September 24, 2018
The point at which Brett Kavanaugh almost moves himself to tears: "I was focused on trying to be number 1 in my class and being captain of the varsity basketball team."
From the Fox News interview that aired just now.
ADDED: Kavanaugh (and his wife) gave a strong performance. He stuck to absolute denials, and he was asked the question I wanted to hear — did he ever drink to the point of a memory blackout — and he said he did not.
AND: There are so many things that might have made him cry, and clearly he didn't want to cry, but it provides an insight into his mind to see what was the thought that made it most difficult to maintain his composure. He'd been asked about partying and pursuing female companionship, and he was thinking about how he lived in those days. He was trying to be number 1 in his class. That meant a lot to him, and it took tremendous time and concentration. And then, the second thing, being captain of the varsity basketball team. What a good boy I was! All that striving, all that effort at goodness — and look what they are doing to me now!
ALSO: You'll see the whole interview. There were certain words that he repeated over and over, especially that he has always treated women with "dignity and respect" and that all he wants is "a fair process." Asked again and again to speculate about other people's motives, he always declined. He would not say anything bad about any individual. He always made it about the allegations, not the person. The person he spoke of was himself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
221 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 221 of 221Ann Althouse said...But I'll just say the stakes include more than just how much he and his family and associates will emotionally suffer if he loses. Most notably, the stakes include a person getting a lifetime position of power, some of it involving women's autonomy over our bodies.
So it's "We're allowed to destroy this fucker & treat him as unfairly as we want because abortion rights are at stake!" then? That's so much worse Professor! Geez, that's really awful.
Nice centrist people apparently change their criteria for judgement based on the "stakes."
Evidence that wouldn't make a nice centrist people think a guy was guilty of sexual assault and attempted rape if he's just some guy CAN make a cruelly neutral person think that same guy is guilty if that guy is a nominee for the Court and doesn't support Roe.
Should we conclude that if the situation were the exact same but the nominee supported Roe that nice centrist people like Professor Althouse would conclude the evidence ISN'T enough for guilt? Seems like a fair conclusion!
Standards of evidence that shift based on the suspected outcome of a finding of guilt--and that based on the ideological beliefs of the accused--are apparently OK to a prominent LAW PROFESSOR. I hate to do the "and you, a law professor!" thing but it's unavoidable!
Allowing the "stakes" to influence your judgment is the opposite of what the concept of "justice" is about. Having different standards of evidence for the same situation based on the ideology of the accused is the opposite of what justice is supposed to be about!
You're giving yourself permission to be unjust and you're proud of it! That's disgusting.
"Things are different when the stakes are different" is just a slightly-more sophisticated version of "if it means keeping Roe then women should be lining up with kneepads on to blow Clinton."
How fucked up is it that Professor Althouse is now essentially making that same argument?!
women's autonomy over our bodies.
I always LOL at that because it's false, and purposely and dishonestly misleading, but everyone knows it.
How fucked up is it that Professor Althouse is now essentially making that same argument?!
Not fucked up at all - this is a feminist pop-culture blog, so what did you expect? Scintillating legal analysis? Discussion of the latest scientific papers and discoveries? Or RuPaul, Prince and Hess?
Another circus argument: So if I see a woman drowning I should leaver her alone because of her desire, no right, to control her body autonomously? Good to know. Would that go for bear, wolf, lion, or coyote attacks?
Why does bland Kavanaugh's plight bring out all these strange takes on women?
I remember Althouse was willing to see the Memories Pizza owners destroyed. For the gays.
Shouting Thomas has her pegged. Every once in a while, the mask slips.
Most notably, the stakes include a person getting a lifetime position of power, some of it involving women's autonomy over our bodies.
How about the fact that some of his power will involve issues of men's autonomy over their bodies? Does that matter?
By the way, the issue of abortion is about the baby's body and right to life, not the woman's. Which is why your side tries so hard to deny the humanity of the baby.
Just a hypothetical- if Ford had accused Kavanaugh of murder, and Kavanaugh protested that he had never killed anyone in his life, would that broad denial be suspicious?
Laslo, in the last comment of the first page is right- Althouse is ignoring the "afraid he might accidentally kill me" part of the accusation.
Another circus argument: So if I see a woman drowning I should leaver her alone because of her desire, no right, to control her body autonomously? Good to know. Would that go for bear, wolf, lion, or coyote attacks?
Perhaps a better analogy would be: you see a woman about to commit suicide. Should you try to stop her? Or respect her autonomy over her body.
"I remember Althouse was willing to see the Memories Pizza owners destroyed. For the gays. "
Remember, truth doesn't matter, the accuser lying doesn't matter, destroying a good man doesn't matter.
All that matter's is that Althouse's precious little pickle sniffer be allowed to use the force of government backed by violence to have cakes baked for him.
All that matter's is that Althouse's precious little pickle sniffer be allowed to use the force of government backed by violence to have cakes baked for him.
Which could be construed as denying the baker's autonomy over his body. That is, despite the baker's moral objections, the government is forcing his body to mix the batter, prepare the frosting, place the cake in the oven, and decorate when done.
To be clear, that is not my characterization of Ann's son. I'm only remarking on the autonomy aspect of the statement.
Autonomy = individual rights >> if not enumerated in the Constitution are still retained per Ninth Amendment.
Feminists are collectivists and vehemently evade the fact ... Only individual can assert autonomy.
He consistently and repeatedly emphasizes how much he respects women, it doesn’t ring true. It sounds like a thou protesteth too much sort of thing.
And if he wasn't saying such a thing, you'd be bitching out that, too.
Althouse: "What a good boy I was! All that striving, all that effort at goodness — and look what they are doing to me now!"
What now, is Althouse now comparing Kavanaugh to Tony Montana from Scarface?
"I want you to see what a good boy I've been."
"Last I heard, I assume K Burns documentary about Deadwood is the sour s but ifhou source me your fuckex,
"Calamity Jane in one trip brought ten young whores to be turned (into whores) on just one trip from Sydney, NE."
Ken Burns (I am assuming the "K" is for "Ken") did a documentary on Deadwood? When did that air? I am an armchair historian with a particular interest in frontier history, and while Burns is a girly-man State-shtupper, I liked his Civil War docuseries and would be interested if he did a show about Deadwood.
Ken Burns has done a series on baseball, Prohibition, Vietnam, WWII and The West.
I presume that he had a segment on Deadwood in his 'The West' series.
HOWEVER, I did see the Prohibition series and it was wildly unbalanced. Every single narrator just laughed at the very idea of self control and self denial.
It seems that the idea of someone without bad habits is laughable to a certain ideology.
But then again, among certain women, the better a man is, the worse they need to think of him
So take your Burns with a large lump of pink Himalayan salt.
I appreciate his refusal to accuse back and speculate on their motives. If someone false accused me of some sort of sexual assault, I could say "that didn't happen, I didn't do that", and if someone asked "so why is your accuser lying?" the correct response is "I don't know that s/he's lying, or why s/he is saying this". Lying implies knowingly stating a falsehood and/or knowingly conveying a false impression (the second part is less clear and harder to define).
He conveys the impression he is sticking to the facts as he knows them to be best of his ability. "Believe the accused!" Well, no, not quite, because that's the Begging the Question fallacy.
Post a Comment