So here I am in the present, seeing this:
That's a nice graphic depiction of the future, but it's not a picture of the future.
Thursday will look like what it really is when it's Thursday.
I'm not completely a let-the-day’s-own-trouble-be-sufficient-for-the-day person, but I've been jerked around far too much by this will-she-won't-she-testify dance. I'll believe it when I see it.
It feels like a game of chicken:
The name "chicken" has its origins in a game in which two drivers drive towards each other on a collision course: one must swerve, or both may die in the crash, but if one driver swerves and the other does not, the one who swerved will be called a "chicken", meaning a coward; this terminology is most prevalent in political science and economics. The name "hawk–dove" refers to a situation in which there is a competition for a shared resource and the contestants can choose either conciliation or conflict; this terminology is most commonly used in biology and evolutionary game theory. From a game-theoretic point of view, "chicken" and "hawk–dove" are identical; the different names stem from parallel development of the basic principles in different research areas. The game has also been used to describe the mutual assured destruction of nuclear warfare, especially the sort of brinkmanship involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis.In the movies, it looks like this:
Posts
137 comments:
I wonder what the ground rule of the questioning will be. Presumably inquiry into Ford's sex life, past or present will not be permitted. The same with Kavnaugh? How will the ground rules be enforced? If the Republicans appoint an outside lawyer to do the examination of Ford, presumably she (the attorney) will respect the rules. When the Dem Senators examine Kavanaugh, they will not. If Grassley is constantly ruling their questions out of order, it will look like he's protecting Kavanaugh.
So, a frat boy grabbed a girl's tit 40 years ago, or so. So what? It has no relevance to anything today, or tomorrow.
The utter fakery that is America richly deserves a thorough bitch-slapping. Over at the Unz Review Godfree (?! who does that to a child?!) Roberts argues that because of the innate inferiority of American politicians, managers and workers, compared to their Chinese counterparts and competitors, America's former industrial base cannot be repatriated despite any trade war, because we cannot do the work needed in a truly modern industrial sector. We are just too stupid, untrainable, lazy... He concludes that within a decade the 450 million urban Chinese will enjoy a quality of life and incomes higher than that of the average American.
Having taught at a major American research university for 35 years, and having advised a number of Chinese graduate students, two to the Ph. D., I am sympathetic to Roberts' opinion, although his time-frame seems to optimistic (pessimistic?). Right now, China's industrial sector is larger, much more comprehensive and in most areas more modern than ours. We do enjoy leads in some critical industrial technology, but those leads are fading, and it is likely we will be lagging in a decade or so.
So, let the Punch and Judy show play out in Washington. It has no relevance to the real world. The piper must be paid, and the bill is coming due.
I don’t think she will ever testify. She’ll continue to jerk the judiciary committee around until it goes to a vote without her. In the full Senate, Jeff Flake will vote against him, but he’ll win confirmation by 51-50, with Pence casting the tiebreaker. And the civil war will creep ever closer.
imho, the 'Game of Chicken" - a game of mutual and equal choice by 2 parties - is a totally inappropriate and ridiculous analogy to the Kavanaugh situation. I would suggest something more akin to the 'NYC Subway Murder Game': Deranged FEMALE shoves MALE from behind onto tracks of oncoming train. Nearby FEMINISTS and assorted enemies of the Male pat her on back and exchange high-fives. MALE victim scrambles to regain platform while FEMS/Enemies step on his hands and kick those who help him. Spectators watch and write 'Deep Thoughts' editorials.
How about an Althouse cruel neutrality poll?
“Given the state of the record today, I believe:
1. CBF
2. Judge Kavanaugh.”
Vox Populi.
Always believe the woman now means always believe the woman attacking a conservative man. The woman who was named as a witness, who is a lifetime friend of the accuser, a fellow liberal, and who offers sworn testimony (on which she can be sued if lying) that she was not a witness to the assault and not present at the party and unaware of any such party and never met the accused, that woman should not be believed.
I believe our hostess owes it to herself to update her views based on the latest statement by the last and final named witness, corroborated all the other named witnesses. After all, this one was a woman.
I don't believe she'll testify. It suits the Dems' purposes to leave the matter unresolved.
I'd go with this: Stroszek: the Dancing Chicken.
I am Laslo.
Her poor car will break down.
Good news, there is a flight to Honolulu later that day.
I don't know how Blasey Ford managed all these years - to have a family and a life... How?
How can she go on knowing that Bart or some other football player, almost killed her!
"The past is different from the future. You can't go to either place, but if you wait around, what you once thought of as the future will for a brief shining moment be the present, and then it will fall off into the past..."
This made me think of the following quote from Ed Wood's "Plan Nine From Outer Space":
"Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future..."
The scene, here.
I am Laslo.
It's delay and to give cover to red state Dems.
That's all this is. Feinstein helped cook it up. She's as corrupt as Hillary Clinton.
Always believe the woman. So Keyser brings this down to "she said/she said."
I've seen a couple of claims and am too lazy to check on them. Anybody know about the truth of Senate rules cause nomination to lapse if not voted on by Thurs? If not sworn in by beginning of term, he has to wait until next year?
Ford's on-again, off-again approach to the negotiations is not much different from Trump's recommended approach:
Always be ready to walk away.
And though Trump may not have said it, I've read other books on negotiating real estate that say that in a negotiation, you should remain silent as much as possible and just wait for the other side to make one concession after another. Don't say "no." Say nothing and wait.
"So, a frat boy grabbed a girl's tit 40 years ago, or so. So what?"
Ford claims that the man forced her onto a bed and then tried to have sex with her despite her struggles.
Under the laws of every US state, that scenario constitutes attempted sexual assault, which is a crime.
She will object to some condition and won't appear.
That's where my wager would lie.
@ crimso:
A justice can be sworn in at any time. I think that the term was in progress when Gorsuch was sworn in.
As to your first question, I doubt a nomination can lapse if not acted on within a certain time. When Kavanaugh was nominated for the Court of Appeals, it took the Senate three years to vote on the nomination.
The future has been different from the past so far.
There is no Keyser Söze.
Kieth Ellison is denying the charges made by his ex-GF.
#BeleiveTheMan(D)
imho, the 'Game of Chicken" -- is a totally inappropriate and ridiculous analogy to the Kavanaugh situation.
Oh I dunno, I think the nonsense about the future was quite a bit worser.
A: "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
B: "Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has not yet come. We have only today. Let us begin."
C: "I hope in the future Americans are thought of as a warlike, vicious people, because I bet a lot of high schools would pick 'Americans' as their mascot."
D: All or none of the above.
James Dean's performances were few but memorable. My favorite was Jett Rink in Giant.
Actually, the most interesting point is will the Republicans finally show some cahoonies and not only nail this wench and the Dems to the wall but in fact shove him right down the Dems throats. If they waffle again, I think this country as we knew it is in fact finished as the Dems will never allow another constitutional justice be sworn in. If so, welcome the hard core socialism about to be unleashed on this country because we will not beable to stop it
The Hack-D press have given strict Stalinist instructions that Keith Ellison and Bill Clinton are "whataboutism" and therefore off limits to any conversion or inquiry.
Please obey. Thank you.
Exactly which paragraph was it that you gleaned this "proof", post it and let's hear your reasoning.
We used to play chicken on bicycles when I was a teenager, we crashed into one another often. Good times.
What a patriarchal, cold-hearted, misogynistic bastard that Atticus Finch was.
Dear LawProf Althouse:
Accusation is not evidence. Is this not the American Way?
The principled civil libertarian Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono says to men: “Step up and Shut up!” Meaning what? Accusation is not only evidence, it's proof. In what world is that? Stalinist Soviet Union.
The principled civil libertarian Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, who has his own difficulty with the truth says the Kavenaugh nomination should be withdrawn.
The three named witnesses have stated under oath and penalty of felony that they have no recollection of the event and the named female witness and lifelong CBF friend states she has never met Kavanaugh.
So Kavanaugh was a boy scout. Such people exist. Look at what Kamala Harris husband Bill Burton did to presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Another boy scout.
Speaking of the principled civil libertarian Kamala Harris, does she still occupy the moral high ground after the edited video clip of Kavanaugh testifying about abortifacients?
Why did CBF refuse to have Senate staffers travel to Palo Alto to take her statement?
Why has not Diane Feinstein turned over to Grassley the CBF letter?
Seriously?
I think Meade might have made a mistake harvesting mushrooms for the breakfast eggs. The magic ones can look like breakfast shrooms in dim light. Just sit down, put on Netflix, and enjoy the ride. It will fade soon.
I think that they’re still negotiating whether she has to testify on Thursday under oath. If the R’s maintain that she must testify under oath, she’ll refuse to testify but citing some other reason.
What's the new deadline that she'll ignore?
We won't see Ford until after the vote (and maybe not even then). There's no upside to democrats for her testifying. If there were she would have already done so. The turnabout from "we must hear her story" to "stop bullying her!" is the tell.
Now it's just a delay.
The campaign ads are already written. Republicans are bullies to rape victims! Might as well have the vote.
Ann, if she doesn't testify in some fashion (open or closed testimony, or even an affidavit) are you more or less likely to believe her side of the story?
We don't even have an a copy of the letter! Just news reports about it.
By this time, I think Ms. Ford would be sedated and locked up in a padded room in California if she herself mentioned anything about actually wanting to testify before the committee, or anywhere else for that matter.
I don't think that the future, when we get there, will include Ford testifying. Here's why.
Ford has "agreed" to testify, but only if the ground rules are satisfactory to her. Her lawyer has said that some of the ground rules established by the Committee are unacceptable. Grassley has agreed to modify some of the earlier proposed ground rules, but he probably won't agree to any significant further changes. So Ford can refuse to testify and blame Grassley.
That's what the Democrats want. They know that if Ford testifies she will come off as a flake, and that would give cover to the Republicans to vote to confirm. Why do I think the Democrats know Ford's a flake? Because that's the only plausible explanation for why Feinstein kept the Ford accusations under wraps for so long. If Feinstein thought Ford would be a persuasive witness, she'd have brought her allegations forward early in the process to kill the Kavanaugh nomination; the Democrats didn't have anything else that could kill the nomination, and they knew it. So come Thursday, Ford's lawyers, backed by the Democrats, will insist that some of Grassley's ground rules are unacceptable. They will identify as unacceptable rules that they are confident Grassley will not change. There will be no Ford testimony. The Democrats may hope that enough Republicans will wimp out in the face of claims that the Committee treated Ford badly, and vote against Kavanaugh's confirmation. If not, at least the Democrats will believe that Kavanaugh will go to the Court as damaged goods.
The most important book about the dispute between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas is David Brock’s The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story, published in 1993. Although Brock has disavowed his book, it is a journalistic masterpiece. Anybody who comes across this book should take the opportunity to read it, even though the dispute happened long ago. It’s one of the best books I ever read.
Anita Hill was an incompetent lawyer. Her understanding of the law was mediocre, and she could not write well. Her main qualification was that she was an African-American woman. She would work at one place until her incompetence became too obvious, and then she would go to work at some other place.
During 1982, she was working in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). For a while she worked under the supervision of a lawyer named Chris Roggerson, who was the Executive Assistant of Clarence Thomas, who was the EEOC’s Chairman. Roggerson was a notorious sexual harasser, and he harassed Hill. During that time, Hill confided to a lawyer friend, Susan Hoerchner, about Roggerson’s harassment.
Hill and Hoerchner drifted apart in about 1984.
In 1991, when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, Hoerchner telephoned Hill out of the blue and asked whether Thomas was the supervisor who had sexually harassed her. Hill responded ambiguously, and Hoerchner took that response as a confirmation. In the following days, Hoerchner secretly passed this false accusation to various people who were trying to stop the nomination of Thomas.
As the situation developed, Hill decided to go along with the false accusation — but on the condition that she herself remain anonymous. The idea was that when the anonymous accusation eventually reached Thomas, then he himself would be compelled to withdraw from his nomination rather than endure public embarrassment.
As it turned out, though, Thomas stubbornly refused to withdraw from his nomination, and then the secret false accuser’s name — Anita Hill — was leaked to the press. From that point on, Hill felt compelled to press forward with her false story.
Thomas was completely innocent, and so he prevailed. The Senate approved his nomination, and he became a Supreme Court justice.
Brock’s book tells this story in comprehensive, well documented detail. After I began reading it, I could not put it down, because it was written so superbly.
Hill is a despicable person, a character assassin. She ended up teaching law at the University of Oklahoma. As throughout her career, she is incompetent in this professional position too.
Under the laws of every US state, that scenario constitutes attempted sexual assault, which is a crime.
""No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first–verdict afterward."
Lewis Carroll.
Allegation of attempted sexual assault with no evidence is not a crime.
God help anyone who gets you on their jury,
I also doubt she'll testify. What's the point? She has no corroborating witnesses. Her story had changed. She barely is confident in the year. There's no way to prove her case.
By Thursday, we will all be sick of this.
Continuing my comment at 9:42 AM
----------
A couple years after David Brock published The Real Anita Hill, he came out as a homosexual. By then, he regretted his own role in vindicating Clarence Thomas, who turned out to be an extremely conservative member of the Supreme Court.
In the following years, he has made his living by getting financial donations from wealthy liberals for acting as an attack dog against conservative journalists. Block’s conversion was like Maxim Gorky becoming a Socialist Realism hack and denouncing fellow writers who were inadequately adulatory toward the Stalinist regime.
In 2001 — eight years after The Real Anita Hill was published — Brock renounced his own journalistic masterpiece in a new book, titled Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. I have not read the latter book, but this particular renunciation was summarized in an article by The New York Times, titled Book Author Says He Lied in His Attacks on Anita Hill in Bid to Aid Justice Thomas.
For anyone who has read The Real Anita Hill, Brock’s self-renunciation is absurd, ludicrous. Brock confessed:
* The book criticized some people whom Brock had not interviewed.
* Brock did interview some people who shared information provided by Clarence Thomas.
* Brock did not include some allegations that Thomas occasionally rented pornographic movies.
Those trivial self-criticisms sufficed, however, for all liberals who wanted to discourage any more people from reading and referring to The Real Anita Hill, which is by far the best book about the controversy.
Why do I think the Democrats know Ford's a flake? Because that's the only plausible explanation for why Feinstein kept the Ford accusations under wraps for so long
I agree. It's the scene in "Anatomy of a Murder" where the DA and the asst AG look at each other and say, "We've got to use him."
Then they bring out the jail snitch with the long criminal record.
Continuing my comment at 9:49 AM
------
In 1982, Anita Hill confided to fellow lawyer Susan Hoerchner that she was being sexually harassed by her supervisor at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). That supervisor was Chris Roggerson, the Executive Assistant to EEOC Chairman Clarence Thomas.
In 1983, Hill was passed over for a promotion at EEOC and so she departed to become a law teacher at Oral Roberts University in Oklahoma, where her family lived. Thomas helped her get that new job. Away from Washington DC, Hill did not communicate any more with Hoerchner .
Then on July 1, 1991, Hoerchner phoned Hill out of the blue. Thomas had just been nominated to the Supreme Court, and Hoerchner remembered mistakenly that Thomas was the supervisor who sexually harassed Hill. Hoerchner asked Hill whether she intended to inform Congress about “that pig” (not naming Thomas). Perhaps puzzled at first, Hill brushed away the question and then responded in an ambiguous manner.
Accepting this as a confirmation, Hoerchner then asked Hill to release her from the oath of secrecy that Hill had imposed in 1982, when Hill had confided to Hoerchner about Roggerson’s sexual harassment. Hill agreed to release her from the oath, but only on the condition that Hoerchner would not identify Hill as the harassed woman.
During this 1991 telephone conversation between Hill and Hoerchner, Thomas was not named. The sexual harasser was called simply “the pig”.
In the following days, Hoerchner informed anti-Thomas-nomination activists that she personally knew a woman, who requested anonymity, who had been sexually harassed by Thomas.
That was the beginning of the sexual-harassment witch-hunt against Thomas, who was completely innocent of the accusations and who always had treated Hill with supportive kindness.
Continuing my comment at 9:52 AM
------
David Brock’s book The Real Anita Hill reports much criticism of Hill’s teaching from her academic supervisors and colleagues and from her law students. Following are a few examples:
=====
Professor Dennis Olson, the associate dean of the Dallas-Fort Worth School of Law:
I was on the faculty at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. Anita Hill was a colleague of mine in Oklahoma. …. Students commented to me that she as particularly ineffective in class and was not concerned about improving her performance. She appeared to recognize her protected position as a black woman in an era of a affirmative action and to use that protected for all it was worth — accelerated promotions, specially arranged teaching schedules, etc.
=====
OU law student Todd Cone:
Before coming to the University of Oklahoma Law School, I was forewarned to stay away from classes taught by Prof. Hill, because she was very liberal and did not take kindly to males. …
=====
A third year female law student said Pro. Hill had a “really poor attitude.” She believed that the black students received favorable treatment both in class and in grades. ….
=====
A third year male law student found her “racist in class”. …
=====
Another third year student … stated … that she did have a “major chip on her shoulder”. … he found that she “blew gender issues out of proportion”. … during class, when a student would use the pronoun “he”, Prof. Hill would jump all over the student and question how they knew it was a man. ….
=====
UO law student Christopher Wilson:
Another graduate of OU law school told me of an instance in contracts class. … It was a case in which a woman sued a man … for child support when there was no proof he was the father. The woman was awarded child support. When asked how this judgment was fair, Ms. Hill responded that women should be supported regardless of proof.
=====
Roger Tuttle, Dean of Oral Roberts University:
As a full professor on the faculty, I observed her performance, and later as Dean I was her supervisor. She was not, at that time, a competent teacher, lacking in experience of handling students in the classroom and in her ability to adequately convey knowledge to the students. ….. she would react in anger with the students and remonstrate with them, both publicly and privately. She attempted to use her position as a teacher to intimidate and harass students. … Her general posture was … a person who would not be disagreed with under any circumstances.
=====
OU law student Jim Wagoner:
Either she didn’t know or understand the material or she wasn’t communicating it. Everybody in the class got so frustrated they stopped reading. One day she came in and started calling on people and everybody said, “I’m not prepared” or they passed.
She slammed her book shut and said, “You have stopped reading because I’m black.” And she stormed out.
We all thought it was crazy. We weren’t reading because we weren’t getting the material, not because she was black.
Clarence Thomas telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that he is being subjected to a high-tech lynching
The unproven event with an unproven party in the teen years, contains one known consensus: the "assault" ended shortly after consent was withdrawn. The other assault also on a Republican judge was based on a narrative spun from a relationship that ended shortly after discovery.
Democrats thought they could disenfranchise Judge Kavanaugh and prevent appointment with a mere allegation that would be forced with a press bullhorn, as they disenfranchised Judge Moore and prevented his election before.
#TimesUp #MeToo #HateLovesAbortion
Oh, and cruel and unusual punishment, denying due process, aborting life for causes other than self-defense, is unconstitutional.
Clarence Thomas telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that he is being subjected to a high-tech lynching
Correction: third, no fourth Republican judge assaulted by Democrats, Feminist allies, and affiliated press in less than four decades. It's Antifa, but with a judicial target.
I also doubt she'll testify. What's the point?
The have manufactured a scene. However, one coat may be insufficient to paint reality. They need to apply additional layers in order to successfully wield democratic leverage, apply corporate pressure, and cow other influential bodies.
If she testifies, there's the danger that her story will be refuted. Otherwise, the accusation can hang in midair and be used to delegitimize Kavanaugh's seat on the court. In any case, Kavanaugh is Guilty as Hell of having been nominated by Donald Trump, which is unpardonable.
Here's what Thursday will look like.
I don't think the Democrats can afford to let Blasey Ford be seen or heard speaking in public until well after the election. In the meantime all communications will be handled by her (their) attorneys.
The recovered memories were incomplete, and in the absence of external supports, and with the contribution of internal biases, are reconstructed with meaningful overlays.
The Democrats have already heard all they need to hear to find Kavanaugh guilty. Nothing.
Given the vagueness of the acceptance, it seems clear to me that she and her handlers have no intention of appearing on Thursday. They issued that "acceptance" because Grassley had gotten to the high ground by repeatedly given them extensions of deadlines with a Monday vote threat as the backstop. I am guessing that Grassley has again extended the deadline for a firm declaration o acceptance until the beginning of tomorrow's committee meeting. I think it very unlikely that Grassley allows tomorrow's meeting end without a vote on Kavanaugh if Ford hasn't issued that firm acceptance.
I wrote it here yesterday- the plan is to force the Republicans to move ahead without her testimony, then before the floor debate opens, or during it, Ford will appear in prime time with an exclusive interview on, for example, 60 Minutes. That has been the plan from the start.
Several commenters have referenced Orwell and Kafka, for obvious reasons.
But one literary reference I haven't seen is Dickens. There are a lot of women right now who are the equivalent of the women in A Tale of Two Cities, knitting names of men into a tapestry who will be guillotined.
It's actually a very apt comparison, because the novel involved a rape (although an actual one, not merely an accusation). I can't recall all the details of the plot, but there was a case of mistaken identity, and of course a revolutionary mob avenging all sorts of misdeeds, even on innocent people.
I remember the character of Madame DeFarge, shouting sarcastically, "Save him now!" because she knew her plot was successful.
Anyway, that's what all this reminds me of. A bunch of women knitting names at the foot of the guillotine.
Ford will appear in prime time with an exclusive interview on, for example, 60 Minutes
She'll get a standing ovation on Ellen.
Yeah Andrew, it's exactly the same except the consequences. You are making a Godwin corollary argument. Life is great and bountiful here in the United States of Disneyland yet you feel the need to claim Dickensian conditions. That defines snowflake.
Could Ellen possibly cut her hair any different that would accent her bountiful ears any better? asking for a turnip.
I've been jerked around far too much by this will-she-won't-she-testify dance
And yet, here we are, with you thinking that Ford should be believed and Kavanaugh should not.
Was Ms. Katz one of your students?
Just for the sake of argument, if it did happen just as she said, does that mean he should not be confirmed? With them both drunk, he rolled on the bed with her for a few seconds fully clothed, and then immediately let her go in highschool 36 years ago. Because in my opinion that allegation is not worth bringing into this process, even if it did happen.
And don't bring in him lying about it now, becuase that only matters if it actually happened, which nobody knows.
Women are capable of true viciousness in ways that men cannot even imagine.
I love that Crazey Ford's attorney is Ms. Katz. Even crazy cat women deserve able counsel. To do otherwise, would be cat-astrophiic.
What are the chances that someone in Ford's "team" has mentioned to her that regardless of the outcome, if she makes this charge, there is a lucrative book deal that's inevitable? I bet the negotiations have already started.
"Why would she lie?"
I often wonder if these feminazis, when they watch Fatal Attraction, consider Glenn Close's character the true 'victim'.
But the Glenn Close character was distraught so....
People (some) keep insisting that the pendulum will swing back, that this is just a crazy phase in American history.
I don't know anymore. I guess the generation of Hiss/Chambers said that too. And Hill/Thomas. Things did seem to get calmer. But this time? I don't see a return to normalcy.
Remember that line by Freud? If it wasn't for sex men and women would be at war with each other? Gosh, that's a terrible thought.
@Howard,
Lighten up, Francis. I wasn't claiming any such thing.
A reference to Orwell doesn't mean we are a totalitarian state. A reference to Kafka doesn't mean that The Trial is being enacted scene for scene.
My reference to Dickens doesn't mean revolutionary France is the literal equivalent of the modern USA. But certain literature is timeless. And the depiction of the mob mentality, eager for blood, in A Tale of Two Cities is an apt comparison.
You call me a snowflake but know nothing about me.
Blogger mockturtle said...
Women are capable of true viciousness in ways that men cannot even imagine.
Like the Holocaust? viciousness without the agency to impliment actual harm is just noise, sweetie.
Andrew: yeah, I call bullshit. You double-down on making Godwin-style references, which are gross exaggerations of the actual situation. Crying wolf is what you are doing.
In re snowflake: I didn't call you one directly, I just pointed out that the hysterical exaggerations you make to inflame a rather banal political battle that we have seen time and again is snowflake behavior.
I just found of copy on the Internet of Christine Ford planned testimony to Congress.
Lighten Up? This is me light as a dancing cloud providing shade to a happy tree.
Khrushchev said in his memoirs that the Soviets were never going to launch any nuclear strike in the missile crisis. The Soviets weren't going to go to war for Cuba. In fact, when the Politburo received a communique from Castro begging the Soviets to launch their nuclear missiles first the whole room got silent.
Here's Khrushchev's account from his memoirs:
"The main thing in the message from Fidel was not what was being reported to him but the conclusions he drew. He reasoned that since an invasion was inevitable, it was necessary to forestall it. He proposed to prevent destruction of our missile installations we should immediately strike first, dealing a [premptive] thermonuclear blow to the United States.
When [Castro's] message was read aloud to us, we sat there in silence, looking at one another for a long time. It became clear at that point that Fidel absolutely did not understand our intentions."
The problem, of course, was that control of the warheads in Cuba were an open question once a war began.
@Steve Galbraith,
Good reference to Hiss/Chambers. That was a biggie. Chambers thought he was leaving the winning side (Commies) to join the losing side. But, thankfully, history - at least in the medium term- proved Chambers wrong.
Now, we have to deal with Leftism. Their storm-troopers are crazy cat women, who feel empowered to slander good men. I hope Kavanaugh is a tough fighter. If he goes choir-boy Mitt Romney on us, he'll be in for a rude awakening. If he fights back, more like Trump, he can prevail.
Don't let the crazy-cat women win!
" viciousness without the agency to impliment actual harm is just noise, sweetie."
A single unknown, unelected woman with an unfounded claim, is ruining the reputation of a man in front of the whole world, and could possibly disenfranchise the votes of 60 million Americans who want this man confirmed. She may do that with no due process, no finding of relevant facts, with impunity, heroic status, and a nice book deal. The poor helpless thing.
She said 6 people were at the party, 4 men and 2 women. Of the 4 potential men, 3 have denied being at such a party or seeing Kavanaugh behave in such a manner with a woman elsewhere. Of the potential woman, that woman claims to be a lifelong friend of Blasey, yet has never met Kavanaugh nor been at any party with him. Of the 6, only 3 are actually claimed to be at the party: Blasey, Kavanaugh, and Judge. 1 says she was assaulted and 2 says they were never there. The only other evidence is a time frame within 2 years and a location within a county. Oh, and a psychiatrist's notes that doesn't include Kavanaugh's name and says 4 people were in the room. That's really all we know of evidence for her story.
Benefit of doubt says Kavanaugh remains innocent with what we know today. Blasey Ford and Katz deserve credit for delaying the vote for a week. It was as well-played as the could do it without Blasey Ford committing a criminal act. Grassley, and Trump, deserve credit for not jumping to a reactionary defensive position, and giving Blasey Ford as much opportunity to develop evidence to make a case and maybe even prove it.
I think DiFi loses on this, because while it postponed things a week; she went AWOL. She pissed off her colleagues and neither went on the attack or avoided the situation, which makes her look weak. Her Democratic challenger has lots to work with to destroy her candidacy. I think Collins did well to date on taking a fair stance but not letting herself be played. Flake played to well, but in the end, he's showing himself to be the same kind of ass, as his former colleague from Arizona.
I still think Kavanaugh gets confirmed. If he doesn't, then Democrats will have to run on blocking any other Trump nomination for 2 years, as well as poorly pretending that they have no interest in impeaching Trump. All the while, they'll ignore Keith Ellison's abusive history as they did Hillary's. I think the average American voter will see all this, and the mood will be closer to 2016 rather than 2006. Republicans will retain the Senate, and Trump could get another opportunity, maybe two.
Overall its a loser for Democrats unless they can come up with the 4th missing man to say it was his home, his party, his invitation list, and he got Blasey home safely. Or a blue swimsuit with DNA material.
It is well known that students of psychology, their professors even more so, typically have serious psychological problems of their own, including the inability to distinguish between fact and fiction and being highly suggestible. They enter the field in hopes of curing themselves, but the cure never happens, and their own psychopathology may worsen. I earned a master's degree in psychology and can attest to the fact that each and every one of my professors was more than a little "off."
Don't let the crazy-cat women win!
Yes, but there are a lot of good men and women on the "other side." We can't just shut the door to their thoughts and view.
It's true that this social justice warrior/identity politics view has to be rejected. But we do so with reason and respect (for the most part).
Yes, I sound like a, what's the word they use? "cuck" or "cuckold"? Too bad, those Americans who disagree with us ARE NOT our enemies.
The compelling story is that this leftwinger is a liar.
@Steve Gal,
Nah, not a cuck. Good observstions. I would add that we should celebrate and honor all the sensible, hard-working, stable, intelligent, attractive women out there. There's a ton of them, thankfully. We cannot lump them together with the crazy cat women.
This is not “she said, he said”! Every single witness cited by Ford, including her therapist, contradicts or discredits her. Democrat politicians and their compliant, lying mediaswine are all that keeps this BS afloat.
This is not just an attack on Kavanaugh. It is an anti-constitutional attack on American standards of justice and decency.
Bagoh2o wrote: “A single unknown, unelected woman with an unfounded claim, is ruining the reputation of a man in front of the whole world, and could possibly disenfranchise the votes of 60 million Americans who want this man confirmed. She may do that with no due process, no finding of relevant facts, with impunity, heroic status, and a nice book deal. The poor helpless thing.”
That woman may succeed in bringing down Dianne Feinstein. DiFi has no real out here. She obstructed. She has virtually no political friends left. California libs are absolutely giddy about getting a real reconquistadore in the US Senate in her place.
Given the statements by others, if she testifies under oath she will commit provable, if not actual, perjury.
But never mind. No one who furthers, or has furthered, the cause of the Democrat Party is held accountable for their crimes.
And now comes news that Dr. Ford didn't send the letter to Senator Feinstein, but to Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, who agreed to forward the letter onto Senator Feinstein.
An end-run around 18 USC 1001?
Ms. Ford has sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind.
I wonder if she's started driving - you won't get from LA to DC in 3 and 1/2 days.
those Americans who disagree with us ARE NOT our enemies.
Maybe not but they see us as their enemy. With fear and loathing.
I long for the day when those who insist the precious Dr. Ford is to be believed have their own lives utterly destroyed by the same nonsense they're now supporting.
Karma, bitches.
Los Angeles to DC: 39 h (2,669.1 mi) via I-40 E
Under the laws of every US state, that scenario constitutes attempted sexual assault, which is a crime.
Yes. So why didn't she call the fucking police 35 god damn years ago?
By Thursday, we will all be sick of this.
Yeah. Last Thursday.
Ugh !
“let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day”
what a horrible modern mangling of the beautiful King James phrasing :
“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof”
A sexual assault that ended shortly after consent was withdrawn... by who, when, and where?
A recovered memory necessarily has missing links that are compensated with meaningful correlations. Kavanaugh's nomination triggered the launch of a hear seeking missile searching for a target.
It will be interesting to see if Feinstein loses to her leftist opponent [also a Dem] in November. He is certainly more attractive.
"Under the laws of every US state, that scenario constitutes attempted sexual assault, which is a crime."
Then I have been sexually assaulted numerous times by my older brother, my older sister, my father, numerous friends, and the police, and I'm also guilty of it myself. I bet I'm not the only one here.
You know what else is a crime?
Babysitting a friend's child for money and not reporting it to the IRS.
Winning $10 on the lottery or a slot machine and not reporting it.
Driving 56 mph in a 55 zone.
Coasting through a stop sign surrounded by corn fields and no traffic in sight.
Buying an employee lunch and not deducting taxes from them.
etc, etc.
Every single American is guilty of a crime and most of us probably thousands of them in the last 36 years, so who is gonna be a judge?
ABA says there are over 10,000 Federal criminal statutes such as:
'Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law."
It feels like a game of chicken:
Are you not entertained?
This game of chicken, this farce, this circus is for the benefit of the "sensitive" woman, or as rhhardin says, the soap opera woman. You need this show, so they're putting it on just for you. Doesn't that makes you feel powerful?
Shouldn't the headline really read "She said, They said" in order to be factually correct? All 3 alleged witnesses have denied being there or witnessing it so can we stop pretending this is between Ford and Kavanaugh?
Howard, wow, you called bullshit? I cannot withstand the irrefutable logic.
PS The guillotine is metaphorical.
Democrats poised to grill Brett Kavanaugh on drinking, partying in high school
"We want to hear — I would be wanting to hear what kind of environment it was in high school," Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said Sunday during an interview with CNN's "State of the Union."
"Apparently, there was a lot of drinking and partying going on," she continued. "This is why we need an investigation. We need an independent investigation that lays all of that out for us, so there's at least some chance of some outside entity, like the FBI, doing an investigation."
...
Echoing Hirono was Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who told ABC News' "This Week" that the alcohol line of inquiry was "relevant to the whole conversation."
"Dr. Ford has said that they were stumbling drunk at the time this occurred," Durbin said. "There have been a loft things said about the alcohol consumed by the judge as well as by others in his school. That has to be part of any relevant questioning."
Joking, right? The whole point of holding on to it and ambushing after hearing was to re-establish Feinstien's street cred in California. These old dems, and Feinstien in particular are facing challenges by the new breed. She looks good to the young ones now because she is killing the evil republican.
That woman may succeed in bringing down Dianne Feinstein. DiFi has no real out here. She obstructed. She has virtually no political friends left. California libs are absolutely giddy about getting a real reconquistadore in the US Senate in her place.
A young woman falsely testied that the former Omaha police chief, state court judge and publisher attended wild orgys. She was convicted and spent many years in the state pen. I hope the same thing happens to CBF, but given her story I doubt it.
Anyone who supports diversity or color judgments including racism, sexism; or who supports political congruence ("=") or selective exclusion; or who supports cruel and unusual punishment, presumptions/assertions of guilt, summary judgments, and capital abortion, should be removed from public office and subject to strict public scrutiny.
I fully expect a lowlife like Matthew Drudge to focus on innuendo, given how scared he is of of coming out and admitting that he's been a secretly closeted gay man all these years. But conservatism and self-hatred are a given, especially if you're from one of the groups they love to marginalize - like the gays.
Remember that line by Freud? If it wasn't for sex men and women would be at war with each other?
Sex is the reason men and women are at war.
War.
"Apparently, there was a lot of drinking and partying going on," she continued. "This is why we need an investigation." Fuck these people. Does anyone with a brain in their skull think anyone in the Senate could pass these conditions they are laying out for Kavanaugh? The party of the Kennedy's, Bill Clinton and LBJ are now terribly worried about teens drinking and dry humping. Jebus. Enough. Set the vote for 10:30 Monday morning. These pussies are going to have a cow no matter what the republicans do so get it over with.
We need more tax payer fraud-waste Mueller investigations into any perceived or fake media-inspired crimes. Nothing for the D's, tho. They get a pass on everything. It's the Bill Clinton Crime Family bulletproof law. Drag a dollar bill by Simon and Schuster.
This is the modern corruptocrat party. Stalin in their guide.
GK1 - *this
Are you now, or have you ever been a normal American male? Be very careful how you answer, Mr. Kavanaugh.
@Fullmoon: You've heard of plans backfiring, right? If Kavanaugh is voted in, Feinstein fails and her erstwhile supporters will say that she failed. She has two extreme choices: She can double down and go completely nasty on Kavanaugh, or she can appeal to Republican voters in CA to support her in the face of Reconquista.
I predict that she leads a chorus of "Present" choses this moment to announce her retirement.
PPPT: “But conservatism and self-hatred are a given, especially if you're from one of the groups they love to marginalize - like the gays.”
Gays are conservative and self-hating? The latter perhaps, but conservative?
I'd like to see President Trump go to California next month an hold one of his monster rallies for Kevin Leon
Say that dichispyfi doesn't deserve to be a senator any longer.
Sure, Kevin is just another batshit crazy dem. But he will have ZERO seniority compared to her 36 years.
Or maybe he should campaign for her. Great friend of the administration etc.
Either way the entertainment value would be very high.
He could campaign for crazy Max too.
John Henry
>>Under the laws of every US state, that scenario constitutes attempted sexual assault, which is a crime.
Under the standards of 35 years ago, it would be damn near impossible to get arrested for the behavior described, especially as a minor.
Today, of course, the police called to such a party would be arresting the parents.
She'll get a standing ovation on Ellen.
She'll get a permanent gig on "The View" because of her professional training in psychology. The ladies need a "doctor" to lend legitimacy to their incorrect diagnoses.
Interesting. Also discusses McCabe-Rosenstien
" Note the words that echo the idea of big strong men hurting the little woman: the deadline itself is “aggressive” and the purpose is to “bully” her. Christina Ford (“Dr.” to you) is no longer 15 years old, but the letter implies that that’s her approximate mental and emotional age.
There’s no acknowledgment, of course, of the fact that Ford set this entire thing in motion, that she has had nearly two months (or more) to prepare and 36 years before that, that she is the one who blindsided Kavanaugh and the Republicans in the Senate rather than the other way around, that they have already given her many extensions, and that Kavanaugh’s family has also experienced incredible stress and death threats as a result of her accusations.
Most of us have had the experience of arguing with a person like this. Give an inch? They take a mile. Make concessions? They want more. They are the poor suffering victims. They don’t like your tone of voice. They don’t like the expression on your face. If you try to be calm, you’re cold. If you try to be sympathetic, you’re condescending. Nothing you do is okay, and everything they do is okay.
Have you ever been a teen age male at a party where too much alcohol was consumed? Ask every Senator that question and let he who is without sin, vote against Brett Kavanaugh. And let that Senator's constituents impeach that Senator for being an open liar and ridiculous.
This would be great. Rally at football stadium, after the game.
johnhenry100 said...
I'd like to see President Trump go to California next month an hold one of his monster rallies for Kevin Leon
Say that dichispyfi doesn't deserve to be a senator any longer.
Sure, Kevin is just another batshit crazy dem. But he will have ZERO seniority compared to her 36 years.
Or maybe he should campaign for her. Great friend of the administration etc.
Either way the entertainment value would be very high.
He could campaign for crazy Max too.
John Henry
Agreed- Hillarywoodland will promote the no-evidence-11th-hour-accuser like a rock star. and it will make ordinary americans (deplorables and what Joe Biden said, recoil and turn off the TV even more)
Blasey Ford a die hard leftist elite who hates Trump. She's half way there. Almost derailing Kavanaugh - why she's a deity.
date: sometime in the near future
Althouse has just left a post wherein she upbraids us for falling for her ruse, and scolds us for thinking she would in any way side/support/empathize with CBF, the batshit crazy tool used to smear a decent, qualified nominee.
The Commentariat breathes a collective sigh of relief, and all is right with the world
If Kavanaugh had any skill at repartee he might say "I am not stupid enough to take that question seriously in this proceedings"
We find ourselves as citizens in a forum watching a man and a woman torn to shreds for our amusement. Ironically this show is for the benefit of the squishy "sensitive" female vote-- the Althouse vote*.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed-- which is likely unless something provable turns up-- the "sensitive" women are appeased by the show put on for them. The smarter among these women know they are being played but they seem to want the nasty game played anyway. Maybe they need their pound of flesh.
The "sensitive" feminist may see herself as striving toward some idealized version of male/female relationships, but her baser side is satisfied with revenge. Feminists are too satisfied watching this man suffer, to even care that an emotionally unstable woman is being used as a political pawn, or to think about whether these extreme #Metoo tactics make women weaker in the long run.
____
*This show is not for radical feminists, since there is way to please them, ever.
Variation on that ... I suggest you are intelligent enough to not expect me to take it seriously.etc.
Agreed- Hillarywoodland will promote the no-evidence-11th-hour-accuser like a rock star. and it will make ordinary americans (deplorables and what Joe Biden said, recoil and turn off the TV even more)
Since she appears to be camera-shy, I suggest she start in radio. Go head to head against Rush. She could host a call-in show for women across the nation. I presume that she's certified to give advice. Give the name a play on an old familiar theme: "The Doctor Is On"
I hope it is more "fake news," but the MSM now say they have made a "deal" and Grassley has canceled the committee vote set for tomorrow.
I take this as a precedent, and that anyone called to testify before the Senate in the future will also be entitled to specify the conditions under which they will consent to do so.
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward.
And that will be so even if the Democrats again pull the football away on Thursday.
Drudge:
Insiders claim Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer are set to report a late twist in Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation... MORE...
NEW YORKER to publish account of a new woman and a 'dildo'...
She is 'Never Trump', says a source. But best friend will say 'She never told me!'... Developing...
We trust the #dildo hashtag is ready and waiting.
Wouldn't it be marvelous if Trump tweeted for Putin to help find witnesses who can corroborated Ford's accusation?
As you consider the behavior of Cavanaugh and the Senate Republicans, never forget the role of the media. The media works overtime to excuse the behavior of the Democrats and CBF. They search for ways to make the GOP look bad. They ignore the double standards and paint Cavanaugh in the worst possible light.
Grassley treads lightly to avoid giving the media statements that can be distorted and purposely misconstrued.
The new accusation:
Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.
Date ?
Ramirez said Kavanagh pulled out his penis and told her to kiss it.
Uh, no. Sorry honey, your confusing Kavanagh with Bill Clinton and yourself with Paula Jones.
Lying Democrat party scumbags.
It's all shits and giggles for the Dems ... Feinstein's Chicom handlers are giddy with delight!
Post a Comment