I happened to stumble upon this 1920 anti suffrage broadside while looking for something else (source).
Interestingly the broadside was created by a group of women who opposed suffrage, the Southern Women’s League.
The More a Politician Allows Himself to be Henpecked The More Henpecking We Will Have in Politics.
Indeed (H/T Instapundit):
 | Woody on Message heard. |
 | Christmas in The Chr… on Mistaking fecklessness for… |
 | Quiet Desperation on Farewell (for now at least), a… |
 | whiteguy1 on Message heard. |
 | Vektor on Farewell (for now at least), a… |
 | John O. on Message heard. |
 | Iowa Slim on Message heard. |
 | wodansthane on Message heard. |
| wodansthane on Message heard. |
| wodansthane on Message heard. |
The woman is “credible” despite not remembering when or where the assault occurred. The guy must prove his innocence. We’re inverting our standards of justice. It won’t end here, and I’ll bet we’ll regret this in the years to come.
“How Can We Trust Brett Kavanaugh?” by Jamil Smith at Rolling Stone — “The Supreme Court nominee vehemently denies graphic sexual assault allegations, but he has given us no reason to believe him.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-2-726028/
Smith should know that Black men might be the first and most to suffer from the “new justice” system he wants to see.
I wonder if that professor wrote any books. It’s always interesting reading authors who were proven right decades later
Pingback: Organized Female Nagging, Forever. | @the_arv
Weakening of man = decadence in civilization
I stand corrected…repeal the 19th…then ban the pill.
Hi, a question here for Dalrock;s Western readers. Wife and I are socializing with Australian couple here in Western Europe for quite some years, kids are the same age like ours etc, we are very friendly with them all the time but they tend to blow hot or cold, depending on iffy closeness of our kids. I find it very (read:incredibly) tiresome… Either you want to socialize or not,
Any input on socializing with Aussies is more than welcome. I want to drop them forever but wife is , of course, against.
Wow! That Rolling Stone article and comments are pure, raw sewage. How on earth can you reason with those people?
Why should Brett care about the woman who accuses him of a crime? If he’s innocent, she’s a liar and out to destroy him. Why should he care about her feelings? Feelings are not part of a criminal investigation. 35 years of waiting and now she comes out… yeah..
“It masculinizes women and feminizes men”
Yes, and frankly after seeing this for as long as we have it’s disgusting and abhorrent.
A prophetic and worthwhile essay on women’s sufferage here: http://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2016/5/22/womens-rights-women
Just a reminder that plenty of times in the past the warning of “the slippery slope” with regard to a number of issues has been leered at, jeered at and made out to be needless fear-mongering, yet we’ve taken the plunge down these slippery slopes time and time again. Looks like that’s nothing new. No doubt this very document would have been derided as well, back during its creation, as nothing more than conservative Christian fear-mongering, and that all women want is EQUAL RIGHTS, not to feminize men or masculinize women. My how far we have slid.
Scarier still, the text is right on the money. Almost prophetic in nature.
Sexual harrassment, sexual assault, pedophilia and rape are all felony crimes.
They must be reported to law enforcement so that evidence can be collected, witnesses questioned, investigators and prosecutors can decide to make arrests and charges filed for prosecution to ensue.
In the US there may be simultaneous civil rights violations, requiring a civil trial as well.
But most often not without address the criminal violations as a priority in sequence.
These alleged victims in the instance of #metoo, Bill Cosby and Judge Kavanaugh not only did not report any crime to law enforcement when it occurred, any and all evidence associated with such alleged crimes is automatically suspect. Both victim and witness memories are eroded by time, witnesses may be dead, scientific evidence (post attack photos of victim, rape kits) are unavailable or destroyed, and so prosecutors are only left with unreliable fragments of information to be woven into allegations bordering on outright hearsay – all of which would likely be ripped to shreds within minutes by any half-competent cross-examination.
Social media bypasses all due process rights for the accused, and risks delegitimizing the case of actual victims of such heinous crimes.
There were good reasons why we, as a modern human society, got rid of the stocks, pillories and prangers.
Democrats are vile human beings. How on earth would anyone smear this fine and considerate judge?
It should be on how he upholds the Constitution…not how he treats some random wimminz feels.
Was Kavanaugh’s accuser raised without a father in the house? Is she childless?
As I once commented on Stuart Schneiderman’s blog, “The one-two punch of fatherlessness and childlessness has affected the mental health of many North American women.”
P.S. How come the spell check on WordPress recognizes childlessness as a word, but not fatherlessness?
“How Can We Trust Brett Kavanaugh?” by Jamil Smith at Rolling Stone
Ironic, considering the source. Did Jamil Smith contact Haven Monahan for comment?
How come the spell check on WordPress recognizes childlessness as a word, but not fatherlessness?
Duh.
“The one-two punch of fatherlessness and childlessness has affected the mental health of many North American women.”
You can throw abortions (when it comes to childlessness) into that mix too.
@Larry Kummer
The standard conservative “you’ll be sorry you changed the rules this way” argument has been made a thousand times about a thousand unfair rule changes by the left, and it never works. It only works if the right actually uses these things against the left, which it never does. People on the right always feel that it would be unfair to use these things, so the only ones who use them are on the left, and they use them with impunity.
On top of that, the left doesn’t value consistency anyway. If you can conclusively demonstrate to them that someone useful to them is a rapist, sexually harassing scumbag, they’ll just ignore it. We’ve seen it time and again (Clinton et al.). The rules are only there to advance their agenda.
They don’t even mind pedophiles that much while they’re still useful, they only drop those when they can’t advance the cause anymore. See the Rick and Morty guy who made a video of himself with his pants down pretending to rape a baby, James Gunn, buddies with a guy he knows is a convicted pedo, and Shane Black, who knowingly cast a sex offender in the movie he was directing.
They know lots of their people are sickos, and they don’t care. They’ve never cared about protecting women or children. It’s all just a way of manipulating sane people into getting rid of people that would be effective for the right.
”The More a Politician Allows Himself to be Henpecked The More Henpecking We Will Have in Politics”.
Substitute the word ”husband” for ”politician” and ”marriage” for ”Politics” and you have the recipe for a long and happy marriage, on the proviso that your wife will STILL find a way to f#ck it up.
I second Eidolon’s comment to Larry, but with some vinegar. How could you ever think that Larry? Even Hillary is backing the accuser, so that is Case A for how this won’t ever be applied except to another Republican.
I think the accuser got married in her 30s, and is an angry fat woman now- so her husband ought to be considered the victim.
Leftists only care about morality when someone who isn’t on their side commits immoral acts so they can use it to destroy them and push their agenda. Heck even if they didn’t commit those acts they can accuse them of it and their minions and legions will likely believe them.
The only ethos they live by is whatever agenda they have that day.
Poly-ticks of this is as follows.
If she testifies and is compelling, he’s toast. No way Mikulski and Collins vote for him in that case because polls will be on fire against him.
If she doesn’t testify, he’s confirmed.
If other women come forward, it gets delayed, and he is almost certainly toast.
They are petrified that Roe will be overturned, that is fundamentally what this is about. The accuser is a left democrat activist professor. The motive is obvious. The only question is whether they can follow through with the coup de grace or not. Interesting few days coming here in DC land.
@*Murkowski, the Senator from Alaska, not “Mikulski”. Got my Slav wires crossed.
Well, it wasn’t wrong about organized female nagging.
Nova
They are petrified that Roe will be overturned, that is fundamentally what this is about.
Because they are stupid and don’t understand basic government? Assume that Roe and Doe were overturned, that would just take the Feds out of certain options. Would abortion law in the coastal states such as New York, Maryland, California, Washington change? Nope. Oh, sure, the horrid “patchwork quilt of law” would come into being at the state level – just as already exists with guns – but overturning Roe will not end the liberal blood sacrament of abortion.
Or is it because of Who? Whom? and leftist projection?
Both, I believe, are factors. Haven Monahan is still not available for comment…
Larry Kummer
The woman is “credible” despite not remembering when or where the assault occurred. The guy must prove his innocence. We’re inverting our standards of justice. It won’t end here, and I’ll bet we’ll regret this in the years to come.
Well, ok. I guess that you are too young to remember names like “Robert Bork”, “Clarence Thomas” and “Anita Hill”?
Because they are stupid and don’t understand basic government? Assume that Roe and Doe were overturned, that would just take the Feds out of certain options. Would abortion law in the coastal states such as New York, Maryland, California, Washington change? Nope. Oh, sure, the horrid “patchwork quilt of law” would come into being at the state level – just as already exists with guns – but overturning Roe will not end the liberal blood sacrament of abortion.
Or is it because of Who? Whom? and leftist projection?
Overturning Roe would be like Trump’s election — a fundamental, existential rebuke. Yes, it goes back to the states, but it would be a slap in the face of progressives power to force their will on middle America, which is of course what they want — that, in a nutshell, is power, the ability to force, to cram down throats, your will on others, especially those whom you know vociferously disagree.
@Novaseeker
It won’t be Collins or Murkowski that torpedoes the nomination. If anyone does it it’ll be Senator Flake and the nomination won’t even make it out of the committee.
@Byzantine
True Blue Aussie here. Given you presence here, I would assume you’re on the conservative side of things.(Though maybe Dalrock is a red-pilled reactionary?) If that’s the case and they aren’t, then you might rub them the wrong way at times. Thanks to our parochial cognitive-dissonance, don’t be surprised by a lack self-awareness of their own feelings/behavior.
I am glad that more people in the sphere are at least dancing closer to the line of saying female suffrage was an outright mistake.
It can’t be undone by traditional means, of course. Rather, it can be nullified by creating a ‘Matrix’ around women based on what has already been proven to work in getting their votes, while quietly letting all other anti-male legislation expire.
The problem is : Too many manginas.
“How Can We Trust Brett Kavanaugh?” by Jamil Smith at Rolling Stone
Rolling Stone, the magazine that printed a false story about rape at Virginia Tech.(correct me if wrong institution), called Charles Manson a humanitarian, Even when it was a music mag it was full of bs.
Pingback: Organized Female Nagging, Forever. | Reaction Times
And Earl… I’ve long suspected that there’s a connection between birth control pills and breast cancer rates as well. If such a thing were discovered, it would be supressed, even by the charities claiming to be looking for a cure.
@Novaseeker
Then it clearly boils down to Who? Whom?.
Just as Stalin said in 1929:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%2C_whom%3F
It won’t be Collins or Murkowski that torpedoes the nomination. If anyone does it it’ll be Senator Flake and the nomination won’t even make it out of the committee.
Flake will vote to confirm if she doesn’t testify. If she testifies, and emotes properly, BK is done.
Great stuff. The broadside too. How very prophetic.
I warned the righties about backing MeToo but nupe wouldn’t have it. The sanctity of female sexuality is the nuclear bomb of attacks and accusation, and cucks gonna cuck. Or in the broadside’s case, cluck. Who was that again the Bible says is accuser of the brethren?
Same with allowing ONE FEMALE to dredge up some histrionic charge from decades ago, and the righties permitting Team Woman to hold up an important national, governmental process. The precedent is now set and there will no end of this sure-fire tactic.
Good for the Southern Womens League for opposing the disastrous nineteenth amendment. May the Lord recall with approval that act of fealty.
Then it clearly boils down to Who? Whom?.
Yes of course, it always does in the end. Especially in a society like ours where social bonds are so incredibly weak.
Once again :
‘Democracy’ has a life cycle, after which it invariably devolves into a feminist police state + goddess cult. This progression is irreversible.
The reason for this is that while men vote for what benefits all people, women only vote for what benefits women (that too only in the short term). This sort of electoral is unsustainable.
Remember that only 5-6 countries are 90+ years into female suffrage, while another 10-15 are 60-90 years into female suffrage. Despite such a short period of trial across only a few countries, just see the results. Female suffrage is indisputably incompatible with the advancement of a free, prosperous, and moral society.
@cshort
Possible but not necessarily. A confirmation is not like legislation. The committee votes on whether they recommend the nominee be confirmed but the nomination can be brought before the whole Senate either without a committee vote or if the result is unfavorable, though most nominees would probably withdraw if they weren’t recommended for confirmation.
Mentioning Robert Bork reminds me of “Borking”, which reminds me of why it is illegal to look up someone else’s rental list at the video store, which reminds me of girls who judge men by their VHS rental rewinding habits, which led to a search that produced this:
https://www.krdo.com/news/top-stories/blockbusters-in-alaska-set-to-close-1-store-left-in-us/767604860
As of July there is still a Blockbuster store in Bend, Oregon. Yet FotF is in Colorado Springs. How did Stanton wind up just casually having quality time with 20-something women from Oregon?
Another Unsolved Mystery…
It is astonishing to me that the most empty and ephemeral of accusations, that too from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CULTURE (this was the early 80s, you know, when TV shows had almost no single mother characters, no gay characters, and no androgynous-looking characters), can waste billions of man hours of time.
China wastes exactly zero time on this sort of thing. They are quietly toiling on what matters while America virtue-signals and flagellates its way into deserved servitude and financial hardship.
OT:
Linux developers butthurt after insertion of a tranny’s CoC into the kernel.
Linux Community To Adopt New Code of Conduct
Excerpts from an interview of the author of the Linux kernel’s new Code of Conduct:
From his Twitter:
I can’t wait for the mass exodus from Linux now that it’s been infiltrated by SJWs. Hahahah
Next time to reinforce effectiveness there will be multiple false witnesses one after another.
Wait, was that Golden Dawn or Asian Dawn? I don’t have a copy of “TIME” magazine handy.
If that “America When Feminized” poster had been “derided… back during its creation” with the claim that suffragettes want “not to feminize men or masculinize women” then the ladies of the Southern Woman’s League who produced the poster could have sweetly answered, ” ‘Votes for women and chastity for men’ is your own slogan, dearies. Your own words betray your claim.”
If that “America When Feminized” poster had been “derided… back during its creation” with the claim that suffragettes want “not to feminize men or masculinize women” then the ladies of the Southern Woman’s League who produced the poster could have sweetly answered, “Just a reminder, dearies, ‘Votes for women and chastity for men’ is your slogan. Your own words betray your claim.”
If you’ve been a do-nothing these past few election cycles, ray, then you’re operationally one of the “cucks” you despise–no, make that you’re worse than the “cucks” you despise because you imply that you know better yet you do nothing. (Hiding out in Internet echo chambers adding to the noise does not excuse you from being a do nothing.) I recommend that you do more evangelizing action and less filling your mouth with cuck.
Flake will vote to confirm if she doesn’t testify. If she testifies, and emotes properly, BK is done.
Kavanaugh should call this bitch’s bluff and counterattack with heavy artillery.* As long as men in his position take this shit lying down, other worthless, washed up skank-hos like Monahan will mimic her. All it takes is for just ONE of of these PoS like her to be exposed as the lying, conniving whore that she is and have her credibility utterly annihilated for all the world to see to make the rest of the Marxist skank-hos run for their lives. And I guar-rawn-tee you that the majority of Americans would be 100 percent on his side.
(* Odds are, however, that he’ll ultimately just roll over and cuck out, just like all good little Repugnicans do.)
The bibliography of the Dr. Quoted in the image above
http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2009030709/
The nra elected as a board member disgraced fa gg OT Larry Craig.
There are many who have said it for years. I have seen an increase in people saying it. It started out with much older men, but more young men are coming to that conclusion.
Assuming the truth of Ford’s story, what terrible impropriety was committed against her? From what I gather, Kavanaugh climbed on top of her at a party but didn’t rape her. If that’s all he did why are we supposed to care? He didn’t harm her, and it’s doubtful she was traumatized to any significant extent because she was stable enough to finish her Ph.D and work in a university. So again – why are we supposed to care?
Science has already made the correlation. Not only that, a direct link between abortion and breast cancer. The development of Breast tissue during pregnancy protects against future breast cancer.
Assuming the truth of Ford’s story,
What exactly is her story? For a start, what year did she say it happened? Where did it happen? Who was present? Answer these questions, then you can consider the big one:
Was Haven Monahan involved?
The claims from liberals against conservatives are insane. Clarence Thomas “put Pubic hairs on a coke can.”
Kavanaugh climbed on a girl and did nothing else.
Roy Moore sat on the floor with only underwear on and nothing happened.
Like wtf none of that shit is believable on its face because the accusations are so absurd.
Who would have thought that giving the one group of people who constantly game for Security and resources the ability to vote for it would be a bad idea????
It never happened, but if it did it’s nothing to get excited about.
Rp existed a long time ago
Did you ever step up in public to have the backs of previous Republican nominees to the high court when they were being smeared by the Democrat Party/Abortion Industry Complex, Feeriker? Judge Bob Bork and Judge Clarence Thomas toughed it out despite your public passivity. Your pessimism is your projection, Feeriker. Remember, if you don’t have the backs of others on your side–even if they’re not perfect–then don’t ever expect them to have yours.
It never happened, but if it did it’s nothing to get excited about.
You are not up to speed on how the game of “Supreme Court Confirmation” is played.
Just for a start, it is an elaborate theater that everyone pretends is reality.
feeriker
Kavanaugh should call this bitch’s bluff and counterattack with heavy artillery.*
Since you mentioned it, a little search turned this up:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/kavanaugh-hires-washington-defense-attorney-amid-sexual-assault-controversy-report
The attorney is one Beth Wilkinson. I dunno if I would call her a defense attorney, though.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Beth_Wilkinson
Looks more like an attack-dog attorney to me.
Novaseeker — “Overturning Roe would be like Trump’s election — a fundamental, existential rebuke. Yes, it goes back to the states, but it would be a slap in the face of progressives power to force their will on middle America, which is of course what they want — that, in a nutshell, is power, the ability to force, to cram down throats, your will on others, especially those whom you know vociferously disagree.”
Correct. Already they are pressuring the nominee in various ways, as a way of future warning, don’t cross the Sisterhood.
The Right would need to move fast, but abortion overturned is the single biggest blow they could deliver to New Amerika. The Federalism angle isn’t crucial. What’s crucial is the spiritual or, if you wish, existential rebuke — and serious threat — to FeMarxist hegemony. It’s a beach-head. Abortion has vast physical, generational, psychological, and spiritual repercussions, none of them good. It is central to the once-removed Leftist intimidation and mockery of God, Christians, and anybody who protects life. Such a move towards national repentance gets many ‘undecided’ spiritual forces motivated. Jeshua is King of Forgiveness so, who knows?
Satan has become used to torturing, selling, and murdering the pre-born of America, and he ain’t giving his favorite hobby up easy. Striking Roe would really get his attention, and put the frighteners on the Progs.
I don’t think the ‘conservatives’ have the necessary wisdom, nor the right size grocery bags, for that, however. Largely due to the Adamic Flaw.
Micha Elyi —
You’ve got a big mouth and a small spirit.
ray says:
September 20, 2018 at 12:58 am
Micha drops by here once in a blue moon when he’s off his meds to spout disjointed nonsense. Treat him like you would treat a four-year-old trying to play “grown up” to get attention: smile, pat him on the head, and move on.
@Byzantine
Another Aussie here. They just sound like idiots, don’t waste time on them.
Re: Ford,
It’s a “credible” accusation because she _feels_ the pain of having been assaulted. Whether or not the assault actually happened or not is irrelevant. Ford’s feelings on the subject are congruent with the general, feminist perception that he’s a meanie judge who will overturn the legalization of abortion.
I mean that’s kind of the perception that they want to reinforce isn’t it? Big meanie Kavanaugh hates women? He can’t win (in current year) unless his wife goes in front and starts calling Ford a hussy who’s got sour grapes and “How sad it must be for her that she can’t find sexual satisfaction from her husband!”
Don’t really follow the news but someone told me she is supposed to have gone into a room with 3 guys at a party in the 1980s. Real shocked she’s in marriage therapy now.
What was satire in the 90s is true now.
As Senator Mazie Hirono says to the men of the country, “Shut up and step up.”
@Christopher B
While you’re technically right on the process, a no recommendation from the committee in this instance will kill the nomination. To my knowledge there’s never been a nominee for the Supreme Court that was confirmed when the committee voted against it. But more importantly, the GOP majority is so slim that they can’t afford the no vote from Flake (side note: I think his name is extremely appropriate for how he acts). Corker went wobbly for a bit, but I don’t think he’d defect. I’ve been watching Collins and Murkowski as well. I think the whole GoFundMe thing has rankled Collins enough based on how her statements read that she’d still vote for Kavanaugh. Murkowski though won’t if she has the cover of someone else in the GOP voting against him. In the end, if the committee fails to recommend McConnell won’t call a vote. It’d be better politically at this point to pull the nomination and immediately put up someone else from the President’s list as there’s time to complete the process before the Democrats take over in the spring if they win the midterms. Of course, for the dems, they have to know that every other nominee that was on the President’s list is further to the right than the current nominee.
In the end I don’t think that will happen because I know McConnell and Grassley are smart enough to know the longterm outcome if this type of unsubstantiated claim kills a nomination. And despite the persistent low opinion I know a lot of people here have of them, I don’t think they’ll fail on this one.
Their base is about feelz not evidence. Who cares if coke can pubic hair is ridiculous…he doesn’t support their ethos so he’s guilty.
Sexual harrassment, sexual assault, pedophilia and rape are all felony crimes.
The latter 3 are felonies. The former is not.
Sexual harassment is a creature of federal employment discrimination law. It’s more a tort than anything else. There’s some overlap between sexual harassment and “assault” and “battery” and that’s where the confusion is. You also see a lot of broadening and use of “sexual harassment” because crimes require evidence, burdens of proof and standards of proof. Sexual harassment requires the flimsiest of evidence and the burdens and standards of proof are extremely light. All that is required is a mere accusation.
Feminists are trying very, very hard to incorporate from sexual harassment practice the very light “accusation creates a rebuttable presumption of guilt” evidentiary standard and the “scintilla of evidence” proof standard, into rape claims – something that’s being floated as a nationwide trial balloon in our college campuses. If your son drunkenly flirts with or has sex with a drunken coed, and said coed regrets it later, your son has “raped” said coed.
Nova:
You really think if Ford testifies and is compelling, Kavanaugh’s nomination is done? Have things changed that much since Anita Hill’s high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas?
This was a 17 year old drunk kid playing around with a 16 year old drunk kid. By this standard fully 75% of men should be out of jobs now. I know this is SCOTUS and the stakes are high, but….
I know the left is terrified Roe will be overturned. I think those fears are misplaced. Roe is never, ever going to be overturned, ever. The furor will be deafening and people on both sides of the aisle know it. Even conservatives like abortion as a safety valve and stopgap last resort measure for oopsies, as you and others have cogently observed. So, even if Kavanaugh gets the Kennedy seat, he is not going to vote to overturn Roe. I don’t even think Gorsuch would. Presently there would be only 2 hard votes to overturn Roe: Thomas and Alito. I don’t think Roberts will do it.
Roe won’t be overturned as long as we live in a feminized society where sexual liberation is the will of the democratic masses. You’d have a greater chance of it happening if the 19th was repealed (which is also probably close to impossible at this point).
Rock star romance novels are in: https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/09/rock-star-love-celebrity-romance-novels-hearts-and-stars.html
It’s interesting what they say about women’s psyches.
Romance novels, as a genre, do a lot of thinking about the way power (wealth, intelligence, competence) drives attraction — for the women swooning over the male heroes, but also for the men themselves, who (in romance novels written recently, at least) often fall in love with heroines who can match their qualities of personal strength.
Given that thematic interest, romance between civilians and stars is a natural fit. These rock stars are “alphas” in the “best at their jobs” sense; they need the women they meet to help them develop their private selves.
In rock star romances, the rock star’s celebrity charisma, always depicted as an undeniable force of nature, is foundational to the attraction between the hero and the heroine. Even as the heroine falls in love with the star — or tries desperately not to succumb because this guy always looks like bad news — she observes the superhuman pull the hero has over his fellow humans.
“As usual, he took up all the space,” Evelyn muses of David in Kylie Scott’s Lick. “I don’t know how he did that. It was like a magician’s trick.” Trudy watches Jake onstage in Samantha Towle’s The Mighty Storm: “Everyone in this room is eyes on Jake, and it’s in this exact moment, I truly see just the level of power he has over people.” …
If the hero brings hot fire onstage talent to the pairing, it’s the heroine’s total lack of interest in stardom that draws him. “Even when she’s nervous, something about her feels grounded and centered. Like she doesn’t need my opinion of her to tell her who she is. In fact, she doesn’t give a shit what I think about her. Never met a woman like that before. Ever,” Gabriel muses to himself about Paige. …
The heroine, of course, is an avatar the reader can identify with, but in rock star romances her normalcy becomes a strength.
Take the internal monologue of Skye, a doctor and abuse survivor, in Ellie Master’s Heart’s Insanity as she wonders why guitarist Ash would pick her over anyone else: “She wasn’t supermodel hot. She wasn’t tall, sexy, and lean. She was simply herself. She spoke her mind, took care of her patients, and had only ever loved one person” — her foster brother.
This, of course, is why Ash wants her, and is an argument for the superiority of regular life over fame. These novels go back and forth between slobbering over fame and money — descriptions of fancy hotel rooms and special snacks flown in from Paris abound — while also arguing that fame and money aren’t everything.
@thedeti
I agree with Nova on this because of the current makeup of the Senate, the hyper-partisan nature of it’s makeup and the electorate, different media environment (the 24hr news cycle hadn’t really kicked in yet, no social media, no internet for everyone), etc… In 1991 11 Democrats voted to confirm Thomas and two Republicans voted against him. In this case if even one member of the GOP votes against Kavanaugh there will be no crossovers from the Democrats. And if there are GOP votes against his nomination, I don’t see it stopping at one.
“Rolling Stone, the magazine that printed a false story about rape at Virginia Tech.(correct me if wrong institution), called Charles Manson a humanitarian[.]”
And made a cover model out of one of the Marathon bombers.
All the anti-suffragette posters were prophetic. Almost like they knew rebellious female nature too.
@eshort
In the end I don’t think that will happen because I know McConnell and Grassley are smart enough to know the longterm outcome if this type of unsubstantiated claim kills a nomination. And despite the persistent low opinion I know a lot of people here have of them, I don’t think they’ll fail on this one.
I happen to think the Senate Repubs have done an amazing job playing this one. It’s the first time I’ve been impressed with their tactics since becoming interested in politics.
They’re playing it straight and it’s working. Everyone is staying disciplined and staying on point. “We’ll hear her. We want to hear her. Please tell her to come forward and tell us her story.” It’s beautiful.
The Dems have no idea how bad they look right now. They are coming off as a bunch of nutjobs. This woman and her lawyer keep coming up with paper thin excuses and burying themselves and the left is caterwauling like they always do about misogyny and old white men, but it’s really disingenuous and the public isn’t buying.
If they had the white house, this would be a really good opportunity to launch some missles at the middle east. Dianne Feinstein has stuck the entire Democrat Party in a big ol’ tar baby right before the midterms. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of hypocritical slimeballs.
@earl
You want to freak out some hardcore constitutional conservatives, ask them to show what demonstrable benefit came from giving women the vote.
You really think if Ford testifies and is compelling, Kavanaugh’s nomination is done? Have things changed that much since Anita Hill’s high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas?
Times have changed since Clarence Thomas, I think. Again, it comes down to how compelling, in *emotional* terms, her testimony is — not in *factual* terms. People have generally already made their minds up as to which one of them is lying, unless there is new additional evidence which comes forward — something that seems unlikely given the time gap involved. So what she says won’t sway too many people, I think — it’s *how* she says it. If she’s emotionally compelling, with tears, breaking voice, clearly deeply traumatized and so on, the people who already think she is telling the truth will be emotionally inflamed by this and the rage will be all over the internet and media — people will be literally losing their minds over it, in our emotionally-driven era. That, coupled with sexual politics and #metoo and the overall politics of the SCOTUS having taken on a kind of supra-governmental role, and you have a firestorm that McConnell won’t likely be able to contain, especially among moderate Republicans like Flake, Murkowski and Collins. And as cshort says, there will be zero votes for him from Democrats — that would have been the case even without these allegations — so McConnell needs all of the votes, and can’t have defections. If you have a credible, crying, emotionally traumatized Ford testifying next Monday, as compared with a calm, cool, BK who denies anything at all ever happened, I think there’s a huge risk that some of those moderate GOP Senators back off from voting to confirm BK.
Roe is never, ever going to be overturned, ever. The furor will be deafening and people on both sides of the aisle know it. Even conservatives like abortion as a safety valve and stopgap last resort measure for oopsies, as you and others have cogently observed. So, even if Kavanaugh gets the Kennedy seat, he is not going to vote to overturn Roe. I don’t even think Gorsuch would. Presently there would be only 2 hard votes to overturn Roe: Thomas and Alito. I don’t think Roberts will do it.
Perhaps not outright overturn it, but I can see 5 votes in support of various things that chip away at it. Things like greater third and even second trimester restrictions, waiting periods, parental notification and consent, mandatory counseling requirements, clinical certification/registration requirements, bans on certain procedures (eg partial birth abortions), and so on. I can see 5 votes for quite a few of those with BK on the court, and the left is terrified of any of those being constitutionally blessed by the SCOTUS.
This was a 17 year old drunk kid playing around with a 16 year old drunk kid. By this standard fully 75% of men should be out of jobs now. I know this is SCOTUS and the stakes are high, but….
Not in the #metoo era, I think. Remember, we’re nailing guys now for stuff they did in the 80s and 90s, when the rules and expectations of *everyone* were very different, left and right and holding them to current standards. It’s mostly being done to famous and/or powerful men, because their aim is changing norms and expectations, and so high-profile cases are required for that. But if you walked around workplaces and dug into the histories of lots of the guys who are 50+ (i.e., working since the 80s-90s), and who are not so famous but are in the higher middle management and up, you’d find that a lot of them probably have made off color jokes, awkward workplace advances, maybe a drunken kiss at the holiday party, maybe more, sometime in the 80s or 90s. Many of them could be #metoo’d if anyone cared to do so — noone really does because they aren’t high profile cases, and so there is very little incentive for a woman who is pissed at them to come forward. Standards have radically changed, and are still in the process of changing, and so the fact that so many guys have behaved decades ago in ways that violate the *current* standards isn’t really persuasive to the half (or more) of the country that supports the idea of retroactively applied standards that is the very heart of #metoo.
I think there are some people who have sympathy for the argument that what he is accused of isn’t that uncommon so it shouldn’t be disqualifying. But, as with most things, at least half the country vehemently disagrees with that (the entire edifice of #metoo is based on that), and when you couple that together with the angst about abortion law, it’s a fever pitch situation on the left.
This is why to me it all comes down to how she testifies — not so much what she says as *how* she says it — how good she is at being an emotional, traumatized wreck in front of the cameras. That determines his fate at this point, I think. If she refuses to testify, I think he gets confirmed (Collins already said that if she doesn’t testify the GOP should bring it to a vote quickly, meaning, I think, that he has her vote in that case). Right now the Democrats are playing a game of chicken with the Republicans about trying to generate media and public opinion leverage to force the Republicans to delay the hearings and the WH to order the FBI to investigate — at the very least to delay things for a few weeks to let them really work on public opinion, making confirmation less likely, or making it so close to the midterms that it energizes the Democratic base (even more than it already is) to come out in crazy numbers, fueled by rage about BK.
It really is a perfect political storm here right now — time to make some popcorn and pull up a chair, really.
@Novaseeker
On the plus side, she’s a fifty something Democrat activist. I would be surprised if she could pull a sympathetic testimony. IF she gets in front of the cameras, she’s going to go for sensationalism and hysterics to stir up the base and everyone who isn’t the base is going to see it as a crass attempt at pot stirring.
I don’t doubt she’s an emotional, traumatized wreck and that perhaps she was groped in the past at a drunken party…what she has to do is somehow make that congruent with Kavanaugh. That could be why she doesn’t want to testify.
Why they would retort a looking at all the opportunities women have now. The same ones that take women away from being a helpmate to her husband and bearing children for their family.
You’d have to ask them how taking women out of their role as feminine, wife and mother and turning them into another cog in the economic machine has been a benefit to civilization.
@earl
Most people that are all about Democracy at all times can’t think past the voting franchise. They will hyperventilate at such a simple question. “Why?”
Voting is good for the sake of voting, full stop. I happen to disagree. My current relevant proof is that the Kardashians are famous with no discernible talent other than giant butts and the ability to spread their legs.
Anonymous Reader @ 12:22 am:
“It never happened, but if it did it’s nothing to get excited about.”
“You are not up to speed on how the game of “Supreme Court Confirmation” is played.
Just for a start, it is an elaborate theater that everyone pretends is reality.”
Seconded. I don’t even care to analyze the squeaky noises the actors’ mouths make. They’re all scripted lies. Kavanaugh hopes to weather the attack long enough to get the seat so he’s weak. Even with the Baby Boomers now dying off, politicians with guts are in short supply.
Not only that nobody would have ever heard of the Kardashians if it wasn’t for the OJ trial and the wife monkey branching to an Olympian.
Here’s what Christine Blasey Ford says happened:
She has accused Kavanaugh of pinning her to a bed during a house party in Maryland in the early 1980s, attempting to remove her clothes and putting his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream. At the time of the alleged incident, Ford was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17, she said, adding that Kavanaugh was drunk.
Source:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/18/who-is-christine-blasey-ford-professor-who-accused-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct.html
OK. Let’s flesh that out a bit. Let’s assume everything Ford says is true.
For starters, everyone – including Ford – was drunk at that party. Don’t tell me they weren’t. I went to house parties in high school in the early 80s. Everyone was drinking. Everyone was having sex or trying to have sex (mostly just trying). There was a whole lotta gropin’ goin’ on, groping, and other things too.
Second, if she really thought a crime had been committed, she should have told her parents (she wouldn’t, because she didn’t want them to know she’d been drinking under age or was at a house party) or the police (she wouldn’t do that either. The coppers would either ignore it as “kids being kids” or would sweat her about who else was there at the party and what was she doing there and what did she do to invite/provoke this and she was drinking too and and since she was drinking too she doesn’t really know what happened and she’s not a reliable witness and this is a sucky case that is going exactly nowhere.
Third, there isn’t going to be an FBI investigation. If anyone investigates it should be local Maryland police or the Maryland State Police. There are no statutes of limitation (at least right now) in Maryland on sex crimes. And this is assuming this even fits the definition of a sex crime in Maryland which I am not sure it does. What, are we going to try Kavanaugh as a juvenile, which he was because he was 17 years old at the time?
I suppose in a lot of ways this is much like the ill fated 1987 Bork nomination. Teddy Kennedy created a smear campaign/firestorm that the Right was completely unprepared for. None of this would have had any legs at all were it not for Pound MeToo.
But if you walked around workplaces and dug into the histories of lots of the guys who are 50+ (i.e., working since the 80s-90s), and who are not so famous but are in the higher middle management and up, you’d find that a lot of them probably have made off color jokes, awkward workplace advances, maybe a drunken kiss at the holiday party, maybe more, sometime in the 80s or 90s.
Lot more than that, and a lot worse than that. Group gropes. Feeling up and grabbing girls’ asses and breasts at parties, in full view of 20 other people. High school gangbangs. Questionable conduct like pinning down a girl and fumbling with her clothes to attempt sex. Sex while both participating kids are blasted out of their minds and a hung over girl regretting the sex. “Vigorous” sex that walks right up to the “rape” line. Sex with passed out/barely conscious girls. Statutory rape (boys over 18 having sex with girls under 17). Cheating on spouses, openly and repeatedly, when literally everyone but the cheated-on spouse knows what’s going on.
So there’s a lot more there, there. And that’s just what I know of from acquaintances and friends and what I’ve seen at parties in high school and college. The thing is, your average girl/young woman between the ages of 15 and 20 in the 1980s knew this kind of thing happened sometimes, and they accepted responsibility if and when things got out of hand, and they mostly kept themselves out of situations where things could get out of hand.
And just like that my conspiracy theory that Ford had a drunken grope by A man just not THAT man has some legs…
‘CNN’s Acosta Interviews Friend Of Kavanaugh’s Accuser. Then She Admits Knowing Nothing.’
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36101/watch-cnns-acosta-interviews-friend-kavanaughs-hank-berrien
On Wednesday, in a seeming attempt to buttress the case for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, CNN’s Jim Acosta interviewed a former high school classmate of Ford, Samantha Guerry, who proceeded to admit that although she had no knowledge of any wrongdoing by Kavanaugh, the “community of women I know” had experienced actions like the ones Ford ascribed to Kavanaugh.
Third, there isn’t going to be an FBI investigation. If anyone investigates it should be local Maryland police or the Maryland State Police.
Maryland may be already quietly investigating, although very unlikely anything would come of that. The FBI won’t investigate unless the WH directs it to do so — which seems very unlikely given this WH. The WH ordered an FBI investigation during the Clarence Thomas fiasco, so that’s the precedent here that the Democrats are referring to. Apparently that investigation took 3 days or so. I don’t think that this WH trusts the FBI, however, so I’d personally be surprised if they order the FBI to investigate, and I’m guessing McConnell is telling the WH he wants to move forward as fast as possible.
I suppose in a lot of ways this is much like the ill fated 1987 Bork nomination. Teddy Kennedy created a smear campaign/firestorm that the Right was completely unprepared for. None of this would have had any legs at all were it not for Pound MeToo.
It’s all related to #metoo, yes. #metoo sets the precedent for re-evaluating behavior that took place many years ago under current standards, and so now people are used to that and expect that. Without that precedent having been set by #metoo, this would be generally speaking #nobigdeal, but that’s not the era we live in.
And then the democrats simply create another accuser? Lol! This never ends. On and on it goes until you put a stop to it. If Brett doesn’t get through this, the repugs will just earned another nail in their coffin.
It’s so easy. Just have a woman cry, accuse some man of some non-crime from 35 or 40 years, make a big outcry about meanie men not allowing her to speak and then sit back and watch the fireworks.
If the repugs don’t have the balls, they will lose this. The appropriate response is to go after these false accusers with everything you have, including the Senator that held onto this information for months all throughout the hearings. Scorched earth. If this lady is not in jail, serving prison time by November, repugs are done, the demonrats will have the playbook and will use it every time.
The FBI won’t investigate unless the WH directs it to do so — which seems very unlikely given this WH. The WH ordered an FBI investigation during the Clarence Thomas fiasco, so that’s the precedent here that the Democrats are referring to.
On what jurisdictional basis would the FBI investigate this? Simply because the President directed it to do so? What would the FBI investigate – whether Kavanaugh did what he’s accused of doing (which is at best a state law criminal matter)?
Bush 41 shouldn’t have ordered an investigation in the Thomas matter – it wasn’t a federal criminal matter then and it isn’t now. Alleged pubic hairs on Coke cans wasn’t a matter requiring investigation; and 17 year old drunken juvenile hijinks isn’t either. And that’s what this is. Fifteen year old Christine Blasey knew damn well what happens at house parties then, as now. She wasn’t a babe in the woods. She went there to have fun, party down, get drunk, get high, and get laid, if the right guy came along.
The FBI actually had jurisdiction in investigating the Hill/Thomas matter because it involved activity by Federal employees. Please remember that she accused him of bad behavior while she was his assistant at the Department of Education and the EEOC (sidenote: both groups need to be eliminated). You’re right that the FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate anything beyond making notes in Kavanaugh’s background report. They’ve stated as much.
On what jurisdictional basis would the FBI investigate this? Simply because the President directed it to do so? What would the FBI investigate – whether Kavanaugh did what he’s accused of doing (which is at best a state law criminal matter)?
Same as Thomas — an extension of their background check on BK. FBI did a background check and provided that to the WH a month or two ago — this is standard for SCOTUS appointments (I think it actually is standard for all Article III appointments). They updated that over the weekend with these allegations, which were new. WH would simply order FBI to investigate further as a part of the background check process. Again, I doubt this WH will do that because I think Trump simply doesn’t trust the FBI at all. We will see how much political pressure is brought to bear in the media in the next 48-96 hours.
Fifteen year old Christine Blasey knew damn well what happens at house parties then, as now. She wasn’t a babe in the woods. She went there to have fun, party down, get drunk, get high, and get laid, if the right guy came along.
Probably, but the media is milking this, and they are just getting started: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-allegations.html
There’s going to be a massive amount of pressure in the media over the next few days to get the GOP to back off Monday’s hearing and have the WH order an investigation. Open question is how Trump responds. McConnell will likely be pushing hard to have the hearing and then the vote — let’s see what Trump does.
Women’s suffrage was such a bad idea.
The small print in the broadside is spookily accurate.
Do you remember where you were 35 or perhaps 37 years ago, Nova? Some Friday or perhaps Saturday or maybe even a week night, not sure.. I’m sure some woman, somewhere must have some dirt on your shenanigans? Maybe you breathed on her, hmm?! It’s obvious you’re guilty of something!
I have the letter right here, Nova! Won’t release my sources though, that’s confidential, what have you to say about this serious matter?! You better respect this wahmen seriously Nova, her story is credible and thus beyond reproach!
Women’s suffrage was such a bad idea.
The small print in the broadside is spookily accurate.
I am glad that more people here are willing to say that openly. That was not the case five years ago.
Note what I said above about how few countries are more than just a few decades into the disastrous experiment, and how consistently bad the results are in direct proportion to cumulative duration of female suffrage.
fenhater; I shudder to think what folks could/would find if they really dug around in my past, talked to old GFs, talked to old college friends. I did go through an extensive background check when I became a lawyer. I was fingerprinted. the state bar talked to all of my employers. All of them. All the way back to my first jobs as a 15 year old kid as a Scout camp counselor, the fast food job and the grocery stockboy job. Got all my school records from Kindergarten through law school. Called my parents and talked to them. Called the department chair at the university where I earned my Ugrad degree.
But nothing like this, where they ask your old GFs and people you used to get drunk and get high with what you do when you’re not showing your “work”, “public” and “professional” faces to the world.
Do you remember where you were 35 or perhaps 37 years ago, Nova? Some Friday or perhaps Saturday or maybe even a week night, not sure.. I’m sure some woman, somewhere must have some dirt on your shenanigans? Maybe you breathed on her, hmm?! It’s obvious you’re guilty of something!
Sure — all I am saying is that once you’re in the process, you’re in the process. In the #metoo era anything from any time in your life can and will be used against you if you are a big enough target for someone to care to do it. That’s the world we live in now.
@Anon
I had a pastor point out one time that being ruled over by women was a judgment from God in Old Testament Israel. God literally said “Women will rule over you.” in judgment.
Yeah, kinda tongue-in-cheek there but it’s an entirely plausible possibility for any man in this #metoo era. A contrived accusation from long ago with no precise date, nor location, nor specific crime to defend against, nor to be able to call witnesses; but where the allegation itself serves as all the evidence necessary to destroy your career. I would call it insane but then insanity seems to be the norm these days. To be ‘sane’ these days is to be considered crazy.
@Deti
I am a bit speechless.
As I recall I had to obtain the signature of the local vicar so I went to the Vicarage where we had a chat over a glass of sherry, then some months later I had to attend a panel of three people who asked me why I wanted to be a lawyer – I didn’t (parental pressure) and rather screwed up the interview which was compounded by my being unable to correctly turn the door-handle to escape the room. To my surprise I was let in.
This week I have instructed a solicitor acquaintance of mine in regard to a matter and though we have known each other socially and professionally for decades he insists I produce documentary evidence of my identity.
We have gone from a high trust society (in my day lawyers would give each other verbal undertakings!) to one of complete distrust.
@Anon
Not to disappoint you, but I have been openly against women’s suffrage since I first really thought about it when John McCain picked Sarah Palin for his VP.
Anyone in a democracy who has the vote is, in some part, in charge. Therefore, women’s suffrage creates a real separation between a man and his wife–even if they vote for the same candidate.
Worse: The signal women suffrage sends is that men are too foolish to properly value the responsibility and privilege of headship. This kind of error in judgment would make it hard for anyone to respect the perpetrator, but especially for women. No woman would be so stupid as to share power with her underling.
Nova
In the #metoo era anything from any time in your life can and will be used against you if you are a big enough target for someone to care to do it. That’s the world we live in now.
Funny thing, I thought that the #SheToo reveal on Asia Argento and her sexytimes with an under-age actor in California that led to some substantial quiet cash payments would have done more damage to #MeToo. However she’s now pushing back by claiming to be the victim, of course. What really matters is where the press megaphone points, though. Argento could have been reduced to lower than Weinstein in a matter of weeks, if those who hold the megaphone wanted that.
“Who? Whom?” applies across the social space.
In the larger society the question of “big enough target” is very fuzzy, but it’s clear enough to make some men rediscover the Billy Graham / Mike Pence rule. Because it is the prudent thing to do, whether one is a churchgoing man or not. (This of course is leading in churchgoing circles to women getting angry about that, because “NAWALT!” and around we go.)
It isn’t new, this revising of appropriateness. “Who? Whom?” requires that standards and boundaries be shifted from time to time, in order to make it easier to snare and persecute political enemies, while keeping other enemies off balance. Some will call this observation cynical. I prefer to regard it as realistic.
In the short term, if BK winds up failing to be appointed, previous patterns suggest the next appointee will succeed. However, those previous patterns are from a different country.
Great find Earl on that poster. Hilarious!
It strikes me that it is more likely that Ford heard the same rumor her classmates heard, and decades later has recast herself as the victim and Kavanaugh as the villain.
‘The signal women suffrage sends is that men are too foolish to properly value the responsibility and privilege of headship.’
It’s also why I cringe whenever I hear someone in any church leadership think that more women’s input are needed to address problems.
It’s the best attention grabber and get out of jail free card women have…so of course they’ll keep playing it.
Zooming back out to the bigger picture, we have the spectacle of a Supreme Court appointment being held up because a post-menopausal woman feelz that the nominee did something almost 40 years ago. No facts required. Rule by Feelz. Government controlled by whichever actress is best able to weep on cue. It is farcical, and as others have noted calls into question the wisdom of allowing women to vote at all.
Pence rule, MGTOW, and various other strategies seem to be in response to staying away from that chance that a woman goes fake victim and makes you the perp.
Maybe I’m the only to make a big deal out of the fact that both the CNN article and the Kavanaugh defense both use the fact that ‘women’ are the deciders of if someone is decent or not.
Notice that a number of Kavanaugh’s old female friends needed to come out and give support to the fact that he is a gentlemen and would never do these things whilst at the same time in order to bolster his innocence, then from the article, women from Kavanaugh’s old area are sure to tell us that all these bad things happen all the time, non stop, but that they cannot place, for certain, Kavanaugh anywhere close.
I wonder the situation a man would be in if no women pronounced him worthy? Absolute guilt no doubt…
Even the Mike Pence Rule requires that his wife find him worthy. His wife could decide for a nice payday and work together with an accomplice and Mike Pence wouldn’t be able to turn to his wife to provide his alibi…
When you see how dumb SJWs have been these past years, one has to wonder how much of it is political false flagging.
Just get the worst faggot or feminist slut to spew Anti-American bs while attacking Trump for being a sexist and racist. Then kick up your feet and watch as political power magically flows to Trump.
At the rate they’re going, Trump will become the first unelected president in American history by 2020 (should Dems run Ocasio-Cortez).
Indeed, no honour amongst thieves!
I was listening to the Jay Sekulo show today and he said several times that these charges should be taken seriously, even though they strongly favor BK’s appointment.
I completely disagree with him on this and I think things like this will push many to be even more radical in their opposition to these tactics. I still think it is too late for our current system, but giving into the left is not the way to get people to fall in line behind Republicans and such.
I am not sure enough are strong enough yet, but the pressure is definitely building.
This whole thing should have been immediately denounced as unbelievable and a pure political stunt. The fact it wasn’t shows how corrupt we all are.
I would add about voting that only landholders should vote, as it was originally IIRC.
Allowing those without a vested interest in things is worse than the risk of hostile overlords. We have those today, they just manipulate the electorate to achieve their goals.
I would be okay with that…my tiers of voting are.
1) You can only vote if you pay more in taxes than taking government benefits (some women would still be able to vote but they’d have to be producers and not consumers)
2) Repeal the 19th (only men over 21 vote)
or
3) Landowners only
My attitude and view of this whole thing is that something probably did happen between a 17 year old Brett Kavanaugh and a 15 year old Chrissy Blasey. It probably is not everything that Blasey (now Dr Ford) has claimed. I very much doubt that a 15 year old girl, as drunk or drunker than Kavanaugh was, remembers everything with the crystal clear detail she claims. I don’t believe it’s “nothing ever happened” as Kavanaugh has claimed, IMO. The truth is probably somewhere in between.
And even if that is the case, so what? There isn’t a 17 year old boy anywhere who hasn’t done something like this or tried to. There isn’t a 15 year old girl anywhere who hasn’t done something like this or had it “done to them”. And of course very few people know about it; hell, most hardly remember anything in any detail about episodes like this because of the booze and youth and not thinking clearly and it just wasn’t that important.
This is all much ado about nothing. What, is my first college GF, who lives about 3 hours away from me, who I haven’t talked to in 30 years, going to show up and talk about that one time we had sex that she kind of regretted because we were so drunk and were on the outs, and “bad bad bad Deti”? Is my second college GF going to show up and dish to anyone who will listen, about the times she rejected me for sex and we fought about it and we called each other nasty names?
@deti
Well if you are ever nominated to the SC by a candidate the deep state and feminists don’t approve of…and they offer those women enough money and attention to do a sob story on camera…they will show up.
Makes you think it’s better to be a nobody.
I see no reason to believe that this did happen with BK since she can’t remember where or when at all. Sure, someone may have done this, but you need a lot more evidence other than the claim of a partisan progressive to even give it credibility.
What evidence convinces you it happened Deti?
@Anon
I am glad that more people in the sphere are at least dancing closer to the line of saying female suffrage was an outright mistake.
It’s interesting how the pendulum appears to be swinging back towards authoritarianism, not only in the West, but in the overall sense of a shifting power balance between the East and West.
That as much as anything is vindication of what you’ve been saying for years.
That is BS. I never did and never tried to do that. I think you are projecting a bit, unfortunately.
Billy:
There are outliers, of course. There are exceptions to every rule. Would you prefer that I had said “most 17 year old boys have done something like this or tried to”? Come on. DO I really have to qualify every statement like that?
High school boys do stuff like this and sometimes it gets out of hand. Especially in the 1980s and 90s it did. Sometimes. Did anyone ever get raped? No. Did guys cross a line or three? Yes. Why? Because that’s what boys do. They push the envelope. THey test boundaries. And they do stupid stuff, especially when alcohol, youth, and testosterone are mixed together. It gets even more interesting, or it can, when you add in some money and privilege.
BillyS
I was listening to the Jay Sekulo show today and he said several times that these charges should be taken seriously, even though they strongly favor BK’s appointment.
Some boomer lawyer still living in the 20th century. Foolishness. Perhaps if he were accused on CNN of joining in that drunken orgy with Kavenaugh in the unspecified year at the unspecified location with other unspecified people, and he was in danger of losing his license to practice law because of the “charges” that “should be taken seriously”…perhaps then Sekulo would come to understand what is really going on. Maybe.
Deti, it’s all about Who can do what to Whom. Stop thinking like a lawyer, and start learning to think like a Party commissar.
“Deti, did you just say that Eastasia is at war with Oceana? Everyone knows that Eastasia has always been at war with Eurasia. You need some re-education! Immediately!”
Notice that a number of Kavanaugh’s old female friends needed to come out and give support to the fact that he is a gentlemen and would never do these things whilst at the same time in order to bolster his innocence, then from the article, women from Kavanaugh’s old area are sure to tell us that all these bad things happen all the time, non stop, but that they cannot place, for certain, Kavanaugh anywhere close.
It’s true that it’s all women — that’s another thing that comes from #metoo: only women’s opinions about these things matter. Like the Senator from Hawaii said yesterday — men need to sit down and shut up. This is a central theme of #metoo.
In this specific case, it’s a war of the friends/alumni of each of these two. The people are all still mostly here in DC (both Ford and BK grew up in the more elite DC suburbs), so it’s a lot of inside baseball going on right now. BK’s crowd tends to be from the Catholic elite prep schools (like the one he went to), while Ford’s are from the non-Catholic ones (like the one she went to), and the letters and petitions and so on are pouring in from alumni and friends/acquaintances from both “camps”. So there’s another layer of tribalism to it all that is very local to the DC area, and specifically the small elite subgroup here.
Set the question up by asking them why men were given the vote, then ask that. They’ll be compelled to give two completely different answers.
Deti,
I am not that much of an outlier. I know others had a similar mindset when they were younger. Not all of course, and things were certainly falling apart by then, but it was not as pervasive as it is today.
Novaseeker
So there’s another layer of tribalism to it all that is very local to the DC area, and specifically the small elite subgroup here.
Grudge-filled packs of girls who never really grew up beyond high school, running around distributing venomous rumors, is no way to run a country.
NYT and WaPo are now reporting that Ford (her lawyer) is trying to negotiate with the Senate the terms of her agreeing to testify, but that one condition is that it can’t be Monday. Clearly delay is a major goal, it would appear.
The Senate and its committees have subpoena power. They could subpoena her to testify, but I think that would require more time than the Monday hearing. I also think they don’t want to issue a subpoena because that would make it look like they were pushing her around, and they don’t want that. Still it’s highly unusual for someone who has been asked to testify before Congress to try to negotiate the terms of that in advance. I suspect she is trying to push the date back, primarily, to give more time for (1) building momentum in the media and public opinion to require an investigation and (2) opportunity for the oppo specialists that the DNC certainly has running around trying to find at least one other woman who will raise a sexual complaint against BK. I wonder if she is trying to get the Senators to agree that certain questions are off limits, or that she can’t be questioned at all (in other words, just a monologue and no questions) — that is unprecedented, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that is what she is looking for. There could be some challenging questions, and I suspect she doesn’t want to answer them, under oath or otherwise.
Sen Mazie Hirono (D-HI): says she asks all judicial nominees these questions:
“Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made any unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?” as well as “Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?” Kavanaugh answered no to both questions.
From the same article:
Hirono also expressed her frustration at the broader issue — sexual harassment and assault in general.
“Guess who is perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It’s the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country: just shut up and step up, do the right thing for a change,” she said at the news conference.
Every man has done this:
made any unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature
A man has “made any unwanted requests for sexual favors” if he has ever:
–asked a woman out on a date and she said no
–during a date, escalated sexually and was rebuffed
–tried to kiss a woman and was rebuffed
–approached his wife for sex and she said no
A man has “committed verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature” if he has ever:
–touched a woman in ANY way whatsoever if she didn’t want to be touched, even if the touch was inadvertent or he erroneously believed it to be welcome
–told a woman he works with “you look nice today”
–had sex with a woman while he, or she, or both of them, were intoxicated
–got into a fight with his wife and called her a name she didn’t like
–has ever, at any time, said or done something, anywhere, that a woman didn’t like or that offended her in any way
–told a sexual joke that a woman didn’t like or that offended her
Every man over the age of 20 has to answer affirmatively to these questions, given today’s definitions of the operative terms in those extremely loaded questions.
It’s just another way women use sex to try and take power from men.
Novaseeker
Still it’s highly unusual for someone who has been asked to testify before Congress to try to negotiate the terms of that in advance.
Not anymore. The head of Google flipped off the Congress less than a month ago, nothing happened to him.
I wonder if she is trying to get the Senators to agree that certain questions are off limits, or that she can’t be questioned at all (in other words, just a monologue and no questions) — that is unprecedented, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that is what she is looking for.
I believe you are correct. That just the “preponderance” standard already in place on the California college campuses and some other places. Merging that with #MeToo creates a powerful weapon. It is what “always believe women” comes down to: no questions, no rebuttal, and no Constitutional rights at all.
Who? Whom?
I hope they push some more. Tell men to really shut, start jailing men for the slightest infraction. Really set the ball moving. Come on ladies, times a fucking ticking and I haven’t got all fucking day for your hissy fits to be over.
Do what you always wanted to do but beware the shit storm coming your way once you do. Once started, nothing is going to stop the coming reckoning.
Sen Mazie Hirono (D-HI): says she asks all judicial nominees these questions:
I’d almost look forward to appearing in order to make this bitch gag on a double dose of her own medicine.
What I would hope the committee tells Blasey Ford is “you testify Monday, or you don’t testify at all. Speak now or forever hold your peace. We need to get this to the floor for an up or down vote.”
I’ll bet you since these seem to be the only important questions on her mind she’s got some skeletons in her closet she doesn’t want getting out.
For the interested, I’ve recently blogged about Mazie Hirono.
https://gunnerq.com/2018/08/09/mazie-hirono-globalist-commissar/
What I would hope the committee tells Blasey Ford is “you testify Monday, or you don’t testify at all. Speak now or forever hold your peace. We need to get this to the floor for an up or down vote.”
I’m sure they want to do that, but they also don’t want to come across as being meanies — it’s kind of fraught position. I understand that the Senators themselves won’t be doing the questioning themselves for roughly the same reason — they don’t want to be seen as a bunch of old white guys coming down hard on a woman who says she was almost raped by BK. So they’re hiring outside counsel to ask the questions — I am guessing that the counsel will be female.
Here is some fun reading. Especially for those in the DC area. Such as Georgetown.
https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/
Hollywood likes to remake movies now. How about a remake of Fast Times at Ridgemont High only instead of SoCal, set it in Northern Virginia prepschools?
For the interested, I’ve recently blogged about Mazie Hirono.
https://gunnerq.com/2018/08/09/mazie-hirono-globalist-commissar/
Without even reading the linked article (I will), just knowing that she’s from Hawaii (a.k.a. The People’s Republic of the Pacific) gives us a pretty solid idea in advance of what kind of a human being she is. Some books you can judge without even having to look at the cover.
Sounds like high school in the 80s was Animal House.
Hollywood likes to remake movies now. How about a remake of Fast Times at Ridgemont High only instead of SoCal, set it in Northern Virginia prepschools?
Montgomery County, MD and DC itself, but yeah, would be pretty funny.
Sounds like high school in the 80s was Animal House.
Prep schools more than regular high schools. Very wealthy people.
Hello Red Pill Lit , thank you for responding to my question. Yes, well, my views on life would probably make Attila The Hun look like a feminist and liberal soiboi. The Aussies,….well…I have observed very similar behavior among the natives while living in Canada and have impression that this is some sort of ingrained Anglo-Feminist character trait drilled into Anglo societies early on. It is not for nothing that Queen Victoria is hailed as a feminist icon.
A note on “credible “ accusations or statements.
From what I’ve been able to find, Credible could also be synonymous with possible. That is, it is credible or possible that a man born in 1945 in the US served in Vietnam. It is not credible that a man born in 1975 served in that war.
Thus a credible accusation means it is possible. I’d think in Kavanaugh’s case this would mean he and Ford were both teens in the same local at the time the events were claimed too have occurred. This does not mean they did occur. This is a pre evidence judgement of the claim.
But as a persuasion device this is very effective and possibly evil as our tiny human brains hear credible and think there is evidence rather than possibility
I couldn’t care less that some leftardess’s boob got squeezed once four decades ago and, in my opinion, no one including the leftardess should care either.
The hyper-extreme reaction of the entire Senate ready to fly to the leftardess to hear her fabricated tale of how a man (who wasn’t even there) squeezed her boob and touched her mouth once four decades is utterly insane. I feel like Colonel Feel in ‘The Ninth Configuration’ watching it.
squid_hunt says:
@Anon
I had a pastor point out one time that being ruled over by women was a judgment from God in Old Testament Israel. God literally said “Women will rule over you.” in judgment.
He was probably referencing
Isaiah 3:12 (NASB)
O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths.
So while it is indeed a form of judgement, it’s phrased more like it’s something they allowed to happen in their rebellion against God. Which is more telling.
God is showing them the consequences of listening to everybody but Him.
Which means that women have to submit; just like God said.
But as has been said many times in the Manosphere, you can’t unring that bell now. Especially with so many males willing to support their own destruction. So total economic collapse will probably have to do it. The Beta Boys will get no sex at all, as all the women fight to be a part of the harems of the top men. The top men will dominate the women, and tell them what to do, as top men always have.
Until we get civilization of some sort reestablished again. Then the cycle will repeat as it always does. If you didn’t know it, that’s a curse from God, too.
The reasons given by the opponents of women’s suffrage were indeed prophetic. Look at the document “Some reasons why we oppose votes for women” published by the National association opposed to woman suffrage (https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.1300130c). Every objection has been shown by history to be accurate.
This is how civilization ends … an obsession with feelings real or imaginary to such a degree that we are willing to overturn our history of presumption of innocence, of rational thought and discourse. But on the other hand like most politics this is just naked opportunism. They will say whatever they can at anytime to win. They want to
win and right now they can win by assuming some looney tramp is a credible witness to something 35 years ago and the rest of society needs to pretend as well.
@They call me Tom
There is a risk between birth control and breast cancer. Well established. It is small. Pregrnancy reduces risk of breast cancer as does breast feeding. Birth control also increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis (but less than pregnancy).
@Nova
FBI investigates Clarence Thomas because the alleged crime took place in federal buildings between federal employees. The dems are just saying nonsense words they know are nonsense.
Rights, authority and power MUST BE commensurate with accountability and responsibility.
Otherwise you have crime, injustice, familial dysfunction and societal collapse.
Women fail this fundamental worthiness test. Across the board. In every face of life. Every. Single. Time.
It is men, not women, who are ALWAYS held to the highest levels of accountability and responsibility, legally and financially and socially – but who have been stripped of all commensurate rights, authority, power and privilege.
Meanwhile, as a result, we have allowed irresponsible and wreckless CHILDREN with inordinate powers and lethal weapons to run rampant. These children can wish those they deem wicked and dangerous or undesirable into cornfields, or can just have them destroyed.
Will you just stand there and let the children continue destroy themselves and everything around them, including you and those you love?
Or will you take their rights and powers away?
You can easily revoke their rights and powers away. You have just forgotten how.
Sadly, most men are so weak, so brainwashed, they will just stand there, and say and do nothing while these overgrown children punch holes in the hull of the very vessel that keeps them alive and safe.
“we have allowed irresponsible and wreckless CHILDREN” -“Will you just stand there” – “You can easily revoke their rights and powers away. You have just forgotten how.” – “Sadly, most men are so weak, so brainwashed,”….
Amen! Well said.
Alpha male for sure,
blaming and shaming men
like a boss!
… so what do you do, now,
after your blame and shame tirade…
~ what do YOU do?
Show us weak and brainwashed men what to do…
Don’t just stand there…
YOU can easily revoke powers away…
so get to it yo…
WE have allowed recklessness but
YOU need to do something about it…
watch you gonna do?