Saturday Morning Ethics Warm-Up: The Bad Guys, Continued.

“Good morning,”

…he said through grimly clenched teeth…

1 My pledge. That’s it. I’ve had it. Every single time I read or hear a reference to how women accusing men of sexual assault or harassment have a “right to be believed,” and anytime I read or hear someone quoting such a reference with approval, I’m going to point out in the strongest possible terms how sinister, unethical, and certifiably stupid this is. If you want to believe Dr. Ford’s dredged up memories of a party—somewhere—where she was jumped and groped by two drunk teens, go ahead. You do have a right to believe anything, including in the Hindu elephant god,  the brilliance of Sean Hannity, and the virtue of Bill Clinton: I don’t care. Be gullible. Asserting that women have some special chromosome-based right to be judged 100% reliable when they make damning and destructive accusations against men violates all standards of logic, ethics, equal protection, fairness , justice and common sense, and threatens tangible harm to innocent citizens and society. It needs to be condemned, and those making it must be condemned until this insidious, ideologically-spawned Big Lie is killed, squashed, burned and vaporized for all time.

For some reason, the tipping point for me was not the nauseating conduct of the Democratic Senators yesterday, which included a dramatic multi-NO! from perhaps the worst of them—well, after Diane Feinstein—Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono, the one who told Jake Tapper that the very fact of being a conservative is sufficient to disqualify Brett Kananaugh from any presumption of innocence. Stalin reasoned like that. That Hawaii would elect such an un-American, totalitarian-minded fool—she is more ignorant than evil, I think, but I could be wrong—to represent the state is enough to make me resolve to vacation elsewhere when the tropical breezes beckon. What a disgrace she is, and any voters who would allow someone like that to have access to power.  But no, what made me snapo was a small note in today’s paper about how Rep. Leonard Nance’s race to be re-elected to his New Jersey Congressional seat was seen as threatened because he “seemed to cast doubt on Ms Blasey’s allegations” in remarks to a group of college Republicans.

What the hell? Her allegations are over three decades old, she never spoke of them until a SCOTUS nominee she opposed was about to be confirmed, she has no corroboration or evidence whatsoever, and the man she accused uncategorically denies her story under oath. There is nothing but doubt in this controversy. If you don’t see doubt, then you are a bigot, a hopelessly close-minded ideologue, or incapable of rational thought.

2. And speaking of a hopelessly close-minded ideologue who is incapable of rational thought: Peter Beinart. This guy, who I will mercilessly mock if I ever meet him for announcing months before the election that Hillary Clinton could not be defeated, has regular platforms for his knee-jerk, left-wing biased talking points on CNN (of course), the Atlantic,  The Daily Beast and elsewhere. And here is a typical exhibit of his level of acumen and ethical mooring:

“I know many women–including in my family–who have been sexual assaulted + harassed. I don’t know a single man who has been falsely accused. Yes, it happens. But it’s extraordinarily rare. What she alleges is extraordinarily common. And he should get the benefit of the doubt?”

Isn’t that great? It begins with an appeal to his own authority based on anecdotal evidence, a compound fallacy, and ends by denying the basic right of any accused citizen to have the benefit of the doubt. Beinart is an ethics corrupter who uses his inexplicable influence to make his pre-conditioned progressive-leaning readers to be dumber, more ignorant, and less ethical.

3. “Bias makes you stupid” meets “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” meets “Admit It…You’re The Bad Guys.  It’s like “Frankenstein and the Wolf Man meets Dracula,” only real!

In the middle of yesterday’s hearing, a tweet from an account named “Alan Covington,” referencing a Wall Street Journal report,  that Republicans had pulled a prosecutor who was questioning Brett Kavanaugh during his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee because she had determined he had lied:

“Mitchell advised Republicans that to continue questioning Kavanaugh she was required by her oath in Arizona to inform Kavanaugh of his rights after he lied to her.”

Naturally, all manner of “resistance”-oriented unethical journalists and other accepted the tweet as fact, and retweeted it. Matt Yglesias of Vox. Jonathan Chait. The Nation’s Joshua Holland. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake. And, of course, once-respected Harvard Law prof turned conspiracy theorist Larry Tribe.

Of course, once the story was shown to be completely fake, all of these and more apologized, but only after hundreds of thousands of Peter Beinarts who don’t think a judge with an unblemished record in his personal and public like deserves the benefit of the doubt accepted it as fact, and probably still do.

4. And another one! News outlets everywhere reported that the American Bar Association had “called Thursday evening for postponing a vote on Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court until sexual assault and misconduct allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford and others are investigated by the F.B.I,” as the New York Times put it.  “The call for a pause is significant not just because of the bar association’s clout in the legal community, but because an A.B.A. committee had said unanimously a month ago that Judge Kavanaugh was “well qualified” for the Supreme Court, its highest possible designation.”

Senator Dick Durbin tweeted the news to the world. So did CNN.  I just checked: this is still what the various Google links are reporting. It was not true. The Senate Judiciary Committee released a letter yesterday from the ABA.  Robert Carlson, the president of the reliably liberal American Bar Association, sent the letter without going through the process of having it approved. He was, therefore, speaking for himself, not the organization. See?

Never mind. The news media doesn’t think that’s a distinction worth reporting.

Bad guys.

Not to belabor a frightening and depressing point, but these are not just biased and dishonest people, they are dangerous and extremely unethical—yes, bad—people, and pretending otherwise because we wish it were not so just gives them more power to abuse.

70 thoughts on “Saturday Morning Ethics Warm-Up: The Bad Guys, Continued.

  1. Francis Menton has a nice piece on The Manhattan Contrarian today.

    His thesis is that the left is going so nuts because they control the federal bureaucracy and courts. As a result, elections don’t matter. But if they lose the courts via the left no longer having a majority on the Supreme Court, they will no longer be able to control the U.S. government when they lose elections. Hence all the frantic, relentless effort to keep Trump from appointing Kennedy’s replacement at any and all costs.

    I think that’s a good, big picture view, a forest for the trees kind of worthwhile step back.

    • OB writes: His thesis is that the left is going so nuts because they control the federal bureaucracy and courts. As a result, elections don’t matter. But if they lose the courts via the left no longer having a majority on the Supreme Court, they will no longer be able to control the U.S. government when they lose elections. Hence all the frantic, relentless effort to keep Trump from appointing Kennedy’s replacement at any and all costs.

      If that is true — I have no way to assess — it points to an issue that underlies all the performances, all the lies & deceptions, that are being enacted.

      It also points to a fact: that power and control are the essential terms, the real motivators, as the charades are carried out. And that the *charade* is a mask, or perhaps a mirage, to disguise the raw issue of power.

      However, if this is true it also points to another danger: that of Republican control over the same mechanisms. Then Democratic wins won’t matter (as much).

      Hence all the frantic, relentless effort to keep Trump from appointing Kennedy’s replacement at any and all costs.

      And the same frantic effort to get their man seated ‘at any cost’.

      I follows from the basic thesis, doesn’t it?

      • But Alizia, the Republicans currently have an elected majority in Congress and the White House. They will never have a majority in the bureaucracy. The voters have elected Trump. He gets to nominate SC justices. SC justices serve for a long, long time. The voters can vote out the president and the congress. They can’t vote out the bureaucracy. Republicans will never have the hegemonic power the Dems have given their control of the bureacracy and the lower courts. The power will only be balanced with a more conservative court that is not part of the progressive project. As it stands now, voters have a very minimal voice given the Dems control of the courts and government workers. Does that help?

        • That was my other question. I forgot to ask it: When the writer refers to the ‘bureaucracy’ he means the common functionaries that are brought in from the 90% democrat surrounding Washington?

          I would imagine that the Federal Bureaucracy ( is not quite what people mean when they say ‘deep state’? I thought the ‘deep state’ was sort of para-governmental…

          Why is it that the Lower Courts are in the hands of democrats?

                • OK, but first:

                  The definitive proof that Kavanaugh is innocent! 🙂

                  Nothing more need be said…

                  Let us sing a paean of joy to our new Supreme Court Justice!

                  Para-governmental would refer to powers, factions, groups and interests that have no direct connection with government and its processes. That is, in the sense that bureaucratic functionaries are part-and-parcel of the entire governmental structure.

                  I could further define the term if you’d like but this should be clear enough?

                  • If that is our working definition, sure, such ‘organizations’ exist. They are even out in the open: this is what lobbyists are, for example, the NRA.

                    Is there a ‘para-governmental deep state?’ You mean, like the Camera stellata? Illuminati? Freemasons? Chamber of Commerce?

                    • No, the para-government would involve, for a good example, deeply involved functionaries like George Bush Sr. Coming from wealth, involved in the WW-2 intelligence structures, very involved in intelligence operations and concerns, but operating ‘para-governmentally’.

                      These individuals have connections that are para-governmental and their influence is para-governmental.

                      I have a feeling that you are answering my question (in the negative) because from my first description you did not know what I was talking about.

                    • George Bush, Sr. (he was actually not a senior. He and junior have different names) was actually a Navy Dive Bomber pilot in WWii. I am unaware of any involvement in intelligence until he was appointed as Head of the CIA.

                    • I find your comment, and your understanding of things interesting, DD. If you have read other things I write you will remember that I make reference often to what I term ‘our imagined world’: it is both a simple idea and one that leads into complex territories which are not at all simple. But it is one of the areas that interest me intellectually, philosophically, and also spiritually. So that you have a better sense of the origin on this idea, it came to me through a rather glossary attempt to understand Thomist (Thomas Aquinas) psychology. This is the main reason I often use the word ‘metaphysical’ and why I see our essential human struggles, and definitely those of the Occident, as spiritual. To mention ‘spirituality’ in the context of the Occident means to refer to 1000-1500 years of ideation that revolved around these sorts of questions. It is, of course, the very stuff that has formed the Occident, and our own selves, and which now we are radically deviating away from. This deviation as I call it is a radical and also a perilous event.

                      Notice please how much preamble is required even before I get to the main points!

                      Because it is a rather large idea it is hard to ‘broach’ it, so I start with a simple statement: Our perception is a vital area for those who have political control and there are constant battles between power-sectors to influence and also to control how we perceive and what we perceive. (How we organize our perception is the term I use).

                      With that said, I will attempt to contextualize this assertion. I would do so by describing the machinations of social control that came into focus as a result of WW2. I will assert that the world that we live in — we as Americans and as Westerners certainly — has been formed by an array of forces and powers vitally interested in controlling and directing perception for political and economic reasons. You could reduce this to a mere mention of *propaganda* but this would, at least in some senses, obscure the more intricate facts. The better term, in my view, is Public Relations and what Edward Bernays called the Crystallization of Opinion, and a book he wrote on the same topic called Crystallizing Public Opinion:

                      “A seminal work on how public opinion is created and shaped, Edward Bernays’s 1923 classic Crystallizing Public Opinion set down the principles that corporations and government have used to influence public attitudes over the past century.

                      “A primer on the then new profession of “public relations counsel,” Crystallizing elucidates the “instruments and techniques” that PR professionals use to mold public opinion on behalf of their client’s interests. By adapting the ideas that Bernays put forth in this book, governments and advertisers have been able to “regiment the mind like the military regiments the body.”

                      In a war-setting, and a global war-setting, it happened that military and intelligence agencies got heavily involved in the *game*, shall we say, of managing perception. This is not at all a difficult point to grasp and there is no one who does not understand that this happened (happens). And without entering into discourse — it would be extended discourse — as to the ramifications of all that I refer to here, my only point is to point out that a large degree of this ‘management of perception’ is directed by a manager-class, and that this ‘manager-class’ has ties of various sorts to the so-called ‘intelligence community’. I would avoid all sort of paranoid imagery and try only to stick to the raw facts. Because of the nature of war-time intelligence activity — secret, clandestine, invisible except in effect — there arose what I refer to as ‘para-governmental agencies’ deeply involved in and interested in the whole project of managing public perception and opinion. I use the term as a precise one: para-governmental.

                      In my view, and it is really a simple and intuitively obvious statement, there has taken shape in our post-war ‘liberal’ world an intricate merging of business and corporate power, governmental power, and that of media and PR powers and these *powers*, as it were, dominate all *spaces* that we could name. Essentially ‘the public sphere’. Again, I have not attached a partisan interpretation to what I see as mere *facts*, yet you must know that I am attempting to define what I call a *true conservative platform* in contradistinction to what I see as and what I call a ‘pseudo-conservative’ platform. By doing so I do not show myself much of a *friend* to those who are, in my opinion, pimps and prostitutes of false-conservatism and also neo-conservatism. And by broaching this critique within an American context, and among people who represent the intellectual class of America, I do not get much (heh heh) *support*. In fact I inspire contempt.

                      I cannot imagine that after this brief preamble that you do not grasp what my position is and where it might go. And you also know that I consider myself an exponent of those who are ‘rightwing critics of American conservatism’. This places me outside of The Pale of typical American Conservatism and, let’s face it, in a zone that the American conservatist does not know how to define. Like his progressive and liberal brother he might see *me* as fascist and any number of other designations. But I am drifting from my point.

                      To understand our present, I assert, one MUST understand the relationship between the para-governmental and para-corporate powers and factions and their role in molding Occidental culture. If you don’t (if one doesn’t) and if you won’t (if one won’t), one is in my view remiss in one’s duties and responsibilities.

                      The extreme mess that we find ourselves in today, which we often look at and *see* rather topically and superficially, has to be analyzed and then *interpreted*. As I say, these are hermeneutical questions and they involve the most important, shall I say, gifts but also duties of an Occidental human being. And all of this hinges in ‘our imagined world’. If one sees oneself and understands oneself as a spiritual participant and a relevant actor with a divine and yes a holy creation, one’s duties here are brought into focus. If one is trained to perceive of oneself as a mere cog in a giant mechanism in a post-war construct in which one is merely a *unit* to be influenced and modified, one finds oneself in a world, and also defending a *world* that is shaded in those terms we know as dystopian: either Brave New World-like or 1984-ish.

                      Choose your perceptual lens accordingly.

                      The view that I would present of Bush Sr. are not extremist by any measure. To understand that entire familty, and to understand *how power functions* and how it secures and maintains its influence and control, does involve an intellectual and historical work. I would refer to Family Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years and a journalist — quite middle of the road according to what I read — who has investigated a ‘hidden world’ and a world that operates behind the scenes:

                      I would of course go further, yet it would involve more difficult material with more poignant assertions by referring to — just one example — The Slaughter of Cities by E Michal Jones. He chronicles the involvement of clandestine intelligence agencies in the construction of the post-war American world. (It is called ‘social engineering’ and it has a long and important history and precedent in the US given its origin in the North’s attack on and destruction of the South. In my view, it began here, as did the Marxian influence on the formation of the American Nation, and if one wishes to understand things in depth, and not just a *patriotic* view of things, one must open one’s mind to different ways of seeing).

                      After 4 years (!) on this blog, and after a great deal of reading and hard work, my ideas have begun to take more definite shape. I regret to say that no one here has really helped me in this, and many have sought to hinder my efforts. And no one has a comprehensive view of The Present.

                      As I have said before I am reminded of the classic image from Plato’s Cave: persons chained to a perceptual wall who watch the shadows moving over it. I suggest that one must *turn around* and notice the *projectors* and then — glory be! — exist the Cave and see the Light of Day!

                      Sign up for my 10 Week Email Course and you will get this and much MUCH more! It is changing lives! 🙂

                    • Alizia,

                      I asked, “Camera stellata? Illuminati? Freemasons? Chamber of Commerce?”

                      Alizia answered “…I find your comment… (lots of rabbit trails omitted)…”

                      The translation is ‘yes, those you mentioned and more.’

                      So, I accept that there are power brokers in our world, and that they attempt to shape our perceptions. So what?

                      This has been the case since man built the first cities and politics was invented. It will always be so.

                      What is the practical relevance, today, in this moment, of your musings? We are on the ground here, in the fray, fighting to reverse some of what you are opining about. The barbarians are at the gate, and you insist on counting how many angel’s arses can sit on a pin! (Grab a bow, girl, and find a archer’s loop through which to fire.)

                      I get much of what you say, I just do not see the relevance it has for the fight we are in.

                    • Slick writes: What is the practical relevance, today, in this moment, of your musings? We are on the ground here, in the fray, fighting to reverse some of what you are opining about. The barbarians are at the gate, and you insist on counting how many angel’s arses can sit on a pin! (Grab a bow, girl, and find a archer’s loop through which to fire.)

                      I get much of what you say, I just do not see the relevance it has for the fight we are in.

                      Oh, that is very easy to answer.

                      a) One has to be able to see and describe what is going on in our present accurately and

                      b) to see through the mirages and the *structure of lies* that is presented.

                      Just right there one has a very difficult project in front of one.

                      I suggest that you will not get the results you wish if a wider picture remains unconsidered.

                      While I do accept as possible that you and I and perhaps *all of us here* are on the ground here, in the fray, fighting to reverse some of what you are opining about, I continually sense the need to clarify the basic question about How our world is seen and understood. I mean ‘America’ and the Americanopolis, and I do understand that that word will grate on some. Obviously, I have a critical position in respect to the Americanopolis, and I think it is necessary. And it is my social, political and spiritual duty to make an effort to communicate to *you-plural* what I think and see, just as yours must be to do the same.

                      If you are going to position your opposition within that of ‘barbarians at the gate’, you will have to describe to me what ‘barbarian’ means. Because I see ‘barbarians’ not just in the present Progressive-Radicals but in many actors, throughout a longer period of history. To see this, to understand this, and to explain it is the task.

                      It is not fair to say that I am concerned with silly things (angel’s arses! though I appreciate the image!) I bring, perhaps, a different order of concern and a different approach, but then I am part of a movement that does this. We bring a lot of different material to the table.

                    • I disagree that effort are hampered if one does not know ‘the whole truth of how we got to this point.’

                      History proves otherwise. Fighting the battle set in front of you is more effective, short term, than pondering the imponderables.

                      Good luck with your method.

                    • I disagree that effort are hampered if one does not know ‘the whole truth of how we got to this point.’

                      History proves otherwise. Fighting the battle set in front of you is more effective, short term, than pondering the imponderables.

                      Good luck with your method.

                      I sense just a bit, a very wee bit, of pessimism in that last line?

                      I would assent that one is definitely hampered, but also that the higher spiritual and philosophical ramifications are definitely not ‘imponderables’.

                      But in any case: I respect your opinion and your disagreement.

                    • I sense just a bit, a very wee bit, of pessimism in that last line?

                      If you accomplish results, then you have a successful method. Since you ARE a fellow traveler, I want you to succeed.

                    • If you accomplish results, then you have a successful method.

                      But here is the important element: I can only hope for change, or transformation after a long social process that extends for 10-50 years. And one must also consider the possibility that *all will be lost*.

                      My focus is therefor in defining a platform for renewal. This can only extend from individuals who have renewed themselves. Like everyone, I notice the degree that I have fallen into decadence. And I am aware, in my own case, that my issue is essentially spiritual.

                      I see little prospect for positive change attained in a moment. The beginning of the destruction of the Occident began in the 13th century! (according to Richard Weaver). And when I use that term ‘renewal’, as you know, I mean ‘European renewal’ with America as a part that.

                      America is right now in a destructive cycle fed by causal chains of destruction that are difficult to name and label. To achieve a name and a label involves spiritual pain. The pain of realizing how deeply decadence has affected us, every one of us.

                      I would like to believe that I have had some success if what I attempt is understood as I describe it. I only wanted to explain and to some degree defend the (so-called) Alt-Right, but which is really the European Traditionalist Right.

                      Some one else might be a political activist very much in the struggle of the moment. I could never do that. I deal in theory.

                      Here, I will let Lucretius explain: 🙂

                      <blockquoteSweet it is, when on the great sea the winds are buffeting waters, to gaze from the land on another’s great struggles; not because it is pleasure or joy that anyone of should be distressed, but because it is sweet to perceive from what misfortune you yourself are free. Sweet it is too, to behold great contests of war in full array over the plains, when you have no part in the danger. But nothing is more gladdening than to dwell in the calm high places, firmly embattled on the heights by the teaching of the wise, whence you can look down on others, and see them wandering hither and thither, going astray as they seek the way of life, in strife matching their wits or rival claims of birth, struggling night and day by surpassing effort to rise up to the height of power and gain possession of the world. Ah! miserable minds of men, blind hearts! in what darkness of life, in what great dangers ye spend this little span of years! to think that ye should not see that nature cries aloud for nothing else but that pain may be kept far sundered from the body, and that, withdrawn from care and fear, she may enjoy in mind the sense of pleasure!

  2. What I think is very interesting is how all my Liberal and Progressive friends have absolutely clammed up about the whole Kavanaugh controversy since they heard directly from Ford and Kavanaugh, there hasn’t been so much as a peep about it even from the ones that had Kavanaugh already convicted.

      • Jack Marshall wrote, “There are a huge number of the other kind, including many on my Facebook feed.”

        Too bad I can’t see your Facebook feed, mine went “silent” from all my lefty friends and I checked a bunch of their profiles and they have deleted a bunch, all in some cases, of their previous posts on the topic. It’s as if they are embarrassed (they should have been before) to be part of the conversation now.

        • Mr. Zoltar,
          My lefty friends have come up with some great stuff. Note that these are NOT mine. I am neither responsible for such claims, nor do I believe them. However, you said you wanted to see his feed. This is mine, paraphrased for enhanced clarity and improved English.

          1) Yesterday proved that Kavanaugh is absolutely guilty. Her testimony was bulletproof and his was nothing other than partisan attacks. Only guilty men do that.

          2) No one keeps a calendar for more than 12 months. No one ever puts this kind of detail on a calendar. No one could possibly find an old calendar anyway. This was completely faked, he wrote this up the day before.

          3) Even if he was innocent (see point one for why that’s impossible), he has disqualified himself in two ways.
          A) He wasn’t nice enough to her. Obviously he is a jerk who would never respect women (see plans for his getting rid of RvW for further evidence). People who have no respect for women and who don’t believe their rape claims are automatically of insufficient character to be a judge on the Supreme Court.

          B) He cried and had something other than a completely calm facial impression at all times. Obviously this man, who was merely at a job interview, does not have the emotional maturity of a Supreme Court Judge. If only the best judge ever, Ginsberg, had walked up to him and slapped him like he richly deserved, he could have ended this in shame without us having to listen to his BS.

          4) If he was half as innocent as he claims, he would have demanded the investigation from the get go. Only the guilty don’t want an investigation.

          5) He is sickening to listen to. Why would we want someone like this on the Supreme Court?

          6) He’s too old for the job. (No mention of Judge Ginsberg)

          7) He is just victim blaming. Anyone who victim blames is disqualified from any position ever.

          8) Only guilty men get upset at accusations. Innocent men would be calm and smile. After all, it’s just a job interview.

          9) He’s unqualified for this position.

          10) He can’t get on the Supreme Court because he believes that Trump is above the law. If he gets in, Trump will destroy the country.

          11) The real issue- Gamble v. U.S., No. 17-646. He’ll vote for Trump! (Not sure if this is meant to be a different point from 10 or simply a restating of it. They seem to be hanging onto both separately).

          12) We only heard from one accuser. What about the other three?

          Me again, not copies from my feed. See what fun you’re missing out on…

            • Thete was a Facebook friend of mine who took the bitch’s side.

              I shared one of your posts to present an alternate point of view.

              He accused you of being hyper partisan, as if I was quoting the Free Republic, let alone Occupy Democrats.

            • These commenters are at least thirty and into their mid fifties or more.

              I’m not sure if they are really this dumb or are trying to be deceptive. I know we are to assume stupidity, but when the comparison gets to this level, it’s hard to.

          • You have me on volume, Sarah B., but for shear maniacally illiterate imbecility, my one…um…fan is all alone at the top and pulling away at warp speed!

            Heck, he even pulls Z into it.

            To wit:

            “Damn right I have his back. I’m not some chickens#$t) no name like you.

            ”Still hiding behind your parents like you’ve done since grade school. ‘They called me names again mommy, can I have 16 cookies and a hug?’

            ”I have a theory crotch. I think your (sic) a repub. troll. You work for (WI Governor Scott) walker. Your (sic) paid to troll blogs and spread gop bs.

            “I doubt that you have a big house with 6 decks, $1000 suits, live in a gated project, or that your (sic) patrol the neighborhood while armed. I think you write under batman and zoltar. Your (sic) a paid rwnj troll and maybe a Russian. Am I right?”

            They live amongst us!

    • “there hasn’t been so much as a peep about it even from the ones that had Kavanaugh already convicted.”

      Couple of Lefties regulars at our local hangout are still pluckin’ that chicken, Z, but I just posted the ABA/Moxely letter.

      So if you hear a giant sucking sound, it’s an indication that their collective sphincters are clenching tightly after being subjected to Inconvenient Truth.

        • Z, it appears to me as if the Left is simply doubling downoin all this stuff rather than backing off. There will be more ex classmates and other apparently contemporaneous inhabitants of the mid Atlantic and lower New England states who will have various nasty things to say about Kavanaugh in the coming week. There will also be a coordinated final (I hope) push by the media and left wing commentariat as well, beginning with editorials galore tomorrow. I suspect the entire week’s news cycles are being sketched out and put in place in editorial rooms as we speak, in conjunction with the DNC, Chuck Schumer’s office, etc.

  3. As we have seen this last week under the Dome, leftism is a nihilistic force that ruins whatever it touches — and lives are at stake. Your profound comments were, if anything, too civil.

  4. The breathless reporting on how Leland didn’t refute Dr Ford because she said she believed her, but directly contradicted her about her testimony. The only thing of value in her statement is the fact that she cannot corroberate anything, she “refutes” even knowing him. Several say he committed perjury for saying leland refuted Dr Fords account. Apparently her actually saying she believes Ford but unequivocally denying all actual points of fact means she is supporting Fords account?

    This shit is getting so deep the left better fucking hope the country is more full of unprincipled partasans than fair minded citizens.

  5. The Girl Who Cried Wolf and Due Process Be Damned!

    Dear Friends,

    The need to “KEEP THINKING” fairly and ethically in our country has never been greater. Please be especially wary of anyone who simplistically claims “Survivors should be believed” as a basis for assessing the credibility of uncorroborated 36 year old accusations. Such persons are revealing their unethical bias and bigotry by PRE-judging that the claimed event actually happened and that the “accuser” is necessarily a “survivor” simply because the accuser says so. In fairness and logic, if the claimed event never occurred, there can be NO “survivor,” only a false accusation.

    Fairness demands objective proof of the event BEFORE presuming that an accuser is in fact a “survivor.”

    But, surely, any woman who courageously comes forward and acknowledges that she has been the victim of sexual assault must be believed!


    Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Leslie Millwee are all “credible” women who have accused Bill Clinton of rape or other extreme sexual assault, as an ADULT. Have they been believed as survivors?
    Amy Louise Alexander and Karen Monahan have both “credibly” accused Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, of losing his temper and using threats, verbal harassment, and physical violence in his personal relations with them. Have they been believed as survivors?
    (One might be tempted to think that the credibility of the accuser is more dependent on political affiliation than gender.)

    But, who would ever falsely make such terrible and destructive accusations? Surely no one would lie about such horrible things!

    Again, sadly, really?

    Wanetta Gibson, the woman who sent innocent high school football star Brian Banks to prison for five years for a rape he didn’t commit, collected $750,000 by continuing her lie in a lawsuit against the high school where she and Banks were both students,

    Elizabeth Coast’s False Rape Claim Leads To 2 Months Jail In Virginia

    Crystal Gale Mangum. The notorious false accuser of the Duke lacrosse team

    Chaneya Kelly [“Daughter: I lied and sent my dad to prison for rape]

    Cassandra Kennedy [“Local girl lied about 2001 rape; father set free”]

    Tawana Brawley, who gained notoriety in 1987–88 for falsely accusing four white men of having raped her. Brawley’s adviser Al Sharpton also helped the case to gain prominence.[3]

    “Jackie” and the non-existent “A Rape on Campus” [ ] In a classic example of agenda-driven reporting, Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely [ ] accepted the tale of a never-identified student called “Jackie” who claimed to have been brutally raped at a party that never happened, at a misidentified fraternity, primarily by one student who was falsely accused. Because of the article, the fraternity system at the University was temporarily shut down and permanently subjected to more stringent regulations. The male student body was tarred as teeming with sexual predators. The entire thesis of the article was based on the fabricated rape account.

    Larke Recchie, ex-wife of Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH.), signed an affidavit against him in 1986 to obtain a domestic violence restraining order, claiming that Senator Brown he struck and threatened her (“I am definitely afraid of my husband, that he has struck and bullied me on several different occasions, he has completely destroyed my peace of mind and that I am extremely intimidated by him.” Interestingly, Ms. Recchie seemingly has since recanted, and stated “There was a lot of hurt on both sides, and it led only to angry words.” This begs the question: Was she lying then, or is she lying now?)

    “Scottsboro Boys” Trials (1931-1937) The Scottsboro Boys were nine African American teenagers, ages 13 to 20, accused in Alabama of raping two White American women on a train in 1931. The landmark set of legal cases from this incident dealt with racism and the right to a fair trial.

    Mayella Ewell – Those of a literary bent will remember that this young white women falsely, and fatally, accused Tom Robinson, a black man, of rape in To Kill A Mockingbird.

    So, please “Keep Thinking!”

  6. I have a question. Can Carlson speak for the ABA, making recommendations regarding the Kavanaugh process, independent of the Standing Committee?

  7. A question. What happens if the F.B.I. finds incontrovertible proof that she contrived this entire story with coaching from Feinstein? Nothing?

  8. I place doubt on not knowing anyone who’s been falsely accused. I’ve known too many. One is my son, who was exonerated in a school investigation. Not left ambiguous, but exonerated due to a solid alibi along with many other proviable lies on her part. My wife and daughters are furious about the treatment of Kavanagh.

    I know they are still rational as they consider this ambiguous and not worthy of a personal destruction, not a certainty it is a lie. They don’t have the cognitive dissonance that allows liberals to believe Ford but still think Paula Jones is still lying.

    • A lot of women have this cognitive dissonance.

      Remember, an overwhelming majority of women voted for President Bill Clinton in 1996 (enough to overcome Bob dole winning the male vote, even though Paula Jones had publicized her accusation two years before.

      A large chunk of women have no issue with sexual harassment.

  9. I am so tired of reading that false accusations by women are “incredibly rare.” That is nonsense. Anybody who spends time at an arraignment will see a parade of men accused by their wives and girlfriends of abuse. Most of the time, the men deny it and often they tell very persuasive stories about why the woman is falsely claiming they did. Sometimes, they have the woman with them admitting that she lied. Women are people, too, just like men, they lie a lot.

    The so-called “studies” that purport to show that false allegations of rape are rare are garbage. Here is the first one that I found in a google search. I see it quoted constantly. It claims that only 2-10% of accusations of rape reported to the police are proven to be false. Just reading that sentence carefully should show a reasonable person that the study is tendentious, not to say worthless. First, the study only includes accusations reported to the police, not accusations made to friends, therapists, university officials, Congress, etc. Second, most significantly, it counts only accusations that are PROVEN to be false. According to the authors, it deliberately excludes “cases in which the victim is unable or unwilling to cooperate, in which evidence is lacking, in which the victim makes inconsistent statements, or in which the victim was heavily intoxicated.” That is to say, it excludes a huge number of cases where a reasonable investigator might conclude that the supposed victim was lying. (You might notice that those standards would exclude Ford’s accusation, where she was only grudgingly willing to cooperate, there is no evidence, she has made inconsistent statements and where I don’t believe for a minute that she had only one beer.) Third, if 10% of all accusations have actually be proven to be false under those very stringent standards, only a person who thinks that men’s lives are worthless would think that is a small number.

    The study trashes, as feminists so often do, alternative studies that have found false report rates of 38%, 41% and 64% based on actual investigations of claims by police, on the ground that the police’s judgment is subjective. Instead, it prefers, as do all of the studies that I’ve read showing low rates of false claims, to manipulate data using only publicly available information and giving the benefit of the doubt to the accuser.

    To me, the most persuasive studies that I have ever seen were two that I read over 30 years ago when I researched this issue in law school. One was performed by a group of students from a law school (in Ohio, I think), and the other by a reporter for the Washington Post. The methodology of both was the same. They chose a random sample of cases where the accused had been convicted of rape, and they called the supposed victim on the telephone and asked her, in effect, “Did he really rape you or were you lying?” I’ve forgotten the exact figures, but in both studies, approximately 25% the supposed victims admitted, to strangers, on the telephone, that they had lied to send an innocent man to prison.

    I have seen the law school study cited a few times, although I’ve never tried to find it since I first read it. I have searched on the internet and on Lexis for the Washington Post article a few times since then but have never found it. If I were working for a law firm, I’d ask a summer associate to research them for me (assuming that I could find one who wouldn’t report me to his school as a rape enabler and get my firm blackballed from recruiting).

    • I’ll out myself to tell the story: I’m a small town school board member.

      We’ve had one substantiated case in my time where a teacher was indeed guilty of misconduct. He’s still in prison. We’ve had TWO false accusations in that time.

      One is a mistaken identity – someone with the same first name, last name, similar age and hometown as a teacher. The pervert is incarcerated for molestation of adolescent girls. Rumours swirled that this teacher was the same person, as if our state licensing boards would miss that. This teacher had a lawyer on retainer, and would have that lawyer send registered cease and desist letters with threats of action every time he heard of people spreading the rumour. He was successful more than once in getting people to issue a public retraction and apology in out of court settlements. In spite of that, the rumor still won’t die and I hear it pop up once in a while.

      The second was concocted by several girls seeking revenge for holding them accountable for bad schoolwork. The mistake of the girls was hatching the plan via electronic communication and not realizing that it would be uncovered during the investigation. Those girls are now prohibited from using a smart phone, tablet or computer until the are 21 to avoid prison. Their parents settled with the teacher out of court, I’m sure for a healthy sum. The school sent out a warning that gossiping about the teacher would result in actions for slander and libel, and that the teacher and his lawyer would be aggressive at going after everyone participating.

    • I’ve never looked into the studies, but even if the studies they cite on false reports are accurate, other studies they cite open up a huge logical hole.

      See, they say that FBI investigations have found a tiny number of reported rape cases to be false.

      Then, in a different post/comment/meme, they’ll point out that rape/sexual assault is hugely under-reported.

      Which, if they were were ever actually considering the arguments of the other side, rather than rushing to spout off talking points, might lead them to consider that a significant number of cases not reported to law enforcement may be false accusations.

      After all, if your intent is to smear a man or institution, or collect a settlement, or excuse your own bad behavior as trauma, or establish a narrative so that you appear to speak from experience on your preferred policies, you don’t need a police report to do that. A whisper network or tweet or essay will do just fine. Involving police only makes it more likely that your story will be exposed as a lie and exposes you to potential consequences of making false charges.

      With that in mind, I see a huge difference in believing someone who has reported their assault to the police and one who hasn’t. Which isn’t to say that all unreported reports are false, or that all reported ones are true.

      But by their own arguments their favorite statistics are worthless.

      • “all unreported reports are false”

        …that’s supposed to be “all unreported accusations.”

        (Unconditionally believing unreported reports is oxymoronic, as opposed to unconditionally believing unreported accusations, which is just the regular kind of moronic.)

  10. Jack, can you provide a link to the source of that ABA letter refuting the articles about the organization calling for an investigation? I would find it useful.

      • Thanks. Here’s an interesting tidbit for you. As we both know, Twitter is the Spawn of Satan, and fake Twitter accounts are legion. So I was skeptical as to the authenticity of the @senjudiciary Twitter handle, and indeed it does seem to be both authentic and a partisan operation, most likely out of Grassley’s office.

        So before using this link to slap down some Facebook friends who are terminally ill with confirmation bias and would NEVER bother to check on things that OccupyDemocrats tells them, I wandered over to the ABA’s website and hit the news page link.

        I encourage you to do the same. You’ll see a somewhat conflicted headline about the letter calling for the investigation, and a subhead acknowledging that the Committee hasn’t changed its mind.

        This might be worth an Ethics Alarm commentary, maybe not. But it does both a) indicate that the letter Twitchy posted is authentic, and b) show that there’s disagreement in the ranks of the ABA.

        • I checked the ABA first off. That conflict didn’t surprise me. They covered a bit for the pres, who really should resign. Yeah, they are conflicted, but the SJWs on the board can’t get the more moderate leftists to go full partisan.

          They might as well. The ABA is anything but unbiased.

  11. Not too many years ago, it was generally acknowledged that all blacks lie, and that all whites tell the truth or should be given the benefit of the doubt.

    All the ‘progressives’ have done is change the definition of which groups get preferential treatment.

    Lies then, lies now. If it’s all because Hillary lost it really is insanity, and it’s frightening. And doubly insane and ironic in the extreme that “they” have chosen her — she the icon who supported/allowed her own husband’s sexual abuse of other women (before and after he was POTUS), and who has touted her own support of women’s rights in general. She set a new low standard in this regard; and most unfortunately other morons have picked up the flag that was wrested from her in 2016.

    • The left wants to ignore the ignoble history in this country where when white women would be caught “miscegenating” and to avoid the shame, shunning and possible criminal conviction they’d lie. A lie that would result in at a bare minimum, the black man getting a severe beating and criminal conviction in the best case and in the worst case, him hanging from a tree with a rope around his neck.

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.