.
zoebear's picture

@Linda Wood

And replace it with the noun "people", and perhaps my point will become a little clearer. If not, I think I can live with the consequences of that.

But we're not going to get anywhere if we think women can get drunk and that it's men's responsibility to have evolved to where none of them are abusive.

up
3 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.