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:

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onr7l4rCNkg&feature=youtu.be]

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

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

@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
0 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
0 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
0 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
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

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
0 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
0 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
0 users have voted.

certainly not start when helicopter parents came into being.

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

up
0 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
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

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.

[video:https://youtu.be/hDD5cAbf2BE]

up
0 users have voted.

@janis b Thanks as always for your wisdom.

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

@janis b Thank you Janis.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

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
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

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
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

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
0 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
0 users have voted.
Anja Geitz'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
0 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

@Anja Geitz
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
0 users have voted.
Anja Geitz'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
0 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Pages