From "The New York Times Anti-Kavanaugh Bombshell Is Actually a Dud" by John MacCormack (National Review).
The NYT article — "Brett Kavanaugh Fit In With the Privileged Kids. She Did Not. Deborah Ramirez’s Yale experience says much about the college’s efforts to diversify its student body in the 1980s"— now has an update:
An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.Note that Deborah Ramirez is not the person in the incident alleged by Max Stier. The Max Stier allegation is used to corroborate the Deborah Ramirez allegation — which is that Kavanaugh, drunk at a party, exposed his penis in some sort of "thrust" near her and that she reacted by hitting him in the penis.
The article — as you can see from the headline — is mostly about class difference. Some young people supposedly felt at home with whatever was going on at parties like that, and some were lost and alienated. That is a serious problem with college life, I'm willing to believe, but I'd rather see it reported and analyzed as a free-standing problem, not appropriated for the purpose of taking down a political enemy.
And I'd like to know: When is it okay to hit a naked man in the penis? When can people get naked at parties and waggle their genitalia at each other? I don't fit in with that kind of partying either — and I never did — so I'd like a sober, neutral explanation. I'm inclined to believe that people at private parties can get naked. We were just talking about Woodstock, that revered historical event where young people got naked. In the words of Frank Zappa:
There will come a time when everybody who is lonelyClearly, Zappa was making fun of the hippies' high hopes for naked dancing. That song is from 1968, a year before Woodstock, and a decade and a half before Kavanaugh's Yale party days. And here we are today — 40 or 50 years after that youthful revelry — judging those people. I'd love to analyze the whole thing, and I'd even like to see a strongly feminist analysis. But this get-Kavanaugh motivation makes it all twisted and tainted with lust for political power.
Will be free to sing and dance and love
There will come a time when every evil that we know
Will be an evil that we can rise above
Who cares if you're so poor you can't afford
To buy a pair of mod-a-go-go stretch elastic pants?
There will come a time when you can even take your clothes off when you dance
Posts
187 comments:
Can someone explain the logistics of the allegation here?
Whiteboard needed.
But boy would that be an epic thread...
The only assault here is the one the NYT perpetrated on Kavanaugh.
When is it okay to hit a naked man in the penis?
In a movie it is always acceptable, generally to great comic effect.
When can people get naked at parties and waggle their genitalia at each other?
Once keys have been deposited in the bowl.
Marxist feminist analysis is to blame for leading us to these media denunciations.
You’re going to improve the situation with even more Marxist feminist analysis?
"[L]ust for political power" says it all.
How convenient this comes out just before the SCOTUS term beings in October. Another attempt to put an asterisk by his name and de-legitimize his position on the Court. And Max Stier is a former Clinton lawyer. Guess this is more payback.
"I'd love the analyze the whole thing, and I'd even like to see a strongly feminist analysis."
What the hell does that even mean? What is a strongly feminist analyst and how does one differ from a, you know, analysis that strongly seeks the facts?
Here’s my Marxist feminist analysis:
The cause is so urgent and just that any lie is justified.
And, it’s not really a lie because the guy we’re ripping to shreds is the hated class enemy.
Excerpts from an article by Mollie Hemingway, published in The Federalist today
[quote]
... She was on the floor when “a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction,” the New Yorker reported. That student and another student were nearby and then a “third male then exposed himself to her.” The reader is supposed to assume this is Kavanaugh, though Ramirez is never clearly and directly quoted as saying that. ...
Ramirez herself had called classmates and told them she “could not be certain” that Kavanaugh was the person who exposed himself, the Times reported. ...
Nevertheless, the authors say their “gut” tells them that Ramirez’s claim is correct. ...
The authors then bring forth a new allegation that they suggest bolsters her claim. They say that a former Clinton attorney named Max Stier told the senators and F.B.I. that he witnessed Kavanaugh, pants-down, at a party where a group of guys pushed the hand of a female student onto him.
What they neglected to mention, however, was that the Senate Judiciary Committee was not notified of this claim ....
several friends of the alleged victim in question say she has zero recollection of such incident. ...
[end quote]
What is a strongly feminist analyst and how does one differ from a, you know, analysis that strongly seeks the facts?
The feminist objects to the possibility this could have happened.
The fact that it didn't and was used to smear a man is not germane to her critique.
This story is not journalism malpractice, but rather intentional libel.. A hit job.
Let’s flip it. Max Stier gave some guy a blowjob at a drunken Yale dorm party, but the victim has no recollection of this incident. And no one else at the party saw this either. Print that.
What kind of person is this Max Stier? What kind of newspaper is the NYT? What is WRONG with these people?
With all this supposed frolicking, It's becoming clearer why judges wear robes.
Between this and shutting down the Houston shipping canal, it’s like the Democrats are trying to get Republicans pumped. Now we hear that Biden wants to impeach Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh is a squish too. That’s what’s so weird.
I think the Supreme Court should just overturn Roe v. Wade and force the country to put abortion up for a vote. Then maybe we could stop this idiocy. If the folks on the left really believe the majority of the people in this country support abortion on demand, they should welcome it, too. A Constitutional amendment that gives a woman the right to end the life of her unborn child should be easy to pass, right?
The New York Times piece is all about careless reading of the facts. This is because the university system that is feeding them “journalists” is teaching them what to think, not how to think.
I can't answer your question Althouse, because I never attended such parties either. I had others tell me that "such and such girl gave such and such guy a blow job at a party in front of others", but it had all the believability as IT Chapter 2.
I think that The New York Times has inside information that Justice Ginsburg is dying.
This despicable article was published now in preparation for the imminent struggle against Trump's nomination of Ginsburg's successor.
We have it documented that Joe Biden, who wants Kavanaugh impeached, likes to wave his penis in front of female secret service agents who told him they would rather he didn’t.
"What kind of newspaper is the NYT?"
A better question would be "What does this have to do with slavery?"
I'm with Eleanor. Time to get the SC out of politics and back to the vision John Roberts has of the court. Time to send abortion to the people.
Ultimately we will reach a compromise on the issue and most states will have abortion laws similar to most of Europe.
I don't think the Republican party will survive much longer after that though.
"But this get-Kavanaugh motivation makes it all twisted and tainted with lust for political power."
Do ya think?
There is no way back for the Democratic Party and the major news organizations. The degeneracy of the Dems combined with the clumsy propaganda machines that the NYT and WaPoop and the major cable organizations have become leaves them on a shrinking island of partisan rancor.
We could be getting a serious exposure of the mendacity of the preposterous claims being made by the small platoons of political hacks that Yale apparently turned out by the dozens 25 years ago. Instead we get incompetent smears that would make Goebbels embarrassed.
And now let's go to the candidate for whom Althouse has hopes. What did she do?
"Amy Klobuchar stopped short of calling for impeachment, and instead posted a picture of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford with the words, 'Let us never forget what courage looks like.'" reports Fox News.
There are a lot of adjectives I would use to describe Blasey Ford, but courageous isn't one of them. I'm thinking up a few adjectives for Amy Klobuchar, though.
This is not normal politics. This is the politics of personal destruction, and it is going to destroy civic trust for two generations.
I don't think the Republican party will survive much longer after that though.
The Republican Party is dead.
The Democrat Party is also dead but is being portrayed as alive, Weekend at Bernie's-style, by the NYT on one side and the WAPO on the other.
Eleanor said "I think the Supreme Court should just overturn Roe v. Wade..."
What does this have to do with this silly article?
Omitting this fact from the New York Times story is one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent memory.
What a trashy rag the NYT is.
motivation makes it all twisted and tainted with lust for political power
But but Rex Parker!
The Marxist feminist ideology that you've clung to for 50 years is an absolute, total, evil lie, Althouse.
When are you going to give it up?
As a political power play it's weak. Are they gonna dig up John McCain's body to make the talk show rounds or will they get Mitt to do it?
Perhaps the latest data points show the panel of leftie losers isn't connecting with Trump lickspittle women.
This sounds like battle space prep for the impending demise of RBG. The purpose is to scare the shit out of potential replacements.
"When can people get naked at parties and waggle their genitalia at each other?"
I believe they are called 'Gay Pride' parades.
Aside from that it always astonishes me how the 'Sodom and Gomorrah' Left when it suits them morph themselves into a kind of Puritans more puritanical then the real Puritans ever were. I'm not an American and never been a frat boy but I can remember the time when the Left was wallowing in filth, breaking every social norm 'pour épater la bourgeoisie'. And as far as I know that time never ended (see the already 'Pride' parades as an example).
It would be to laugh if the consequences weren't so toxic.
On October 27, 1982 Prince released the song "1999":
If you didn't come to party
Don't bother knockin' on my door
I got a lion in my pocket
And baby he's ready to roar
Everybody's got a bomb
We could all die any day, Oh
(But before I'll let that happen
I'll dance my life away)
'Cuz they say...
2000 zero zero party over oops out of time
So tonight I'm gonna party like it's 1999
Contextualize this song, and the fear of imminent nuclear annihilation it expresses, with parties in the Eighties.
Did Kavanaugh party like it's 1999?
Did the accusers?
Now: cross-reference with Brett Easton Ellis' "Less Than Zero."
The 80s are Not Your Culture To Cancel.
I am Laslo.
The Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade when 45 to 48 states have adopted reasonably accommodative abortion laws no more restrictive than those in, say, Sweden. Until then, Roe (actually Casey vs. Planned Parenthood) isn't going anywhere. Right now, I believe there is one vote for overturning it today, namely, Thomas. Before Scalia died, there were two.
Left wing, Dem partisan. Worked for the law firm that defended Clinton from impeachment (with Kavenaugh on the opposite side). Worked as high level attorney at HUD in Obama Administration. Now appears to be running a nonprofit whose goal appears to be to install SJWs into federal jobs.
And, of course, the woman supposedly involved has no memory of the alleged escapade.
The real question though is: Why now? And the best explanation I have heard is as battleground prep for confirmation hearings for the replacement for Justice RB Ginsberg. And the “Why Now?” Is likely that said replacement is likely to be soon, if not imminent. Pretty much every physician I have heard opine on the subject has said that her prognosis is almost assuredly dire. That her chances of surviving cancer are extremely low.
Republicans prefer getting this out of the way this year, since next year is an election year. This is a shot across their bow, that the Dems will go even lower than they did with Kavenaugh, to prevent anyone from being seated until after the election, when then might have the Presidency, and more likely will have the Senate. Everyone knows that this is a completely BS late hit, but that, I think is the point, that the Dems are signaling to the Republicans and any potential nominees that it will never be over. It isn’t over yet with Justice Thomas, despite a single uncorroborated BS claim decades ago. Kavenaugh was literally a Boy Scout, who claims to have gone into marriage a virgin, yet has been accused of running orgies in college. No corroboration, of course. None needed, because what is important is the seriousness of the claims.
Max steitz was a Clinton lawyer during the impeachment.
Do we need to know more?
John Henry
It's not necessarily that RBG is a death's door, but that the NYT finds it unlikely that she will survive the probable second Trump Administration.
I lived in Woodstock for a long time.
How the Woodstock festival led in a straight line to this Marxist feminist reign of terror is hard to say.
But that's what happened.
Also omitted (lies of omision) centers on the fact the FBI does not investigate the accusation. There is nothing to investigate. The FBI does background checks, of which Kavanaugh had already gone through on multiple occasions. Background checks are interviews with persons the subject has known in personal and proffessional settings. The interviews are not under oath, and are completely voluntary. The background check is not a crimminal investigation. If something would seem afoul the law, the appropriate local law enforcement would be forward what ever information the FBI learned.
We are to believe Kavanaugh was some sort of Animal House wanna be...and all the interviews conducted failed to turn up any hints of aberrant behavior.
Who does have power to investigate, is the Senate judiciary committee. Both the majority and minority committees employee fulltime investigators. Those investigators come from the ranks of the FBI, Secret Service, and LEO detectives. Those investigators have the power to compel testimony under oath. Diane Feinstien, chairman of the Democrat side of the Judiciary committee, failed to use the staff under her leadership to investigate the allegations. Diane Fienstein will never be asked by the NYT what her investigators found concerning the new allegations.
The NYT is nothing but a PR firm for Democrats. It is obvious from this report, they have no intention of gathering facts and publishing a news article.
What is a "gag penis"? Is it different from a penis gag?
More seriously, what is the difference between a gag penis and a dildo?
John Henry
"for the purpose of taking down a political enemy" There is no way anyone could imagine that this level of weak tea could take down anyone at all. The only goal there could be is to make the "asterisk" a little bit bigger.
Yale DKE from late 70s. This story has zero credibility. A guy running around with his penis out at a party? No. If it happened, the entire university would know about it. Zero credibility.
I assume the feminist analysis is that since all men are rapists, all met want to display their penises and have them pushed into unsuspecting girls' faces. That says more about feminists than anything else.
I’d like to see the so-called victim go on live TV and totally deny that this ever happened.
And can we now make up total lies about Max Stier?
There are an awful lot of things happening to Kavanaugh's penis that don't involve Kavanaugh himself.
It must be quite large.
Having read Hemingway's and Sevarino's book "Justice on Trial," I give zero credibility to the claims of Christine Blaisey Ford. This latest is more organized filth, pushed by an utterly compromised, partisan and untrustworthy press that has thrown away all ethics in its zeal to do the dirty work of a rotting, mendacious Democratic party. The news industry could hardly choose a more degenerate master to serve in its role as an immoral, debased whore.
150
Number of federal judges pdjt has appointed so far.
So perhaps all this lunatic raving does serve a purpose by keeping the 150 under the Radar
John Henry
"I’d like to see the so-called victim go on live TV and totally deny that this ever happened."
David, you realize that the "so-called victim" probably opposes the Kavanaugh appointment. You and we will not hear from her.
Yet another front opens in Operation Scare Suburban Females. The racist thing must not be sticking, so try sexist (again), though this time guilt by association. Facts aren’t terribly important; the goal is simply to make you feel ‘icky’ enough about the current administration to vote for the other party.
Objectively, it’s not a bad strategy. Worst case, these accusations fit the narrative & further fire up the base. Best case, suburban districts turn a tiny bit more purple.
Max Stier was the putz that was pushed into her hand.
It's obvious.
Let’s note that a number of Dem presidential candidates have just called for the impeachment of Justice Kavanaugh based on this obvious lie.
A clearer discussion in the NYPost: https://nypost.com/2019/09/15/devine-latest-brett-kavanaugh-smear-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_source=maropost&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nypdaily&utm_content=20190916&tpcc=morning_report&mpweb=755-8251076-711669795
I never understood that show trial last year. Brett Kavanaugh didn't work his way up to and through Yale Law and then to a federal judgeship just so that he could oppress women by overturning Roe v. Wade.
Given the unpredictability of the president who nominated him, BK was the most agreeable candidate who could have been put up for the court. He's a paid-up member of the East Coast elite, and the only way he could turn out to be a renegade crank on the Supreme Court would have been if the other self-styled elites treated him like trash. Which they did.
I don't hold myself out as a fine strategic thinker, but even I understand this much.
What?!? You people didn't expect blowback for the Clinton impeachment debacle?
None of it happened. And nothing happened to Ford. This is all made up from top to bottom. In each case, there were no witnesses, no corroboration. Nothing.
There shouldn’t even be a feminist analysis of something that never happened. Because such an analysis just gives these lies credence.
Drop it, Professor. If you’re as reasonable as you portray yourself, don’t give this load of BS the attention those pushing it are craving.
Interesting article at CTH about the Lawfare network concerning this late hit on Justice Kavenaugh: Lawfare Group Begins Delegitimizing Supreme Court…
In the last few months the Supreme Court has been moving toward eliminating the ability of Lawfare allied federal judges from ordering nationwide injunctions. The latest SCOTUS decision was 7-2 to stop this Lawfare practice. If activist judges are stopped from blocking executive branch policy, this creates a serious problem for the Lawfare Alliance.
Simultaneously, President Trump is filling vacancies on the federal bench at a strong rate. President Trump has now appointed 150 federal judges into the judicial bloodstream. This further impedes the ability of the ideological Lawfare Alliance to achieve their objectives.
With the Supreme Court tenuously holding a 5-4 conservative outlook, and the strong possibility the loss of Justice Ginsburg might create a 6-3 court, the Lawfare group is now lashing out and planning for ways to retain their position.
...
….So following along with what we know about how Lawfare operates, the current attacks to delegitimize Justice Brett Kavanaugh really give the appearance of entreaties toward delegitimizing the rulings of the court. Rulings such as the pending DACA decision.
That appears to be the strategic purpose for the Lawfare Group to weaponize their ideological allies in the left-wing media, and to start hyping the SCOTUS antagonism now.
Creating a crisis to achieve their results, is simply how the Lawfare group work…
Just a reminder that these are the people Comey leaked his memos to, and were instrumental in developing the interpretation of that one Obstruction statute that allowed the Mueller investigation to prevent Congressional investigations into the illegal spying on Trump, as well as shutting down their own investigation.
This is hysteria. This is the temper tantrum in the grocery store that needs a calm, reasonable adult and a quick exit to the parking lot. The biggest threat to Trump’s re-election is the people who will buy the cookies just to shut the kid up.
Inflammatory accusation against political conservative? Check.
35 year old claim? Check
Accuser won't publically make it? Check
Accuser is Clinton lawyer? Check
Victim is unknown woman? Check
Attack on character, not policy? Check
Substance of claim (dick wagging at party) is trivial? Check
And, of course, pushed and promoted by the NYT? Check
“It's not necessarily that RBG is a death's door, but that the NYT finds it unlikely that she will survive the probable second Trump Administration.”
I think that the timing of this late hit on Justice Kavenaugh strongly suggests that a lot of people on the left don’t think that she willl survive Trump’s first term.
It was funny for the Yale "boys", but was it funny for Mr. Steir and the other men watching the drunken women be played with like that
Facts not in evidence
Diane Feinstien had this allegation from Steir. She saw nothing worth sending her investigative staff to follow up. Because, those investigators have the power to compel testimony under oath. That eliminates the slimy speculation from unnamed sources we are looking at now. Democrats are not interested in doing anything to put an end to baseless speculation.
What does Roe v. Wade have to do with this article? Well, every time a nomination to the Supreme Court comes up, every time there's an election, women are supposed to get our panties bunched up over losing the right to kill our babies. Gays are supposed to be worried about losing the right to get married to each other. If we could get these things codified into law, then maybe we could focus on other issues. Since the left keeps telling us those are things the majority of Americans support, why does the validity of those things being legal rest in the hands of nine people no one voted for? Do we really think what happens at a college frat party would matter if who gets to sit on the Supreme Court only mattered for issues that aren't so hot button?
Fredo will have this liar on CNN this week.
“you people.”
LOL
Juanita Broaddrick has five contemporaneous witnesses, each facing federal prison if found to be lying, including one who found her in her hotel room bleeding with torn clothes. Yep, this is exactly the same!
I was at a party in 1978. I don't recall if Ruth Bader Ginsburg was also at the party, and I have no recollection that she told a dirty joke. Contact me offline to offer me a book contract.
What Amadaeus said.
Let's remember, the Republicans played dirty by denying Merrick Garland a hearing, not branding him a sexual predator. This is the second Justice the Dems have smeared. I hope John Roberts is paying close attention. They won't accept your squish compromises. They want you gone.
Eleanor, dorm party, not frat party. Yale was not set up like your typical "State U" with a fraternity row. No frat houses on campus, DKE didn't have a frat house at that time anyway. That said, college students getting drunk look and behave pretty much the same everywhere.
Interesting to see the almost immediate affects of Ann and Meade turning on moderation here. Done with their coffee and maybe breakfast, they are now buckling down to work.
Reminds me of a couple occasions this summer when I was watching people on my video feeds from my security cameras in AZ, on my screen here in MT, over a thousand miles away, and talking to them over the phone at the time. For example, I directed my partner’s daughter to move around the garage, until she I had her look under a certain box in front of her, to find the air conditioning unit I wanted them to bring up here.
It’s amusing that you think that rag is superior to “right wing news”.
“Let's remember, the Republicans played dirty by denying Merrick Garland a hearing, not branding him a sexual predator. This is the second Justice the Dems have smeared. I hope John Roberts is paying close attention. They won't accept your squish compromises. They want you gone.”
Biden Rule - Senate controlled by the opposite party has no obligation to hold hearings in the last year of a Presidency, esp here, when the President is term limited from running again. This is just power politics. Dirty was Feinstein reopening the investigation after hearings had started to have the FBI look into the Ford allegations that she had known of before the original investigation was complete. And dirty were all of the other allegations, even more scurrilous, and even less credible and supported by evidence, or even sanity. And dirty is this late hit allegation by this Dem operative.
The reality is that the Dems would have done exactly the same thing that the Republicans did, if everything were reversed, esp if it meant possibly flipping the Supreme Court to their side. Esp if Justice Scalia could be replaced by a leftist like Garland.
If you want to believe something bad enough, you skip over the inconsistencies. It feels better that way. It used to be that we sent people to college to learn to overcome this unfortunate aspect of human nature. Now though, they are teaching kids to surrender to it completely. That’s where the rewards are.
“What does Roe v. Wade have to do with this article? Well, every time a nomination to the Supreme Court comes up, every time there's an election, women are supposed to get our panties bunched up over losing the right to kill our babies”
Here is an idea that sends chills down their spines: Justice Amy Coney Barrett, with her Roman Catholicism and her six kids.
Hmm, a strongly feminist analysis? Seems to me, the strong feminist position back in those days was that a woman who wanted to avoid the kind of penis-waving, drunken frat party hijinks described would simply do so by not going to the party. She had better things to do with her time. Barring that, if she had her wits about her, she might slap away whatever lout came jiggling his johnson in her general direction, and tell him to fuck off. She had agency, after all, and was capable of making the choice to drink or not drink, and to defend herself when necessary. If her choice was to be just as drunk as the boys, she might have found the whole situation at least temporarily amusing. At worst, the next morning she might have laughed with her friends about the drunk asshole waving his dick around at the party last night, and chalked the whole thing up to a learning experience of who & what to avoid in the future.
What a "strong feminist" wouldn't do would be to file the incident away in her psyche as a life-limiting scar, the better to dredge it up decades later as a convenient political weapon. Strong Feminists of that vintage seemed to understand the difference between a violent date rape and a pack of drunk jackasses running around with their pants off.
I think the Supreme Court should just overturn Roe v. Wade and force the country to put abortion up for a vote.
Nobody on the Supreme Court is a real pro-lifer. If they were, they would say something like, "An unborn child is a person with a right to life." They would apply our equal protection clause (and our death statutes) to the abortion issue.
Any Republican on the Court is, at best, a faint-hearted pro-lifer. They would like to over-turn Roe v. Wade. But they would like to do so without acknowledging any of the atrocities. They would like everybody to save face, and just have a do-over.
On the other side, of course, everybody is vocal for the pro-choice side. They insist that the Constitution speaks to this issue. I don't think Ginsburg is at all happy about what happened to Kavanaugh. She tries to defend him. But she has to know it's the war over abortion that has caused these attacks.
Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh are all faint-hearted pro-lifers. And yet, when you are at war, all your enemies seem the same. So they are ravaged all the same. And, note the attacks are escalating in intensity. What happened to Thomas was worse than what happened to Bork. And what happened to Kavanaugh was worse than what happened to Thomas.
Make up a story so nonsensical - it just might work!
"What?!? You people didn't expect blowback for the Clinton impeachment debacle?"
Yeah. 1996 is over twenty years ago, and the Dems today are embarrassed by both Hillary and Bill. And of course, unlike Clinton, Kavanaugh hasn't been credibly accused by anyone; in fact, he's been a boy scout (trustworthy, loyal, helpful, courteous, kind, clean, and reverent).
You are right. This is totally about the Clinton impeachment.
Shouting T @
Here’s my Marxist feminist analysis:
The cause is so urgent and just that any lie is justified.
And, it’s not really a lie because the guy we’re ripping to shreds is the hated class enemy.
Nails it.
CBS is reminding us right now that "some" are calling for impeachment. Sounds serious.
"They say that a former Clinton attorney named Max Stier ..."
It's funny how the Clintons, the Clinton's attorneys, and sex are just under the surface.
"Eleanor, dorm party, not frat party. Yale was not set up like your typical "State U"...
Well sneered, henry, well sneered!!
Maybe there was a second penis on the grassy knoll?
The NYT is easier to read if you think of it as a complicated serial novel.
Trump noted an angle to this story that most have missed: this was an attempt to influence Kavanaugh’s voting behavior, to turn him effectively into a liberal. It may even be a shot at a Roberts, who clearly fears liberal opinion. Trump’s tweet was not just at the failing NYT but also a subtle call to Kavanaugh: I’ve got your back but ... if you become John Roberts II, I can come at you from the front as well.
And people say Trump isn’t playing 4D chess.
A feminist analysis of the hysteria would be good. I nominate Phyllis Chesler.
Is she still alive?
Something about Ford’s attorneys: Debra Katz Strikes Again
The one-year anniversary of Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee is almost upon us, and her attorney, Debra Katz, is at it again.
I don’t mean that Katz is once again engaging in politically motivated slander of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Though she is. That’s just par for the course. What’s more surprising is that Katz, who is supposed to be one of the nation’s top lawyers, is once again giving her and her client’s whole sickening game away.
...
Earlier this month, however, the Daily Caller unearthed video of Katz asserting something that’s supposed to be an unthinkable affront to the traumatized feminine victimhood schtick her client used so successfully as protective armor. According to Katz, “part of what motivated” Blasey Ford to make her claims was the idea that Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Supreme Court was a threat to Roe v. Wade’s standing as law of the land.
Katz isn’t alone there though.
Given the mental prowess Katz failed to display when questioned about her evident conflict of interest, it’s perhaps not surprising that Blasey Ford had a second lawyer named Michael Bromwich also by her side officially while she testified. And, when it came time for the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Blasey Ford, we learned that both were working pro bono.
...
Blasey Ford’s other attorney, Bromwich, was even less likely than Katz to be focused on anything other than stopping Trump from getting another nominee on the Supreme Court. His Twitter feed is an unending stream of relentless, bad-faith bitterness toward Donald Trump and his administration. Bromwich was already representing disgraced FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe when he signed on with Blasey Ford.
Bromwich has been member of the Democratic Party’s elite for decades, having prosecuted Oliver North during the 1980s as part of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh’s investigation into the Iran-Contra affair. He initially was successful until all his guilty verdicts against North were tossed out on appeal. All charges were subsequently dropped. But since abject failure seems to be a résumé enhancer in Washington, Bromwich went on to become inspector general at Bill Clinton’s Justice Department, and later head of the newly created Bureau of Ocean Energy Management under Barack Obama.
I knew I had seen that name before (Michael Bromwich) today, and then it struck me. His name was prominent in that Lawfare article I posted here earlier. And, guess what? He was apparently already representing Andrew McCabe. The Deputy Director of the FBI that investigated the Ford accusations. And then didn’t recommend prosecution of any of the witnesses against Justice Kavenaugh, who were very obviously lying through their teeth.
"What the hell does that even mean? What is a strongly feminist analyst and how does one differ from a, you know, analysis that strongly seeks the facts?"
A strongly feminist analysis of college drinking parties would look at the experience of women as women (and men as men). It would examine the power relationships that play out at the parties and in the students' life generally. It would try to figure out what's really going on psychologically as men and women interact with each other socially and sexually. Do these activities perpetuate male domination and track or lure females into subordination. I'd like *factual* answers~ The feminism has to do with the kinds of questions you ask, and there would be a *hypothesis* that a traditional institution like college drinking parties serve patriarchy. The difficulty is to be honest and thorough in answering the questions.
A feminist analysis of the hysteria would be good. I nominate Phyllis Chesler.
Is she still alive?
Mebbe you girls should lose the all vapors all the time thing and try being adults.
A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. We already know that the notion of "patriarchy" will never be falsified.
Modern feminism isn't about any of that, Ann.
An honest look back at the 1980's will tell us that some boys and girls did silly stupid shit at parties in HS or college in the 1980s. To take that era and use is as a weapon against a future person, when the young women who were at those parties were there with clear heads and the same sexual drive as the boys.
It's all weaponized BS by leftists. Leftists with agendas filled with hate, revenge and fear that someone might take away their ability to abort their fetuses.
The Democrats don't want to take RBG out of the freezer until January so that they can invoke the Biden rule. Freezer burn may have pushed the schedule up.
"It would try to figure out what's really going on psychologically as men and women interact with each other socially and sexually.”
Feminism appears mainly to be focused mainly on the power relationship between women and highly desirable men and then pretends to speak for everybody.
Largo said...
Eleanor said "I think the Supreme Court should just overturn Roe v. Wade..."
What does this have to do with this silly article?
Are you serious ? Is this another Inga sock puppet ?
All Supreme Court battles are about abortion and nothing else.
Drop it, Professor. If you’re as reasonable as you portray yourself, don’t give this load of BS the attention those pushing it are craving.
Worth a repost though I'd agree it deserves attention to the extent we discuss the how crass and how desperate the left has become.
“Do these activities perpetuate male domination and track or lure females into subordination. I'd like *factual* answers~ The feminism has to do with the kinds of questions you ask, and there would be a *hypothesis* that a traditional institution like college drinking parties serve patriarchy”
And they wonder why people call them Stalinists....
Has a “hypothesis” in one of these feminist inquiries ever been proven untrue? Weird.
Good thing the New York Times is an actual newspaper.
I meant to say “highly privileged woman and highly desirable men."
The feminism has to do with the kinds of questions you ask
Would feminism notice that power doesn't exist. It's a reification error, like phlogiston, the cause of fire. You can look for it but it never turns up.
Power is a fog of auctoritas, imperium, officium and potestas. Saying which you mean is better for the question.
Outlandish sexual stuff happened at drunken frat parties in the 1980's. We all watched Animal House. So it must be true - and Brett was the worst offender of all.
I feel it in my gut.
Get my gut on the witness stand, now.
I think of power as force times velocity. If you know that, you can see how the radiation drive that instapundit keeps bringing up can't work.
"A strongly feminist analysis of college drinking parties would look at the experience of women as women (and men as men)."
I went through a lesser Ivy within a couple of years of Kavanaugh. My experience at drinking parties was of a smallish, grungy group who came to know each other well, and had hardly anything in the way of sexuality connected to them because we were among friends. I assume there were parties where people cavorted, but we didn't see them. This is the problem with -ist analysis - it picks from here and there, hears only the greasy wheel, and ignores the literally billions of people who have just tried to get along together.
"That dick is an awful thing." - 2 Live Crew
I'd like a sober, neutral explanation.
First we'd need to know if it really happened or not. Since we can't get to even step one the idea additional analysis of details will help us reach a conclusion on these allegations is false.
“Do these activities perpetuate male domination and track and lure females into subordination?”
And you keep saying you’re not a Marxist feminist.
Stop doing this, Althouse. This is evil. Do you hear?
You’re one the evil culprits making this shit show of media denunciation happen.
Cure thyself.
"I'd love the analyze the whole thing, and I'd even like to see a strongly feminist analysis."
What the hell does that even mean? What is a strongly feminist analyst and how does one differ from a, you know, analysis that strongly seeks the facts?"
Feminism is best understood as "advocacy for women and girls." And advocacy is judged by results, however obtained. A "feminist analysis" would be one that determines whether or not something is a benefit to women and girls.
Advocacy isn't necessarily opposed to truth, but it isn't necessary for it to be truth-seeking (or even truth-based) either. Advocacy is about securing benefits, and truth here is of value only to the extent that it supports this.
Except for some kind of historical perspective what is the purpose of analyzing how college students behaved back in the 1980s? Maybe a better question is, does this kind of "partying" go on now? College is a very different place now than it was back then in a lot of ways, and in this way, too, possibly, I don't know. I'm not sure men and women even get in the same room together anymore, not without mandated safe spaces and separate trigger-free areas, much less do a lot of drinking and weirdo, lunatic stuff together.
This might seem really quaint, this story about a penis and drunken friends and a woman swatting it away, to anyone under the age of 30.
The NYT is now the Kangaroo Court. And every sentence is a death sentence. May God have mercy on your Soul.
Aren't Penis's pulled rather than pushed - by other people I mean. I supposed I could "Push" you in the back or buttocks thereby forcing your penis to to get closer to an object, but that's an indirect push.
Anyway, another NYT/WaPo anonymous story that mysteriously left out the most the important part - namely the women in question doesn't remember the incident and wasn't interviewed. OR that Styer is a Clinton operative. Yeah, that was just a MISTAKE. All the the editors/writers were in a rush and just MISSED that. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Of course, like all NYT's readers, I'll all just keep trusting them, because they're so fair and balances and just make a few MISTAKES, here and there. Besides, if I"m skeptical those damn right-wingers win.
It would try to figure out what's really going on psychologically as men and women interact with each other socially and sexually. Do these activities perpetuate male domination and track or lure females into subordination.
I assume that your feminist analysis is for intellectual stimulation and possible enlightenment, but not jurisprudence.
A note of caution from a psychologist: We are not very good at figuring out what is going on in someone's mind in social interactions because:
(1) the interaction has too many subtle complexities;
(2) internal cognitive processes are WAY more complex and subtle;
(3) we cannot observe cognitive processes so we develop the bogus pipeline and:
(4) observers have a very strong tendency to inject their own thoughts/biases into the minds of others.
This is what's wrong with American higher education. It used to be good because it was heir to a relatively conservative tradition that reflected the accumulated wisdom and knowledge since the beginning of the Renaissance. Then all hell broke loose in the 60s, and the wreckage you see strewn around the grounds of Old Ivy is what resulted from 50 years of undisciplined thought and degenerate values. The price went up and the product got worse. A lot worse. It's not the patriarchy, or racism, or class analysis, or the authenticity of the Thai cuisine in the food court. It's the complete abandonment of the collective wisdom of 20 generations that has spoiled higher education.
The good news is that we won't have to blow up our universities. They're going to fall over by themselves, because they cost a fortune and they are worthless. A four year, $300,000 bacchanalia isn't for smart people.
Technical and engineering schools are a different story, but the rot is creeping in.
Yeah, the NYT is a kangaroo court Newspaper with their pouches all set on the Left-side. And willing to box any right-winger.
I watched two soccer games Saturday. One was 7-8 year old girls, the other boys of the same age.
Boys and girls are different. Who knew. During the boys game, I saw a battle for leadership of the team by about 4 boys. The girls game? No leaders in the bunch. Why feminist insist on forcing women into roles they don't aspire to naturally mystifies me.
This usually only happens when a detachable penis is misappropriated. Then it is surprisingly easy for your friends to do all sorts of mischief with it.
For reference, "Detachable Penis" by King Missile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDiILrNbM4
According to the NYT, Ms. Ramirez was a model student corrupted by the debauchery of the uptown elites. And because she didn't understand the currency of her victim-hood, then, she's cashing in now and with interest in the form of a political hit job. Would a feminist analysis applaud Ms Ramirez's actions or decry the exploitation and manipulation of her by the PTB?
I still love you, Althouse.
Don't let my criticisms make you think otherwise.
I'm a sinner, too.
Elizabeth Warren should be laughed off the stage.
Elizabeth Warren
✔
@ewarren
"Last year the Kavanaugh nomination was rammed through the Senate without a thorough examination of the allegations against him. Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached."
Althouse: "A strongly feminist analysis of college drinking parties would look at the experience of women as women (and men as men)."
Which feminist wave of "feminist analysis"?
There are no more "equality" feminists in sight. It's all radical marxist 3rd wavers running the show now calling all men rapists (unless you are a muslim man, then everything's totally cool) and that we must #BelieveAllWomen and #WomenDontLie.
Ask ANY dominant 3rd wave feminist radical for an analysis and she will tell you without hesitation that Kavanaugh is guilty guilty guilty based on his politics alone.
I do appreciate the naivete of Althouse's desire for some sort of reasoned, academic, logical and rules-based analysis of complex social scenes and she will no doubt have one right about......never.
Ever.
Then again, Warren, the fake white as fluff Indian, also lied about Michael Brown and the FACTS of the case. Calling Police officer Darren Wilson a "murderer"
At what point will Warren face her lies?
BOMBSHELL: New York Times corrects Kavanaugh smear to note alleged victim does not recall any such incident.
ooops. Report a smear NOW, cover it up on page 26 later.
Some of the onlookers, who had been passing around a fake penis earlier in the evening, laughed.
I think they're deliberately trying to conflate the fake penis with Kavanaugh's real penis.
Maybe I'm wrong, but would you put it past them?
Do college drinking parties serve patriarchy? I don't know, but I think some of them serve Patrón.
Here's my feminist analysis of the situation:
College women like to go to parties and get attention from men. Men want to have sex. Women also want to have sex, but they don't want to be seen as slutty, so they drink alcohol to lower their inhibitions, and to lessen their feelings of guilt and shame. This gives them the option of blaming that demon rum the morning after, or on that demon Kavanaugh 35 years later.
A limp dork of a non story written by a nothingburger of a "journalist".
And I don't know but it seems to me that a person not part of one's body can "pull" a penis, but can't "push" it. Logistically speaking such a tale does not make sense.
“It would examine the power relationships that play out at the parties and in the students' life generally. It would try to figure out what's really going on psychologically as men and women interact with each other socially and sexually. Do these activities perpetuate male domination and track or lure females into subordination. I'd like *factual* answers~ The feminism has to do with the kinds of questions you ask, and there would be a *hypothesis* that a traditional institution like college drinking parties serve patriarchy. “
This is just awesome. Better idea, go with male patriarchy and skip the examination of “power relationships” at college drinking parties. Because that is where your examination is going to land. And the cliches abound. The very choice of words determines the outcome. Domination. Subordination. Patriarchy. Lure.
If females were smart, they would stay away from all the 1980's parties.
Didn't these young gals know, in hindsight, their feminism and fight against the sexual predator patriarchy and plastic penis crime syndicate and kavanaugh-specific rape room parties begins with their staying home or going to the mall with the other gals?
What about a nice trip to Hawaii? Fear of flying?
Someone needs to hold an intervention for the NY Times. Who can seriously take this outfit as the 'paper of record' any longer? Is there a paper of record today? One that you can regard as objective reporting and research? You know, journalism?
At least we got a Mothers of Invention reference. We're Only in It for the Money- one of the all-time greats.
Women also drink because they can use alcohol as an excuse - to do what they want to do. "Oh, I did that? Boy, was I hammered!"
SNL"s David Spade did a hilarious drunk woman. Just free association.
>>...the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event.' Omitting this fact from the New York Times story is one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent memory."<<
Well, sure, that may well be but...the NYT is at least a real newspaper.
Can someone explain the logistics of the allegation here?
I have heard it reported as the other boys pushing a girl's hand into contact with Kavanaugh's penis, rather the other way around. Not that this makes it true, it just makes it somewhat less ludicrous.
It's okay to mislead your readers if you think they'd want you to.
When you're serving the greater good you have to do all kind of things you wouldn't otherwise do.
It would examine the power relationships that play out at the parties and in the students' life generally.
As I recall, not all the power was held by men. Savvy women knew that they controlled the supply of something men wanted very very much. There were men who were short of that which women wanted, whatever that is. We all knew guys who were Pussy Whipped.
I'm thinking that accomplishing the logistics of what is alleged, i.e.; the pushing of the penis into the woman's hand, would require that Justice Kavanaugh is endowed with a very larege, umm, one. This could be simply and easily determined.
We're all pussy whipped, tcrosse... that is if you are an active hetero male
There are no more "equality" feminists in sight. It's all radical marxist 3rd wavers running the show now calling all men rapists
Just finished reading "Bad Blood" yesterday. At the end of the story, as the walls were closing in on her securities fraud, she became a feminist heroine and Clinton fund raiser.
After the bridge in Florida collapsed killing six, the "feminist engineer" became only an employee of the firm who had nothing to do with the design.
Convenient.
Does anyone else remember how relieved we all were when 1968 was finally over? Two assassinations, race riots, the Chicago convention, etc. It was the most celebrated New Year's ever.
Doctor Mike makes another case for his pathological gynophobia. Wearing your insecurity on your sleeve is never a good look.
Just spitballin’ here...
Supreme Court reconvenes in a few weeks. The Notorious RBG is likely too sick to participate, leaving the left in a precarious 5-3 situation. If they begin an impeachment proceeding against Kavanaugh then they can ‘demand’ that a Justice under investigation has to recuse himself from all cases before the court.
Not saying any of that will work, but it seems to be their coordinated play at the moment.
It inspires me to go back to work
The ideological left has always and ever been concerned with power in all of its myriad aspects: who has it and who doesn't, how to get it, what to do with it, etc. Marxist theory is all about power. These shouldn't be controversial statements, even (especially) to leftists. And it's neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Understanding power can be a worthwhile endeavor. Ditto, using it. But it's important to recognize that power is the overriding concern of the left, to the exclusion of everything else. They want to wield power. They want absolute power. They want the power to force everyone to do thing their way. They want the power to refashion society as they see fit. Marx was quite clear in this regard, he made no apologies for it, it was fundamental to his theory: ergo, the dictatorship of the proletariat, emphasis on "dictatorship." The left's notion of power does not involve power sharing.
Remember when the left used to tell us conservatives were too stodgy, stuffy and puritanical to make good judges? That they had sexual hang ups and didn't understand how real people live and what they like to do?
Can someone explain the logistics of the allegation here?
Nothing easier. Ramirez is lying. So is the Times. There are, apparently, gullible individuals who remember, nostalgically, that the Times was once a great newspaper and they waste their time trying to figure out a way in which the allegation is at least plausible. But neither nostalgia nor gullibility will make the Times back into what it once was. These days believe nothing published in the Times except sports scores.
Wait a second. Who did what to whom? Kavanaugh’s 'friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student'? Can someone explain the logistics of the allegation here?
Moby: "I got this. I can explain."
Moby Recalls the Time He Rubbed His Penis Against Donald Trump (Video)
https://www.thewrap.com/moby-donald-trump-rubbed-penis/
I recall seeing Max Stier having sex with a dead dog at a college party before the Berlin Wall fell. I dont remember the exact date or anyone else who saw it, but it is seared in my memory! This should be investigated! If not, it is a cover up!
ward said...
Doctor Mike makes another case for his pathological gynophobia. Wearing your insecurity on your sleeve is never a good look.
Advice from an example of leftist pathology is not a good look. But you are a good feminist.
"It would try to figure out what's really going on psychologically as men and women interact with each other socially and sexually.”
Wasn't there a study or two on this? I think some poets wrote about it a couple of times. Maybe a couple of novels have this as their theme? How far back does the figuring out go? 50,000 years or so.
This is ham handed politics pure and simple. Lending any other analysis to it is an error in assumption and serves the baseless attacks. I agree with others that this is battlespace prep for RGB's replacement.
"in fact, he's been a boy scout (trustworthy, loyal, helpful, courteous, kind, clean, and reverent)"
Sheesh-- a few things got lost.
That should be: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.
Can someone explain the logistics of the allegation here?
Maybe the girl was blind-folded and they were playing Penis Penis Find the Penis.
Modern feminism is WArren.
Lie all you want for the greater lie.
I think the party high jinks described are a variation on the bank walker strategem. That is to come up with a way to show everyone else in a social group how big your dick is. There could be a feminist interpretation of it, but it would be specious and would not invoke the primal urge behind this fairly common behavior by well endowed male persons.
Democrat cis-males are all good feminists to avoid what Kavanaugh is going through.
Eric Berne Games People Play covered the behavior of people at parties.
I'd like *factual* answers~
Might help if we were starting with a factual circumstance. But then we seem incapable of such sorting.
One can only wonder at what they're going to do to delegitimize whomever it is Trump appoints to replace Ruth.
Frenchy
By the way, this latest hit job should remind all mothers of how the left will treat your sons if they become inconvenient.
Action. Reaction. This story make me mad. You just should not be able to destroy a person's life and reputation on some person's hazy memory of an incident thirty some odd years in the past. This is genuinely evil.
"A strongly feminist analysis of college drinking parties"
OMG.
As others have already noted, in the real world feminism means women are special. Anything that helps women, goes--smears, lies, victimhood, whatever. Feminism is just one branch of progressivism--anything that furthers the overall cause, goes. Althouse is stuck in 1969. She hasn't come a long way.
Substantively, it's to her credit. Empirically, it is silly.
Where will we be after the end of all this? Not to go all Godwin but this is like the Nazi's area bombing Rotterdam in W.W.II in 1940. Fast forward to the rubble of Berlin 1945. Do the democrats think they can do this character assassination with impunity? Do they think they will get their way politically if they endlessly smear republicans? These fucktards are playing with fire.
Gunner: I recall seeing Max Stier having sex with a dead dog at a college party before the Berlin Wall fell. I dont remember the exact date or anyone else who saw it, but it is seared in my memory! This should be investigated! If not, it is a cover up!
That is an absolute lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to tarnish this man with such horrible accusations. I was there, and this is how I know you're lying:
I saw its tail wagging.
"A strongly feminist analysis of college drinking parties would look at the experience of women as women (and men as men). It would examine the power relationships that play out at the parties and in the students' life generally. It would try to figure out what's really going on psychologically as men and women interact with each other socially and sexually."
Althouse, sometimes a frat party is just a party, and although my perspective is from frat parties in the sixties, I doubt much had changed by the eighties. At that time, frat parties (and sorority parties, and dorm parties, and school mixers) were about social interaction, making friends and meeting members of the opposite sex. As hard as it might be to believe today, back then it was considered to be a healthy activity. I never once observed the debauchery described by the Kavanaugh accusers, and I never recall anyone holding a gun to the head of any woman who attended one of our parties. Did people drink too much? Well Duh, how many 18 - 22 year olds know how to handle alcohol, even if it's only beer? Did they pass out, assault guests, throw up on the carpet or generally make an ass of themselves? Not as I recall, but if someone did it would have been only once because his ass would have been immediately tossed out the door and he would have been forever thereafter persona non grata. Now, are kids of that age group interested in the possibility of getting laid? Absolutely, both the men and the women if the women I met were the norm. (And particularly if they were like the junior coed who "indoctrinated" me in the ways of college life when I was a freshman still living in the dorm.) So, that's my perspective on the party scene.
Now, the problem in conducting your analysis is that in those times feminism was still in the pre-Marxist stage, and was still about equality between the two sexes (we could only afford two sexes then.) Men and women were too busy going to school, socializing and protesting the war to immerse themselves in the type of third wave psycho-babble about power, patriarchy and misogyny which came to characterize feminism after the lesbians took over the movement. It was probably still that way in Kavanaugh's time at Yale, although I admittedly only have passing knowledge of Elis from my brother's earlier time there. Regardless, and to get to the bottom line, if you are looking for a feminist analysis of the Kavanaugh situation, I would argue that you need to first determine whether you're talking about pre-Marxist or post-Marxist feminism because an analysis of the first type would be very different and probably more relevant to the period in question, and the second would just be gobbledeegook on the best day. I think the problem is one of removing the Marxism from the current manifestation to even get to the earlier, more innocent ism of the period in question. But, as we would have said in the Navy, that ship is already too far at sea to recall to port. Probably better to just look for the truth and let the chips fall where they may.
"I'd even like to see a strongly feminist analysis."
Your wish, my command;
"Cut it off!"
Deborah Ramirez actually remembers the incident, she just doesn't want anyone to know she liked it ruff in college.
In the 1970s and the early 80s, parties involving students, alcohol, reefer, and other substances were a staple entertainment. Usually they were off campus and non- or only indirectly frat-related, and this was the full flourishing of mass hippie culture so there was a lot of halfassed grabass and clumsy flirtation, and couples would drift off to private spaces amid the general (non-Gay) gaiety.
Narr
Expelled from the Boy Scouts, for eating Brownies
Well yeah, Narr—weren't Brownies a little under age for an old Boy Scout like you?
I've said it before, and I say it again, this is just ONE MORE (unnecessary) REASON for me to despise, detest, and distrust the NYT.
"I agree with others that this is battlespace prep for RGB's replacement."
The only acceptable replacement will be someone who can't be accused racism or assault with a penis.
Do the democrats think they can do this character assassination with impunity? Do they think they will get their way politically if they endlessly smear republicans? These fucktards are playing with fire.?
I think they do since the media is playing Goebbels for them. I believe that the left has no plan for the future which does not include holding power. The Soviet Union had no "Plan B." The Chinese Communist Party has no Plan B.
Maduro and the Castro family have no intention of holing up on the French Riviera like Arabs grandees do. Remember:
If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations. And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be.
This is what the Democrats have become. Not a political party but a theocracy, complete with heretics.
Why are they doing this now?
If you found yourself on the short list for RBG's seat you'd have to ask yourself, is that what I want to put myself and my family through? And it won't end after you get confirmed. It never ends.
The Democrats don't want to take RBG out of the freezer until January so that they can invoke the Biden rule.
The democrats won't be in the majority of the Senate in 2019-2020 - so, no. No Biden rule.
Jayson Blair must be outraged… getting fired from the NYT for lying.
The Democrat Party has pretty much rejected all forms of western religion, so, to fill the void, they cling desperately, maniacally and fanatically to two pseudo-religious tenets:
(1) abortion on demand
(2) gay marriage.
Anything even remotely seen as a threat to these gets the "We must fight Satan!" treatment.
The Supreme Court with Kavanaugh is now a threat to the first and bigger of the two.
If/when RBG retires, quits or dies, in the next 15 months, that's a big-ass threat.
But, amazingly, with the ascent of The Federalist Society, the right actually has a platform, bullhorn, Public Relations firm and fundraising arm to fight back against the onslaught. (in '87, Bork didn't yet have this support).
With Trump, a slight GOP Senate majority, the collapse of the filibuster, and the 86-year old Ginsburg, we see one of the few public skirmishes where the good guys have a much better poker hand, than the bad guys.
Let's play it out, Baby!
"And can we now make up total lies about Max Stier?"
There are some who say they have heard rumors purporting that Max Stier fuck sheep.
I'm working and don't have the time to do any digging, but for some reason I think this story was shopped around (and similarly discredited) during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. Does anyone else remember?
“Did people drink too much? Well Duh, how many 18 - 22 year olds know how to handle alcohol, even if it's only beer? Did they pass out, assault guests, throw up on the carpet or generally make an ass of themselves? Not as I recall, but if someone did it would have been only once because his ass would have been immediately tossed out the door and he would have been forever thereafter persona non grata. Now, are kids of that age group interested in the possibility of getting laid? Absolutely, both the men and the women if the women I met were the norm.”
We did have our drinkers in my fraternity. Every class seemed to have one or two. One of hardest drinking was a guy two classes ahead of me, who ended up as a brain surgeon. The next year it was a guy who ended up as a pretty sleezy attorney, who ended up owning a bar for a bit. Alcoholics shouldn’t own bars. The next year, it was my pledge son, who financed college by playing poker very well, but didn’t come back for his sophomore year. Surprising that there wasn’t more drinking - we had (cheap) beer in the Coke machine (cross subsidized by the pop) and a full bar that opened at 5 pm. Part of it was that pot and psychedelics were fairly popular back then. Still despite the ready availability of alcohol, the only ties that anyone got the least bit frisky was at our monthly parties, and everyone know who to keep their eyes on. A lot of peer pressure to look sophisticated, in our drinking, which meant that the sexual hijinks that Kavenaugh supposedly engaged in just didn’t happen. I think that we were too worried about getting black balled by the women on campus, and, in particular, by the more desirable sororities. Better luck finding that sort of stuff at a GDI (non-Greek) party.
That all said, the time when there really was a lot of drinking to excess was freshman year. First time away from home for many of us, etc. But back then, the school was just experimenting with intervisitation. We did have parties with wings of the freshman women’s dorm, and some got a bit wild. But expect it got worse, when freshmen men and women started living in the same dorms.
Ah, yes. The real newspaper we all know and love, correct?
I was in a frat - at a massive party school - in 1982-83. We got drunk. We puked. Some of us even hooked up with some willing co-eds, both at the parties we hosted and those at other frat houses.
Nothing even close to what is alleged ever happened at ANY party. And if it didn't happen at this particular school, the chances of it happening elsewhere are nil.
It's bullshit. All of it.
A strongly feminist analysis of college drinking parties would look at the experience of women as women (and men as men). It would examine the power relationships that play out at the parties and in the students' life generally. It would try to figure out what's really going on psychologically as men and women interact with each other socially and sexually. Do these activities perpetuate male domination and track or lure females into subordination.
Feminist analysis is remarkably like reading tarot cards....
I'd like *factual* answers~ The feminism has to do with the kinds of questions you ask, and there would be a *hypothesis* that a traditional institution like college drinking parties serve patriarchy.
Feminist analysis is about the application of assumptions to create facts?
I would be very interested in the basic hypotheses of feminism. Are they documented anywhere?
The important Leland Keyser angle (The Federalist, By Mollie Hemingway):
New Book: Christine Blasey Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser Doesn’t Believe Her
"It just didn't make any sense," lifelong friend Leland Keyser told New York Times reporters about Ford's allegations, adding "I don't have any confidence in the story."
'...The New York Times authors dismiss Keyser’s statement as the product of a bad memory, before noting that their unsuccessful efforts to corroborate Blasey Ford’s claims including desperately searching for a house that matched the description she gave. Nevertheless, their “gut” told them to believe her in the absence of facts.
The authors also acknowledge what had previously been reported in “Justice on Trial,” about the efforts of mutual friends to get her to change her testimony to be more supportive of Blasey Ford. The reporters say that some of Blasey Ford’s friends “had grown frustrated with Keyser. Her comments about the alleged Kavanaugh incident had been too limited, some of them felt, and did not help their friend’s case. Surely, given what a close friend Keyser had been, she could say more to substantiate Ford’s testimony and general veracity, even if she could not corroborate Ford’s more specific memories.”
A group text was formed in which friends such as Cheryl Amitay and Lulu Gonella discussed how to get her to say something more helpful to the cause. AN UNNAMED MAN ON THE TEXT SUGGESTED THAT THEY DEFAME HER AS AN ADDICT. [Emphasis added.] Keyser has been in recovery for some time, as her friends know and as has previously been reported.
Amitay answered, “Leland is a major stumbling block.” While asserting she didn’t want her to make anything up out of whole cloth, she offered ideas for things that could sound supportive of Ford’s story, such as that she’d been in similar situations with Blasey Ford that summer.
“I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn’t comply,” Keyser told the reporters, a stunning admission of the pressure to which she was subjected to by Blasey Ford’s allies.
As previously reported in “Justice on Trial,” Keyser continues to think about the story in which she was supposed to have played a part. She has both “logistical and character-driven” problems with it. Focusing on one of the angles that many women had trouble believing, she says, “It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave, and then not figure out how she’s going to get home.”
The authors previously note that Blasey Ford suggested that Keyser might have driven her home, which they do not note is a change from her claim that she does not know how she got home. Keyser also reflects that the get-togethers of their youth were not like the one Ford described. She adds, “I just really didn’t have confidence in the story.”
Standing up to the pressure campaign to tell the truth was difficult, the reporters acknowledge. They note she had a framed copy of a magazine that bore the headline, “Was Leland Keyser the Hero of the Kavanaugh Controversy?” A GoFundMe account set up by her son says, “Despite her lifelong friendship with Christine Blasey Ford and her opposition to Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, Keyser resisted immense personal pressure and courageously came forward with the truth, putting everything in her life at risk. As a result, she faces great personal hardship. The harsh glare of the public eye has taken a tremendous physical, emotional, and financial toll on her.”
Despite this new reporting that supports what was first reported in “Justice on Trial,” the authors downplay it as unimportant, and not something that affects their shared “gut.”'
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/15/new-book-christine-blasey-fords-friend-leland-keyser-doesnt-believe/
The Leland Kaiser GoFundme fundraiser (as of this writing, $8,323 raised of $100,000 goal):
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-leland-keyser
The important Leland Keyser angle (The Federalist, By Mollie Hemingway):
New Book: Christine Blasey Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser Doesn’t Believe Her
"It just didn't make any sense," lifelong friend Leland Keyser told New York Times reporters about Ford's allegations, adding "I don't have any confidence in the story."
'...A group text was formed in which friends such as Cheryl Amitay and Lulu Gonella discussed how to get her to say something more helpful to the cause. AN UNNAMED MAN ON THE TEXT SUGGESTED THAT THEY DEFAME HER AS AN ADDICT. [Emphasis added.] Keyser has been in recovery for some time, as her friends know and as has previously been reported.
Amitay answered, “Leland is a major stumbling block.” While asserting she didn’t want her to make anything up out of whole cloth, she offered ideas for things that could sound supportive of Ford’s story, such as that she’d been in similar situations with Blasey Ford that summer.
“I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn’t comply,” Keyser told the reporters, a stunning admission of the pressure to which she was subjected to by Blasey Ford’s allies.
As previously reported in “Justice on Trial,” Keyser continues to think about the story in which she was supposed to have played a part. She has both “logistical and character-driven” problems with it. Focusing on one of the angles that many women had trouble believing, she says, “It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave, and then not figure out how she’s going to get home.”
The authors previously note that Blasey Ford suggested that Keyser might have driven her home, which they do not note is a change from her claim that she does not know how she got home. Keyser also reflects that the get-togethers of their youth were not like the one Ford described. She adds, “I just really didn’t have confidence in the story.”
Standing up to the pressure campaign to tell the truth was difficult, the reporters acknowledge. They note she had a framed copy of a magazine that bore the headline, “Was Leland Keyser the Hero of the Kavanaugh Controversy?” A GoFundMe account set up by her son says, “Despite her lifelong friendship with Christine Blasey Ford and her opposition to Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, Keyser resisted immense personal pressure and courageously came forward with the truth, putting everything in her life at risk. As a result, she faces great personal hardship. The harsh glare of the public eye has taken a tremendous physical, emotional, and financial toll on her.”
Despite this new reporting that supports what was first reported in “Justice on Trial,” the authors downplay it as unimportant, and not something that affects their shared “gut.”'
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/15/new-book-christine-blasey-fords-friend-leland-keyser-doesnt-believe/
The Leland Kaiser GoFundme fundraiser (as of this writing, $8,323 raised of $100,000 goal):
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-leland-keyser
I must be very hard to offend or intimidate. Back in the 80s I was at a drunken costume party at someone's beach house, the kind of party that started at midnight. I wandered over to a guy I really couldn't stand but knew too well through mutual friends. You know the type. You have to say hello, but you make it quick and get away asap. I sat down beside him and stared down at what looked to me like a diaper asking, "What is that supposed to be?" He immediately unwraps the terry cloth to show me his pride and joy. I just look up at him and ask about the landscaping at his beach house. Then I wandered off.
I've never considered myself a feminist after my first feminist retreat. But somehow I had a career among men and dealt with situations that apparently traumatized all the feminist writers out there. I'm an engineer by nature. I solve problems and get on with it; I don't make them bigger than life.
Oh, look, from CBS, playing defense here: American kids with money and privilege are more likely to binge drink.
Remember hearing this one:
"The seriousness of the charge mandates that we investigate this."
"Even though there is no evidence, the seriousness of the charge is what matters."
from the "Fake But Accurate" crowd.
Maybe this second go-round will backfire, and help purge Kavanaugh from squishiness
...the pushing of the penis into the woman's hand, would require that Justice Kavanaugh is endowed with a very large, umm, one.
Given his Irish name, I'm going to say that this is highly unlikely.
Let's see, 12 divide by 2, = 6 plus 7 (is it?) = 13 !?! I never had much luck with older women.
Now as to this 'experience of women as women (and men as men)' WTF does that even mean?
How else would this be done?
Narr
Blackballed by fraternities; blueballed by sorority girls
"I recall seeing Max Stier having sex with a dead dog at a college party..."
"I know you're lying...I saw its tail wagging."
I heard there were no dead dogs, so he stole one from the neighbor and killed it. Anyway, I think that's what I heard. Let's have a trial.
Senator Grassely has spoken from the floor of the Senate and reveals the Senate was NOT informed of these "new" allegations. NO, the Senator corrects himself, there is no allegation, but rather a recitation of 3 hand rumors.
So another out right lie is found in the NYT piece. The Senate was never contacted. Which means the NYT never called the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation, despite the assertion of the story.
The story is a lie, and claiming the reporters verified the Senate was made aware, also a lie.
No straight man at any heterosexual party ever has touched another man’s dick, much less “pushed” it in any direction. This is Jussie level UVA level bullshit. A very bad lie.
This looks legitimate to me: New York Times Reveals Source On Kavanaugh Allegations Was Reputable Nigerian Prince
The Times reproduced the email the Nigerian prince sent them:
SUBJECT: I AM CONTACT YOU IN RESPECT OF FAMILY GOLD TREASURE FOR KAVANAH INFO
FROM: LEGITIMATENIGERIANPRINCEMAN
Dear sirs and/or madams,
My name is Bob Smith.I have very much need of reliable persons and it is my reason for contacting you today.I have a very big family treasure in the sum of $1,000,000 U.S. pounds and need this money extradited out of the country immediately.I hear you are in need of many information on Bret Kavanah the evil white devil judge.If you help me I am very willing to help you in return with money of a sizable nature.But first I require funds to come via wire and when wired money has come I will be able to leave my country and come to you with even more riches than your most wild imaginations can contain.Thank you for listening today but we will here from you soon.
HIS MAJESTY BOB SMITH
HIGHEST PRINCE OF NIGERIA AND COOL GUY
"As you can see," Kelly continued, "this was pretty well-researched and the source was pretty darn reputable."
Males go to college drinking parties for sex, no doubt. But I don't think women go for sex per se. Sex is so easy for a woman to get that that's not the main attraction for them. I think they go to attract the attention of desirable, high status males. Especially if it is observed by other women. If they have to have sex to get it, well, the drinking helps with that.
If you ever saw the Tommy Lee / Pamala Anderson tape, you could watch somebody push his own penis out--- and honk the horn of a yacht with it. I think that is where the expression “Big honkin’ penis” came from, actually.
I think we All Need To Remember
The NYTIMES is a real paper
The Babylon Bee is a satire
The difference?
The Babylon Bee would be in legal danger if they published this
Kavanaugh should have sued his accusers, and kept suing them as they popped out of the woodwork. Trying to make nice with people of this character is a fool's errand.
When can people get naked at parties and waggle their genitalia at each other? I don't fit in with that kind of partying either — and I never did — so I'd like a sober, neutral explanation.
What's to explain? You're in a high stress environment, and people are blowing off steam.
Probably half the big dorm parties I went to in college had a streaker or two. It wasn't a sexual thing, and not really an alcohol thing, either. Just a mildly shocking, mildly humorous thing that is actually very tame in both dimensions.
Post a Comment