“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”
The New York Times, in its story today about the recent developments in the Brett Kavanaugh Ethics Train Wreck, including the new conveniently discovered memory and desperation accusation against Kavanaugh, this one of a drunken college party, in which someone, but the alleged victim has persuaded herself it was young Brett after recent thinking about the matter, dangled his wahoo in her face. The paragraph is buried deep in a the report titled Christine Blasey Ford Reaches Deal to Testify at Kavanaugh Hearing.
It’s almost as if the Times is embarrassed by the latest Democratic tactic, being the Left’s primary media propaganda organ and all. Clearly Senator Diane Feinstein, the villain in this whole nauseating episode, lapping the field, isn’t embarrassed, or is beyond embarrassment, having already gone so far down the Road Called The Ends Justifies The Means That there is no turning back. The Times says that now that Dubious Accuser #1 has successfully delayed the vote on President Trump’s nominee, the process should be delayed again for #2. You know, while operatives try to find more drunken victims from a period in which Kavanaugh was shaving regularly.
The same assessment of Feinstein could be said, or soon will be, of the entire Democratic Party and its supporters. I have been criticized, and this blog has been attacked, for taking the position that the “resistance’s” effort to undermine democracy, weaken or national institutions, and move U.S. society toward increasingly totalitarian values and methods as a radical response to the election of Donald Trump is by far the most important and threatening ethics development in the culture. To paraphrase William Saroyan, I’m right and everyone else is wrong. The Kavanaugh fiasco proves it, and the latest smear tactic proves it further.
I’m reluctant to post this now, as I am, once again, rushing to get ready for my presentation to newly admitted members of the Massachusetts bar. If I wait until I’m back in my office, who knows what I will be facing? By then, the Democrats may have convinced retired members of a team of Brazilian midget acrobats that they remember someone who may have been Brett Kavanaugh mocking them at his tenth birthday party.
This is an integrity test for those who oppose Brett Kavanaugh, and perhaps a courage and intelligence test as well. My sister, who has mounted a website to help members of the resistance battle Trump policies, is going to be asked how she would feel if one of her children had her pending ascension to prestigious job as an adult with a law degree derailed by a high school classmate who remembers an embarrassing incident while she was a high school sophomore. This is the standard that progressives are willing to move our culture into embracing…well, I am giving them the benefit of a large doubt by saying this, since the co-chair of the Democratic National Committee is facing accusations of domestic abuse that are more recent, more relevant, and better supported than either accusation against Kavanaugh, yet he is still running for Minnesota Attorney General, and his party has raised barely a peep. Thus it may well be that the new cultural standard will only apply to conservatives or Republicans.
That doesn’t seem fair, somehow, but then that’s how totalitarians roll. Times editorialist Ross Douhat argues for a narrower standard: dubious and unproven allegation of misconduct from childhood should only be considered disqualifying for Supreme Court nominees. He really does.
I’m out of time, unfortunately, so when I return, I’ll put up a bunch of polls to measure how far readers are willing to accept this Brave New World where due process, presumption of innocence, fairness, decency no longer are considered due to all citizens, regardless of race, color, creed or political orientation.
I’m especially curious to know how many core American values progressives are willing to sacrifice to prevent a theoretical threat of a SCOTUS majority ruling against Roe v. Wade in a case yet to exist so women continue to have an unfettered right to kill their unborn children.
Ethics Alarms 
I have always considered Douthat an idiot. This is signature significance.
At some point, this has to backfire on the Democrats. While their partisans will cheer, people of actual good will surely will become not only concerned, but alarmed by their actions.
The Democrats seem to be trying to use Kavanaugh as the archetypal rich, white, privileged male, which in large part, he is. And they are trying to use that to “make all white men pay” by proxy. If they defeat his nomination, that’s exactly what they will say happened.
This goes beyond social justice, beyond “white privilege,” beyond #MeToo. This entire episode is un-American, and only regimes like the old Soviet Union, China, Viet Nam, North Korea, and other failed communist states embrace tactics like this one. It turns our legal founding principles on their head, and weaponizes them for statist purposes. It must be defeated.
I don’t hold out much hope for it backfiring; fewer and fewer people, it seems, base their life decisions on anything more than a snap emotional gut reaction to headlines. I’ve seen him labeled as a “serial rapist” – and while it may have been an echo chamber, there were no responses willing to be fair and honorable.
“The Democrats seem to be trying to use Kavanaugh as the archetypal rich, white, privileged male”
In their most private moments, I believe the Derail Kavanaugh cabal ardently wishes the object of their disaffection looked like:
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10029367735#post1
Democrats… Never learn. I think the Julie principle applies here.
Democrats have no principles. There’s nothing they believe in past their own success, there’s no position that they aren’t willing to raze to the ground and salt for good measure once they’ve realised that that position is no longer useful in their ultimate pursuit of power. They vaguely go towards aspirations, but only so long as those aspirations pay dividends. They care about racism, unless they don’t. They care about gender equality, unless they don’t, they care about the middle class and upward mobility, unless they don’t.
And because of that fundamental lack of mores, they’re more…. Something. Words fail. Willing to do? Able to think of? Devious? Cutthroat? A mixture of all of the above. Whatever it is, they seem more prone to being the first to break the rules. Politicising SCOTUS nominations? Bork. The Nuclear Option? Harry Reid. All the problems that Democrats are bitching about are whirlwinds of their own sowing.
When I have this discussion with my left-leaning friends, they eventually have to admit that most of the procedural problems that American politics has have their roots firmly in the Democratic Party, with the caveat that once the barn doors are open, Republicans are able and willing to scale that bad behaviour up and cram it home. At first, I rolled my eyes, “Yes, yes, little Democrat, the Republicans are worse, you can feel better” But over time, it’s become apparent that it’s actually kind of true. So now, when they bring that up, I ask them; “Well, what does that mean the next time a Democrat tries to nominate a judge?”
They pale.
You are absolutely right. They are setting the precedent for this to continue to happen. What you do to others can be done to you. I don’t understand why they seem to want to encourage Americans to consider totalitarian behavior acceptable while under an administration they believe is totalitarian is in office. Do they really want President Trump and a Republican Congress to define Hate Speech? Do they really want Republicans shouting down liberal professors in classrooms the way Nazi stormtroopers used to to do Jewish and Social Democratic academics in the 30s? If they do it, the Republicans are just as likely to hit back in the same way.
I fear former conservatives who have watched this slide into darkness until finally embracing the suck, going New Right, and playing by the rules Liberals and their inheritors, the progressives, have set.
Will not be pretty, nor fun to live through.
What you mean to say then is that the ideas of the New Right are false-ideas? Or that they have arisen as a sort of mirror to those of the Progressives? which are also false-ideas?
I think that you are arguing for ‘the status quo ante’?
OK, but what if you are wrong in this slick? What if the ideas of the New Right are necessary and required?
Okay, Alizia, you ask good and important questions.
“What you mean to say then is that the ideas of the New Right are false-ideas? ”
Not false as much as pragmatic and unethical. We are venturing into realpolitik where all politics are simply about the naked use of power instead of governing “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
While this has been normal for the rest of the world for all of human history, the United States experiment was unique. I agree that the Civil War began a breach in those principles, and American imperialism has further eroded those ideals, but it is still the best form a governance humanity has ever known. That unique heritage is being lost.
“Or that they have arisen as a sort of mirror to those of the Progressives? which are also false-ideas?”
Using the rules as they are used against you is the lowest common denominator of politics. We were better than that. The New Right mirrors progressive actions in an unethical tit-for-tat from which there is no recovery. Once a nation goes down that road, there is no organic back trail to return upon. This is human nature. It would take a massive, even catastrophic, event to reinstall those virtues we are losing.
“I think that you are arguing for ‘the status quo ante’?”
Nope. Status Quo is where the Constitutionalists are destroyed by their principles being used against them, while liberals get a pass on ANY behavior.
We need to reset to the pre Civil War standard (less slavery, of course!) where government was small, freedoms were protected, and the rule of law was paramount.
“OK, but what if you are wrong in this slick? ”
It is not about being wrong or right: it is about observation and the ability to see where our path takes us.
“What if the ideas of the New Right are necessary and required?”
I fear that you are right in this: the path progressives are on has ALWAYS led to misery, starvation, and death camps, every time it has been tried. Progressives are now talking about the simple act of opposing them is reason to discount one’s veracity. We are being painted as evil simply for existing, much less for political positions taken. There is no way to be redeemed, we are told, except by no longer existing.
Fighting fire with fire may be the only alternative left to extinction.
Comments:
“Not false as much as pragmatic and unethical. We are venturing into realpolitik where all politics are simply about the naked use of power instead of governing “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
I think that what you mean is that ‘pragmatic’ ideas might be unethical?
I have to say that I see the term ‘ethical/unethical’ as being situational. There is no ‘logical ethics’ that simply reveals itself and is self-evident to all viewers. And what could seem, in a moment, as ‘unethical’ could well prove ‘ethical-in-result’. But without a specific topic being discussed. we would here deal in abstractions.
According to the New Right (I will borrow your term since there is no good term for the rebellion against the excessive liberalism of our present), the entire Occident is at a crisis-point. It is not just one person, or city, or region, or state, or nation, but the entire Occident. The ‘hyper-liberalism’ of our present cannot work to preserve it, nor anything, and can be seen as a machine or mechanism that is out of control.
If this is true, then a serious cultural and civilizational revision is necessary. In that context then, America has to be defined relationally. To say America is not to use clear descriptive language. Do you mean ‘the present government of the US’? Do you mean ‘the business sector’? Do you mean each of the individual States?
The New Right proposes that the idea of ‘America’ needs clarification, and to clarify it absent of the patriotic tropes. No one on this blog speaks to the *real* America, and the patriots here, quite unfortunately, speak to an ideal America.
Right now, America is in the grip of extremes of hyper-liberalism. Right now ‘America’ is in the midst of a definition-crisis.
To say “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is, in truth, part of a patriotic hymn and is not connected with either truth or reality. I say this honestly and not as a trouble-maker. There is no large decision, and no area where large decisions are made, that have anything at all to do with what ‘the people’ want nor desire. All major decisions are made by other power-groupings. Business, media, and government agency.
Hyper-liberalism is a collusion between these power-sectors as they trick ‘the people’ through arrays of mechanisms.
This is just a fact. It needs to be established as a base upon which any conversation will take form.
Also, what is taking shape is not ‘democracy’ but a perversion of the democratic possibility; that is, a shift into a democratic tyranny. In a representative republic — if I understand right — there would be barriers against the tyranny of the demos. But in America today these institutions have become deformed and also corrupt.
That is another thing that has to be set out on the table as a first-order truth and fact.
The New Right is involved (in the best of circumstances) in attempting to open that conversation!
The Shadow wrote: I don’t hold out much hope for it backfiring; fewer and fewer people, it seems, base their life decisions on anything more than a snap emotional gut reaction to headlines. I’ve seen him labeled as a “serial rapist” – and while it may have been an echo chamber, there were no responses willing to be fair and honorable.
After 100 years of solid and sophisticated propaganda, from simple advertising to war-propaganda and now into an entire media-system, what do you except?
To deconstruct the present, and the forces that work to uphold its *narrative* and the general story-line, involves a painful and difficult and demanding process of self-analysis.
The first order of business: recognize and acknowledge that the present American system is upheld and maintained through what can only be called *propaganda* (or PR if that makes it easier).
If one can see the very obvious and blatant use of media systems for propaganda purposes and for overt social engineering, then a further step must be taken: a fuller analysis of the use of propaganda to (literally) create the present we live in.
The present efforts will backfire, but only when the terrified average white American succeeds in dismantling the indoctrination to which he and she have been subjected for upwards of 60 years. It is extensive.
So, as is obvious, I take this: “…fewer and fewer people, it seems, base their life decisions on anything more than a snap emotional gut reaction to headlines” as being true indeed, and suggest that if you can see that, perhaps you can see my (and *our*) perspective?
This is a time for a substantial and radical revision.
“I’m especially curious to know how many core American values progressives are willing to sacrifice to prevent a theoretical threat of a SCOTUS majority ruling against Roe v. Wade in a case yet to exist so women continue to have an unfettered right to kill their unborn children.”
Bottom line of all of this.
And no one has seemed to tell them the unlikelihood of this, that in reality, the DNC has whipped them into this Handmaid’s Tale frenzy because, the greater likelihood (and even still unlikely) is some case somewhere reaching SCOTUS that finds unconstitutional the money laundering scheme that conveniently runs tax dollars through Planned Parenthood and into Democrat politician’s pockets.
It’s been a bad few years for various left wing extortion and laundering schemes that siphon people’s unwillingly given money into the coffers of DNC.
1. “Embarrassing incident” is not the same as “sexual assault.”
2. “Embarrassing incident” is not the same as “attempted rape.”
3. “Drunken victims” equates to blaming the victim.
You are correct, Jack should have said “drunken alleged victims”.
I don’t think you realize just how correct you are on #1 & #2.
Since ‘sexual assaulting attempted rapist’ is what Spartan brands Kavanaugh as…
I know the point she’s trying to make. But her super summarized blurbs actually argue the opposite point as well.
It was snark, Michael…
Have to use the /sn more often
🙂
Spartan has jumped about six sharks in this episode. Failure to be able to be objective will do that.
Correction: 4 sharks, 1 wahoo, and one barracuda (H/T Chris M)
Well, you’re in your safe space here Jack. Just about everyone in our mutual friend group disagrees with you, but sure, keep telling yourself that I am the one jumping sharks because I don’t think wannabe or actual rapists should be appointed to the Supreme Court. Talk about a crazy position!
Still Spartan wrote, “Just about everyone in our mutual friend group disagrees with you…”
That doesn’t make Jack’s opinion wrong.
In fact, opposing a reflex, thought-free, virtue-signaling obsessed echo chamber creates a rebuttable presumption that one is on the right track…
That doesn’t even make sense. Note that I hang out here a lot — does that mean I am on the right track?
Still Spartan wrote, “I don’t think wannabe or actual rapists should be appointed to the Supreme Court.”
Who is this wannabe or actual rapist being appointed to the Supreme Court? I’m shocked Spartan, I thought you said you hadn’t made up your mind yet and you were going to wait until you heard their testimony?
That’s a damning and shark-jumping statement in itself. I could not care less how the ethics-corrupted echo-chamber on Facebook distorts this issue—that’s a tragedy in itself, and isolated from Kavanaugh, pretty scary. This same group also thought credibly accused rapists and their spousal enabler should be President, and have scrupulously avoided holding Keith Ellison accountable–he’s black, he’s progressive, he poses no threat to abortion, hell, I don’t know what the logic is.
You are assuming an unsupported account that is 30 years old about a high school student should disqualify an honorable professional from SCOTUS. You are discarding due process and basic fairness for the crassest of ideological biases. Maybe if you write that 100 times while really thinking about it, you will be sufficiently embarrassed for your integity to kick in. I know it’s in there. Then you can explain to our mutual friends why they are disgracing themselves.
And I’m safe anywhere, kid. The arguments on Facebook are weak, predictable and transparent. All rationalizations and resistance talking points, and depressingly little research, no open minds. Most can’t muster a better argument than a like or an emoji. You’re one of the smarter ones, and you’ve descended to calling a clumsy high-school grope-fest an attempted rape.
“You’re one of the smarter ones, ” All evidence to the contrary on this
“… and you’ve descended to calling a clumsy high-school grope-fest an attempted rape.”
Make that “an alleged clumsy high-school grope-fest an attempted rape.”
Everyone Ford says was there denies it, yet we must believe a progressive lefty college professor over a judge whose public character is beyond reproach.
Makes my blood boil that progressives don’t see what they are doing in the name of naked power. Makes the Right want to forgo lifelong principles and engage in tit-for-tat.
Lefties have more skeletons in the closet that those on the right, who HAD to stay clean to survive the past three decades. Payback will be a bitch.
I’m curious to see what these witnesses will say under oath. I’m also interested in seeing if these women are credible. Testimony is key.
Huh? You’ve already said that Kavanaugh is a rapist. Why does any of that matter?
IF TRUE, he is a rapist.
That’s neither legally, factually or logically sustainable, and it can’t be proven. Why do you keep saying that?
Still Spartan wrote, “IF TRUE, he is a rapist.”
Has your obvious bias completely fried all your brain cells?
FACT 1: No one has accused Kavanaugh of rape.
FACT 2: Rape is a very specific kind of sexual assault that involves some kind of sexual penetration of the body of the victim, no one has accused Kavanaugh of any kind of penetration.
Your hyperbole is terribly ignorant.
Because that is how testimony works — either before the Senate or a court of law. Fact finders sit and listen to testimony. They then determine whether the person giving that testimony is credible. It is not a perfect system but it is the best we have.
Zoltar — I don’t think you understand MD law. While I don’t pretend to be an expert on criminal law, I am a MD attorney. Trust me when I say that Kavanaugh is facing some serious legal trouble if these alleged victims decide to file charges.
Wrong.
1. Yale isn’t in Maryland.
2. Unprovable, spurious, politically-motivated charges cause no legitimate legal trouble at all. They could cause ethics trouble for any Maryland Prosecutor who tried to prosecute them.
3. The facts do not support a charge of rape. No argument.
4. You are arguing for attempted rape. That requires mens rea. The conduct described is not sufficient to conclude intent, and the age and intoxication, as well as the time passed, would be mitigating features. The fact that the adult involved never engaged in anything close to rape since would provide reasobale doubt as a matter of law. If it ever got to court, which it would not, I would assume that there would be a directed verdict.
Still Spartan wrote, “Zoltar — I don’t think you understand MD law.”
I don’t have to to understand what MD law ti understand what a rape is and the specific crime of rape is what youwere talking about.
Still Spartan wrote, “While I don’t pretend to be an expert on criminal law, I am a MD attorney. Trust me when I say…”
An I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. You’re talking about criminal law but your not a criminal law expert but I’m supposed to “trust you” because why. Stop rationalizing your arguments.
Still Spartan wrote, “Kavanaugh is facing some serious legal trouble if these alleged victims decide to file charges.”
File what kind of charges? Be specific miss “MD attorney”.
I am beginning to think this is more about Spartan than the facts of the case.
slickwilly wrote, “I am beginning to think this is more about Spartan than the facts of the case.”
I’m beginning to think that Spartan is intentionally trolling.
Not at all about me.
Some of the allegations took place in MD.
I don’t troll. But, it’s interesting that you think someone who disagrees with you in this echo chamber is a troll.
I have never called you a troll. Nor do I believe the unhinged progressives in this matter are trolls. I think they have been corrupted by repetition of indefensible unethical assertions, in a context where logical dissent is demonized.
Still Spartan wrote, “I don’t troll. But, it’s interesting that you think someone who disagrees with you in this echo chamber is a troll.”
Reread Spartan, I didn’t write that you were a troll (noun) I wrote that I think you are intentionally trolling (verb). You are posting things that are deliberately provocative with what appears to be aimed at eliciting an angry response.
If I think someone is a troll; I say so.
For the record; I don’t think you are a troll. Misguided and stubbornly foolish sometimes but not a troll.
There are many on the Right who have no ethics.
the thing is, when unethical behavior is rewarded, you get more of it.
Kid?
As in “here’s looking at you, kid!” I’m a romantic, deep down.
It’s much preferable to the alternatives I was considering.
” I don’t think wannabe or actual rapists”
It’s been proved, then? Or are you clairvoyant?
“everyone in our mutual friend group disagrees with you”
Based on what?
It’s Facebook, and 95% percent of even pretty smart people are afraid to think independently, or upset the mob.
90% think Trump should be impeached just because.
90% think Hillary was trustworthy.
90% think the news media is objective.
90% think enforcing the immigration laws is racist.
You could devote an entire blog on the Facebook posts of Chris Kelly.
http://www.facebook.com/chris.kelly.7315720
”You could devote an entire blog on the Facebook posts of Chris Kelly.”
Hmmm, might that be the EA Commenter Formerly Contributing As Chris?
Nope, it’s a different Chris.
”Nope, it’s a different Chris.”
A Chris by any other name would be as…much of a dyed-in-the-wool Lefty?
Not Chris Morton.
In fact, here is a recent comment from him.
This has now degenerated into a bad Family Guy skit.
Hold the vote.
Here is a link to the article for the comment thread.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/09/the_sexual_assault_accusations.html#vf-6454700017044
Chris Morton also disagrees with you.
We win.
But Ms Ford claims Kavanuagh and Judge were drunk. Are we to blame them for alleged behavior?
Grade school and high school and college are very fraught times. Sexual boundaries are vaguely defined and run across all the time. I think the recent criminalization of everything involved in dating or “partying” is counterproductive. If I touched girls I was making out with in places it turns out they didn’t want me to touch them during that particular parking session, was that attempted rape? If a girl started humping me, was that attempted rape? I’d like to see Camille Paglia’s take on what’s going on. I suspect she’d say the real danger to undergrad women at Yale wasn’t Yalie guys but real rapists lurking in the dark on the streets of New Haven. Come to think of it, my soon to be wife spotted a peeping tom looking into the window of the house next door from my apartment in New Haven one night back in 1974. The cops were called and arrested him. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t a Yalie.
Here’s a good Paglia quote (in a condescending article) that’s probably still operative: “Controversial academic Camille Paglia, extremely popular in those decades, argued that masculine sexual aggression was normal, and a woman’s only choice was to protect herself; to say otherwise, she declared later, was to join a brigade of “fanatical sex phobes.””
I’m with Camille.
Still Spartan wrote, 1. “Embarrassing incident” is not the same as “sexual assault.” “
True. Although a sexual assault can certainly be an embarrassing incident no one here is actually claiming that they are the same so I really don’t understand what point you are trying to make?
Still Spartan wrote, 2. “Embarrassing incident” is not the same as “attempted rape.”
Again, true. Again, although a attempted rape can certainly be an embarrassing incident no one here is claiming that they are the same so I really don’t understand what point you are trying to make?
Still Spartan wrote, 3. “Drunken victims” equates to blaming the victim.”
“Equates to”; that’s bull shit spin Spartan and it’s a poor representation of your intelligence; however, it’s a decent representation of how far your rhetoric sinks into the social justice warrior gutter sometimes.
No Spartan, there is absolutely no reasonable way to equate “drunken victims” with “blaming the victim”. Words have meaning Spartan. You also need to consider the absolute fact that if an actual victim of something is drunk then they are literally a drunken victim.
Now if you want to present an argument stating that any victim of anything who who happens to be legally drunk should not have to accept any individual responsibility for their own actions that may or may not have lead to them being a victim without reducing the individual responsibility of any possible victimizer, that’s an entirely different argument and all the specific facts (no unsupported accusations) of any individual case would need to be presented. This would be a deflection from the topic at hand but if you want to go there I’m sure some might engage you in that discussion.
1. “Embarrassing incident” is not the same as “sexual assault.”
2. “Embarrassing incident” is not the same as “attempted rape.”
3. “Drunken victims” equates to blaming the victim.
[Kavanaugh has just been accused of absconding his child playmate’s toys. I just read this in the Times…]
The amazing feat in the Kavanaugh incident; what is most amazing, and alarming, about it, is that it is allowed to occur: that it can occur. Once a false-accusation is brought forward, people then begin to analyze it as if it were real. It is given life as if the Creator blew life into its nostrils.
This is political tele-novela stuff. Have The Simpsons put out a statement yet?
Maybe he was drunk? Maybe she was drunk? Maybe they were on the verge of having sex and someone walked in and embarrassed her? It starts, and it goes on and on and on.
It is more than a ‘tempest in a teapot’ insofar as it is playing out in the mind of millions of people! It is a deeply psychological performance and enactment.
There is a certain sort of mind for which this sort of enactment works best in.
Absent of any ideas but charged with *concepts*. Entirely geared to see *surface*, incapable (and non-interested) in *depth*.
Do you have anything to say about this Spartan? How did this happen?
The rules of civility and good citizenship (but I microaggress) apparently only apply to one side.
Anyone espousing actual justice is to be demonized and dehumanized and relegated to the virtual, if not yet literal, gulag.
And don’t forget labels such as authoritarian and totalitarian – these get thrown at the current administration for working within their defined powers while the other side actively tries to pursue those as an end goal. But like Communism it’s only bad when other people do it and they will do it correctly.
“dangled his wahoo in her face” (bold mine)
Wahoo??
Oy! Of all the names I, and others, have called…um…it, that has never been in the mix.
These ladies from Florida demonstrate how a nice wahoo should be handled.
John
I believe thats a barricuda
Nope, it’s a wahoo. The barracuda is very similar in body shape to the wahoo but wahoo have the more v-shaped caudal fin like other members of the scombridae such as the tuna, whereas the barracuda has a more straight edged caudal fin. The caudal fin is not seen distinctly in the photo above. Here is another young lady dangling a wahoo.
For comparison, here is the very nasty barracuda. A young lady would never want to see one of these dangled.
Wait—what did you THINK I meant by wahoo?
That beast had better be stone-cold dead in that picture.
For the ladies’ sake.
There is significant difference in a Barracuda’s dorsal fin…
And its teeth…
https://www.arkive.org/great-barracuda/sphyraena-barracuda/image-G109358.html
JB; in the words of Eugenia Doubtfire: “You wicked wicked man, you!”
Chris; they look a lot alike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahoo
Eufegenia Doubtfire.
Thank yeeew; I sit corrected!
Paul, I am still trying to figure out where George Carlin obtained his “something you can’t say on TV – expanded list” entry of…
The One-Eyed Wonder Worm!
Its possible precursor, the One-eyed worm, has been around since the early 70’s, lucky; it was at James Madison Memorial, leastways.
Without getting into it any further, it didn’t enjoy the same…um…exclusivity that wahoo did in my development…
Well, bully for James Madison Memorial; it’s actually encouraging to know that someplace besides where I was in the early 70s – southern California – perhaps was, er, out in front and, er, ahead with pallywhacker* synonyms.
*tallywacker, if one wishes to be more formal – and never mind modern censorship and misspelled mis-definitions of pallywhacker
When I was but a child, I lived in Texas, and I lived in southern California – sort of like the movie star Forest Whitaker did. I swear, not once was “wahoo” overheard, let alone associated with male anatomy. (Whitaker and I did not know each other then. He owes me my Igbo name after his own, where mine would mean “Brother from a different mother.”)
Maybe the todally kool SoCal kids were already into Cheech and Chong too far – too rapidly plunging toward Spanglish and marijuanization of humanity to pause at “wahoo.” I do recall hearing, “¡Comas mi pito!” I never heard “El Cyclops” or even “la culebra con uno ojo.”
Lucky, I have heard “Cyclops” in a neighborhood beer bar that I frequent. La culebra is generally reserved for the Western Diamondbacks that live in the area.
“The Democrats seem to be trying to use Kavanaugh as the archetypal rich, white, privileged male, which in large part, he is. And they are trying to use that to “make all white men pay” by proxy. If they defeat his nomination, that’s exactly what they will say happened.”
No kidding. The Ivy League elites are beginning a large banquet and have no idea how long it will last and what’s on the menu. They are eating their own. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, HRC, Liz Warren, almost all the Kennedys, and not just the Bushes and all their classmates and fellow alumni and faculty of Yale and Harvard are going to be demolished by the woke. It’s the revenge of the non-legacies and not so good standardized test takers. But somehow the Lefty elites don’t realize the people storming the Bastille won’t stop after cutting off the heads of only the Republican elites. It’s essentially a slave rebellion and the elites who consider themselves benign rulers have no idea what’s going on. No place will be safe.Goldman Sachs and Baker and Mckenzie and the military will be run into the ground by the Chief Diversity Officers who will replace CEOs and Chiefs of Staff. It’s going to get very ugly.
This was supposed to have appeared following Glenn’s comment way above. Ooops.
This may not be the best place to plug this, but, it does relate to Kavanaugh.
Two key topics discussed:
1) Great discussion pertaining to comparing American politics and European politics. Can’t recommend this more vociferously.
2) Ok discussion re Kavanaugh, not as in depth as I expected the 5th Columnists to go, but still a good listen, the resident lefty libertarian actually espoused so-called righty arguments and the resident righty libterarian actually espoused so-called lefty arguments.
Listen to it. But not where children can hear… they swear.
Alot.
I’d be interested in your take Jack on both key topics, if you do listen to it.
(Not sure why the link isn’t showing up)
http://wethefifth.com/
Episode 114
Try this link
To clarify point 1 on the discussion comparing American and European politics, the specific topic the zero in on is immigration and identity politics.
Wait. Brazil has a midget acrobatics team? Who knew?
jvb
Just remember this.
Paula Jones first publicized her accusation against President Bill Clinton in 1994.
Women overwhelmingly voted for Clinton in 1996. (Bob Dole actually won the male vote that year.)
It is pretty clear to me how relevant indecent exposure is to the qualifications of high office.
Which is to say, it’s only important if the perpetrator is a Republican.
Ronan Farrow better be careful. His credibility is about to take a big, fat, hairy bunch on the nose. He is using his success and notoriety gained from the Weinstein stories to support this claim. Yet, the the Ramirez – Kavanaugh story is imploding at light speed. He appeared on Good Morning American and this exchange occurred:
STEPHANOPOLOS: “This jumped out at me. You said at first she wasn’t sure if this was Kavanaugh last week, and you write after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorneys she did become confident that it was him.”
FARROW: “And I would say that’s extremely typical with these stories when you are dealing with drama and alcohol. The more caution that I have dealt with in cases like this frequently say, I want to take time and search myself and make sure that I can affirmatively stand by these claims in the face of what she knew would be a crucible of partisan pushback which is what she is receiving now.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: Why did [Deborah Ramirez] come forward?
FARROW: She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim. She did not flag this. This came to the attention of people on the Hill independently, and it has cornered her into an awkward position. She said, point-blank, I don’t want to ruin anyone’s life, but she feels this is a serious claim. She considers her own memories credible and she felt it was important to tell her own story before others did for her.
Here is a link to the story:
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ronan-farrow-new-kavanaugh-accuser-came-forward-because-democrats-came-looking/
Even Stephanopoulos isn’t buying it.
jvb
Oh, and Michael Avenatti has submitted a list of questions he thinks the Senate committee should ask Kavanaugh. Oh, yes he did. I wonder: Did Kavanaugh loaned Cohen the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels? the National Enquirer wants to know.
Here is a link to the Daily Caller:
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/24/journalists-trash-porn-star-attorney-for-his-dubious-kavanaugh-allegations/
jvb
I don’t understand why Michael I-Represented-A-Stripper-Once Avenetti gets so much attention. Seriously, Stormy Daniels just released a book with a mental picture I will curse her for to my dying breath, and somehow Avenetti is STILL getting attention.
HT, he’s a democratic party operative, as Chris Marscher elaborated upon a week or so ago. He’s probably being paid handsomely by moveon.org or some George Soros funded pac. He’s a professional shit stirrer. I think the dems hire Avanetti when Lanny Davis takes a pass on an assignment. He gets TV time because the networks, etc. are in on the “resistance.”
Is not MoveOn.org supposed to support moving on?
As unethical as Tucker Carlson’s set up was with Avenatti, his fixation on every minuscule detail of a juvenile boy’s year book is really really making him live up to the moniker “Creepy”.
Well, if it’s any shaden-consolation, it would seem your boy, Avenatti, just got deeply shaden-trolled into the darkest pits of shadenfreude producing humiliation.
Where, exactly, is the dividing line between “seduction” and attempted rape”? Or is there one? Has one become the other?
dragin_dragon wrote, “Where, exactly, is the dividing line between “seduction” and attempted rape”? Or is there one? Has one become the other?”
Seduction does not exist as a possibility in the minds of social justice warriors and anyone that wants to destroy a specific target. To these people only the “victim” is telling the truth and the target is always lying. There can be no exception.
IK was thinking that. So, after making out in the back seat, doing a little petting is now attempted rape. Do the girls have no say in this anymore, as in consenting adults? They really have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
dragin_dragon wrote, “So, after making out in the back seat, doing a little petting is now attempted rape.”
Hey wait just a damn minute; weren’t they still using buckboards when you were young? My perception of you is forever changed, I’m devastated 😉
To address your statement above, if you are out to destroy the target, of course it’s considered sexual assault and that is always extrapolated to rape.
“…it’s considered sexual assault and that is always extrapolated to rape.”
It’s past that already for some. I saw one SJW saying Kavanaugh had to be opposed because the was a “possible potential” rapist. I guess that pretty much includes any sexually functional male now. We’ll also have to consider everyone with hands and the ability to manipulate an object as murder suspects from here on, it seems.
One of my two mules died so we couldn’t use the buckboard again. I bought a Ford with a rumble-seat (be interesting to see who knows, without looking it up, what a rumble-seat is. Fifty points to the first correct response. No cheating, now.) and away we went.
I has a coupe with a tumble seat that I restored! Great classic car.
HA! “tumble seat” nice typo Zoltar!
Seat in the trunk. Robert Heinlein made me research this, decades (!) ago.
The difference is whether or not a potential aspiring conservative man is in the picture. If so, then the difference between seduction and attempted rape is just a matter of when the definition needs to change.
Michael West wrote, “The difference is whether or not a potential aspiring conservative man is in the picture.”
I don’t think the evidence supports that. There may be a predominate number of Conservative targets but it is clear that their agenda as far as sexual assault of any kind crossed all political boundaries.
The logically consistent way to approach this is to adopt a union mindset. If the union rules insist that sexual harassment and rape are jobs for Democrats, then Kavanaugh has violated the union work rules. Prominent Democrats can harass and rape women because that is their job. It works the same way for racism.
This is not new. Democrats have been like this a long time. There is a New Yorker article from 1993 that sounds like it could have been written yesterday.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/09/27/the-burden-of-clarence-thomas
Debbie Ramirez’s attorney John Clune:
“We know Debbie Ramirez to be a woman of great integrity and honor. We stand by her and her courageous decision to come forward. It is never simple or easy for survivors to share their experiences. To do so in the face of public scrutiny requires a level of personal strength that is true to the person Debbie is. She has our support, our respect, and our admiration.”
A) I’d like to know how they know her to be a woman of great integrity and honor. How long have these attorneys known Debbie and what specific examples can they provide from their first hand experiences that demonstrate an support this opinion?
B) Of course you stand by her and her decision because she’s retained you and your firm.
C) Of course it’s not easy for survivors to come forward, but by her own account of the situation (if taken as truth)…what did she survive? She survived seeing a penis? In that case, we are all a country of survivors. I survive every morning when I empty my bladder. Please don’t characterize your client as “a survivor” unless you tell me something that she survived that others do not. It belittles others who have gone through much more genuine and traumatic experiences.
Well done.
I seem to recall the transgendered activists lecturing us about how girls needed to learn to see penises since some of those so equipped would be using ladies’ rooms. The left seems to be confused as to at which point females should be subjected to penises against their will.
Oh look, Amnesty International is now weighing in on the need to postpone Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote.
Well that does it. Amnesty International has spoken. My opinion has changed!
Anyone who thinks something unpleasant, of some sort, may have happened when they were drunk 30 or 40 years ago, please now fell free to blame a prominent Republican of your choice (or give your contact info to Dianne Feinstein to save for when you’re needed). RESIST!
I can’t blame Joe Biden? Rats!!!
Question: I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said: “Persist.” Is that the anti-resist or the double-down-resist?
I prefer “Exist.” Or “Insist.”
It looks like the New York Times has story pass-up remorse because they ran a story about the Renata Alumni in Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook. Ann Althouse has a nice retort to the story:
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-nyt-lobs-confusing-new-issue-into.html
An update.
Shannon Miller wrote, “Dozens of students sit in silence, wearing black demanding thorough look into accusations against Yale alumnus and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. 31 law school classes have been cancelled today in light of protest.”
At least they aren’t spewing out their usual noise pollution inanity.
Yale shouldn’t have canceled classes they are enabling these idiots. Let the silent social justice warriors flunk out and flip burgers for the rest of they ignorant lives.