When is it okay to shout "Fire!" and cause a panic? Brett looks more like he's smelling... not smoke but ... woman?!?... oh, I don't know, but now, I'm reading the Wikipedia article "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" and I see:
People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall of London in 1856, a theater in New York's Harlem neighborhood in 1884, and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead. In the Shiloh Baptist Church disaster of 1902, over 100 people died when "fight" was misheard as "fire" in a crowded church causing a panic and stampede.When it's not a real fire, but a political situation, who's to say the perception of a smoldering fire is wrong? Me, I have very little sense of smell, so I've got to rely on other people to alert me about literal smells that signal danger. In the metaphorical realm, where the "smell" is of a developing political problem, those who "smell" it earliest could either be wrong or really giving us a useful early warning that we can pay attention to, contemplate, and maybe do something about before it's too late.
In contrast, in the Brooklyn Theatre fire of 1876, the actors initially falsely claimed that the fire was part of the performance, in an attempt to avoid a panic. However, this delayed the evacuation and made the resulting panic far more severe....
In his introductory remarks to a 2006 debate in defense of free speech, writer Christopher Hitchens parodied the Holmes judgement by opening "Fire! Fire, fire ... fire. Now you've heard it", before condemning the famous analogy as "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." Hitchens argued that the socialists imprisoned by the court's decision "were the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre indeed.... [W]ho's going to decide?"
As for the smell of a woman — the smell I imagine Brett Kavanaugh to be screwing up his face about — I tried googling that...
"You know what's kept me goin' all these years? The thought that one day... never mind... silly. Just the thought that maybe one day, I'd -- I could have a woman's arms wrapped around me... and her legs wrapped around me.... That I could wake up in the morning and she'd still be there. Smell of her. All funky and warm. I finally gave up on it." That's the key "smell" quote from "Scent of a Woman."
These days, the idea that you'll wake up one morning with "a woman's arms wrapped around me... all funky and warm" feels metaphorical and horrible. Life was going so well. You were climbing the heights. What a good man you are, admired by all, up and up you go, and then you wake up one morning and she is "still... there..." and she's "wrapped around" you all right. Smell of her.
ADDED: What am I really saying here? Have I bitten off more than I can chew? It's my Kavanaugh gnaw.
AND: I am genuinely working my way toward what I want to say about Kavanaugh's predicament. The most straightforward thing I can say — and I have only figured this out after writing this post to pre-chew things — is:
1. This seat on the Court is especially important because of the threat to women's rights. Justice Kennedy was the 5th vote in key right-of-privacy cases, and women's continuing domain over our own bodies is at stake.
2. Kavanaugh has used his relationship to real-life women as some assurance that he will do right by women. We've heard much talk about his coaching girls' basketball and his hiring of female law clerks. He has forefronted his goodness with women, putting it in issue to meet very specific, important questions we have about him.
3. It's not a case of whether it would be fair to prosecute him for sexual assault after so many years and with this little evidence, but a question whether this person should be confirmed to take Justice Kennedy's seat on the Court and to have power for a lifetime to make decisions that will quite specifically determine the scope of women's rights. He has no right to the seat that's comparable to a right to remain free from criminal penalties.
4. Why should we Americans accept this man's power over us? He's been portrayed as a super-human paragon, and I don't think that can be the standard for who can be on the Supreme Court. It's dangerous to go looking for paragons. Maybe they've got a hard-to-detect dark side that has driven them to a life of saintly good works.
5. I assume all of the Senators are thinking primarily of their own power and how all of this will play in the November elections and in future elections. They are power-seekers and Kavanaugh is a power seeker. I am not seeking power. I am wary of the people who exercise power. I don't trust any of them, and I find it very hard to decide whom to trust here. It's tempting to say, it's wrong to use this device to defeat Kavanaugh. But to say that is to join everyone who insists on thinking of this all in terms of partisan politics. I'm having flashbacks to the Bill Clinton era, when I saw so many fake feminists put party politics first. I didn't. I didn't do it then, and I'm not going to do it now.
Posts
347 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 347 of 347Screw this guy's life, I guess, he was inconvenient to the Left and the nice smart people like Prof. Althouse don't give a shit about smearing him. Oh well, gotta break a few eggs I suppose.
Ann Althouse said...1. This seat on the Court is especially important because of the threat to women's rights. Justice Kennedy was the 5th vote in key right-of-privacy cases, and women's continuing domain over our own bodies is at stake.
Great, then at least be honest and say: we will only accept someone as liberal or more liberal than Kennedy on these issues and will oppose by any means necessary anyone else.
Can you at least be honest about it? Because the rest is bullshit rationalization--"oh we normally won't do this in this way, but THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT." Bullshit. You want to win and you don't care how you win--what damage it does to any individual, what damage it does to the institution, what damage it does to the ability to ever govern or live together as people with different partisan affiliations, etc.
If all you care about is winning this is the kind of thing you do. I expect it from people like Sen Feinstein and I guess I should start expecting it from nice smart centrist people like Professor Althouse. It's just too important a seat, you see, so the normal rules don't apply! Bullshit.
Ann Althouse said... “Maybe they've got a hard-to-detect dark side that has driven them to a life of saintly good works.”
Althouse recently stated that she has NO bad habits. Perhaps this is a lie. Perhaps she too has a dark side which has driven her to a life of saintly good blogging. For example, I’ve long suspected that there is something terribly racist in her family’s past which drives her acts of white guilt.
So to recap:
1. An accusation about an alleged event that is almost 40 years old, where the accuser cannot remember the date / year / location, nor how she got to the party or how she got home afterwards... who was probably at least somewhat intoxicated herself, and who cannot remember the names of anyone one else at the party, but yet can remember with clarity the two older teenage boys as being specifically Kavanaugh and Judge. How did she know who they were? Were they friends of hers? Acquaintances? Did she have a secret crush on one or the both of them?
They went to completely different schools, but somehow she knew EXACTLY who they were as they pulled her suddenly into a room and threw her onto the bed. How long did this alleged event take to play out? Seconds? Minutes? How much time did she have to put 2-and-2 together about what was happening as she supposedly feared for her life, before breaking free and returning to the party as if nothing happened, and after which she told no-one (friends, parents, police).
2. The accuser supposedly tells her therapist about this incident in 2012, the same year that Romney was the Republican nominee for President, although the details conflict (4 boys instead of 2, late teens vs early teens) and she does not specifically name her alleged attackers, allowing her the greatest degree of flexibility should she ever need to use her therapist's notes against any potential Republican SC pick.
3. Accuser is a radical, left-wing activist professor, who has essentially stated that her side should do whatever is necessary to prevent another "Scalia-like" judge from being appointed to the SC.
4. Her parent's foreclosure hearing was presided over by her alleged attacker's Mother, resulting in her parents losing their house, providing additional animus and motive.
5. Her brother is a lawyer for Fusion GPS, the same Democrat smear machine behind the completely unsubstantiated Pee-Pee Dossier.
6. Accuser claims to have slept with 64 different men during her late teens and to have had issues with alcoholism.
7. After almost 40 years, accuser decides to send a letter about this alleged event to the Democrats, and asks for complete anonymity, saying she does *NOT* wish to come forward, and yet despite this, supposedly takes a lie-detector test administered by someone from the FBI. Who was this agent? When and where was the test performed? Is it in the nature for the FBI to randomly give out polygraphs to some random person where no criminal investigation is in process?
8. Additionally, despite asking for complete anonymity, she hires a prominent #MeToo feminist lawyer and completely scrubs her entire social media presence from the Internet, removing any chance to research her politics, posts, history, motives and mindset.
9. DiFi sits on this letter since July, asking no questions about it during the actual confirmation hearings, and decides to release it at the 11th hour in order to force a delay until after the election, also providing cover to RINO #NeverTrumper's like Flake, Sasse, Collins and Murkowsky to vote no...
10. A letter signed by 65 women who know Kavanaugh, testifying to his honorable and impeccable character
11. Kavanaugh emphatically denies that this ever happened, either then or later. In the following 35+ years, no other such incident has ever been reported, and for all accounts, Kavanaugh has no blemish of any kind on his record.
12. Judge, the only other person the accuser claims was present, has also emphatically denied that this ever happened, calling it "completely nuts".
13. This is the EXACT same tactic that the Democrats have used OVER AND OVER against Republican / Conservative candidates, going back decades, including Clarence Thomas, Roy Moore and now Brett Kavanaugh. And yet we're supposed to drop everything and act as if this time its different.
Have I missed anything?
Hanging round downtown by myself
And I had so much time to sit and think about my self and there she was
Like double cherry pie ya there she was
Like disco super fly
I smell sex and candy ya
Who's that lounging in my chair
Whoas that's casting devious stares in my direction
Momma this surly is a dream ya
Ya momma this surely is a dream dig it
Hanging round downtown and I've had to much caffeine and I was was thinking about myself and there she was
In platform double swede ya there she was, like disco lemonade
I smell sex and candy ya
Who's that lounging in my chair
Who's that casting devious stares in my direction
Momma this surly is a dream ya
Ya momma this surly is a dream dig it
Ya momma this surly is a dream ya
I smell sex and candy ya
Who's that lounging in my chair
And who's that casting devious stairs in my direction
Momma this surly is a dream dig it
Ya momma this surly is a dream
Ya momma this surly is a dream ya
Ya momma this must be my dream
Is this part of the "that's not who we are" thing Obama always mentions?
You know, random, non-falsifiable character assassinations from Joe the Plumber until now?
10 years of this shit?
Or is it eleven?
“Christine Blasey Ford admitted she was an alcoholic back then and regretted being so easy. She told her best friend she had 64 sexual partners between 11th grade thru college. She is also liberal activist who wrote on her FB in '16, "Scalia-types must be banned from law!"”
Interesting. Is this true? Or just a counter meme? The Scalia comment, if true, is enough to probably to impeach and discredit her testimony, with the Republicans. Irish Catholic (replacing an Irish Catholic), instead of Italian Catholic, but still raised RC. No doubt close enough to a “Scalia-type” to question this woman’s veracity.
Ann Althouse said...The 2018 elections will have consequences. That's one of them. Do you like democracy or don't you? What's the danger of attrition on the Supreme Court? It could muddle through with only 8 members... or only 7. Politics is a game of nerves. I don't like any of it, but I can see that just about everyone claims the line has been crossed at exactly the point where they don't like what is happening.
The smart centrist people have spoken. It won't bother or outrage them if the Dems not only shoot Kavanaugh down with a smear but refuse to accept anyone Trump nominates.
What could possibly go wrong, right? It's all just politics, it's all just fine.
"I don't like any of it," but I guess you don't mind it enough to object to the tactic...probably 'cause THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT and maybe WOMEN'S BODIES are involved.
Terrific.
We're learning through practice.
We're only learning there are no rules, that the left wants us to learn they get to pick who and when and that for the left who and when means who and when suits them.
"Screw this guy's life, I guess, he was inconvenient to the Left and the nice smart people like Prof. Althouse don't give a shit about smearing him. Oh well, gotta break a few eggs I suppose."
This. Feminist first, who cares about destroying a good man's life. I hope Kavanaugh votes to overturn your precious little fruitcakes "right" to have the state recognize him fucking a man in the ass as a marriage. The constitution is a living document you see, and subject to the whims of 5 of 9 people. You made these rules, now you will fucking live with them.
It would serve you disgusting harpies who are participating in this travesty right. I sincerely hope Kavanaugh learns from this experience and exerts the next 50 years reigning down "judicial activisim" on the left with extreme prejudice.
All good points in your update. I'm not pro-choice, but I don't think there's a reasonable way to get from the status quo to some kind of severe restrictions on the abortion liberty. A Supreme Court nominee should say something sensible about that. If Senators or the public believe the goody two-shoes story about Kavanaugh was too good to be true, and we're finally seeing some reality, then let the chips fall where they may.
The accusation against Kavanaugh: has the woman indicated that she completely forgot this episode for decades, went through emotional struggles or symptoms of mental illness, saw a therapist, and then finally decided her issues can be traced back to an incident in high school, many of the details of which she still forgets? If so, this reminds me of the "recovered memory" phonemenon of a few years ago. There was a big wave of people suddenly remembering childhood trauma, usually involving a male and sex. Then experts weighed in more and more, saying this was all pretty unlikely, the most likely Ockham's razor explanation was that a therapist, in a humane attempt to "explain" a patient's symptoms, would hint that there must have been something when you were young, etc. Different hints provided by the therapist at different sessions, until the patient says: suddenly I remember the incident that caused my problems! The therapist gets credit as a great healer.
People generally have no difficulty remembering a trauma from childhood or the teenage years--in fact, they often remember it, with a great many details, all too well.
Althouse wrote: "But to say that is to join everyone who insists on thinking of this all in terms of partisan politics."
There is no other way to think of it beyond Democrats' and pro-aborts' wishful thinking. There is no credible evidence supporting this woman's story. I include in that the results of the private polygraph. The fact of the polygraph, however, supports the supposition of partisan politics.
Of course, for Democrats and pro-aborts wishful thinking is good enough. Remember, for example, the now exposed fake evidence in Roe v. Wade.
When you really think about it, I mean when you think deeply isn't Kavanaugh really just a puffed up splooge stooge?
I mean his story is just a little too good, isn't it? Since it is we can assume he's hiding some deep dark secrets and is really a bad person. Hell, the fact that he probably doesn't agree with the Left and with nice centrist people like Prof. Althouse on the constitutionality of abortion is itself evidence that he's a bad person--and naturally we don't care about things like fairness or standards when it comes to tearing apart the lives and futures of bad people.
Justices who don't agree with Kennedy aren't the backbone of society (unlike women who regard abortion on demand and without restriction as the most important right), so it's perfectly fine to fuck them over in any way necessary. Way to stay consistent, Professor.
Ann Althouse said...The 2018 elections will have consequences. That's one of them. Do you like democracy or don't you? What's the danger of attrition on the Supreme Court? It could muddle through with only 8 members... or only 7. Politics is a game of nerves. I don't like any of it, but I can see that just about everyone claims the line has been crossed at exactly the point where they don't like what is happening.
You remember the saying, right? IT'S NOT OVER UNTIL WE WIN. Funny that you nice centrist people have embraced that, huh?
It's not a case of whether it would be fair to prosecute him for sexual assault after so many years and with this little evidence, but a question whether this person should be confirmed to take Justice Kennedy's seat on the Court and to have power for a lifetime to make decisions that will quite specifically determine the scope of women's rights.
For progressives there is always a reason "the rules are different this time".
Bork.
Biden Rule.
Garland.
Kavanaugh.
Ann:
You got me on the appointment/nomination distinction.
Here's my main point. The standard for the Senate in confirming a nominee to SCOTUS was that if the nominee was smart, experienced, good character and had a judicial demeanor, then he/she was confirmed. The President selects people from his party. Senators may disagree on the political and legal views of a Kagan, but she gets confirmed because she's qualified.
Trump won the election and he gets to nominate who he wants. If qualified, the Senate should confirm regardless of what party holds the Senate.
As to a "lie" I told about you, I expressed my OPINION that you are rationalizing the Dems and CBF's lies in order to take to down Kavanaugh.
By all regular measures of any SCOTUS nominee, Kavanaugh is more than qualified and should be confirmed. As to what he may or may not do about a future case is pure speculation.
All sorts of lines have been crossed, one after another over the years.
Part of the recent change is the growing general realization that they were crossed, quite a long time ago in some cases.
Far too many lines have been crossed.
To use a Humpty Dumpty analogy, old Humpty hasn’t fallen and shattered, he’s just been cracking, and cracking, and cracking, but has, from a distance maybe, seemed intact, These cracks can’t be plastered over. Humpty is about to shatter entirely.
HoodlumDoodlum reminds: You remember the saying, right? IT'S NOT OVER UNTIL WE WIN. Funny that you nice centrist people have embraced that, huh?
Russ Feingold said that. Feingold was among the few politicians to whom Althouse ever gave money. Perhaps the only one. Funny, huh?
If only Ted Kennedy were alive today:
"[Bret Kavanaugh's] America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President [Trump] is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of [Russian Collusion], reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."
Has anyone hacked into Kavanaugh's streaming video history?
The good thing is that it's ok for emotions to drive decision making--it's important, in fact, to not minimize the role emotions play and should play. That means it's perfectly fine for anyone pissed off by this, and by the people aiding and abetting this, to embrace their emotion and act accordingly.
Good thing we decided reason and rationality weren't things to uphold and strive for as the best way to govern, right? It's all emotion and power and the nice centrist people are a-OK with that.
Golly I hope they enjoy what comes next.
I don't like any of it, but I can see that just about everyone claims the line has been crossed at exactly the point where they don't like what is happening.
The line was probably crossed when FDR tried to pack the court. Then there was a pause, and then what Kennedy did to Bork. And I didn't want Bork on the court. So I guess I'm not included in your "just about everyone".
Do you like democracy or don't you? What's the danger of attrition on the Supreme Court? It could muddle through with only 8 members... or only 7
Game theory would suggest one of the dangers is a stand off. Tit for Tat by both sides never produces cooperation. It's not unreasonable consecutive elections doesn't beak a stalemate. Could the court handle one member? No members?
Do you like democracy or don't you?
I am not sure the Rate My Professor is her. It's from Cal State Fullerton, and the person with that name there does not look much like the other photos.
Not important anyway. A plethora of bad reviews might mean something. One doesn't. She might be able to come up with a lot who liked her. Kinda Yelpish.
I'm actually not a big fan of democracy.
I much prefer the Republic we have, if we can keep it.
Althouse said "I am not seeking power. I am wary of the people who exercise power. I don't trust any of them, and I find it very hard to decide whom to trust here."
There are ALWAYS going to be people who seek power. The ones who get it won't be the kindest, the wisest, or the most self-less. It will be the ones who want it the most. So you have to hope for people in power who will act in their own self-interest that happens to also be YOUR interest. It's why I never vote for Democrats. What they want is ALWAYS against my interests. Only some to most of the time for Republicans.
Dave Begley said...
Trump won the election and he gets to nominate who he wants. If qualified, the Senate should confirm regardless of what party holds the Senate.
I agree, but note that the Democrats can point to Merrick Garland. Judicial confirmations have been an escalating series of tit-for-tat, and now the tit is on the other foot.
Of course I believe that Republican should confirm Kavanaugh, because he is qualified, and they have the power to do so. I can't blame the Democrats for trying to stop it ( although I can blame them for the particular tactics they are using. )
And if, in a few years, the Democrats control the House, Senate, and Presidency, I could honestly not blame them for adding more seats to the court in order to swing the balance in their favor.
(Of course I do, as any rational person does, blame Democrats for the current state of affairs, which is entirely due to their aconstitutional judicial overreach.)
The courts packed with ultra conservatives with Alinsky predilections makes for an interesting scenario, don it?
Fresh from the What-a-Difference-a-Day-Makes Dept.:
Sen. Grassley (R-IA) Kavanaugh's accuser "deserves to be heard."
Remember, this political fight is so very incredibly important for two main reasons:
1) Abortion, and
2) Chevron deference.
#2 is more important for the Republic than is #1.
#1 is more important for the politics that would follow.
bbkingfish:
And Ford's lawyer says her client will not testify to Congress.
What else ya got?
I was waiting for my 1st period English class with Ms. Adams (sp) just before 8 a.m. A kid, who I'm sure attacked me for the color of my skin, smashed a heavy history book on my head.
Even crazy trumpit remembers when and where.
Not only does Ford's lawyer say she refuses to testify, The Democrats are refusing to support setting up investigative contact with her...
...That Democrats have so egregiously mishandled this up until now is no excuse for us to do the same. If Democrats reject the committee handling this swiftly and in a bipartisan way through regular order, then it’s clear that their only intention is to smear Judge Kavanaugh and derail his nomination
There you go.
The key point, which you are ignoring, is that there is no Constitutional right o have an abortion.
It is a lie, that has been pushed by the Left for years.
Your lie is about to unravel
So it's not surprising that you're willing to embrace another lie to try to protect your original lie
1. women's continuing domain over our own bodies is at stake.
The majority of babies in women's wombs are male.
If you chose not to have an abortion, a man loses dominion over his body for the next 18 years (it's called child support)
So what you're actually complaining about is your lose of dominion over men's bodies
you want dominion over your own bodies? Vote Republican. Because it's the Democrats who fight to make you go to a doctor to get a birth control prescription, rather than being able to buy it over the counter
3. It's not a case of whether it would be fair to prosecute him for sexual assault after so many years and with this little evidence, but a question whether this person should be confirmed to take Justice Kennedy's seat on the Court and to have power for a lifetime to make decisions that will quite specifically determine the scope of women's rights.
That question was answered when American voters elected Trump President, with a GOP controlled Senate
4. Why should we Americans accept this man's power over us?
Why should we American's accept RBG et. al.'s power over us? They are denying us the right to vote for politicians who will make the laws we want.
You don't have a right to have the laws you want. You have the right to vote. But so do the rest of us
5. I assume all of the Senators are thinking primarily of their own power and how all of this will play in the November elections and in future elections. They are power-seekers and Kavanaugh is a power seeker. I am not seeking power
Lie, you most certainly ARE seeking power. The power to deny American voters the right to vote in laws you don't like, even when those laws are perfectly Constitutional
What you want is dictatorial power for your side. That is evil
Stop being evil
Blogger Ignorance is Bliss said...
Dave Begley said...
Trump won the election and he gets to nominate who he wants. If qualified, the Senate should confirm regardless of what party holds the Senate.
I agree, but note that the Democrats can point to Merrick Garland. Judicial confirmations have been an escalating series of tit-for-tat, and now the tit is on the other foot.
That standard died with Bork's nomination. The President gets to nominate whoever he wants, and the Senate will confirm if they're of the same Party, or fear they'll pay a higher political provide for not confirming, than for confirming (see Thomas, Clarence, the last time a President of 1 Party had an SC nominee confirmed by a Senate of the other Party).
Until the Democrats stop being evil, and stop trying to use the Courts to achieve policy goals they can't get through the democratic process, the SC will be a battle ground
I'm having flashbacks to the Bill Clinton era, when I saw so many fake feminists put party politics first. I didn't. I didn't do it then, and I'm not going to do it now.
No, you're simply going to put the "right" to kill your child first.
Apparently the Constitution says a SC nominee must receive the advice and consent of the Senate and NARAL.
What we are seeing now are the emanations from the terrible intervention of the Supreme Court in Roe V Wade.
Abortion was legal in California in 1969. It would have responded to the will of the people. There was no need for 9 old men to rule for everyone.
Meanwhile, in 1970, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortion, although the law only applied to the state’s residents. That same year, New York legalized abortion, with no residency requirement. By the time of Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion was also legally available in Alaska and Washington.
That is not true because I did abortions in my GYN rotation in 1969 in California. They did require a psych evaluation and were deemed necessary for the mother's mental health but that was routine.
From the NY Times at the time.
Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in which Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall and Lewis F. Powell Jr. joined.
Dissenting were Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist.
Justice White, calling the decision "an exercise of raw judicial power," wrote that "the court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life which she carries."
That was a terrible mistake and we are seeing the consequences increase as time goes by.
Because it's the Democrats who fight to make you go to a doctor to get a birth control prescription, rather than being able to buy it over the counter
An interesting point. I assume this is one more subsidy for Planned Parenthood.
3. It's not a case of whether it would be fair to prosecute him for sexual assault after so many years and with this little evidence,
And yes, it is exactly the same as "would it be right to prosecute him on this 'evidence'?"
He was going to be confirmed. If he's not confirmed, after these heinously dishonest charges, then the Senate will have publicly found him guilty of attempted rape.
Your objections to Kavanaugh are "he will undo wrong decisions that I like, so I don't want him on the Court!"
If someone wanted to vote against him on those grounds, then they're already against him, and that's not enough to stop his nomination. You are therefore asking / demanding that Senators who would not vote against him for your political reason, therefore treat the (patently false) accusations as true, and vote against him for that reason.
No
Or, you're saying that "if any one person decides to slander a nominee, that nominee should be rejected." Which is an even more evil position, and a strong invitation to a civil war (the kind with guns, bullet, bombs, and a million+ dead Americans).
Don't go there
"Althouse recently stated that she has NO bad habits. Perhaps this is a lie. "
It isn't a lie. It's true. She really has no bad habits. Unless you consider blogging to be a bad habit. Or exercising. Or eating and drinking in moderation. Avoiding gossip. Keeping her room tidy and ordered. Making goals and keeping them. Not wasting money. Being useful and industrious. Being sincere and honest. Not wronging others. Holding no grudges. Practicing good personal hygiene. Avoiding unsafe or immoral sexual practices. Being tranquil and peaceful. Trying to imitate Jesus and Socrates.
Might be a better world if more of us followed Althouse's habits.
Investigations are about finding facts.
We already know the facts don't matter here.
A nice centrist person like Professor Althouse has already explained it! Facts don't matter in this case 'cause it's such an important seat, it's such an important issue, etc.
What matters is the feelings involved.
The Dems will run ad after ad talking about how accused rapist Trump nominated accused rapist Kavanaugh and we nice people can't let them get away with it--can't risk letting them get their rapist fingers on the bodies of innocent women--women who only want to exercise their Constitutional right to abort.
How will that make potential voters feel, do you think? Who really cares if any of it is true? Professor Althouse doesn't, and when that tactic wins she'll mock your complaints as simply whining about it!
"1. This seat on the Court is especially important because of the threat to women's rights. Justice Kennedy was the 5th vote in key right-of-privacy cases, and women's continuing domain over our own bodies is at stake.
2. Kavanaugh has used his relationship to real-life women . . .
3.. He has no right to the seat that's comparable to a right to remain free from criminal penalties.
4. Why should we Americans accept this man's power over us?
5. I assume all of the Senators are thinking primarily of their own power and how all of this will play in the November elections and in future elections. They are power-seekers and Kavanaugh is a power seeker. I am not seeking power."
The Althouse powers of rationalization on full display.
This gives a provisional answer to the question I have raised: does Althouse have a red line that, if crossed by the Dems, would cause her to abandon them as detestable scum? In particular, does she think the Senate Dem performance was a step too far, and the malicious accusations against Kavanaugh an intolerable low blow?
The answer, so far, appears to be: no, there is no red line. The Althouses of the world will find a way to rationalize the indefensible, cuz reasons and women's bodies. Therefore no low is too low, the Dems gambled rationally, and they can degrade the culture and the system with impunity.
Meade said...Might be a better world if more of us followed Althouse's habits.
But wait, by her own standard that's proof positive that Althouse has some deep dark secrets and/or is covering for her dark side.
Right? Kavanaugh's exemplary life and long-term service to women is evidence that he's really a secret scumbag and is trying to cover it up. So Prof. Althouse's alleged good habits must mean she's really some kind of secret Nazi super cunt!
Her rules, right?
Michael K:
ObamaCare doesn't force insurance plans to pay for OTC drugs. It does force insurance plans to pay 100% for prescription birth control.
So it's a payoff to all the "Julia's" who want their spouse, the gov't, to take care of them.
I know that Planned Parenthood strongly lobbies against making the Pill OTC, so presumable they're getting some rake off from that requirement, too
"For example, I’ve long suspected that there is something terribly racist in her family’s past which drives her acts of white guilt."
In your book, is intentionally defaming Ann Althouse a good habit?
In your book, is intentionally defaming Ann Althouse a good habit?
Heh. Is she nominated for anything?
An allegation of defamation cannot be sustained by reference to family members.
Meade, do you have a lawyer you could consult before alleging defamation?
Remember when Jesus said blessed are those who ensure all women can abort at will, for any reason and at any time, 'cause otherwise that'd be inconvenient and mean someone else had some say in how their bodies are used and we all know God doesn't agree with that?
I think it was right after he said go and sin no more--and by the way abortion is definitely not a sin of any kind so feel free to rock as many of those bad boys as you feel like, at any time and for any reason, and to treat abortion itself as a sacrament and an organizing principle for your political life just like my Father wants.
"Her rules, right?"
Wrong. Read for comprehension. Her "rule" I think would be to use strong critical thinking regarding individuals who seek governmental power who present as paragons of virtue.
5. I assume all of the Senators are thinking primarily of their own power and how all of this will play in the November elections and in future elections. They are power-seekers and Kavanaugh is a power seeker. I am not seeking power. I am wary of the people who exercise power. I don't trust any of them, and I find it very hard to decide whom to trust here. It's tempting to say, it's wrong to use this device to defeat Kavanaugh. But to say that is to join everyone who insists on thinking of this all in terms of partisan politics. I'm having flashbacks to the Bill Clinton era, when I saw so many fake feminists put party politics first. I didn't. I didn't do it then, and I'm not going to do it now.
Do you support Roe v. Wade Professor?
Do you not see how supporting Roe v. Wade and the above statement are completely incongruous?
Meade said...In your book, is intentionally defaming Ann Althouse a good habit?
Whoa whoa whoa, get with the program maaaaan. You're talking like the old rules still apply. The Professor said that since Kavanaugh made his good record/good life an issue it was only fair to conclude that he lived that good life in order to hide something, so that "reasoning" is totally cool now. Sure it sucks when it's used to smear someone you care about, but that's just how it goes these days dude. It's an evolving process!
Kavanaugh's work helping women can be interpreted as covering up some hidden/secret bad treatment of women. Prof. Althouse's good Progressive views on race can therefore be interpreted as covering up for some hidden/secret bad treatment of minorities at some point.
Get with the times, bro.
Meade said...Her "rule" I think would be to use strong critical thinking regarding individuals who seek governmental power who present as paragons of virtue.
Oh! Yeah, I must be stupid, I didn't realize this rule is only supposed to apply to others, and only in very specific situations. It's not like it's some moral principle that rules we announce for others should be applied against us!
It's like, smears and shitty reasoning are A-OK as long as they're applied against people in government who don't say they're horrible people, but they're not OK when applied against nice good people like Prof. Althouse.
Sure, man, that's workable and not at all motivated reasoning built up ad hoc to rationalize and justify one's own unsupported conclusions.
Sorry everyone--Prof. Althouse is exempt from the new rules, please make a note!
Kinda walked into that one, Cardinal...
Meade said...Her "rule" I think would be to use strong critical thinking regarding individuals who seek governmental power who present as paragons of virtue.
So in your mind is saying Kavannaugh's history of good works w/r/t women should be evidence of him hiding/covering for some dark secret/bad behavior an example of strong critical thinking? 'Cause, you know, maybe we're just working off two different definitions, here.
"It isn't a lie. It's true. She really has no bad habits."
I'd say breaking down crying hysterically at dinner parties where there are libertarians is a bad habit.
So is calling people "splooge stooges.'
Finally, taking in shiftless gardener's from the internet to be their kept lawnboy on the backs of the taxpayers funding her undeserved pension is a bad habit if I ever heard of one.
Meade said...
"Her rules, right?"
Wrong. Read for comprehension. Her "rule" I think would be to use strong critical thinking regarding individuals who seek governmental power who present as paragons of virtue.
It looked more like "It is OK to say anything about someone as long as the right people who believe the right things get to hold government power."
Did Ann vote for Bill Clinton?
I detect situational ethics inherent in feminist politics.
"The Professor said that since Kavanaugh made his good record/good life an issue it was only fair to conclude that he lived that good life in order to hide something, so that "reasoning" is totally cool now."
Can you cite her quote? Also. specifically, what are her "good Progressive views on race"?
"In your book, is intentionally defaming Ann Althouse a good habit?"
Are Althouse's parents not white people? In fact, wypipo?
The homeless man's Jesse Jackson (aka The Crack Emcee) knows that those racist honkys who spawned her are RAYCISS!
"So in your mind is saying Kavannaugh's history of good works w/r/t women should be evidence of him hiding/covering for some dark secret/bad behavior an example of strong critical thinking?"
Did she say it's "evidence" or that it even "should be evidence?"
Meade wrote: In your book, is intentionally defaming Ann Althouse a good habit?
Hey Meade, I was merely turning around Althouse's original point made under (4) in the original post. If that wasn't a smear against Kavanaugh's character on her part, perhaps she should walk it back. Or perhaps we should leave it all as speculation.
But good job defending her, Meade -- I'm impressed. No one else is taking up her cause.
"No one else is taking up her cause. "
No one else has her as his mealticket.
Is there a "right" or "right-to-privacy" here that is not abortions?
No. Using "women's rights" (etc) as a code-phrase for killing inconvenient people might constitute "trolling for dollars" except that its consistency indicates deception, perhaps delusion.
++
Why should we Americans accept this man's power over us?
"If you don't know by now, lady, don't mess with it!"
Because the answer to "Is dis a system?" is "yes". (Zap #1)
He's been portrayed as a super-human paragon, and I don't think that can be the standard for who can be on the Supreme Court.
Government lawyers should never be portrayed by anyone as being much of anything.
@Meade: Take a good look at my 11:22 AM post. Only the first sentence is made with certainty. The rest is couched in terms of "perhaps" and "suspected" which are clear indicators of opinion.
Oh shit, are we doing the Andrew Sullivan thing now? "Hey buddy, I was just asking questions, you're putting words in my mouth when you take my questions/speculative words as making some argument. In fact I've made no argument at all so there's no way you can argue against me/refute my statement." You totally busted me!
Maybe they've got a hard-to-detect dark side that has driven them to a life of saintly good works.
Shiiiiit, right there at the front she said "Maybe" so there's no possible way to hold her accountable for this assertion or say she used this sentence to say or imply anything. I mean she didn't also say "Or maybe people who are presented as good are in fact good and it'd be wrong to smear them or believe shaky allegations against them without proper cause" but you're totally nailed me--since she was just putting a hypothetical out there it's not possible to hold her to that statement.
Damn I wish I was smarter and nicer like you people! I just get so darn confused and should remember to let you folks do my thinking for me--I'm just not cut out for it.
Anyway I'm fully on board: fuck this Kavanaugh guy, he's probably a rapist and even if there's no good reason to think he is he's replacing Kennedy and wants to rule over women's bodies so the standards are different and he's got to go.
Thanks!
" But to say that is to join everyone who insists on thinking of this all in terms of partisan politics."
Its no longer simply a case of partisan politics.
We are all, most of us, a civilian population on a battlefield. Its not a matter of "trust", its a matter of collateral damage, destroyed villages, execution squads. Or the equivalent in the current modern version of such conflicts. Or the perhaps soon-to-be not so modern development of it.
"The rest is couched in terms of "perhaps" and "suspected" which are clear indicators of opinion."
I'll take that as a "no" to my question. Thanks.
Come on, Meade.
I'm pretty sure that Althouse said the very thing I need her to have said to win this debate 45 years ago at a party. I'm not sure when, where, or even if the party took place.
But I'm confident that the seriousness of the charge wins this argument.
HoodlumDoodlum, Чикелит. Чикелит, HoodlumDoodlum.
Why are we stopping at not letting him on the Supreme Court, though?
He's a sitting federal judge, is he not?
Are we going to let this rapist continue making important federal judgments that affect women's bodies every day?
He's got to be impeached and removed, doesn't he?
@Meade: As always, you're welcome.
He's been portrayed as a super-human paragon, and I don't think that can be the standard for who can be on the Supreme Court.
Tell that to the Notorious RBG.
Чикелит said... No one else is taking up her cause.
No need. You guys can't even beat a shiftless gardener.
The answer, so far, appears to be: no, there is no red line. The Althouses of the world will find a way to rationalize the indefensible, cuz reasons and women's bodies.
Althouse simply rejects rationality and embraces emotionalism. Much easier, and no need to defend yourself.
Answer the seriousness of the charge, Althouse.
BTW, as I'm making jokes about this stupid argument I'm quite confident that I would prefer PJM never add another comment, ever. Take it down or notch or 17 or kindly shut up.
It's okay Meade, even if the mean man Kavanaugh gets appointed to the Supreme Court, nobody is going to kick you out of the house your meal ticket lets you live in. Your taxpayer funded lifestyle is safe, unless of course, she decides she wants a new, younger, lawn servant.
What's the pre-nup say? I take it back, maybe it would go all the way up to the Supreme Court.
“Remember, this political fight is so very incredibly important for two main reasons:
1) Abortion, and
2) Chevron deference.
#2 is more important for the Republic than is #1.
#1 is more important for the politics that would follow.”
I really don’t think that even picking up RBG’s seat, giving the Republicans a 6-3 edge, is going to affect abortion all that much. We are rapidly approaching R v W’s 50th anniversary. Sure, we may see some 3rd trimester restrictions, because by that time, the fetus/baby is viable. If delivered at that point, and not murdered, it will likely survive. This is the opposite of the 1st trimester, where the fetus is not viable outside the womb. There really isn’t all that much popular support for 3rd semester abortions/babycides, and a fair amount for 1st trimester. And this would essentially be in keeping with R v Wade, which set out this trimester scheme. And, if the Suprem Ct does reverse R v W, probably half the states will make it legal anyway, and the big difference between then and now is the cost and ease of travel. No one, outside of maybe Alaska, would be further than an hour or two by cheap airfare from a state that allows abortion.
Judge Kavenaugh though probably scares the Deep State most in regards to Chevron Defference, which is supposed to mean that the courts defer to the bureaucrats in interpreting statutes, when their agency’s technical expertise is involved. But we saw with the Obama Administration that the Deep State, along with Dem Administrations, wants and expects the courts to defer to their interpretations, even when technical expertise is not implicated. And, what that meant under Obama was that statutes were routinely tortured by bureaucrats, often to mean just the opposite of their plain meaning, and the courts were expected to fall in line and rubber stamp those interpretations, instead of performing their time honored function of reining in the Executive Branch. Some examples are classic, such as defining CO2, generated by animals during respiration and necessary in plants for photosynthesis, to be an air pollutant, and Title IX requiring that females be believed over males whenever campus sexual assault is alleged. Chevron Defference desperately, after 8 years of Obama, needs to be cut back.
Another place that we can maybe hope for some relief is in qualified immunity. Currently, government employees can steal your money and put you in prison, despite having fairly obviously violated your Constitutional rights, without personal liability, as long as you can’t find Supreme Court, or maybe appeals court , precedent directly on point. Government employees are assumed to be cretins here, unable to figure out that if most people probably think that their actions violated our Bill of Rights, that they probably did, instead of the much more likely theory that they did, indeed, know where the line should be, but know that the courts have given them one freeby violation, and act accordingly, routinely pushing up to the court defined bright line, even when they very likely know that they are at least violating the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
Birkel, feel free to consume a satchel of phalli.
You think my comments are "up too many notches?" Over the top? It's not like I'm accusing someone of rape 30 years ago for partisan purposes.
By the way: no one portrayed him as a super-human paragon. Professor Althouse made that up. His supporters portrayed him as a good man, devoted father, charitable, someone who's hired/mentored a lot of women, etc. As a good guy, in other words. No one said he was perfect or super-human, so the whole line of "oh paragons are dangerous and that's a bad standard and anyway we can't trust people who present as paragons of virtue 'cause maybe they've some deep dark secret" is premised on a stupid strawman.
Meade said...
"So in your mind is saying Kavannaugh's history of good works w/r/t women should be evidence of him hiding/covering for some dark secret/bad behavior an example of strong critical thinking?"
Did she say it's "evidence" or that it even "should be evidence?"
No. What she said is far worse.
"AND: I am genuinely working my way toward what I want to say about Kavanaugh's predicament. The most straightforward thing I can say — and I have only figured this out after writing this post to pre-chew things — is:
1. This seat on the Court is especially important because of the threat to women's rights. Justice Kennedy was the 5th vote in key right-of-privacy cases, and women's continuing domain over our own bodies is at stake."
What Althouse said is this seat is so important because it is a threat to wymin's rights that any injustice done in order to make sure someone who agrees with Althouse gets that seat is Okey Dokey.
This accusation and anyone supporting Dianne Feinstien and the wider democrat party her disgusting actions for any reason are just awful.
If you people cannot respect the Republic and play nice this will end in bloody confrontation.
And it will be people who support actions like taking out Kavanaugh in this thoroughly amoral and disgusting way that will be responsible for bringing it on.
"It isn't a lie. It's true. She really has no bad habits. Unless you consider blogging to be a bad habit. Or exercising. Or eating and drinking in moderation. Avoiding gossip. Keeping her room tidy and ordered. Making goals and keeping them. Not wasting money. Being useful and industrious. Being sincere and honest. Not wronging others. Holding no grudges. Practicing good personal hygiene. Avoiding unsafe or immoral sexual practices. Being tranquil and peaceful. Trying to imitate Jesus and Socrates."
Once she is made a Supreme Court Justice, she will need to quit blogging to devote her attention to her judgeship. Life is full of trade offs like that. Althouse is to the right of Ginsberg, who's is on her last legs, so she would be a shoo-in to be confirmed in this politically divided country. Althouse has not been particularly unkind to President Trump, so he should nominate her if Kavanaugh falls or RBG quits or dies. Her intellect, honesty, and fairness is what is so appealing.
Why should we Americans accept this man's power over us?
It’s hard to take this seriously at all. What exactly is the proposed alternative to the normal Constitutionally mandated process of selecting and confirming a SCOTUS justice?
And the rest of point #4 is nothing but “heads you lose, tails I win” for the Democrats. Either a nominee has a known history of unethical or unsavory behavior (which would immediately disqualify him), or we are to believe unverified defamatory claims against him even after all previous vetting showed nothing of the kind because, let’s face it, he seemed a bit TOO virtuous ifyaknowwhatimean.
Being suspicious of people who seek power makes sense to a degree. Being paranoid just gives power to accusers who themselves seek power (or ally themselves with others who do) and it will drive every last decent human being from the political arena (we’ve probably already reached that point.
Yeah, PMJ, I think attacking Meade and Althouse for their relationship and her pension is just as despicable when you do it as when the Leftist shit heels first started in on that bull shit. If the two of them freely entered a relationship for their mutual benefit, regardless of the terms between them, then they are both better for the relationship. That's the leading principle in favor of a free market, uncontrolled by government. It's a conservative position. Attacking people the way you are is disgusting and I wish you would stop.
You'll see, btw, that I posited this whole thing was a Di "Chi Spy" Fi hit job in coordination with Fusion GPS. It appears more likely now that I am right that it did when I first posited that theory. You'll note that there is not a single comment I've ever made that is pro-Democrat. I think they're scum who want to control my life and I'm actively disinterested in letting them.
But your attacks are unwarranted and I think you should be silent until you figure out how better to represent your own preferences.
Somebody's vying for the Mary E Glynn Award.
"Being paranoid just gives power to accusers who themselves seek power"
Being paranoid has always been a necessary element in preventing the accumulation, concentration and expansion of government power, as well as in non-government institutions. The US has been far too complacent and "rational" on this, and permitted the development of a series of problems whereby paranoia really is the only reasonable state of mind.
Matthew Sablan said...
(Mid-teen would be more accurate, but the WaPo is very, slightly, technically accurate.)
It’s not “technically accurate.” 15 is not a late teen by any measure.
If you consider the teenage years to be 11-19, 15 is right in the middle. If you consider teenage years to be 13-19, the 15 is on the cusp of being early teen.
buwaya said...
" But to say that is to join everyone who insists on thinking of this all in terms of partisan politics."
Its no longer simply a case of partisan politics.
We are all, most of us, a civilian population on a battlefield. Its not a matter of "trust", its a matter of collateral damage, destroyed villages, execution squads. Or the equivalent in the current modern version of such conflicts. Or the perhaps soon-to-be not so modern development of it.
The problem is the aristocratic class that is too far removed from the consequences of their actions.
They will soon be introduced to the consequences if they continue this sort of activity.
Like I said before. This hearing needs to be publicized. Trump has noticed and obviously agrees with my assessment. This hearing and it's bad actors need to be put on display for all to see.
Kavanaugh deserves his 15 minutes with Dianne Feinstein. There will be at least one republican that will put this ridiculous traitor bare in front of all. Feinstein has been a traitor for decades. She should be treated like a traitor.
People like Althouse need to be shamed.
This confrontation needs to be magnified and confronted. If people like Althouse do not accept their shame, grow up and accept our Republic, then the remedies are worse for everyone.
"Being suspicious of people who seek power makes sense to a degree."
There is a real problem here, that is I think a very human fault, built into the animal.
It is the tendency to personalize nearly everything.
It is not specific people one should suspect - though of course one should trust no one, and some people are exceptionally untrustworthy, or enemies, or whatever. But a person is just a person. Outside of a larger context even the worst person is irrelevant to a world of 7 Billion, or a nation of 300 million.
Suspicion properly should be focused on systems, institutions, societies and cultures. People indeed, but wholesale, not retail.
Blogger rehajm said...
"The courts packed with ultra conservatives with Alinsky predilections makes for an interesting scenario, don't it?"
I don't understand why we haven't had more discussion about one or more recess appointments to the SCOTUS, by Trump. There are plenty of qualified conservative judges to pick from, right ? (Bork's dead, I think ... too bad, cause that would really piss the Dems off )
Presuming the Senate is "on-board" ( by being careful not to let the current session go into recess ) looks like you ought to be able to get almost 2 years out of this.
And Trump could pick ANYONE he wants for the recess appointment. Lots of room there for some 'playfulness'
For that matter, I don't remember any prohibition to nominating and then having the Senate confirm someone serving in a recess appointment.
Birkel said...
But your attacks are unwarranted and I think you should be silent until you figure out how better to represent your own preferences.
I have to disagree.
Althouse has chosen to support the take down of Kavanaugh.
This is reprehensible.
Meade should not be defending this, but his position in the household forces him to defend it because of the nature of their relationship.
It is an extension of Althouse's Feminism that the nature of their relationship forces Meade to besmirch his honor defending Althouse's position.
Part of the covenant with my wife is that I will fight for her and defend her with my life, but she will not knowingly put me in a situation where doing so forces me to support evil.
What Althouse is doing to Meade is awful, and he is allowing her to do it.
PMJ is inartful in pointing this out. But it is truth.
I think you’ve misunderstood my comment about distrust and paranoia, buyawa. Distrust people seeking positions of power, yes. But when we have an irrational distrust then we’re susceptible to manipulation (which I think Althouse is displaying, unless she’s just trolling readers.)
The whole sequence that she wrote here shows the emotional manipulation that the left has used to try to keep a conservative Justice off the court.
Achilles,
Since you didn't, in fact, disagree with me I am confused by your use of the word disagree.
You seem to have made an argument not from a personal perspective, i.e. Althouse and Meade are bad. Instead, you have argued for the a principle that is broadly applicable, whether I agree fully or not.
Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to think your assessment might be wrong but is not purposely, patently offensive while at the same time thinking PMJ comes off like a complete wanker.
Going back to my earlier points #1 and #2, I appreciate Bruce Hayden taking them seriously. My summation would be that Roe is the emotional hook that the Left is using to accomplish its real purpose: increasing the power of the permanent administrative state, i.e. The Deep State, i.e. Leviathan.
A senator isn't just a senator, a person.
Considering this as a conflict -
The office of a senator is a position, a quantum of power, a playing piece in a game, or a strategic square. In a battlefield a fortified hilltop or perhaps a military unit. All under the control of external parties who are actually playing the game, or commanding a side.
This is a more realistic way of seeing it. A politician in that position exists in a context of constraints, of limits to his freedom. Indeed it is likely that he could not have become a senator in the first place without accepting his role as a puppet. The discipline of most senators - as we see they are impossible to persuade and make no effort in this respect - is understandable. They are not there to think for themselves, but to do as they are directed.
They differ from judges, in that judges, generally being more intelligent, seem to have rationalized their own constraints and are (probably) honestly convinced of their independence. But they are almost as reliable as political actors as senators.
It isn't a lie. It's true. She really has no bad habits.
She spent decades working at, and supporting, an institution that allowed 25% of the women who attended to be raped. Ignoring the rape of innocents for personal gain seems like a bad habit to me.
Slavery was a human rights issue. Diversity (i.e. color judgments) are a civil rights issue. Selective-child is an unprecedented violation of human and civil rights, conceived with the denial of human evolution, and born as Planned Parenthood et al for profit and social progress.
Abortion rites are unconstitutional on their face. Abortion rites are only legal under the Twilight Amendment. Abortion rites are cruel and unusual punishment. Abortion rites deny due process. The rites are summary judgments and capital punishment of the wholly innocent.
That said, unlike one-child, selective-child is a transhuman orientation embraced by the Twilight fringe (e.g. liberal and progressive sects) and endorsed by a substantial minority in first-world nations. Unfortunately, transhuman orientations can only be broken through violence (e.g. civil war) and/or through a conservation of principles of morality and Nature, including intrinsic value and evolutionary process, respectively.
"threat to women's rights"
Althouse, your elision here is chilling--but I also perhaps unconscious acknowledgement of the true evil that you don't like to acknowledge.
Sigvald,
That's exactly what I am claiming in this comment: at some level of their psyche, however deeply buried, is an acknowledgement of how outrageous it is to give freedom to kill a baby that would survive just fine without even one night stay in the neonatal ICU (which can be fairly said to anyone who opposes restrictions on late-term abortions.)
That's why the need for all the obfuscating language.
He's been portrayed as a super-human paragon
Herding tweener girls--he is a super-human paragon.
Pro-Choice is two choices too late.
Roe is the emotional hook that the Left is using to accomplish its real purpose: increasing the power of the permanent administrative state
It also underlies a stigma attached to men and women who acknowledge the evolution of human life, a reconciliation of rights, and Constitutional law (e.g. no cruel and unusual punishments, due process, equal not "=" treatment). Selective-child is a wicked solution made legal under the Twilight Amendment and normalized by social progressive and liberal sects and the Democrat Party.
Men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature. Human life evolves from conception. Go forth and reconcile.
"Civility Bullshit."
Goose, Gander.
I'm not calling for civility. I'm calling you an ass hole who comes off terribly. And I'm saying you'd be better off if you shut up.
So if I am understanding Althouses Five Points Properly
1. This is a critical appointment because 'abortion'
2. Kavanaugh had shown himself as sympathetic and aware of the MYRIAD of women's issues and for his evidentiary life, been a good man to women.
3. BUUUUT we don't owe this man THIS important position because 'abortion'.
4. And the fact that he has been demonstrated as a Good, if not Great Man, is not exculpatory AT ALL. Being a good or great man is, instead SUSPICIOUS. Because apparently, Ms. Althouse does not want good or great men in office. Perhaps she denies they can be good or great with a position against abortion
5. And perhaps most damning, she doesn't care a fig that this is a bullshit accusation, or how poisonous this is to our politics. One gets a sense of satisfaction that his candidacy will be derailed and she doesn't care how it is done.
But she is consistant: she defends abortion and she is suspicious of any sexual accusation against men. Althouse believes women...and also holds the contrary opinion re men...consistently.
But 6. She isn't thinking. She might get a GOOD man in Kavanaugh...but she will never get a Pro Abortion guy from Trump...and she can get someone MUCH WORSE.
Birkel said...
Achilles,
Since you didn't, in fact, disagree with me I am confused by your use of the word disagree.
You seem to have made an argument not from a personal perspective, i.e. Althouse and Meade are bad. Instead, you have argued for the a principle that is broadly applicable, whether I agree fully or not.
Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to think your assessment might be wrong but is not purposely, patently offensive while at the same time thinking PMJ comes off like a complete wanker.
Broadly you are right.
But most of us come off as wankers at some point.
True self reflection requires a person to find the heart of the issue brought up before them. PMJs didn't put the assertion in the best possible light.
But at the core his assertion was correct at Meade should deal with it.
Althouse has forced Meade into an untenable position and Meade has accepted this position.
As a broader non-personal point we are having this discussion as a nation.
The democrat party is forcing it's voters to accept completely amoral and disgusting actions and blatant attacks on the foundations of our republic.
We are not trying to convince the hardcore socialists or even the convicted feminists like Althouse. She has made clear in this post she will not truly give up the ends justify the means feminism that drives her.
It is the Meades of the country who need to stop being complicit and stop enabling the worst instincts of people like Ann.
I'll never forget my English class from decades ago but I can't remember how to spell such an unusual name as Adams (Adims? Adems? Adumbs? ADUHmz?) on a count a the thumping Whitey gave my noggin.
And I'm calling you a white knighting cuckservative who gets his panties in a bind more over the delicate feelings that might be upset by pointing out some unpleasant truths than by a Supreme Court nominee getting falsely accused of rape and being enabled by awful people in media and academia.
Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me what to do? You think I'm an asshole, duly noted and ignored. I think anyone who participates in giving legitimacy to this charade deserves all of the mockery they get.
I think you are scum who wants to control how I express myself and I'm actively disinterested in letting you. Sound familiar?
I don't write hundreds of comments a day on every thread. If the delicate sensabilities are so offended, they can delete them.
Funny you should mention her, tcrosse. That is at least 1 bad habit that Althouse has, the mindless deletion of her. It's one reason that I subscribe to comments on most every thread -- you get the whole unexpunged thread with no Swiss cheesiness. She can be one of the most biting commenters in a thread but at a same time, one of the most thoughtful ones.
gahrie said...
It isn't a lie. It's true. She really has no bad habits.
She spent decades working at, and supporting, an institution that allowed 25% of the women who attended to be raped. Ignoring the rape of innocents for personal gain seems like a bad habit to me.
I think you are being flippant.
It is more important that she allowed the lie that 25% of college women were raped so her political tribe could use the lie to gain power over others.
This has manifested itself in the current LGBT womens counseling bureaucracy and various parasitic and poisonous "studies" departments.
This includes supporting affirmative action which is explicitly racist, hurt minorities, and has resulted in thousands of dollars of debt being dumped on her students heads.
It is Alhouse's blatant disregard for her students welfare that is the worst part.
Meade said...
"For example, I’ve long suspected that there is something terribly racist in her family’s past which drives her acts of white guilt."
In your book, is intentionally defaming Ann Althouse a good habit?
Well, Ann Althouse seems to believe the GOP Senators should refuse to confirm Kavanaugh, on the basis of a defamatory attack that has absolutely 0 evidence behind it.
In general, if you think it's right to defame and character assassinate other people, I can't see any reason why it shouldn't happen to you, too.
And the charge there against Althouse has at least as much justification / support behind it as Ford's attack on Kavanaugh.
What is it going to take for Leftists (and Althouse is certainly acting like a leftist here) to understand that they are not a special and protected class. That the same rules apply to everyone.
That what you chose to do to others is going to come back at you, and you will have no defense.
Bork -> Garland
Filibuster of Estrada, Kavanaugh, etc -> Filibuster of Obama nominees
Nuking filibuster for Obama nominees -> Nuking filibuster for Trump SC nominees
Character assassinate Kavanaugh -> Character assassinate you
I'm curious.
Just how long do you leftists think we're going to put up with this shit? Where you just do whatever the hell you want in your relentless pursuit of power and control?
You know, destroying people's lives, ignoring the law, threatening people, their families and livelihoods, acting out violently in the streets ...
You certainly don't respect the results at the ballot box.
So again I ask, just how long? Because what cannot continue won't.
And this cannot continue.
"Swiss cheesiness" has two meanings: First, it's something with holes. Second, it's a dig at the Swiss themselves who carefully maintain a façade, a façade which looks like a paragon of good, when it's really not. I should know, I was an invited guest in their country.
Jim proclaims: And this cannot continue.
No, it cannot. And it will not.
Meade said...
"Her rules, right?"
Wrong. Read for comprehension. Her "rule" I think would be to use strong critical thinking regarding individuals who seek governmental power who present as paragons of virtue.
Sorry, but bullshit
"Ooh, the person claims to be a good person, therefore I must destroy him!!!"
All Kavanaugh has been presented as is a good man who does his best to do good works, and hasn't done anything too evil.
If it makes you feel like a bad and pathetic person because you never took the time to feed the homeless, or coach kids teams, that's your problem, not his.
The "Althouse rule" is "destroy any person, for any reason, or no reason at all, if they threaten Roe v Wade"
And what that translates to is: It is perfectly acceptable to engage in character assassination against anyone who I disagree with politically, on anything.
That is the precedent she's setting. I hope she'll wise up, and back off it, fast
But that's because I'm not an idiot, and I don't want to see our society implode
How bizarre to see many of Ann's white tribe turn on her so viciously, attacking her boyfriend, her background, her income, her habits and her outlook, for just one reason: she's a woman and she thinks women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies. Ann, you cast your lot with the pussy-grabbing Trumpist crew without considering that they will throw you under the bus (along with any and all women) if you don't conform to the patriarchy. And now they are trying to do just that. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Come on Ann.
No-bad-habits bullshit.
I'm not saying she has bad habits, I just want to imply that she has.
And this cannot continue.
This Ford woman probably has a brilliant future in California politics. She has the right mindset; she lives in just the right place and right time, and now that she has name recognition, she should probably run for something. God forbid she should keep teaching.
Surely there must be an "immigrants rights" seat on the Court, and a "tax-takers rights" seat, and a "criminal defendant rights" seat, .....
You can do better than this, Ms. A.
.., attacking her boyfriend,...
Say Pickering old chap, you didn't used to post here under a different handle, did you? Asking for a friend.
Let's not shit in our own nest here, folks. ;-) Althouse does us all a great service with her very readable and interesting daily blog and her observations. While we are at liberty to disagree, it is unseemly for us to trash her and/or Meade.
Jim at said...
I'm curious.
Just how long do you leftists think we're going to put up with this shit? Where you just do whatever the hell you want in your relentless pursuit of power and control?
You know, destroying people's lives, ignoring the law, threatening people, their families and livelihoods, acting out violently in the streets ...
You certainly don't respect the results at the ballot box.
So again I ask, just how long? Because what cannot continue won't.
And this cannot continue.
This is why we need to drag out this nomination fight.
The enemies of the republic are on display for all and they have nothing to fight for but power over others.
We need hearings every day until Thursday. 16 hours a day. Plaster Feinstein vs. Kavanaugh on the TV for hours.
We can even delay the vote for a week. Let democrats get up on TV and cry out to the mountains about the rapist Kavanaugh.
Then force the vote. If Kavanaugh is voted down there will be 64 republican Senators in January.
Flake and Corker will not be two of them.
We have enemies within and without. This fight helps us against both.
mockturtle said...
Let's not shit in our own nest here, folks. ;-) Althouse does us all a great service with her very readable and interesting daily blog and her observations. While we are at liberty to disagree, it is unseemly for us to trash her and/or Meade.
What you describe is enabling bad behavior.
We would be doing no favors to either Meade or Althouse allowing them to carry on as they are.
Abortion rites (e.g. selective-child) are critical for sustaining high-density population centers, immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises), diversity (i.e. color) blocs, Democratic leverage, Planned Parenthood et al (e.g. recycled-child) profits, and generally for social progress. Also, to aid the persistence of the Twilight Amendment and related "legal" activities under its liberal penumbra.
John Pickering said...
How bizarre to see many of Ann's white tribe turn on her so viciously, attacking her boyfriend, her background, her income, her habits and her outlook, for just one reason: she's a woman and she thinks women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies
Nope.
1: We're attacking her because she's embracing character assassination as a way to attain her political desires. That's evil
2: Women have the same Constitutional rights to control their bodies that men do: They have a right to chose not to have sex with someone.
What they don't have, what no one has, is a Constitutional right to kill another human being, just because that human is dependent upon them.
If a man has sex with a woman, and she gets pregnant, then he's on the hook for 18 years of child support. Does matter if he wanted the kid. Doesn't matter if the woman gave him a condom that had pin prick holes in it, doesn't matter if she lied, and claimed she was on birth control.
If she gets pregnant, he's on the hook.
So long as that is Constitutional, there's no rational argument for their being a Constitutional right for the woman to be able to get out of the responsibilities of having sex, by killing the baby before birth.
John Pickering said...
How bizarre to see many of Ann's white tribe turn on her so viciously, attacking her boyfriend, her background, her income, her habits and her outlook, for just one reason: she's a woman and she thinks women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies. Ann, you cast your lot with the pussy-grabbing Trumpist crew without considering that they will throw you under the bus (along with any and all women) if you don't conform to the patriarchy. And now they are trying to do just that. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Come on Ann.
A stupid person would think it is bizarre.
If someone points out that I am not living up to certain principles and higher moral behaviors in good faith they are doing me a favor and I can count them friend.
But as a leftist you have only one principle: power over others.
Hence your lack of understanding.
It is also demonstrative that you lump all women into a group and deprive them of their ability to be individuals capable of independent action.
But leftists need to divide us into groups and need people to think collectively. It is part of being an enemy of freedom.
And notice how nobody need question whether Pickering supports this political hack job on Kavanaugh. We already knew he was depraved.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. -
Pickering chimes in for the irony-impaired.
mockturtle said...Let's not shit in our own nest here, folks. ;-)
The Germans have a word for those people, Nestverschmutzer, in which can see their word Schmutz, or filth, embedded. The core word is cognate with our word "smut."
A better word here would be Netzverschmutzer or web polluter.
Of course it's folly to engage with the majority of Ann's commenters, who relentlessly advertise their ignorance without a smidgen of self awareness (ha!), but this was an especially good one:
We're attacking her because she's embracing character assassination as a way to attain her political desires. That's evil.
Oh my gosh, have y'all forgotten Lyin' Ted, Crooked Hilary, Little Marco, Slut Page, Lyin' Comey, Pervert Al, Slut Stormy, Slut McDougal, and now Slut Prep School Girl? Character assassination is the stock and trade of the president and his party, and of many of the people on this blog. That's what you guys do! And now you're doing it to Ann, who for the most part has been carrying your water for a couple of years now. I bet she's laughing her head off!
"smashed a heavy history book on my head." Is there any other kind? History is heavy, man.
John Pickering said...
Of course it's folly to engage with the majority of Ann's commenters,
Then you cherry pick one sentence and engage in folly.
Unexpectedly.
You haven't engaged in honest conversation once on this blog.
You are below average intelligence even for a leftist.
Boring.
John Pickering said...
Of course it's folly to engage with the majority of Ann's commenters, who relentlessly advertise their ignorance without a smidgen of self awareness (ha!), but this was an especially good one:
We're attacking her because she's embracing character assassination as a way to attain her political desires. That's evil.
Oh my gosh, have y'all forgotten Lyin' Ted,
I voted for Ted in the Primary. I didn't vote for Trump in the General
Yes, the "Ted Cruz's father assassinated Kennedy" thing was entirely out of bounds. But I never met anyone who took it seriously, or who even thought Trump meant it seriously.
Ann is pretending to take Ford's utterly basely attacks on Kavanaugh not just seriously, but she's willing to prostitute her integrity and pretend the attack is actually true.
That is evil
Does it smell funny in here?
Just like the teeming spirit of old.
"Does it smell funny in here?"
Are you sitting next to Meade?
It's a good thing farts aren't contagious like yawns.
I don't trust any of them, and I find it very hard to decide whom to trust here.
It's easy...who is acting in good faith and who isn't? Who has been purposefully withholding this information for months? Who failed to bring this up in earlier hearings and earlier nominations? Who belongs to the political party that did this exact same thing to an earlier nominee they opposed? Who believes (exactly as you do) that This seat on the Court is especially important because of the threat to women's rights. Justice Kennedy was the 5th vote in key right-of-privacy cases, and women's continuing domain over our own bodies is at stake., which "justifies" any means necessary?
No one, outside of maybe Alaska, would be further than an hour or two by cheap airfare from a state that allows abortion.
Alaska was one of the first states to legalize abortion.
I have been prochoice for years but am repelled by the tactics of the unlimited abortion lobby.
I agree with you that the Administrative State is more worried about their privileges and use abortion to keep the dummies and the daytime TV watchers in line.
Ann Althouse said...
Does it smell funny in here?
Yes
Sadly, it appears to be the smell of your credibility and human decency, burning on a pyre of aborted babies
"Justice Kennedy was the 5th vote in key right-of-privacy cases, and women's continuing domain over our own bodies is at stake."
Bullshit. Assuming this means Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it is disappointing that a former Professor of Law has such a woefully inadequate understanding of the Constitution and passes rhetoric off as law The only thing at stake is whether the people have an opportunity to regulate abortion through elected representatives, or whether the Supreme Court precludes public participation.
It's good rhetoric but poor law. Make the argument in the political arena where it belongs.
It also contradicts point 4, asking why should we Americans accept this man's power over us? Points 1 and 4 cannot be reconciled. For number 1 to be true, i.e. the Court precluding any regulation or law, it is necessary to accept the Supreme Court's power over us to block the voters from having a say.
Funny, you mean, like the way President Trump is so funny? Ah, no, I get it, I think: Use common sense.
It smells like the sweat of fearful men, with a strong hint of brimstone.
Ann, don't suffer these odious insults, which we know only reveal the character of the speaker. Stand for humor and liberty and art and so on and condemn the useless hate that some of your aging and uninformed readers like to indulge in. Mazel tov, and think better!
It's not a case of whether it would be fair to prosecute him for sexual assault after so many years and with this little evidence, but a question whether this person should be confirmed to take Justice Kennedy's seat on the Court and to have power for a lifetime to make decisions that will quite specifically determine the scope of women's rights. He has no right to the seat that's comparable to a right to remain free from criminal penalties.
Am I correct in assuming Roe v. Wade is on the line? I personally don't have much of an issue with abortion, to a point (being an atheist). But I don't see how Roe v. Wade can pass the laugh test. They don't even tell you where the right comes from, only where they feel it comes from:
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
As Ralph Nader once said (on a PBS show I was listening to), if you can invent rights in the constitution, you can take them away.
Personally, I think the supremacy of the Constitution is more important than abortion rights. And yes, men do have something to lose over this too.
Human rights, including the right to life, the right to not suffer cruel and unusual punishment, the right to due process, and the fact that human life evolves from conception, should be decided through Democratic not judicial assertion.
Human rights... should be decided through Democratic not judicial assertion.
Life deemed worthy or unworthy, contingent on your residence outside or inside the Twilight fringe, respectively.
If there actually was as Constitutional right to control our own bodies, there would be no War on Drugs.
There would be no DEA.
The FDA would have no power to block the release of new drugs. The only possible prescription drugs would be antibiotics (because abuse of them directly harms other people).
There would be no laws against suicide.
No one would be able to stop athletes from taking performance enhancing drugs (my body, my choice!).
That is what a right to control your own body would look like.
Abortion is about having power over someone else's body, not your own. That is all that Roe, and Casey, are about.
At least stop lying, ok?
Oh, and to be clear: You're not boring up every shred of personal decency by supporting Roe, you're boring it up by pretending that Ford's dishonest accusations justify rejecting Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.
“As to a "lie" I told about you, I expressed my OPINION that you are rationalizing the Dems and CBF's lies in order to take to down Kavanaugh. ”
Well, your guess about what I think is wrong. You are guessing that I want to take down Kavanaugh. I have never given any reason to say that.
Why should we Americans accept this man's power over us? He's been portrayed as a super-human paragon, and I don't think that can be the standard for who can be on the Supreme Court. It's dangerous to go looking for paragons.
You are guessing that I want to take down Kavanaugh. I have never given any reason to say that.
Your five points were passive aggressive, but at the end of the day, you mean abortion, and while you don't have the stones to DEMAND that Kavanaugh not be passed, you will not weep a single tear if he doesn't...even if through nefarious ways.
So as a rhetorical question: If abortion was not an issue, would you still be worried about paragons, nonsense 35 year old accusations, or 'power seeking', or would he be a perfectly satisfactory candidate for the Supreme Court?
I don't expect an answer.
Ann Althouse said...
Well, your guess about what I think is wrong. You are guessing that I want to take down Kavanaugh. I have never given any reason to say that.
1. This seat on the Court is especially important because of the threat to women's rights. Justice Kennedy was the 5th vote in key right-of-privacy cases, and women's continuing domain over our own bodies is at stake.
3. It's not a case of whether it would be fair to prosecute him for sexual assault after so many years and with this little evidence, but a question whether this person should be confirmed to take Justice Kennedy's seat on the Court and to have power for a lifetime to make decisions that will quite specifically determine the scope of women's rights. He has no right to the seat that's comparable to a right to remain free from criminal penalties.
4. Why should we Americans accept this man's power over us? He's been portrayed as a super-human paragon, and I don't think that can be the standard for who can be on the Supreme Court. It's dangerous to go looking for paragons. Maybe they've got a hard-to-detect dark side that has driven them to a life of saintly good works.
5. I assume all of the Senators are thinking primarily of their own power and how all of this will play in the November elections and in future elections. They are power-seekers and Kavanaugh is a power seeker. I am not seeking power. I am wary of the people who exercise power. I don't trust any of them, and I find it very hard to decide whom to trust here. It's tempting to say, it's wrong to use this device to defeat Kavanaugh. But to say that is to join everyone who insists on thinking of this all in terms of partisan politics. I'm having flashbacks to the Bill Clinton era, when I saw so many fake feminists put party politics first. I didn't. I didn't do it then, and I'm not going to do it now.
No. To say "it's wrong to use this device to defeat Kavanaugh" is to be a decent human being who rejects dishonest character assassination.
If you're not in favor of character assassination as a tool to advance your support for Roe, you've done a poor job of communicating what you believe.
Post a Comment