I don't believe either of them.
After watching the whole miserable spectacle yesterday, I found neither Dr. Ford's nor Judge Kavanaugh's testimony particularly credible.
As a former trial attorney, it was clear to me that Dr. Ford had been coached on her answers in coordination with the Democrats on the committee, with the tip off being Sen. Leahy stumbling through the printed setup question that elicited the canned 'laughter...uproarious laughter' answer.
Another example of coordination is found in the strong objection by her attorney to questions regarding the polygraph test, followed by her failure to recollect any details of how she came to take the test or who paid for the test. Apparently we have only her counsel's word that she passed, as they have yet to release the actual results.
Regardless of her memories of the facts surrounding the allegations, the appearance of coaching and collusion with Democratic politicians diminishes her credibility as an impartial witness and suggests political bias as a motive for her statements.
Then this happened:
I have no idea what was in that envelope (Lee claims they were only fan letters), but the mere fact that a furtive Congresswomen is passing secret documents to the witness's counsel after the hearing is further evidence of the Ford team's less than forthright political impartiality.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, came across as a mean drunk. While I believe his tears and anger were sincere (especially when talking about his dad), I did not find them particularly dispositive of his innocence. He has obviously been put through the ringer by the drawn out hearing, and frustration and impatience at having to endure this ordeal to gain a position he clearly believes he is entitled to seemed to be more the motivation than outrage at having been falsely accused.
Once he calmed down, Kavanaugh spent much of the hearing too-expertly filibustering the Democrats (incredibly lame) questioning. He was combative at times, but again, mostly out of anger at the process rather than the allegations. He also clearly liked (and still likes) to drink, and his repeated statements about how much he loves beer left me wondering how on earth the guy was able to post such a stellar academic record with all the partying he did all through those years.
The whole thing left me shaking my head as to what really happened. Ford supplied no new factual corroboration or other witnesses to back up her testimony, and indeed, when asked under questioning about her counselor's notes on the incident stating there were four other people in the room at the time, she admitted that the notes contradicted her hearing testimony that there were only two others. Another credibility strike.
Kavanaugh too, despite his protestations, was clearly no choir boy in high school. He was a smart jock who hung out with a pretty fast crowd. I don't think he is necessarily lying about being a virgin, but as the hearing went on I started envisioning a scenario where his party buddy 'Judge' saw an opportunity to alleviate that condition by exploiting a troubled girl who was having a tough time fitting in.
So while the lawyer in me is still certain that the totality of evidence in no way rises to the threshold necessary to disqualify Kavanaugh, after watching the hearing the 'juror' in me is left with more doubts than answers about what really happened.
Comments
I haven't actually done a count
But the number of comments you have made on this site alone about this subject certainly demonstrates a committed degree of time I'm wondering to what end? Mere entertainment value? Time on your hands? It certainly can't be helping your general mood, No?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
That's a nasty response
unworthy of C99.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
We're ALL getting too personal
How about we ALL back off?
Getting us to fight among ourselves benefits no one except the Ruling Class, who have one less enemy to fear.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven I
I'll drink to that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Your contribution is oh so relevant
to the issues being discussed.
dfarrah
@Anja Geitz Zoe! So glad to
Zoe! So glad to "see" you! I wish it were under better circumstances.
Or, as someone once said to me, sorghum-stenches.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thanks CSTMS
I wish it were under better circumstances too. Sickening that the public platform for "discussion" of a seriously troubling and pervasive problem among our young people is being co-opted by politics in this way. Our dear leaders sure know which issues really yank our chains don't they?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@Anja Geitz No fucking
No fucking kidding. We get played way, way too much since this crap started around 2010. It's been a bad 8 years. I keep hoping we'll make our saving throws, as we say in Dungeons & Dragons.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Also, this research is not
dispositive of whether K assaulted anyone.
dfarrah
Not sure I understand your point...
in posting that.
Was that entered into the record or something?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
It was in response to someone else
who questioned K's ability to get excellent grades and be stumbling drunk. As well as a question regarding being able to commit sexual assault while being that heavily intoxicated.
I should have noted in that previous answer that it sounds like K was more of a binge drinker rather than a daily drinker.
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
Mean drunks.
My one close call was with a guy who was a mean drunk. He was a heavy enough drinker that he'd had problems before. When sober he was a very nice guy, a lot of fun and I thought a friend. Jesus, when he drank hard liquor on the other hand, all bets were off. He was driving one time and I did get out of his car at a stoplight. He sent me a dozen roses later to apologize but needless to say, we never hung out again. He wanted that to be a date and had gotten pissed off when it didn't turn out that way...
My dad was a mean drunk, a very functional one professionally too. Most of the time you'd never know he was drunk, but he could turn on a dime into an asshole. He wasn't ever physically abusive and I didn't deal with most of his rage, but I saw it. I would just not talk to him when he was drunk once I didn't have to.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
I have met, dated . . .
and even married a drunk once. They come in all sorts of flavors. Mean is one of the worst. Often, they do not remember what they have said or done so no damage adheres to them. It is the people around him (or her) that suffer, and there is not recourse when the drunk cannot remember (or admit to remembering) what was said or done. My father was a mean drunk verbally, but for some reason, he was only physically abusive when sober.
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
And we got to see Kavanaugh sober
At least, allegedly. He could have tipped down a few during his restroom breaks.
Imagine him actually drunk.
I cringe at the thought. n/t
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
Craig Murray, with whom many on this site are familiar,
was an unapologetic functioning alcoholic during his undergraduate days at Dundee University. Nonetheless, he graduated with a First Class Honours degree, which is sort of like summa cum laude except considerably more rare.
I know this because he told me firsthand (and unapologetically). At one point he was called in by some dean or something and told that if he didn't get his drinking under control he was going to flunk out. Instead of cutting down on drinking, he just started working at his studies, which he hadn't been bothering to do.
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.
@UntimelyRippd I think alcoholism is
I think alcoholism is unfortunate; I think it becomes a problem for other people when it leads to abuse or incompetence. Doesn't sound like that happened for Craig Murray, but I wasn't there.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
actually, he paid a significant price in the long run.
he was a party animal. it would seem to have contributed to the end of his marriage (the more acute factor being that he fell in love with an Uzbekhi lap dancer that he met while out on the town in Tashkent, during his abortive tenure as ambassador), and gave the PTB plenty of ammo to take him down, when he started getting noisy about the complicity of the UK with the torture regime there.
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.
Easy.
You pay someone else to do your homework.
So did Winston Churchill, I have read, when he was in prep school.
Mary Bennett
So who
takes the tests he took?
dfarrah
Lol
You don't think the elite know how to use crib notes? Or get a hold of the test in advance?
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
Frat houses
have files of tests going back years. I suppose sororities do as well, lately.
Mary Bennett
Oh good god.
Here is the reasoning behind the claims: some men get drunk and attack women, therefore, K did it too. Some people cheat on tests, therefore K did it too.
dfarrah
K is a class surrogate, like Tsar Nicholas II or somebody. n/t
Or a surrogate for
all of the toxic masculinity that supposedly exists everywhere in every single man on this earth.
dfarrah
Oh :-P :-P :-P :-P :-P :-P
It's the power structure, not so much the people in it. Ever hear the term "ponerology"?
You can change the seat-warmers in DC, but until you change the power structure it will still be "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss".
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven I like you,
I like you, Maven.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@dfarrah There's
There's certainly toxic masculinity around. That's not so much the point, sort of like the evils of religious intolerance, racial hatred, and xenophobia aren't the point. When I say they're not the point, I don't mean that they aren't evil or important or harmful. I mean for the most part, they aren't what's running our lives, and for the most part, they aren't what's getting us all killed.
All forms of bigotry, but especially racism, are being used by the people and systems who are actually running our lives. Sometimes that involves bigots killing some of us. But the motivation is not, I think, toxic tribalism, hatred of the other, or patriarchal bile. That's the old system. It's not dead, but it's not in control either. That's why its proponents are so angry, rather than being smug. The motivations of the powerful are greed, concentration of power, and the pursuit of absolute control.
We could remove all the bigotry in the world and we'd still be living in a horrendously unjust toxic system, authoritarian, deceitful, and manipulative, greedy and destructive, which is perfectly willing to embrace an 80% extinction rate and create a planet where about 1/2 a billion people, at best, might survive.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
This is deeply chilling thought
Maybe the French had it right. We really do need to bring back the guillotines.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Mine didn't. n/t
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
A stumbling drunk isn't stumbling all the time.
One drinks a lot to get to that state, and can do all kinds of things -- excel at classes, play sports, or abuse women -- before getting there.
As for the ability to excel academically, that is par for the course for alcoholics, who statistically include more high achievers than the population at large. Addiction -- which is not just chemical but also entails obsessive behavior -- is a pattern that does not typically confine itself to one activity; it frequently includes addiction to high achievement, as an end in itself or to mask the less savory elements of one's addiction.
I come from this world, the world of obsessive behavior, the world of high achievement, the world of top-tier institutions and First Class Honours . . . and massive drinking. I wasn't part of the frat culture (which didn't really exist where I was when I was there), but I saw that phenomenon and the rise of binge drinking in the 1980s when I was teaching at other universities. The accounts of Kavanaugh's behavior would not surprise anyone familiar with alcoholism or with college culture of the 1980s, just the opposite, they'd recognize the pattern immediately.
Y'all can disbelieve the testimony, of course, but don't assume you know everything about drinkers or abusers.
I hope...
that I made that point clear in my essay.
As I say, the longer I watched the hearing, the more a picture emerged of a possible scenario that made sense.
The problem is that without a lot more evidence, there simply isn't enough to say with any degree of certainty that the scenario actually happened.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I find it very irritating
that Ford claimed to be claustrophobic about flying, so she wanted to delay the hearing several days so she could drive, then she turns around and flies to D.C. And as one would expect to find, it turns out she flies to all kinds of places.
And she thought it was funny when called on it.
dfarrah
I discounted that...
because I think the statement was probably a product of the gamesmanship between the committee members - basically a lawyer's procedural excuse that doesn't really affect the witnesses basic credibility.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
How does it
not affect Ford's credibility?
Ford has been claiming a life-long condition of claustrophobia caused by K. She supposedly didn't want to fly because of this condition caused by K. The entire confirmation process was held up because of this condition. Then, viola!! She has been flying all along!
So, how credible is her claim that she has this condition?
dfarrah
It's not directly related..
to the facts of the incident nor is it probative of bias.
Basically her lawyer probably put her up to it for procedural reasons. Not a big deal IMO.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Give me a break.
It goes directly to her honesty or lack thereof. And it goes directly to her claim that she has lifelong trauma due to K.
And, considering that her supposedly corroborating witnesses contradicted her, all she has left is her credibility.
dfarrah
hmmm...
it seems to me that a stated aversion to or fear of flying does not mean that people who state such cannot, will not or never fly.
i would suggest that people who absolutely refuse to fly are a small subset of those who are uncomfortable, averse or fearful of flying.
in short, i don't think that the fact that ford flies on airplanes impeaches her testimony that it makes her anxious or that said anxiety may be rooted in certain unpleasant experiences.
Fair enough...
Seems like a minor thing to me with all the other, less tangential credibility issues hanging out there, but if that's what floats your boat, so be it.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Oh, it floats allright.
it does.
dfarrah
Agree with you, NHK--
that is was probably for procedural reasons, that her attorney(s) prompted her to use a 'valid' excuse, in order to delay the hearing. Meaning, I don't doubt that Ford has some degree of fear of flying (claustrophobia, whatever), possibly related to her experience/trauma. Also, I don't think it's a big deal; nor, is it directly related to her veracity, or lack thereof.
As a matter of record, several reporters poked holes in that excuse a week or two ago. She had done an internship in Hawaii, and it was known that she repeatedly flew stateside. And, annually, she flew to visit relatives.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I Don't Care. Theatre for Those on the Team. nt
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Mean drunk or
arrogant ass?
One thing for sure that came from the hearings are that I don't want someone with his temperament on the federal courts let alone the Supreme Court.
Saying that the whole thing was cooked up by Hillary Clinton? Please.
Lots of short vids and the full statements from both of them.
Edited to clarify that arrogant ass is a link that has lots of tweets with videos of people involved in this.
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/27/live-christine-blasey-ford-brett-kav...
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
FYI:
Partisans, Wielding Money, Begin Seeking to Exploit Harassment Claims
Brock makes a $2 million ask to counter Bannon's new group
David Brock: I knew Brett Kavanaugh during his years as a Republican operative. Don't let him sit on the Supreme Court.
The Man Who Smeared Anita Hill Previews What Christine Blasey Ford Will Face in Senate
David Brock: Kavanaugh is not fit for court with video.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
re: Brock
OMG OMG OMG - K called HRC a bitch (like who hasn't?), OMG OMG OMG, K was heavily involved in repub politics (just like prominent dems have been in their politics).
dfarrah
The fact that Brock...
has a history with Kavanaugh and specifically mentioned him in his book about the Starr chamber is just more evidence that Hillary and Brock were pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Hillary never forgets a grudge.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Hillary & Brock
Given this fact, I've wondered about the political associaton between Hillary and David Brock. The reason he knew Kavanaugh in the '90s was because at that time, both Brock and Kavanaugh were Republican operatives working to take down Bill Clinton.
At some point, Brock apparently turned coat and went all in for Hillary. (I say "apparently", because with these manipulative psychopaths, who the heck knows what they're actually doing, or why?)
"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
Money? nt
dfarrah
I'm sure money is involved
I'm sure money is involved, but in what way?
If there's anyone Hillary would have a grudge against it would be David Brock. And we've heard about the things that can happen to people against whom Hillary has a grudge.
Yet at some point, presumably in the early 2000s, the two of them entered into an association whereby he would do a lot of dirty work for her; the same kind of dirty work (albeit on a much larger scale) that he used to do against her and her hubby on behalf of Karl Rove.
"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
Bingo! n/t
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Reminds me of the bridges Q posted about
I don't know if anyone has deciphered the reference to bridges that Q made since I started somewhat following him/them yet, and I can't find it, but the excerpt you posted jumped out at me.
Clintons in every closet is just as silly as
Russians under every bed. If anything, HER has a keen nose for bandwagons to jump on - but the bandwagon has to be rolling first.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
So David Brock...
as the public face of the Dem charge on the Kavanaugh confirmation and NYT reports of how he is raising money to pay women to come forth with sexual harassment charges doesn't make you think the Clintons are still running the show behind the scenes?
Even after Bernie? Even after (dare I say it) Anita Hill?
It's all just a 'silly' conspiracy theory? Really?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@TheOtherMaven The Clintons are not in every closet, maybe,
but they are certainly in most closets belonging to the Democratic party. It's their party. If they're not in one of its closets currently, it's because they don't want to be.
To drop the metaphor, it's quite reasonable to presume a likelihood of Clinton involvement in anything that directly and deeply involves the Democratic party. A likelihood, however, is not a certainty; blurring that line is awfully easy to fall into, and doesn't meet the standards of intellectual integrity.
There's a Scylla and Charybdis in this as in most matters these days; people must be allowed to hypothesize from established data, an ability that's come under attack a lot over the last ten years (it's never been easier to be called a conspiracy theorist). At the same time, hypothesis is not proof.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I believe the "revenge of the Clintons" reference
was to his serving with Ken Starr on the impeachment.
Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!
Firesign Theater
Stop the War!
That's correct, EdMass--heard interview with Ken Starr
a couple weeks ago. Apparently, it was Kavanaugh who pushed to aggressively question WJC on explicit details of his sexual encounters with Lewinsky during impeachment proceedings.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Pfffft.
Someone on the news last night was talking about how this 'temperament' notion is ridiculous. Judges get mad all the time at the lawyers and witnesses when they get out of line. They have to deal with people who push the envelope all of the time.
OH, now I recall, it was Laura Ingraham, who used to litigate.
And even when I pursued a case pro se, I was warned that the judges hate pro se litigants and would tear me or rip me to pieces, to paraphrase. (but I got lucky, did my homework, and the judge was fairly patient).
Judges can't be wusses.
dfarrah
He certainly was far from being a wuss
I'm sure that judges can get temperamental at times, but what he did was much more than that. He pretty much verbally attacked Kobar, Feinstein and? Durbin? His responses were snide and very rude. Have you watched any of his testimony? If not then you don't have all the information to decide on his temperament during the hearing. As I've said I have posted a link that has the testimony in it. This is from where I made my opinion of him.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
He went much further than attacking
individual senators. He specifically addressed two threats to the Democratic committee as a whole.
One was: "You sowed the wind. For decades to come, I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind." I do not believe he has much concern about the country as a whole, just those with Democratic ideals. The Democrats did not make the charge against him; they only supported a hearing. So for that they and the country must pay, and pay bigley.
The second: "And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around, comes around." Shortly after this statement, he made the claim that he is an independent judge not swayed by public or political pressure. If his attacks against the Democrats was his version of being non-partisan, I truly fear what is to come (I already did, but given the added threats it has multiplied.)
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
I'm far more
afraid of substituting 'believe her' for any rational fact finding process than anything a judge acting within normal judicial parameters would do.
dfarrah
This is what you seem to be stuck on
believe her'
No matter what someone says you come back and attack Ford. Or defend Kavanaugh.
Wind dancer isn't the only one here saying that he threatened not only the democrats, but us too. If you can't admit that then you're not arguing in good faith. It seems that you just want to focus on discrediting Ford. Again. Why?
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Oh, and here is
a historical tidbit for you: William O Douglas was considered a total asshole toward people, yet he was the one behind many liberal rulings of the court (if I recall correctly).
This article is behind a paywall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/opinion/11feldman.html?mtrref=www.goo...
When Arrogance takes the Bench
dfarrah
Yep
When judges display anger, they generally do so from a place of power. They don't cry, make faces, and accuse the lawyers of ruining their (the judge's) life and career.
"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
He supports torture, corporate rights,
internet censorship and mass spying on We the People, that's enough for me.
Obviously if they were serious, the discussions and debates would be about more than these allegations. This is such kabuki it reeks. Anyone who doesn't realize that is lost in the wilderness.
I get a kick out of some right wing/libertarian type friends and acquaintances of mine who complain about the democrats and the left attacking this asshole, saying it's all a setup and all this. Then I ask them if they support someone who wants to let the government spy on them, censor the internet and continue the war OF terror forever. Ooops, brain gears all fucked up.
The only answer, abolish the supreme court.
"And those are his good points!"
signed,
50,000,000 right wing freaks.
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.
+10 up votes for this
During the confirmation hearings, there was very little (none from the Rs) examination of his actual court rulings. Although, I am guessing he would have provided evasive answers if called on those just like he did on the Roe v Wade questions. (His own rulings and the precedence he cites both show which way the wind blows.)
Someone needs to start an Adopt a Right-Winger Program like the Big Brothers and Big Sisters programs.
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
The Democratic Party supports those things, too.
A single review of their congressional voting records will make that crystal clear.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
@Big Al I agree with you. Yet
I agree with you. Yet here I am chatting about it, mainly because lots of my friends are here doing so. My own personal version of being sheeple.
My problem with this (beyond the obvious ones you list) is that the legislators (tm) are behaving in an obviously, in fact blatantly, corrupt way, and it makes the entire process into a very crappy version of team sports which may not even be for real in and of itself (I'm not sure how much the rivalry between the parties is real; sometimes I think it's like the rivalry of two employees working for the same firm, who both want the same promotion; sometimes I think it isn't even that). But in any case, I'm disgusted by the likelihood that legislators on both sides are coordinating with the people whose evidence they're supposed to be evaluating. But I shouldn't be surprised, right?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Ya, no surprise here.
I don't know, we all spend our time the way we want. Basically, most of this blogging stuff is just about discussing the daily news. Which is kind of disappointing in that there's also an undertone of wanting to do something about our situation but everybody just gets bounced from one thing to another. Maybe that's just the way it is and will be.
One thing I will criticize is the watching of the television news and political shows including these Kavanaugh hearings. The corporate media needs to be brought down and it never will be without a concerted effort to boycott it, especially TV media which is almost totally a dispenser of propaganda. Not watching TV news and political shows is an easy way to contribute to that effort considering the availability of information on the internet now.
@Big Al Total agreement on
Total agreement on the mass media.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Big Al We're in a post-policy
We're in a post-policy age. With very few exceptions, policy doesn't get debated, and there aren't real disagreements on it. Instead we have an endless sequence of competing character attacks, as we try to decide whether somebody's good or bad. It's not that I think candidates for the Supreme Court should be able to have a history of sexual or racial harassment; I don't. It's just that nothing other than "This is a BAD person! No, it's a GOOD person!" ever gets discussed. Also, I have a feeling of profound futility watching people get vehement about the sexual harassment history of this candidate, knowing that we've already got a sexual harasser/predator on the Supreme Court--at least one--and not only did we do nothing about it, we're not going to do anything about it in the future. Also we have a guy on the Supreme Court who was a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, an organization primarily devoted to keeping Princeton as white and male as possible:
The Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) was a group of politically conservative former Princeton University students that existed between 1972 and 1986. CAP was born in 1972 from the ashes of the Alumni Committee to Involve Itself Now (ACTION), which was founded in opposition to the college becoming coeducational in 1969. Some claim that CAP was founded to bring the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) back to the Princeton campus after the ROTC building was burned down by anti-war activists and the Princeton administration refused to rebuild it. However, the ROTC had returned to campus by the time CAP was founded. The primary motivation behind CAP was to limit the number of women admitted to the university.[citation needed] CAP also opposed affirmative action designed to increase minority attendance at the Ivy League institution.[1] CAP also exhibited strong support for Princeton's eating clubs, which were male-only at the time.
We already have blatant racists and sexists on the Supreme Court, and there's no movement to impeach any of them. And those are the blatant ones, the ones for whom we have proof. Would anybody be surprised to find out John Roberts was racist or sexist or both? While it's fine to oppose Kavanaugh, and more than fine to tell the truth about him, getting freaked out about all this seems very much a case of closing the gate after the herd got out.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
One way or another, torture, corporate personhood,
police state, etc., are not discussed or debated. One could almost assume that's the plan.
And one could almost assume that most people prefer it that way.
Not "most people",
Just the power elite. It suits them to divide and distract, because then the real issues never get addressed and they can go on looting and pillaging to their hearts' content.
The rest of us can be plenty outraged, but we have no voice and no power.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Well, my point is most people would rather watch
(and discuss) a theatrical production like this instead of a serious debate on torture, imperialism or the military industrial complex.
The powerless often seek some kind of relief.
and, sometimes, it takes the form of a circus in which we can feel that we have some input that might be heard. This issue of the sexual assault touches us closer to home unlike the others as those are rather nebulous issues that we have no clue how to cope with or how to address or stop. Torture may come close, but for right now, it is not happening to us . . . at least not yet or that we can or will be informed about.
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
The powerless remain powerless primarily because
they won't fucking get involved. This is a circus all right, it's more like a soap opera, it's got that effect on the population. If it wasn't for this sex allegation, what exactly would we be seeing here? The democrats certainly can't oppose the dude based on torture, imperialism, police state, or any of the other completely partisan major issues. And most people would simply watch it go by without ever questioning the actual purpose of this entire process. Frankly, I think the notion that it hits close to home is a bullshit excuse, for most, to get caught up in a manufactured reality.
And you expect the common citizen to do what exactly...
when it is shown that their leaders cannot?
I know that I no longer have many living issues to deal with like family (supporting them physically and emotionally, helping them get an education and all that entails and hoping they do not get killed at school, and providing them the means to be a moral person) or a job (preparing for/getting and/or keeping one) or monetary needs (housing, food, utilities, transportation, taxes, etc) or medical needs or any of the other real needs in life (not talking the latest $1,000 phone or a TV).
Not having those to deal with gives me plenty of time to sit around on the Internet and in blogs to decry how they do not get involved in issues when even if they do, it probably won't help because the system is rigged to help those who already own the bread and the bread factory. And there does not seem to be any cake.
Probably half this nation every day fears for their lives and the lives of their loved ones. People whether they can and do or can not or will not get involved can see on TV every night how much good it does to get involved. If you do so, you do it at the risk of your life (and the the president will say it was your fault.) And has anything really changed?
All that aside, it was very few people who actually built this country's democratic leanings. So those who CAN need to shoulder the burden for those who cannot until such time as those people also CAN.
We also need to talk to our neighbors, not yell at them: Adopt a Right-Winger (either an R or a D) and lead by example. Build it and they will come is a wonderful and ultimately doable dream.
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
@TheOtherMaven Correct.
Correct.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
May be one answer would be have more Supreme Court
Justices and to not let them serve for life. Let them serve for a certain number of years and after that they are out. Let a subset of all go out every couple of years.
It's the German model and I feel more comfortable with it. It would make each individual judge have less influence and power without destroying the whole court.
The US seems to have way too few Supreme Court Judges and all serving way too long.
Just saying.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Absolutely,
this service for life thing is bizarre and stupid. When we write a new constitution, that's definitely one of many things that need to change. We can't keep going along, imo, without pushing for improvement/changes in our political system.
not to make this personal, but if you're a former
trial attorney then you should already understand that first-hand professional experience in the american trial system is the opposite of useful epistemological training, except as a negative case. the entire process is a ludicrous parody of truth-finding. anybody with an adequate education (including an autodidact) in the processes of reasoning, investigation, inference and proof should, when presented with the way our trials are conducted, and in particular the sorts of "arguments" that actually fly in american courtrooms, dismiss the entire endeavor with unceremonious contempt.
you've provided us your interpretation of these events through the lens of a trial lawyer -- but that's a fun-house lens when applied to anything that isn't actually a trial, which this was not.
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.
Whatever you think about lawyers...
or the legal system, trial procedures and rules are carefully designed to ferret out as best as possible, the objective truth of the matter (ie., what actually happened).
Although this was not a court proceding, the basic principles of what constitutes probative evidence and credible testimony can be applied to any hearing.
I figured it was far past time somebody around here did that.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
i am interested to learn that you believe this:
i consider it to be categorically untrue.
we will have to agree to disagree.
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.
Sorry you feel that way...
But it's a way of determining facts that people have found useful for oh.... more than 800 years now.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
yes, it's certainly proven useful.
for example, it has generated considerable wealth and elevated social status for its initiates.
and it manifests a set of accepted social institutions to which the wealthy and powerful can point for justification in their depredations.
and it satisfies the public's thirst for justice/vengeance by providing a robustly "successful" means for blame-assignment -- regardless of actual blame (that TRVTH thing) -- by being so fucked up that various socioeconomically marginalized citizens can be cowed into false confession via the threat of merciless retribution should they choose the recourse of their constitutional right to a trial.
and, and, and.
yes, very useful indeed.
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.
Maybe even longer than that...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school_of_Beirut
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Great link.
Call it LexMart?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Excavation is on-going
It's right downtown, so space and opportunity are difficult to come by, but they've recently unearthed a section said to be the world's oldest known law school.
Byblos isn't far to the north, where the first proto-alphabet developed.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Are you serious?
You believe that our whole judicial system never results in justice?
dfarrah
Trials are not about finding the objective truth
Both sides fight to win. They don’t care about either truth or justice. Prosecutors want to convict. They use any and all legal tactics to win. Defense lawyers try to get their client found not guilty, or failing that, a hung jury or mistrial. Both sides seek ways to suppress facts and limit the jury’s access (if there’s a jury) to key information if they can get it deemed inadmissible. Neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys want any facts that don’t help their case brought into it, and will try every legal tactic they can to keep them out.
The idea that they are seeking objective truth is obviously false. Justice is a bit more fuzzy of a concept perhaps, but from my own experiences in court rooms, mostly as a juror, that’s not the goal either. I was on one jury that ultimately acquitted someone who we all believed to be guilty, but the prosecutor was unable to prove the case. So the defendant got away with the crime. Is that justice?
On that case I did my civic duty and voted to acquit— in fact, I was a voice in the deliberations on the side to find not guilty, because that’s the law. No proof, no conviction. Even though the defendant was pretty clearly guilty. The “but she’s guilty!” jurors, those who wanted to convict because thought it was about truth and justice, did come around.
We found out after the trial about some key evidence that had been suppressed due to legal technicalities, which we had not even been allowed to consider. The thought that trials are about seeking the “truth” is clearly incorrect.
Pages