I'm pretty nihilistic about the whole thing (the whole thing being the US). One of the things that I've encountered on Facebook is the simple refusal to acknowledge what progressives are trying to do. "You want to hang Kavanaugh, no we want and investigation. Oh so you want to hang Kavanaugh." The same thing with Kaepernick: "Why do you hate the troops? No we just want cops to stop shooting black guys. Why do you hate the troops.?"
Also related: "You pro-abortion people disgust me. You just want to kill babies." "I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. If a woman chooses to take a pregnancy to term, I think we should be prepared to help her give the child opportunities." "Then why are you pro-abortion?"
If they think the issue is murdering or not murdering babies then it's usually useless to argue anything, and if they bring God or Jeebus into it then my only recourse at that point is "How 'bout them Mets?" But I occasionally try "I'm pro-privacy -- I believe that all medical decisions made by you or me are our own business, nobody else's, and especially not the government's." Once in great while there's a little flicker of agreement, but never among the hardcore beebie people.
So Rich Lowry's all on board with false memories now? Seems like just a few years ago conservatives were in high dudgeon that there's no such thing as false memories because those children accusing people of Satan worship were a convenient political cudgel. Conservatives: Steadfast in their beliefs until those beliefs are inconvenient.
I can't even get into this without wanting to break things. Yesterday was not good for me. Today I see my shrink and I'm still not under control. I have a feeling I'm going to spill the beans and ruin my relationship with her when she finds out I've been not telling her about my history and the people in my head.
The Incels are in love with Kavanaugh, it seems. I'm not going to be surprised if someone ends up pulling dead hookers out of his backyard someday, so I guess he's the hero they need.
I don't see how any woman can ever vote for any Republican after this. I'm currently in a house with three women (one of whom was a BIG Dubya backer) and they are all horrified by this. And there are other women I know who are now having serious flashbacks to their own horrible experiences at the hands of their own Brett Kavanaugh. All I can say is: Ladies, PLEASE take control of the country! We men are thoroughly fucking it up for everyone.
Oh god how it pains me, but there are so many women who are all in with Repubs, Trump, Kavanaugh, the whole shtick. And not all of them are making big bucks from it like Ingraham and Pirro. I'm sure there are common thematic reasons such women share, but of course, each woman has her own take on it. One theme is, I think, the warding-off value of aligning oneself with the patriarchal storm troopers. I've heard it time after time - "this particular horrible thing would never happen to me because I'm careful, and it happened to <i>her</i> because she drank beer/ went out dressed pretty/ dared to walk home alone/ didn't choose the right boyfriend/ is stupid/ dared to flirt/ refused to flirt/ - and it can't happen to me ever because I follow the rules and refuse to think that "luck" has anything to do with it, you just have to be a good person, which I am, and never mind about that unpleasantness that happened freshman year because I should have seen that coming and now I know and it can't ever happen to me again and anyway I got over it." I don't want to trust any woman with power until I can suss out what she thinks of me, in the abstract and in the personal. I mean, if I encountered any of these women who hate me, and they happened to be in trouble, I'd risk my life trying to help them. But they are not my allies.
My bias <i>does</i> lean toward women, like Dianne Feinstein: however much I complain about her, I know she's on my side. She is a human of the female variety, and she respects me as one as well. She's 80+ but if I were in trouble, she'd do her best to call for help and raise an alarm and there are plenty of other women in public life, government or media, who I would <i>not</i> trust to do that.
This platform has no use for your puny formatting efforts. --------------[dashes inserted to indicate paragraph break]-----------I do sometimes wonder about women like Coulter and Pirro, Kellyanne or Sarah Sanders--what would they do if they saw someone drowning? Do they have the basic humanity to jump in a try to rescue the person? Or would they watch in horrified fascination until the person slipped beneath the surface for the last time?
I think they would ask for help from the nearest man.
But if they were at a party (like when they were younger), would they check on the whereabouts of that other girl from the dorm they haven't seen for a while? Would they do anything if they saw a man berating a woman in a parking lot and physically threatening her? I see them as not wanting to get involved, especially if it means challenging the "sanctity" of the marital bond. I mean, I don't know. A child drowning? I can't imagine Sanders doing nothing. But if it were a little African American child who'd gone into the water unnoticed at an African American beach party reunion? I suspect Sanders would call 911. But then again, I don't think would be at a beach like that, in part because she's wealthy and privileged and has access to "good" beaches.
Ann Coulter is another story. I think she'd walk by a dispute and think "stupid woman!" and she'd have left the beach when the "riffraff" arrived. But who knows. All I know is that I don't automatically trust other women, although I'd always try to help them, even knowing it can backfire when both the upset woman and angry husband turn on me and beat me up.
By the way, I'm not assuming that my physical courage could stand up to every single awful situation, but I know I'd always call for help.
I wonder if they will now be able to pull off the [no real] investigation thing and when nothing comes back the MSM will fall all over themselves about how "now this has finally been put to rest'? Oh who am I kidding, of course they will.
I watched it all the way through. What I saw hasn't come up in the commentaries I've read today. First, Rachel Mitchell made Kavanaugh admit a man could both have lots of of woman "friends" and sexually assault at least one woman. Then she pointed to an entry in his precious calendar for July 1, 1982, scheduling "skis" (beers) with Mark Judge, Squee (?) (the guy Blasey was going out with that summer) and some other dudes. The first instance shot the legs out of his "I have lots of women friends" defense. The second, to my mind, pointed to the day his assault on Blasey happened. It was no coincidence that that was when Graham decided to hijack the proceedings and start wailing about Democratic perfidy. The FBI wouldn't have any problem finding out about July 1, 1982, IMHO, which is why Kavanaugh and the Rep Sens will never support an FBI investigation. Anyway, while I didn't think much of Mitchell during her questioning of Dr. Ford, I concluded she saw through Kavanaugh's kabuki act and was systematically destroying his defense when she was yanked away.
“Squi” was Chris Barett, who Dr. Ford said, introduced her to Kavanaugh’s gang. I don’t remember her ssaying she was going out with him but I may have missed it. You’re right ole Huckleberry, the experienced JAG lawyer, could see that Miitchell was getting right on to the corpus delicti and he shut that right down. I gather Mitchell was pissed about being unceremoniously pushed aside.
Where does Flake go from here? My—perhaps unduly charitable—take is that he is a weak, vacillating man with a vestigial conscience, who wants to think well of himself. Of course, his record to date has been noted for the size of the hat, the absence of cattle, and, given that, a remarkable volume of manure, so optimism in the present instance must needs be not merely guarded but enrolled in the Federal Witness Protection Program.
But where does he go from here? But for his attack of the vapors, the GOP might have been able to ram this thing through yesterday. Surely, win or lose, that won’t be forgiven. If he folds again, he will have secured the contempt and loathing of all sides. If he votes “no,” providing needed cover for Murkowski and Manchin, he has the eternal enmity of the GOP, but preserves, perhaps, some self-respect—and a certain segment of the Village will swoon over his “principled conservatism.”
I’m not holding out much hope: I think it’s likelier that when the FBI fails to turn up hi-def video of the assault, Flake will prate about the presumption of innocence, and will vote to confirm. But a lot can happen in a week.
I'm pretty nihilistic about the whole thing (the whole thing being the US). One of the things that I've encountered on Facebook is the simple refusal to acknowledge what progressives are trying to do. "You want to hang Kavanaugh, no we want and investigation. Oh so you want to hang Kavanaugh." The same thing with Kaepernick: "Why do you hate the troops? No we just want cops to stop shooting black guys. Why do you hate the troops.?"
Also related: "You pro-abortion people disgust me. You just want to kill babies." "I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. If a woman chooses to take a pregnancy to term, I think we should be prepared to help her give the child opportunities." "Then why are you pro-abortion?"
If they think the issue is murdering or not murdering babies then it's usually useless to argue anything, and if they bring God or Jeebus into it then my only recourse at that point is "How 'bout them Mets?" But I occasionally try "I'm pro-privacy -- I believe that all medical decisions made by you or me are our own business, nobody else's, and especially not the government's." Once in great while there's a little flicker of agreement, but never among the hardcore beebie people.
So Rich Lowry's all on board with false memories now? Seems like just a few years ago conservatives were in high dudgeon that there's no such thing as false memories because those children accusing people of Satan worship were a convenient political cudgel. Conservatives: Steadfast in their beliefs until those beliefs are inconvenient.
I can't even get into this without wanting to break things. Yesterday was not good for me. Today I see my shrink and I'm still not under control. I have a feeling I'm going to spill the beans and ruin my relationship with her when she finds out I've been not telling her about my history and the people in my head.
The Incels are in love with Kavanaugh, it seems. I'm not going to be surprised if someone ends up pulling dead hookers out of his backyard someday, so I guess he's the hero they need.
I don't see how any woman can ever vote for any Republican after this. I'm currently in a house with three women (one of whom was a BIG Dubya backer) and they are all horrified by this. And there are other women I know who are now having serious flashbacks to their own horrible experiences at the hands of their own Brett Kavanaugh. All I can say is: Ladies, PLEASE take control of the country! We men are thoroughly fucking it up for everyone.
Oh god how it pains me, but there are so many women who are all in with Repubs, Trump, Kavanaugh, the whole shtick. And not all of them are making big bucks from it like Ingraham and Pirro. I'm sure there are common thematic reasons such women share, but of course, each woman has her own take on it. One theme is, I think, the warding-off value of aligning oneself with the patriarchal storm troopers. I've heard it time after time - "this particular horrible thing would never happen to me because I'm careful, and it happened to <i>her</i> because she drank beer/ went out dressed pretty/ dared to walk home alone/ didn't choose the right boyfriend/ is stupid/ dared to flirt/ refused to flirt/ - and it can't happen to me ever because I follow the rules and refuse to think that "luck" has anything to do with it, you just have to be a good person, which I am, and never mind about that unpleasantness that happened freshman year because I should have seen that coming and now I know and it can't ever happen to me again and anyway I got over it." I don't want to trust any woman with power until I can suss out what she thinks of me, in the abstract and in the personal. I mean, if I encountered any of these women who hate me, and they happened to be in trouble, I'd risk my life trying to help them. But they are not my allies.
My bias <i>does</i> lean toward women, like Dianne Feinstein: however much I complain about her, I know she's on my side. She is a human of the female variety, and she respects me as one as well. She's 80+ but if I were in trouble, she'd do her best to call for help and raise an alarm and there are plenty of other women in public life, government or media, who I would <i>not</i> trust to do that.
Darn, I wish there was an edit function. That is one big damn paragraph. Sorry.
This platform has no use for your puny formatting efforts. --------------[dashes inserted to indicate paragraph break]-----------I do sometimes wonder about women like Coulter and Pirro, Kellyanne or Sarah Sanders--what would they do if they saw someone drowning? Do they have the basic humanity to jump in a try to rescue the person? Or would they watch in horrified fascination until the person slipped beneath the surface for the last time?
I think they would ask for help from the nearest man.
But if they were at a party (like when they were younger), would they check on the whereabouts of that other girl from the dorm they haven't seen for a while? Would they do anything if they saw a man berating a woman in a parking lot and physically threatening her? I see them as not wanting to get involved, especially if it means challenging the "sanctity" of the marital bond. I mean, I don't know. A child drowning? I can't imagine Sanders doing nothing. But if it were a little African American child who'd gone into the water unnoticed at an African American beach party reunion? I suspect Sanders would call 911. But then again, I don't think would be at a beach like that, in part because she's wealthy and privileged and has access to "good" beaches.
Ann Coulter is another story. I think she'd walk by a dispute and think "stupid woman!" and she'd have left the beach when the "riffraff" arrived. But who knows. All I know is that I don't automatically trust other women, although I'd always try to help them, even knowing it can backfire when both the upset woman and angry husband turn on me and beat me up.
By the way, I'm not assuming that my physical courage could stand up to every single awful situation, but I know I'd always call for help.
I wonder if they will now be able to pull off the [no real] investigation thing and when nothing comes back the MSM will fall all over themselves about how "now this has finally been put to rest'? Oh who am I kidding, of course they will.
I watched it all the way through. What I saw hasn't come up in the commentaries I've read today. First, Rachel Mitchell made Kavanaugh admit a man could both have lots of of woman "friends" and sexually assault at least one woman. Then she pointed to an entry in his precious calendar for July 1, 1982, scheduling "skis" (beers) with Mark Judge, Squee (?) (the guy Blasey was going out with that summer) and some other dudes. The first instance shot the legs out of his "I have lots of women friends" defense. The second, to my mind, pointed to the day his assault on Blasey happened. It was no coincidence that that was when Graham decided to hijack the proceedings and start wailing about Democratic perfidy. The FBI wouldn't have any problem finding out about July 1, 1982, IMHO, which is why Kavanaugh and the Rep Sens will never support an FBI investigation. Anyway, while I didn't think much of Mitchell during her questioning of Dr. Ford, I concluded she saw through Kavanaugh's kabuki act and was systematically destroying his defense when she was yanked away.
Hayes, Maddow, and O'Donnell went after that point a fair bit last night. It was fairly convincing.
Someone -- possibly Mitchell, possibly not -- is trying to erase her steps in that direction:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/28/rachel-mitchell-says-she-wouldnt-prosecute-scots-nominee-kavanaugh/1453587002/
“Squi” was Chris Barett, who Dr. Ford said, introduced her to Kavanaugh’s gang. I don’t remember her ssaying she was going out with him but I may have missed it. You’re right ole Huckleberry, the experienced JAG lawyer, could see that Miitchell was getting right on to the corpus delicti and he shut that right down. I gather Mitchell was pissed about being unceremoniously pushed aside.
Where does Flake go from here? My—perhaps unduly charitable—take is that he is a weak, vacillating man with a vestigial conscience, who wants to think well of himself. Of course, his record to date has been noted for the size of the hat, the absence of cattle, and, given that, a remarkable volume of manure, so optimism in the present instance must needs be not merely guarded but enrolled in the Federal Witness Protection Program.
But where does he go from here? But for his attack of the vapors, the GOP might have been able to ram this thing through yesterday. Surely, win or lose, that won’t be forgiven. If he folds again, he will have secured the contempt and loathing of all sides. If he votes “no,” providing needed cover for Murkowski and Manchin, he has the eternal enmity of the GOP, but preserves, perhaps, some self-respect—and a certain segment of the Village will swoon over his “principled conservatism.”
I’m not holding out much hope: I think it’s likelier that when the FBI fails to turn up hi-def video of the assault, Flake will prate about the presumption of innocence, and will vote to confirm. But a lot can happen in a week.