KABOOM! Diane Feinstein’s Statement Before The Judiciary Committee This Morning

Well, thanks, Senator Feinstein: having my head explode was is such a wonderful way to begin the day.

This was not the first post I intended this morning, but I made the mistake of listening to the Senator’s brazen, dishonest, self-contradictory, hypocritical ,cynical and insulting statement. It’s amazing her own head didn’t explode out of embarrassment at being used this way. It was in defiance of logic and awareness. It was, in fact, like an intentional imitation of Claude Rains in “Casablanca,” which would have been very funny if it didn’t signal tthe end of any doubts that a major political party had abandoned decency.

Feinstein was shocked–shocked!—that Judge Kavanaugh would call the Democrats’ political hit job a political hit job. Shocked–shocked!–that Kavanaugh would say the the process of advise and consent had been turned into “search and destroy,” which is exactly what the Democrats did, and were not even sly about doing so. Shocked–shocked!–that Kavanaugh would express anger at being subjected to mass humiliation as he was denigrated in public as a sexual predator based on the completely unsubstantiated accusation of 35-year-old high school misconduct. Senator Feinstein had never seen anything like it in all her years in the Senate, and was shocked–shocked!

Never mind that no human being had ever had rumors, insults, innuendos and unsupported accusations heaped on him in a hearing like Judge Kavanaugh, who was Borked, and when that didn’t work, was Anita Hilled. If Kavanaugh had not expressed anger, outrage and indignation toward Feinstein and her thugs, I would have lost any respect for him. He not only had every right to go on the offensive in his own defense, he had an obligation to do so. But men, in the era of #MeToo being weaponized to ruin careers without evidence, are supposed to meekly submit to their new feminist masters, and withdraw into shame and ignominy, grovelling and submissive. Feinstein was shocked—shocked!— that Kavanaugh didn’t know his place.

“Incredible!” said Feinstein. Then, incredibly, she went on to apppeal to emotion, jerking at the heartstrings by quoting the most intense sections of Dr. Ford’s testimony, concluding that her intensity and emotion was enough, in the absence of any evidence or corroboration at all, to prove to Feinstein’s satisfaction that her accusation was true.

Oh, Feinstein was shocked–shocked!—at so many things. How could anyone accuse her of deliberately withholding Ford’s letter for two months so she could leak it after the hearings and demand an FBI investigation that would just coincidentally delay the vote on the nomination until after the election when her party has been demanding for months that the vote be until after the election? I’m trying to think of an analogous scene in a move where the pathetic villain expresses hilarious outrage at being suspected of wrongdoing as smoking gun after smoking gun is revealed. I could, I’m sure, if my head were intact. But it’s not.

The Brett Kavanaugh Nomination Ethics Train Wreck has become both an integrity and an IQ test for progressives and Democrats, but with a surprising easy final challenge. Anyone who isn’t insulted or mordantly amused by Feinstein’s channeling of Captain Renault is either completely corrupted or an idiot.

40 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Law & Law Enforcement

40 responses to “KABOOM! Diane Feinstein’s Statement Before The Judiciary Committee This Morning

  1. DaveL

    I can honestly say that Feinstein’s diatribe did nothing to reduce my regard for her, or my estimation of her character. However, “mordantly amused” seems like a fair description.

  2. There comes a time in everybody’s life to retire from the daily grind. The smart person knows when that time has come. Need I say more regarding Ms. Feinstein?

    • That time for Diane was about two terms ago.

      • Other Bill

        Man, didn’t she look doddery yesterday. A super age progressed Lucy Van Pelt. Although she looks vital compared to the Notorious RBG. How about her asking her staff if they leaked the letter right there in the hearing room?

        Mrs. OB has raised a great question: What was Diane Feinstein going to do with the letter? If it hadn’t been leaked, would she have just kept it secret? Mrs. OB, a retired senior corporate exec observed that she’d have been required to forward such an allegation to HR if it had come across her desk regardless of a request of anonymity. But Feinstein had a greater duty to the accuser than to the confirmation process or criminal justice systems? Shouldn’t she, morally, ethically and legally, have delivered the letter to the Committee and the Montgomery County sex crimes unit? Anyone? Beuhler?

        • I particularly enjoyed the moment in the hearing yesterday when one of the Republican Senators asked Grassley the (rhetorical) question of whether or not the Judiciary Committee had a process for handling accusations of nominees from a source that desired to remain anonymous. Of course the answer was in the affirmative.

        • Other Bill

          Are alleged victims of sexual assault entitled to justice or vengeance?

    • Aleksei

      I guess in California, they just can’t get enough of her. Though I do recall some months ago there was a big stink in the Californian Dem Party, that Feinstein is too old, stodgy and moderate (of all things!), and it’s time to replace her with some young blood.Read here for more details why Di-Fi was challenged.

      • Wayne

        Residing in the once great state of California, I hope that Feinstein’s stock will tank drastically in the the upcoming election. Kevin DeLeon isn’t my favorite by a long shot considering that he was instrumental in making California a Sanctuary State. Unfortunately, there are no Republicans that pose a serious threat to her reelection so I’m hoping that Feinstein will quietly fade away.

  3. Aleksei

    I think the apt comparison to TV, with Feinstein, would be the ending of a Scooby Doo episode. The villain is tied up, explaining their whole scheme, the gang takes their mask off (in the senator’s case, there is a lizard person underneath the mask), and then the villain says the famous line “And I would’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!”.

  4. E2

    Feinstein and her group are having a great time with the “Big Lie,” not only with Kavanaugh but,still, and I suppose for always, with Trump’s election. All reason lost. All sense gone. All personal character gone. Eventually, they will do themselves in.

    Incidentally, Your comment re Feinstein channeling Capt. Renault from Casablanca would be lost on her. She is a one-interest, one-goal individual: get Trump, demean Trump, moan and wail that Hillary lost. Classic films? No time. Too busy with her campaign against Trump. Historical reference to “The Big Lie?” No time. Too busy screaming about Trump. Concern for her personal character,honesty and morality? No time. Too busy using every avenue to spread hate.

    I’m beginning to think that there should be mandatory retirement for Congressmen and Senators. There would be some negative fallout (intelligent people forced out), but it would help winnow out the crazies. Eventually.

  5. Other Bill

    I was forced to be in the car and listen to NPR for the afternoon circus yesterday. Of course Nina Totenberg, the self appointed NPR member of the Supremes deemed Kavanaugh disqualified for acting injudicious or non-judicial. Then she said he’d have to recuse himself from any case that came before him that involved anyone he’d accused of being involved in the witch hunt, i.e. any lefty or non-conservative litigant (however that would be determined, I have no idea). Hilarious. Plan Q on Kavanaugh is now that he won’t be able to vote on any case that ever comes before the court. Brilliant. These people are relentless.

  6. Well, boys, this is all our fault. The whole history of deviant males has been clearly spelled out and has culminated with Kavanaugh. Just think of the recent list starting with Coz and going to Trump and gal bashing NFL players. So now we have just a drunken, grouping, slobbering frat boy using frat boy privilege to do some messing around.

    I have seen in my own family, with male friends, and in my professional life how this can be used as a tool to simply destroy. Thankfully in my family evidence was available to refute charges. Have a marital issue? Just grab a restraining order that he was abusive, etc., etc. Proof? We don’t need any stinkin’ proof!

    Something happened to her and it was real or maybe imagined. But with him, I see nothing in his career. No law clerk under the desk. No budding partner doing the nasty at Motel 6. No ass grabbing with his beers in hand at the corporate party. No court employees doing a recess special. Nothing. With those, I mentioned earlier it was their entire lives.

    I am not surprised at the Democrats or their meeting today to grab the bully pulpit to exert last-minute pressure.

  7. What was Feinstein’s opinion regarding the allegations against Bill Clinton by Paula Jones, back in 1996?

  8. Chris Marschner

    If there is to be an additional investigations will those seeking the investigations be willing to delay the Nov. 6, election until the electorate has the facts?

    No side should be able to profit from absence of factual data due to time constraints. Election days are just as arbitrary as the claims that confirmation votes are arbitrary.

  9. Jack wrote: Feinstein was shocked–shocked!—that Judge Kavanaugh would call the Democrats’ political hit job a political hit job. Shocked–shocked!–that Kavanaugh would say the the process of advise and consent had been turned into “search and destroy,” which is exactly what the Democrats did, and were not even sly about doing so. Shocked–shocked!–that Kavanaugh would express anger at being subjected to mass humiliation as he was denigrated in public as a sexual predator based on the completely unsubstantiated accusation of 35-year-old high school misconduct. Senator Feinstein had never seen anything like it in all her years in the Senate, and was shocked–shocked!

    Something that Spartan said interested me: That “take it from me we are all actors.” She was referring to lawyers and judges in the courtroom … but from what I gathered watching the proceedings most of these Senators come out of that *world*.

    If what Spartan says is true then one must begin from the default position that this is all a game of lies within a lying structure. It begins and ends with who has the best rhetorical presentation. All of these people are capable of the most sophisticated lying and they must (mustn’t they?) know that they are lying and know that their role is to lie, so to get their way.

    This fits into my general idea — a guiding idea — that we exist within, and we participate through our complicity — in a system of lies and partial truths. The more involved, the more interested, the more complicit. To become non-complicit one must almost exit the whole scene. Get involved and you will be made into a liar.

    The curious thing is that in the larger culture it is often a similar story: the more sophisticated rhetorical presentation wins the day. Not the truth (which as a term has lost its meaning). Horrifyingly postmodern!

    I simply cannot figure out Ford’s perception, her *experience* as it is called. I discount a cynical fabrication. So what is left? But that is the point where the whole situation becomes madness-making. Everyone is forced to come up with some imagined speculation as to what *really happened*. What that means is that everyone is forced to enter into the domain of imagination and imagined reality. And all of that depends on one’s own *imagined world*, one’s own *inner content*. This is not a clear territory.

    The women who see Ford recall their own fending off of sexual advances, either mild (and forgivable) or severe and harmful. And who has not? But they can only project their *imagined reality* into a situation about which, in fact, they can know nothing. To say ‘I believe her’ is really only to say ‘I believe myself’ (and I want you to believe me).

    There is nothing that can be known about a 36 year-old event, not now. It will not ever be recovered or pieced back together. But what will be recovered and in fact held up to be lived (in imagination) and even monumentalized … is a rhetorical and imagined recreation. The Movie. The fireside tale. One that we can only participate in through an act of the imagination and of speculation.

    There is no longer clear-cut lines between *imagined reality* and *reality* itself. But this fits, doesn’t it? Our novelized world, the world of film and drama and enactment, has invaded the world of our perceptions. It is no longer about our real selves in a real world, but about our feelings about ourselves in a world that is mediated by what we feel.

    Kavanaugh, in certain eyes, must be guilty. He looks the part. He performed badly. His rhetorical presentation could have been, should have been, better rehearsed. He should have had a better director. But it is the one who sees who *inflects* him with content from their own *imagined world*. A large number of persons, I assume, do this unconsciously. That is they do not think about what they are doing. Their ‘perception’ is not perception nor seeing but substantially projection.

    • Other Bill

      You been reading Proust lately, Alizia? I have.

      Good comment.However, I reject the notion that politics is inherently and unalterably corrupt and that “they all do it” and “a pox on both their houses.” That’s just a dressed up version of “I’m taking my ball and going home” on the playground. It’s usually only deployed when one isn’t getting one’s way.

      • However, I reject the notion that politics is inherently and unalterably corrupt.

        My argument about *complicity* has to do with questions of ownership and thus of power and also control of perception. As you have surely read in other of my posts I tend to a view that is, I admit it, Machiavellian. Power in that sense cannot tell the truth about itself.

        While I — sort of — appreciate that Donald Trump seems to be a wrench in the System, my better sense of things tells me that the Machine, as it were, goes on doing what a Machine can only do. And it is deeply involved in deceptions. Take a ‘corporate machine’ as an example. Its purpose is to make money and extend itself. But as it often happens it has a PR *front* — a rhetorical buffer, an image-maker — that keeps it from being seen for what it really is and tells a very different story about itself. And these *fronts* become necessary. My basic argument is that business interests control our culture and government. It hardly even seems refutable. The business of America is business, as someone said.

        It’s usually only deployed when one isn’t getting one’s way.

        But it is also a ‘spiritual strategy’ if you will permit me to introduce that idea. It is certainly connected with the entire idea of ‘the world’ as a mire (thinking in Catholic terms for example).

        Unfortunately, I can make no further conclusive statement.

    • Mrs. Q

      My wife referred to the whole thing yesterday as a show & a program. The question is what the show was supposed to show & what was the program meant to program into our minds. I have my suspicions.

    • Chris Marschner

      Nice comment Aliza.

      It matters not what our speculative perceptions are, it is about evidence and presumption of innocence. No matter how hard we want to interpret the emotional responses proffered by either the accused or the accuser in our own terms none of it matters. By no stretch of the imagination would this accuser prevail based solely of what she offered. The accused could have remained silent and still prevailed if we still believe in presumption of innocence.

      • Thanks for the compliment (and OB too). While I understand that what you say here is true, and things should work like that, in truth they do not work like that, in fact they work quite the opposite.

        In the NYTs today there is a book review of two women authors writing on the theme of women’s anger. But it is a special feministic form of *anger*. Can’t help but think of The Furies: female chthonic deities of vengeance, sometimes referred to as ‘infernal goddesses’.

        A quote from a woman who accosted Senator Flake in an elevator (from NYTs article):

        “Don’t look away from me!” she said. “Look at me and tell me that it doesn’t matter what happened to me! that you will let people like that go into the highest court of the land and tell everyone what they can do to their bodies!” (I added exclamation marks having seen the video of the confrontation…)

        “I wanted him to feel my rage,” Ms. Archila said.

        (The nation, the world, the Universe perhaps too…)

        CM: It matters not what our speculative perceptions are, it is about evidence and presumption of innocence.

        That has little and possibly no relevance when the real issue, and the real cause, is located. I suggest it is very very complex and entirely non-simple. I further suggest that the ‘animus’ that drives some part of the activism of our present is *in essence* female and feminine. But an out-of-control manifestation. It is something rising up out of the social body. But is largely feminine in character.

        I have many speculations about such things. The entire proceeding that we all seemed to have watched yesterday (I on YouTube *live*) was a symbolic enactment that had much to do with irrational female sentiments. And before it men stand mute. They cannot confront it.

        The odd thing was that Kavanaugh was more *weepy* than the troubled woman. A strange reversal of classic roles.

        And why has no one commented on her bizarre ‘vocal fry’? [If ever I direct MacBeth I will have las hermanas raras talk in vocal fry….]

        Can’t resist:

        “We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law!”

        ― Arthur Miller, The Crucible

        • Chris Marschner

          What you saw was controlled anger not weepiness. This happens to some males such as myself when they are told they must not defend themselves and fighting back or giving in results in losing no matter what choice is made.

          I was brought up to never hit a girl and I never have. Now imagine the girl torments with impunity because everyone unaffected by the torment protects the tormenter. Stress and cortisol levels rise, BP rise, heart starts pounding, you cannot cry, you cannot release the emotion physically and a violent outburst will destroy you professionally.

          The weepiness you saw were physiological reactions to release anger in a controlled manner.

          What do you think would have happened if Dr Ford was subjected to the same accusations, professional disparagement, ridicule, called an attempted rapist, and villified by half the Senators? She would have been carried out on a stretcher. But no, we cannot scrutinize the accuser’s veracity or we will condemned for bullying this poor fragile waif.

          To me she looked drugged.

          • “Let them be well used, for they are the abstract and brief chronicles of the time. After your death you were better have a bad epitaph than their ill report while you live.”
            __________________

            Sometimes I have the impression I say things that are not quite understood. We live in very ‘partisan’ times, don’t we?

            You may have thought I was reveling in Kavanaugh’s ‘weepiness’ — the choice of that word would point in that direction — but my stance has to do with the observation that we approach things from the content of our ‘imagined world’.

            In that context the idea of ‘hermeneutics’ has a good deal of relevance. I also say that we are called upon to *make interpretations* about what is going on in our world/our present.

            But I notice that the act of interpretation is policed and patrolled. In fact, I would be forced to say that the NYTs has become (was it always like this? I do not know. I have only been reading it for about 5 years…), the NYTs has become a hermeneutical organ for a new (revolutionary) class. It is a Maoist Journal. I am not making this up and exaggerating little. So, the NYTs offers hermeneutics (interpretation) even as it rallies and directs opinion and sentiment toward certain established goals. But in a larger context — this seems obvious to me — it desires to ‘reverse roles’, to turn things around, turn things upside-down. This is culture-wide! This is happening in every single context.

            When one loses a value-structure, when it has become weakened, or made weak, when it is ridiculed and dis-valued, another one inserts itself/is inserted. That is the whole point of revolutionary activity: praxis.

            Our Maoist Supervisors warn us today (in ‘Opinion’) that: “Women Are Watching: Which should make Republican lawmakers very, very nervous”.

            Makes great sense. Not only is the feminine demographic being militarized, but feminine sentimentality is becoming the preferred tool of the day. This has roots in previous causation. It did not begin yesterday. There is a long causal chain. It must be resisted. But who can do it?

            No one writing on this blog.

            What I think everyone who reads on this Blog understand quite well, and it seems to me to be the underpinning of Jack’s apprehensions about the present, is that this is a radical and dangerous moment. And it is being spearheaded by potent and concentrated *interests* which have the power to direct the masses (I don’t know how else to put it) to *see* the present in specific ways and to act in the present in specific ways.

            I am interested in the notion of ‘transvaluation of values’. This also involves transvaluation of meaning. Reversals of meaning. Undermining of meanings. Insertions of new meanings.

            *You* have sought to reengineer woman (I use the general *you* which means *you the culture*, *you the intellectual class* and *you my elders*: those formed in the post-Sixties world). You have taken this to extremes. Your revolutionary ideas infect the entire world through Hollywood productions. The act and process of redefinition is a revolutionary one. This is very tied up with americanism and ‘the tenets of America’s civil religion’.

            Glory, glory Hallelujah. The tenets of America’s civil religion are God’s Own Truths. You set them marching in the world. And march they do…

            But what is now happening — is this not obvious? is this even refutable? — is that the Revolutionary Woman is rising up in our present and is ordering *you* around. She has the power because, essentially, you gave it to her. But by your own predicates she 1) must be given that power and 2) can handle it and use it properly. False assertions.

            You stand mute in front of the Raging Furies, armed with ‘snakes and lighted torches’:

            Over our victim come begin!
            Come, the incantation sing,
            Frantic all and maddening,
            To the heart a brand of fire,
            The Furies’ hymn,
            That which claims the senses dim,
            Tuneless to the gentle lyre,
            Withering the soul within.

            The entire Nation, the World, even perhaps the Universe, stands mute and has no response. (Stand there in shame and hang your guilty head!)

            Because (I suggest) you do not know what is happening! Again, it hinges in hermeneutics. Interpretation.

            CM: What do you think would have happened if Dr Ford was subjected to the same accusations, professional disparagement, ridicule, called an attempted rapist, and vilified by half the Senators? She would have been carried out on a stretcher. But no, we cannot scrutinize the accuser’s veracity or we will condemned for bullying this poor fragile waif.

            But this is what I mean: it is all part of a rehearsal of reversal (excuse the cheesy rhyme). The roles have been reversed. And there is a certain glory in that which excites and *empowers* the woman watcher, as the Times puts it.

            You really might want to sign up for my 10 week Email Course. It is changing lives! 🙂

          • [Förlåt mig, Chris. I tend to get rather overboard working in certain areas of ideas…]
            ____________________

            From the NYTs ‘Opinion’ piece “Women are Watching!”

            In response, Republican men have largely shrugged their shoulders — or worse, shifted into high dudgeon, issuing stern lectures about how such “character assassinations” will drive good men away from public service and how the real danger here is that this nation’s sons and husbands will all become vulnerable to false, or at least insignificant, accusations. This is straight-up culture warfare, a message of fear, resentment and male victimhood being sold as sympathetic concern for all those mothers and wives who, as Republicans tell it, could soon see their beloved males torn down by political plots. It’s a particularly rich message coming from some of the same conservative corners that dismissed the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh with the swinish rationalization that boys will be boys.

            There is so much to go through, to work through. I watched the movie Dazed & Confused (Richard Linklater, 1993) which, if I am correct, is a chronicle of the times as far as that era goes. Is it fair to see that movie as a ‘text’ of the time? Is what it represented in some sense true? What did it represent? A thorough decadence. A reversal of values. A near total turning away from *sound values*.

            What was a 15 years-old girl doing in a house with other boys when drinking was going on? How did it come about that she was brought there and left there on her own to drink, to get drunk I would guess, to listen to music? Was she a part of her time? Was she a part of a certain cultural experience of that time?

            You said that women should be liberated. And you had an interest in ‘liberating’ them because, as time went by, you would ‘culturally undress her and have your way with her’. I think that was something that another filmmaker said (Brian De Palma?) Something like it is natural that if you film a woman getting dressed that the next evolution is having her get un-dressed. This is what happened over the course of 60-80 years (speaking of films). I see the ramifications as being quite … revealing … and also extreme. But then I have read, closely, a work such as The Eternal Woman by Gertrude von le Fort. The metaphysic of woman that she presents has now been — is being — redefined by your will. Once, woman was sacred and veiled (as von le Fort notes).

            Her unveiling is, taken as a whole, what your cultural project has been about. And in that context, or as a result of it, you have no issue (apparently) sending a 15 years-old girl to a drinking and rock’n’roll party.

            How peculiar, to me anyway having grown up in very very strict circumstances, that I can explain what was happening in the culture, and which you chose and engineered — and you actually revel in it! you are proud of these changes and see them as *improvements*! — as part of a destructive and decadent project which has led directly to many of the conditions of the present. But no one of you can see, nor label, the conditions. You seem unaware of causation.

            I think this is a direct example of the *mood* of the time?

            I am interested in this turn-of-phrase: “…the swinish rationalization that boys will be boys”. Wait! Hold on! This is precisely what was engineered for the ‘boys’. This is a direct result of what *people* allowed to happen. This is a direct result of liberation of sexuality, that everyone seemed to want. And also for the ‘liberated’ woman.

            So, you sent your daughter to a drinking party, in that atmosphere, with that music, and she had an untoward experience? And you complain? But then turn and blame the ‘boys’? It makes no sense.

            This is straight-up culture warfare, a message of fear, resentment and male victimhood being sold as sympathetic concern for all those mothers and wives who, as Republicans tell it, could soon see their beloved males torn down by political plots.

            Again, the term ‘straight-up culture warfare’ requires a hermeneutical analysis. I accept the term as being valid, but I assert that what the term means depends on the ‘imagined world’ of the one using it.

            A definitely accept that ‘cultural wars’ are going on, but I would extend it to ‘spiritual wars’, wars over value and meaning, and in a very real sense wars that rage within the soul (I don’t know how else to but it). Who am I? What am I? Where am I? Metaphysical questions about the nature of the world, about life, meaning, value, use of energy….

            These are the questions that ‘the boys’ need to be educated in. That was always the case and it has not changed.

            ‘Take care of the boys … and the girls will take care of themselves’. That is true, but it implies the necessity of a sound metaphysics for the boys. The boys no longer have it. And no one on this blog can define such.

            In actual fact it is always ‘the boys’ who are responsible (I mean of course the men). Your world is falling apart because you have let it. There is an incredible causal chain of choices that have led directly to what is being lived in the present. It will either be addressed, and remediated, or it will do what it is now doing: careen out of control in even more strange ways.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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.