Insomnia-Triggered Observations On The Blasey Ford-Kavanaugh Disaster

I don’t know if it is my usual sleeping in a hotel problem, my typical anxiety before an early morning ethics presentation, or the nauseating reality of what Christine Blasey Ford and the Democrats have inflicted on the political system and cultural norms of basic fairness and decency that has me awake writing a post at 5 am. I have my suspicions, though….

  • Judge Kavanaugh spoke to the Senate Judiciary committee via phone yesterday afternoon about the accusation of a three-decades old sexual assault while he was a prep school student. The committee Democrats refused to participate. I can’t reconcile this with a good faith effort to be fair to the nominee. Can you? It seems that the Democrats, having already made it clear that they will not vote for Kavanaugh for partisan reasons, have no compunction about making it clear that the allegation is just a convenient tool to engineer his defeat. They don’t really care about whether it is true or not.  It is simply a means to an end.

Is there any other conclusion?

  • Professor Rosa Brooks of my alma mater Georgetown Law Center (which has been embarrassing me a lot lately) pretty much sums up my position in a series of tweets. She writes:

I oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination, think senators should vote no based on his judicial record, but am uncomfortable with asserting that his behavior as a teen tells us anything about his “character” now. Yes, even if his behavior as a teen included doing exactly what Ford says he did. This is because….I don’t think teen behavior is predictive of adult behavior, and I am also skeptical of the very idea of “character” as we use the term in American politics. And……. there is a ton of solid research on the general idiocy of teenagers, especially teenaged boys, and the neuroscience that explains their general idiocy….as a lawyer I also think there are sound reasons behind statutes of limitations. After 35 years it is nearly impossible to conduct a full or fair investigation….This does not mean I consider sexual assault “excusable” or “minor.” It just means that I think the bad behavior of minors should be treated differently than the behavior of adults, and that adults should not be shadowed forever by misdeeds as children.


Sadly, the prof’s inner progressive asshole could not remain hidden for the duration of her tweet-storm. I emphatically do NOT concur with her final observation in the last set of tweets, in which she confirms that she is a hyper-partisan bigot who just had a brief, uncharacteristic moment of ethical clarity:

Kavanaugh’s accuser nonetheless deserves to be treated with dignity and consideration; belittling her or her motives should be considered unacceptable. If Kavanaugh responds to her accusations in a way that belittles her or other women who come forward with stories of sexual assault, THAT will definitely be relevant now. And to all who say “well yes but the GOP would draw and quarter any Dem nominee with similar accusations against him,” you’re right, but why would Dems want to do the same things the GOP does? But the GOP would not treat allegations of assault by a black teen as forgivingly,” I agree as well. But again, we shouldn’t conform to the bad behavior of others. Again, this is not because I am “defending” Kavanaugh: I’d vote NO, and for all I know he is a complete jerk and a serial sexual assaulter to boot. All I’m saying is: I am uncomfortable having the current allegation be the basis for opposing, given the above.

Why does Ford deserve to be treated with dignity and consideration? She attempted an anonymous smear job that no professional anywhere would consider fair. When it was clear that this wouldn’t accomplish her goal, she accused a man of politically-toxic misconduct with no more evidence than her own misty recalled memories. Apparently she does  not even recall what year the alleged assault occurred. Professor Brooks is just confirming her #MeToo privileges by embracing the sexist theory that women deserve to be treated differently than men. They don’t. Any man who did something like this to a female nominee would deserve to be condemned. What an air tight gotcha! for the increasingly ethics-free left: an irresponsible, unprovable attack on a mans’ reputation and career that he will be disqualified for treating as it deserves to be treated.

I’d like the law professor to explain why she holds Kavanaugh to this exalted standard of tolerance when she says she assume that Republicans would treat allegations of a black teen’s assault as damning. Now she is virtue-signaling to her colleagues, calling Republicans racists, because of course they are. This tweet would disqualify her, in my view, if President Harris or Warren or Winfrey nominated her for the Supreme Court, or any other post. She’s a bigot, her outrageous claim that he might be a “serial sexual assaulter” is contemptible public discourse.

  • Anyone who uses the fact that she took a lie-detector test  and passed it to support her claim reveals their own ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. The devices don’t work. There isn’t even any debate about it. Sociopaths can beat them, and so can the confused and deluded. There’s a reason why they are inadmissible as evidence in court. Several alleged victims of alien abductions have passed lie detector tests too.

Maybe a space alien assaulted Ford. Maybe Kavanaugh is a space alien. This fiasco is bad enough without lie detector nonsense.

  • Diane Feinstein officially qualifies as an Ethics Alarms Ethics Villain for her role in the episode, joining such disgraceful political characters as Chris Christie, and of course, Hillary Clinton. The San Francisco Chronicle laid much of it out neatly, concluding that her conduct

“..was unfair to Kavanaugh, unfair to his accuser and unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

  • Does anyone recall that DNC Deputy Chair and Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison has been accused domestic abuse by former girlfriend Karen Monahan? That accusation isn’t 35 years old and didn’t involve a teenager. It has also been substantiated by others.The Democrats have done nothing about this, except to “investigate it” and allow their mainstream news media allies to bury the story, at least long enough for the current hypocrisy to escape public notice.

Imagine: I heard a female Democratic senator intone yesterday that if Republicans did not delay the vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, it would be “an insult to every woman” in the country. I regard allowing so dubious and unprovable a #MeToo accusation raised in such a blatantly political context to derail the confirmation of a qualified male candidate a threat to every American male alive. Let’s hand every woman the power to ruin any man, because in any “he said/she said” controversy, only the woman has a “right to be believed.”

Democrats are deliberately encouraging a national, cultural gender war.

More than 200 women who attended the same all-girls school as Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser have signed an open letter supporting her allegations of sexual assault when they were both high school students.

The letter says the women — who graduated from the private Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Md., between 1967 and 2018 — believe California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford “and are grateful that she came forward to tell her story.”

“Dr. Blasey Ford’s experience is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton,” the letter says.

“Many of us are survivors ourselves.”

If I thought this was typical of the female ability to reason, I’d advocate banning women from positions of authority. The believe Ford because she’s a woman! They believe Ford because someone assaulted them! They are proudly proclaiming prejudice, misandry and bias. Nobody has any factual basis for believing either Ford or Kavanaugh. Here’s my bias: any position that relies on tactics like this letter is inherently suspect.



97 thoughts on “Insomnia-Triggered Observations On The Blasey Ford-Kavanaugh Disaster

  1. I’ll say it again, the Left is in full blown Civil War minus the shooting mode. They accept that.

    If there is anything we’ve learned from these two years is that the Left WILL NEVER AGAIN cede power in an orderly and stable manner.

    Again, anyone who votes for them does not believe in stable governance. Shame on anyone who pulls those levers.

  2. I actually think that the lie detector test does say something if you read between the lines. The questions asked were amazingly vague, and even though she passed the test, did not actually verify her story, it verified that the story as was being presented is the story she in fact told.
    It’s like…. If I read you a Bernstein Bears story, and then you asked me if I just read to a Bernstein Bears story, and I said yes…. Well, I’d pass, because I had in fact just read you a Bernstein Bears story, but that doesn’t make the Bernstein Bears real.
    The question was carefully thought out, this process doesn’t happen any other way. What this is saying to me is that Ford’s lawyer thought Ford would fail if the question was asked directly. Unless anyone else has another plausible explanation?

  3. I love this letter from all the accuser’s “classmates.”

    “More than 200 women who attended the same all-girls school as Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser have signed an open letter” Hmm. Sounds like they all knew her and attended at the same time. Not so fast… “who graduated from the private Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Md., between 1967 and 2018…”

    So, let’s do a little math. Kavanaugh graduated in the early ’80s. The accuser is two years younger than he is. So, she was in the school for three or four years in the early to mid ’80s. So, women who graduated in 1967 knew what was going on there in the ’80s, twenty five or so years after they had graduated, i.e. well within the time within which their children could have been attending the school. And even more miraculously, the grand children of the class of ’67 who graduated in 2018 knew what was going on in the early ’80s, you know, when their mothers were going there. Got it.

    As I’ve said before, Kavanaugh has clearly been found guilty in the court of public opinion of having been a young white guy. He definitely attended a boys’ school that was filled to the brim with guys. Guilty as charged. To the gallows.

    Publishing that letter is journalistic malfeasance.

    • Sad to say, I don’t think Kavanaugh’s nomination is going to survive this. Whether the allegation is true or false is of no consequence. See eg. Sparty. He’s presumed guilty. He’s a guy. Off with his career head. Who’s next?

    • Best part about it is the MSM which widely derided Kavanaugh’s support letter from 65 women as being disingenuous and manufactured extol THIS letter as substantial and proof of the accuser’s credibility.

      If the Left wanted to beclown itself more, I don’t know how they’d do it.

      • All they needed was a sound bite/headline to give the partisan sheep a new phrase to baaaa out at the water cooler:

        “The Republicans produced some phony letter with 65 women claiming to support Kavanaugh, but then TWO-HUNDRED of Fords woke friends from the SAME SCHOOL came back to let the Patriarchy know that Kavanaugh is guilty and he’s GOING DOWN! You go girlzzz!”

    • “As I’ve said before, Kavanaugh has clearly been found guilty in the court of public opinion of having been a young white guy. He definitely attended a boys’ school that was filled to the brim with guys. Guilty as charged. To the gallows.”

      I think this is too generous. It would imply the Left has some sort of consistent and predictable standard that can apply to conditions that do not have to do with politics.

      They advanced Merrick Garland and we presume the Left would not melt down over his whiteness or his maleness…

      No, they hate Kavanaugh because Trump beat Hillary. That’s the logic.

      • I think it goes beyond that, Michael. I really think the left is out to remove anyone they consider privileged from any position of importance and install a person of color or a woman or an LBQT person. It’s what “social justice” means. White guys are the Romanovs and the left are the Bolsheviks. And no, I don’t think I”m paranoid.

    • Someone from the Daily Wire pulled up that site where you rate your professor… Apparently, even before her allegation, the vast majority of the student reviews were very negative. An overarching trend was that the students questioned her sanity, some even expressing that they were afraid of her.

      Now does that mean her story couldn’t be true? No. It still could be… But as we learn more and more about this situation, I think it’s less and less likely that it is.

  4. “Anyone who uses the fact that she took a lie-detector test and passed it to support her claim reveals their own ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. The devices don’t work.”

    Not so fast.

    Once you’ve read the Phrenologist’s report on Kavanaugh’s skull dimensions, I think you’ll see the two corroborate.

      • That’s all “settled science” right? I mean, people spent a lot of time on it, and they really, really, want it to be true. That makes it true.
        No one can call me a phrenology-denier!

  5. “Democrats are deliberately encouraging a national, cultural gender war.”

    Do they not understand that the people they are trying to fight in that war are going to, at some point, get some clarity on this situation, and then fight back. Do they think that everyone on the other side is just going to roll over, or do you think they are going to see this and start playing to win?

      • No, you do not get a Handmaid’s Tale. Conservative, Libertarian, Right-wing, etc reaction, when it occurs, against this Leftist overthrow of the American culture will not result in an establishment of the Handmaid’s Tale.

        History is replete with socialist governments telling parents how many children they get to have and ultimately telling women “what they can and can’t do with their bodies” (which is the fear we so hear about…right?). Not so many non-leftwing, non-socialist, non-statist societies compelling women on the number or type of children they must have.

        The worst a conservative reaction will do is tell a set of parents that once they choose to take the action that brings a new life into this world they must take care of that defenseless and innocent life and not kill it.

        The horror.

        No, the manufactured Handmaid’s Tale dystopia that is supposed to be a right-wing nightmare, far closer mirrors historic precedent from the Left.

        • I don’t care how good that show is, with a premise that stupid and opposite reality I could never squelch my self-respect enough to watch it.

          It’s like a series about a dystopian near-future where Americans have all turned into zombies from lack of TV because they love literature and exercise so much.

    • No way we just roll over. The Alt Right is all about no longer rolling over; they see how it got us to this state of affairs.

      Leftist keep pissing gasoline on the smoldering coals. Common Americans change the world when they are aroused.

        • The alt-right just keeps getting pushed to the left. I have seen Alan Dershowitz described as ‘alt-right’. The Daily Beast is writing articles about multicultural white supremacy. I have seen groups labelled ‘white nationalists’ and their leaders were of Hispanic and Japanese ancestry. From what I can gather, 70-80% of the United States seems to be ‘alt-right’ or ‘white nationalist’ at this point. It is like the term ‘racist’. Once everyone realizes it just means ‘someone I don’t agree with at the moment’, it loses its power.

        • Except the alt-right doesn’t speak for Conservatism or Libertarianism or actual Right wing values. So their militancy doesn’t help you out at all.

          You are right, Mike (see what I did there…?)

          It doesn’t help me, no. But it will show that fascism will be resisted.

          I am ticked that I can see this reaction is inevitable (human nature does not change), and can do nothing to stop it.

          That the courts have two tiers of justice.

          That the DOJ will not even investigate crimes when members of the Swamp perpetuate them, yet put our side in jail falsely for lying in perjury traps.

          That Antifa riots and goes free, while normal Americans are attacked.

          That our politicians blame America and Americans for the violence.

          That police departments are told to stand down and allow the violence.

          That common Americans will see that they need to protect themselves against marxist thugs, and blood will be spilt. They will join on the level of Antifa, because that is all that is left that matters.

        • They are smart enough to oppose Marxism, and creeping towards Marxism is what’s been slow-roasting America to death for the last several decades. That’s something.

  6. So here’s what I’m having a hard time understanding about all this. I absolutely agree that nearly everyone committed bad or at least questionable acts as a teenager. And I agree that those acts should not disqualify us from success later in life. But doesn’t there have to be genuine contrition involved? Merely being a teenager doesn’t excuse us from taking responsibility for our acts, it’s just a mitigating factor — that is, it’s easier to forgive, but not automatic. One would still need to show that one has come to understand the severity of the actions and their consequences. I mean, we expect this of 17 year olds in court all the time.

    This is of course not a court of law, it’s a hearing to decide whether Brett Kavanaugh is qualified to be one of the most powerful people in America. It strikes me that there should be a pretty high bar. And if someone who committed these acts (assuming for the purposes of this comment that he did) wants to sit in that incredibly powerful seat, wouldn’t they need to show some contrition? To accept responsibility? To say “I was 17, I was only a child, but I learned an important lesson and I’ve grown”?

    Instead, he’s only denied it. Which is a perfectly fine and rational response if he didn’t do it. But arguments like Rosa Brooks’ above miss the mark for me, because of the lack of apology and repentance. The important question in this affair should be “did he do it,” because if he did, I don’t see how he is worthy to sit on the Court given his subsequent behavior.

    • But, DC Guy, you are assuming he is guilty of the allegation. What if he is right? He should not have to apologize for an assault he didn’t commit. What if there was no incident? What if this is a ginned-up controversy to delay/destroy his appointment to the SCOTUS?

      Sen. Feinstein had this information in July, two full months before his confirmation hearings. Why did she wait until late last week to drop it in the news? She referred it to the FBI, who declined to investigate it. Sen. Feinstein feigns reluctance, that she had to no choice but drop the story, because she says the story was outed by the media. Malarkey. This was cold, vicious political calculation to delay the confirmation vote. It worked. Shame on her.


      • I was assuming that he had solely for the purposes of the argument (as was Rosa Brooks). I don’t personally believe the allegation has been either substantiated or disproven as yet; but a lot of people seem to be saying “if he did it, he should still be confirmed,” which seems totally untenable to me.

        • If he did it…

          This is total bullshit, DC Guy. Did you take a minute to think through what you just said? By this standard, NO ONE can be on SCOTUS. We have ALL been stupid teenagers at least once.

          What you are really saying is that if a CONSERVATIVE ever did anything one might consider wrong (even if it was not) they can never serve in the public arena.

          Progressives will get a pass despite credible evidence, just like Keith Ellison was.

          • I did, I actually gave it quite a bit of thought. If someone screws up as a teenager, we should generally excuse that behavior as long as they apologize and show some genuine remorse. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

            • But you don’t see the catch 22 here? An innocent conservative who apologizes in these circumstances, as one might to appease the hounds, will then not be ‘good enough’ to serve. THERE CAN BE NO PROOF here. Notice the in-the-tank-for-Obama FBI won’t even investigate. So saying he could ‘just apologize’ is a lie, one that is trying to take his career.

              Progressives are not held to the standard you are espousing.

              This is a trap, and was manufactured as one from the start. If it was not, why was the letter not brought forward during testimony?

            • If someone screws up as a teenager, we should generally excuse that behavior as long as they apologize and show some genuine remorse. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

              Actually, I think this is quite rational. I think it would be a great standard.

              But contrition begins with cognizance of guilt. You can’t be contrite about an event that you don’t believe happened, or that in fact never occured.

              So how do we evaluate the instant case? At this point, Mrs. Ford’s testimony is that there were four total people, besides her, at the party. The only witnesses to the events she described have both denied they happened. Neither of the two yet to be identified have risen to corroborate her story, at least to the extent of confirming the existence of a party that Kavanaugh, Ford, and Judge all attended in the time frame specified.

              Kavanaugh has gone further and denied ever being at any such function as she described, and never, ever having treated someone in the manner alleged.

              That goes well beyond a “well, it may have happened but I just don’t remember it that way,” or “I simply don’t remember.” It’s an affirmative denial of the events she described.

              Unless someone comes forth with some kind of corroboration (and a 30-year-after talk with a psychologist which reflects some, but not complete similarity in describing the events doesn’t count for much), I think you have to take the word of the two men allegedly involved. No matter how sure she is of her facts, a 30-year-old memory is a very unreliable thing. She might even have the participants reversed in terms of who did what. Who could gainsay her if that were the case?

              Finally, while I think your standard would be a good one, I also think that in the era of #metoo and hyper-partisanship, it would never be adhered to by either party. The particulars of the case under evaluation would always rise to a level “too egregious” to be forgiven by an act of contrition. Indeed, the early reporting on this story suggested a possible federal crime, something DiFi did nothing to knock down.

              Good thought, but unfortunately Not. Gonna. Happen.

              • So, again operating under the assumption that he did it — which I want to emphasize has not been demonstrated, but we are arguing under the assumption that he did, per the Brooks argument above — because progressives may be dealing in bad faith, you are comfortable putting someone on the Court who committed assault, showed no remorse or contrition whatsoever, and lied about it? That just doesn’t track. How does progressives’ behavior excuse conservatives elevating someone like that to the Supreme Court?

                • IT WAS NOT SEXUAL ASSAULT. Assuming it happened, the reported facts don’t support that. She left the room under her own power, she says.
                  Her own story is so full of contradictions as to be unbelievable even in a court of 1982.

                  You are really stretching to spin a point here. This ‘conservatives must be purer than the driven snow’ or be completely rejected (while progressives do much worse and stay untouched) is what has purged our system of decent politicians. The double standard you are advocating is breathtaking.

                  None of this matters, except as yet another dirty trick being pulled by progressives to unfairly take over our nation, elections be damned. I now believe you are a troll, trying to emasculate the Right using their own principles just as liberals have for decades.

                  We are no longer going to allow progressives like you to dictate the rules, to palm all the aces, to rig the game, especially with contrived crap like this allegation. Time to take our country back, and re-establish justice under the rule of law.

                  • The point I’m making is solely in response to this, from the original post: “I oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination, think senators should vote no based on his judicial record, but am uncomfortable with asserting that his behavior as a teen tells us anything about his “character” now. Yes, even if his behavior as a teen included doing exactly what Ford says he did. This is because….I don’t think teen behavior is predictive of adult behavior, and I am also skeptical of the very idea of “character” as we use the term in American politics.”

                    My point in response is that, while teen behavior can and should be excused in most circumstances, that excusal should come only with appropriate remorse and contrition from the person in question. That’s it. I don’t think that’s controversial. I think the people out there excusing this behavior due to his age are missing this half of the argument.

                    I’ll bow out now. Have a nice afternoon.

                    • Motte and Bailey. You asserted far more that that, and are retreating to a more ‘supportable’ stance.

                      Have a great afternoon, DC. We can disagree and still respect each other.

                    • Even if it happened exactly as she has recounted, it was not sexual assault. Not in 1982. It was kids messing around at a party, and she walked (ran) away without even letting anyone know she was upset.

                • Yes I am. I can live with what was more likely a wrestling match than an assault from a minor. No problem at all.

                  That just doesn’t track. How does progressives’ behavior excuse conservatives elevating someone like that to the Supreme Court?

                  Ask a hard question, will you? Progressives have abdicated any semblance of professionalism, and now are quite happy to play the game by one set of rules while trying to force Republicans to play by rules that Democrats abandoned decades ago. Andy McCarthy explains it in gory detail here:


                  So the Right must start playing by new rules, the same rules, by the way, the left used to great effect for Bill Clinton. This is one of those rules. Unprosecuted crimes as a minor are no longer disqualifying assuming good behavior since.

                  That’s a mighty big departure from Clintonesque behavior, I admit. But baby steps.

                  • …the same rules, by the way, the left used to great effect for Bill Clinton.

                    Yes, the GOP is twenty-five years behind on this. This is a major reason there are very few traditional, Constitutionalist conservatives are left in our government. They have been weeded out by those without principles, morals, or ethics.

                    So the Right must start playing by new rules

                    Sigh. But how can we ever go back, once we go down this path? I empathize, Glenn. This path hurts my spirit.

                    And I am not saying you are wrong, as this has become an existential issue: adapt or die (socialist always have death camps eventually for deplorables.) I do not see a way around lowering the dialogue and responding in kind. Examples must be made: when this shit hurts those who live by it, they WILL stop.*

                    But it may be too late to ever go back.

                    (*See ‘Wil Wheaton’ for this little life lesson in action)

                    • Yes, the GOP is twenty-five years behind on this. This is a major reason there are very few traditional, Constitutionalist conservatives are left in our government. They have been weeded out by those without principles, morals, or ethics.

                      It is tragic that there was not an overwhelming social and cultural rejection of the arguments Bill Clinton had used long ago.

                      The lack of such a rejection was what enabled Donald Trump’s candidacy.

  7. I heard that the Senate is going to conduct a hearing on this allegation. I guess all accusers should be heard. How is that going to play out?

    Will the Senate conduct a trial to determine the truth of the allegations? Will Blasey-Ford testify? Will this be a jury trial or a bench trial? Who will preside? Will there be evidence? What evidence? What rules of evidence will control? Will her bathing suit he allegedly tried to take off of her be available for forensic testing? Will it be tested to see that it is the same one she wore back then? Will there be DNA analysis? Forensic scientists will surely testify about the scene of the alleged crime, with mockups of the bedroom, stairs, and bathroom, no? Will there be reenactments on both sides? How about alcohol and sobriety tests – who will administer them? How about witnesses? How many for the Democrats? How many for the Republicans?

    Or will it be this: “Prof. Blasey-Ford, can you tell us what happened?” Whereupon Prof. Blasey-Ford will give a narrative. There will be some questions such as, “Uh, Professor, why didn’t you tell us about this before July 2018?” She will narrate again.

    Then, the Committee will ask Judge Kavanaugh: “Erm . . . Judge, did you hear what she said? Is that true?” His response will be: “Nope.”

    The jury will retire and the render a verdict. What verdict, though? Will the jury determine whether Kavanaugh has proper character to serve as a justice on the SCOTUS? If yes, then he is confirmed. If not, he is not confirmed and will probably be impeached from the Court of Appeals and possibly disbarred. The character issue is the same for admission to the Bar, the Court of Appeals, and the SCOTUS, no? So, if he doesn’t have the character fitness required for SCOTUS justices, then he should be defrocked and sent packing back to high school to atone for his transgressions.

    That is all tongue-in-cheek to ask this: How can Kavanaugh defend himself? Either way he goes he is toast. He is simultaneously being Borked and Thomased.


    • Nice work, John. If Kavanaugh is not confirmed after this kangaroo court is wrapped up, conservative voters are going to go absolutely berserk. And unlike lefties, conservatives vote. I think Kavanaugh is doomed. But I thought the same thing of Thomas while watching his high tech lynching. In any event, so much for comity in the Senate.

    • Well:

      1. They may conduct hearings. As of this writing, Ford has not responded to an invitation to testify

      2. There will not be a trial. Susan Collins has reportedly suggested having the lawyers for both disputants question the other, then allow the committee members to ask their questions. This will most likely not happen.

      There has been some discussion of having a third party ask questions of both disputants, but that would deprive the senators of both parties of the opportunity to grandstand for the TV cameras. Most likely will not happen.

      What will most likely happen is that all senators will get a round of questions in which they will shout, “J’accuse!” at Kavanaugh if they are Democrats or softly ask:

      if they are Republicans.

      In the end, who knows what will happen if there is a hearing. If there isn’t one, the Democrats will still claim “J’accuse!” and the Republicans will most likely confirm him.

      As for Kavanaugh, he can’t defend himself – it’s trying to prove a negative. He is either willing to take the heat, or he’ll have to leave (or get thrown out) of the kitchen. His reputation among anyone left of Jeff Flake is toast, forever and ever amen.

  8. I posted a tongue-in-cheek comment on the other thread about what the hearing would be like. The more I think about it, though, the more I think that the Democrats bluffed with this allegation of sexual assault to stall but the Republicans have called their bluff. And Democrats are left wondering what to do. They can’t complain that the Republicans aren’t taking it seriously. They are. Democrats also thought Trump would go nuts and respond with his usual vitriol, so they could bash him over not caring about women’s issues. Trump has been remarkably restrained, agreeing that it is serious and it needs a hearing, deferring to the experience of the legislative branch to sort it our.

    Democrats declared the allegation required a hearing. So, what did the Republicans do? They set a hearing on Monday, September 24, 2018 The Democrat response: “You set a hearing? For Monday? Yeah, not that kind of hearing. We need an independent fact-finder, possibly the FBI, to investigate and make a report.” But, the FBI passed on the investigation.

    Republicans said, “No, you wanted a hearing, you got a hearing. Bring your witness and let’s have a hearing.” Oh, and the Professor has not stated whether she will be there (although someone said she is in protective custody because she feels threatened). Her lawyer has gone radio silent, not confirming her attendance.


    • The FBI cannot possibly investigate this though, can they? It is currently a rumor begun by one person with no information or evidence about something that happened roughly during the time when Mork and Mindy was on the air. Would it not set, or violate, a precedent for the FBI to even get involved in something this far below their pay grade?

      • Not a problem Isaac. They’ve been “investigating” the Steel Dossier for two years. They’d be perfect for this assignment. Put Comey and Page and Strozek on it. They’re not very busy these days. Hey, Maybe we should call in Bob Mueller and his gang of merry Dems.

  9. I might as well post this here now. It’s a quote from the webcomic Goblins, and I think it’s particularly fitting for exactly this sort of situation. The quote is from the last panel on this page: There’s minor spoilers, and the context isn’t important, so I’ll just transcribe it here with the preceding lines for context (bold mine):

    “You weren’t being evil. You were fighting evil!”

    “That means nothing. Many villains are convinced that they’re the good guys and they believe those they hurt are evil.”

    “Well if that’s true and we think we’re the good guys, how do we know we’re not evil?”

    “The good will be quick to help others in need. They do this without hesitation, without first requiring proof that the need is genuine. But before they condemn the accused, before they bring harm to others, no matter how justified it may seem, they hesitate. They demand proof. Evil will often believe they’re fighting for good. But when others are in need, they’ll become reluctant, withholding compassion until they see proof of that need.

    “And yet, evil is quick to condemn, vilify, and attack others. For evil, proof isn’t needed to bring harm. Only hatred and a mantra that they fight for peace and righteousness.”

    We would need to deliberately introduce this into mainstream culture, because it’s a bit counterintuitive, but to me it does seem ethically necessary to be able to simultaneously offer comfort to someone claiming to be a victim while also requiring proof to treat a particular person as a perpetrator, even if it would seem impossible for the two events to be separate.

    • I’ve always thought that those were the values intended to be behind our current system. It just seems that people are losing faith in it.

      I also think accusations like Ford’s are the lowest possible tier of “victim requiring help.” Even if she were telling the truth, what kind of help could anyone provide after 35 years? She doesn’t seem to lack anything material. Does knocking down Kavanaugh count as help?

    • You’ve just accurately defined the distinction and difference between actual justice and social justice. Assumption of innocence, objectivity, proof, reason, verifiable context all missing from social justice. Condemnation, collectivism, bias and retribution occupy the soul of social justice warriors.

      • Yep, social “justice” is the visiting upon individuals who have been notionally assigned to a larger group, punishment for the supposed crimes of the larger group.

        Inevitably, social justice warriors want a culture governed by some of the worst possible injustice we can imagine.

        Anyone who is a self-styled social justice warrior should hang their head in shame if they claim to care about Rule of Law and Equality under the Law.

        • Anyone who is a self-styled social justice warrior should hang their head in shame

          Or if they don’t, they may get a chance to hang period, when the Civil War they so desperately want comes to pass.

      • Yeah, that’s a good example of how far the tradeoff between freedom and security can go. I actually wrote an article recently with examples of how trying to avert a fundamental liability by exerting more control over it can cause it to simply take a different form.

  10. After receiving a resounding “F-U” by another poster when I said that to be truly equal one must not hide behind rationalizations for not coming forward earlier, I was hesitant to weigh in again on this topic.

    I don’t know either of the players in this melodrama of a confirmation hearing. One group tells me that I should believe her while my gut says otherwise. Given my life experience I ask why I should believe anyone outright. Is my gut biased or is it based on some evidentiary but intuitive basis?

    Theoretically, if we are to presume innocence until proven guilty I must assume that Kavanaugh is innocent of the charges. These events will not boil down to “he said she said” situation it can only end in he said “never happened” and she said she cannot remember relevant details. The 200 signers of the Google letter supporting Ford are irrelevant unless they were a contemporaneous party to the events as told by Ford. There is no evidence that any of the signatories even knew either party and the only reason given as support is that Ford is female and they know of others that claim to have been assaulted by other boys. The signatories of a letter supporting Kavanuagh at least have had a working relationship with him. Think about it. How much credence would be given to a letter attesting to his character had it been signed by 65 or more Frat brothers; zero, zilch, nada. A letter such as this would not be given any credence due to gender bias, consequently neither should any other letter written by women to support women.

    In the 50 years that have passed since I was twelve, and began to have an appreciation for the opposite sex, I have witnessed a variety of behaviors that today would have a boy crucified and a girl being heralded as an empowered feminist in the vanguard of the sexual revolution. Nonetheless, we cling to the imaginary belief that girls or young women have nothing but the purest motives in male/female relationships and boys or young men are driven only by animal lust seeking sexual conquests wherever they can be had. How many dads inculcate that belief in their daughters? Probably most dads want to believe their daughters are virginal and pure because that is how the want to see them. Most dads do not however teach their sons to be abusers and victimizers of women.

    We hear that boys need to be taught to be respectful of girls but we never hear the same people suggest we tell our daughters to be respectful of boys or more importantly, of themselves. The fact is that in our society, most of the socialization of boys and girls is controlled by women not men. The educational system, along with doctors is systematically drugging active little boys to affect behaviors that have long been considered normal. Expediency of correction through medication is not learning how to control one’s own behavior.


    As children move into high school socialization occurs at the peer level. It should be apparent to any objective observer that the behavior of the girls greatly shapes the attitudes and behaviors of young men as they move into adulthood. No doubt, many of these behaviors good and bad are carried on well into adulthood. It is at this stage, we must ask what are girls learning and where that gives rise to them repeatedly making horrendous choices with respect to boyfriends and relationships. In addition, in light of the general acceptance of casual sexual encounters coupled with the rise in single parent homes in which the parent may be sexually active her/himself we must ask what behaviors at home are shaping the ideas of boys and girls with respect to relationships with women and men.

    We hear a great deal about body shaming but who is doing the shaming? Virtually every publication geared toward women focuses on how to drop weight in short periods of time, how to have great sex, and beauty tips. In short the implied message is how to be attractive to others. My research indicates the editorial control of these publications lies with women at the top.

    Time and time again we hear stories of physical abuse by men towards their wife or girlfriend. We also know that when given counseling they refuse to leave the abuser. Every rationalization is offered. Some stay for economic reasons, others stay because they “love him”, they rationalize away the behavior and the process repeats. I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist but that is nuts.

    Perhaps my ideas are biased. I was an outcast in junior and senior high. I was fat and too short to play football. I was subjected to daily verbal abuse at the hands of boys but mostly girls which conditioned me to be an observer rather than a participant in most activities. Those days toughened me up. No, today I don’t buy into the fiction that all females are pure of heart nor are all boys harassers. The irony is that which I witnessed then and would be considered harassment or bullying today was that the harassers were the popular boys and girls. The popular girls – you know the ones people said were “stuck up” – enjoyed the attention of the jocks and the guys with the best cars and they actively courted, or at least responded positively to, what would be considered abuse by today’s standards.

    In an effort to become more sympathetic to the plight of real victims, I ask are those real victims being victimized again by the many that portray men as evil and women as unfailingly righteous instead of evaluating to what role they are playing in making it difficult for true victims to get heard and believed. The broad characterization of males as sociopathic predators has changed my willingness to be initially sympathetic to anyone claiming they have been abused. Every expert in the field will counsel the real victim and reinforce within that victim that they are not at fault. So why would a person with a license in clinical psychology be unable to heed the advice she would give any other women seeking guidance.

    In my opinion the goals of feminism or better yet women that seek equal treatment is being undermined by modern day misandry; double standards regarding what is civil and respectable behavior; and the imposition of male guilt upon men who truly believe in and work toward equal treatment. Most abhorrent are the males that curry favor with women by suggesting other men are mere anthropological throwbacks to Neanderthals while they quietly continue to grope or beat other women. Do you hear me Joe Biden and Keith Ellison. Less scurrilous, but still unethical, are those men who themselves may have no evidence of sexual assault against them proudly proclaim themselves as women’s knight in shining armor who stands ready to vanquish their own political foes using allegations of sexual impropriety as a cudgel to get the female vote.

    My entire point that resulted in the F-U was that no one, male or female should be able to use convenient rationalizations to excuse failing to report crimes or mal-treatment and then demand to be treated with preferential treatment to avoid any personal cost if they later decide to impose costs on others. I see this as a requirement to mitigate damage for both parties. At a minimum, an individual can privately document an event contemporaneously when the facts of who, what, when, where and how are still fresh in the memory. Put the notes in an envelope and mail to yourself. Then file it away and if you need it, use it.

    This rise in misandry is not merely a backlash against the current administration. It has been on the rise for nearly thirty years. The article below from Psychology Today was written in 2010.

    In fairness, The link below offers a countervailing opinion on how some feminists view accusations of misandry. The thesis is that all the jokes targeting men is not really a hatred of men but merely an ironic twist on accusations of misandry by men. However, this article states it targets a teenage female audience that may not understand the irony and evaluate it literally.

    Imagine an article that says men’s jokes about women are merely an ironic twist to the ever changing demands placed upon them by women.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.