Cerin wrote:Do you mean, appalling that he has no further questions? They've had extensive testimony already, so this seems reasonable to me. I don't know what more can be asked about the assault beyond, 'Did you do it?' and Kavanaugh has answered that. Is it customary that each and every Senator ask questions?
I read that statement - and it echoes so many statements that have come before it when discussing other allegations of assault, and what I see is this:
It's a shame women keep accusing men of doing things. Why can't women just leave us men alone? Why do they keep having to say things, like bringing up how we once assaulted them? It ruins our lives!
Sure, you can state your sympathy for going through an accusation prior to a conviction. But how about a SPARK of sympathy for the women who have already had their lives ruined, who were the ones actually assaulted, who just wanted the man to leave *them* alone? It's a shame men keep doing these things!
I am getting really sick of the narrative that every woman ever who accuses a man of assault is just ruining his life, and not one thought is given to the man ruining the woman's life!
The dumbest thing I've ever bought
was a 2020 planner.
"Does anyone ever think about Denethor, the guy driven to madness by staying up late into the night alone in the dark staring at a flickering device he believed revealed unvarnished truth about the outside word, but which in fact showed mostly manipulated media created by a hostile power committed to portraying nothing but bad news framed in the worst possible way in order to sap hope, courage, and the will to go on? Seems like he's someone we should think about." - Dave_LF
I'm really missing something here. Elengil, can you relate your comments to the idea of Sen. Corker having no further questions for Kavanaugh. Do you think every Senator should ask for an individual denial?
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
Cerin wrote:I'm really missing something here. Elengil, can you relate your comments to the idea of Sen. Corker having no further questions for Kavanaugh. Do you think every Senator should ask for an individual denial?
"I can't imagine the horror of being accused of something like this."
It has nothing to do with whether he has more questions. The appalling part - whether it was what yovargas was calling appalling or not - is that he thinks being accused of sexual assault is a horror, but being sexually assaulted, presumably, is not. The horror is when it hurts a man, not when it was done to a woman. The horror is in imagining being accused, not in imagining being assaulted. The very wording implies that he does not believe it's even something to consider as possibly being true.
Last edited by elengil on Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The dumbest thing I've ever bought
was a 2020 planner.
"Does anyone ever think about Denethor, the guy driven to madness by staying up late into the night alone in the dark staring at a flickering device he believed revealed unvarnished truth about the outside word, but which in fact showed mostly manipulated media created by a hostile power committed to portraying nothing but bad news framed in the worst possible way in order to sap hope, courage, and the will to go on? Seems like he's someone we should think about." - Dave_LF
Unless something unexpected happens (like a witness coming forward) this will continue to be one person's word against another, and people are going to have to make a decision about who to believe. Call me cynical, but I don't doubt that people's political leanings are affecting which side they come down on here. Sen. Corker's comments obviously reflect the attitude that he believes Kavanaugh's denial. He wouldn't comment on the horror of being assaulted if he doesn't believe Ford's account, would he? If he believes this is a case of Kavanaugh being falsely accused, then that's the horror he would focus on.
yov, that's an incomplete rendering.
WOMAN: That guy sexually assaulted me.
GUY: I most certainly never did any such thing.
PUBLIC: Considers situation, makes decision: Either woman was assaulted, affecting her life forever, or man is being falsely accused, affecting his life forever.
Oh, that poor woman!
Oh, that poor man!
Either one is valid, and will depend on how the person evaluates the situation. Since there is no factual basis on which to evaluate, it will be a subjective evaluation largely dependent on every individual's personal experience, sympathies and political leanings.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
You don't have to know the truth to still be sensitive and neutral in your language, especially as a government official who is meant to represent all people. And, moreover, one who is specifically tasked with determining if there is legitimacy to the allegation. Yet he has already decided - without her testimony - that what she claims happened did not happen and therefore Poor Man.
He is not taking a neutral stance toward a difficult decision, weighing both sides equally, he's already decided there is no merit. He is not being careful to frame his comments in light of it being unknown who is telling the truth - he's already decided it's the Man telling the truth.
And this would not be quite so appalling if this was not the default stance. We see it over and over in these situations - whether it's the abuser, or an industry, the media, society at large, there is a default stance of poor Man. Accusers are lying, accusers are ruining men's lives, accusers are being unfair, accusers are framed as the perpetrators rather than the victims. To borrow a previously used phrase, "Why should he suffer for life for 20 minutes of action."
Here is how it might have been worded: I can't imagine the horror of being either the victim of assault, or of a false accusation. But we must discover, insofar as we can, who is being truthful and proceed carefully.
Here we just have the default assumption his life is being ruined unfairly, his wife and children suffering so, being caught up in the cruel, unjust attacks of this woman. Obviously we don't need any investigation or even to hear the testimony of this woman. We know what's going on.
And yet so many people still wonder why she isn't already on the plane to sit before a board of people who may be taking this exact view of things, who seem ready to treat her as the abuser - a hearing which may proceed according to that entrenched bias, not affording her the courtesy, sensitivity, and open mind due to an alleged victim.
The dumbest thing I've ever bought
was a 2020 planner.
"Does anyone ever think about Denethor, the guy driven to madness by staying up late into the night alone in the dark staring at a flickering device he believed revealed unvarnished truth about the outside word, but which in fact showed mostly manipulated media created by a hostile power committed to portraying nothing but bad news framed in the worst possible way in order to sap hope, courage, and the will to go on? Seems like he's someone we should think about." - Dave_LF
I had a post almost all ready to go, but elengil said everything that I wanted to say, better than I could have said it.
Apparently, negotiations continue as to whether Dr. Ford will testify. The main sticking points at this point seem to be that the GOP wants it to be Wednesday and Dr. Ford prefers Thursday, and the GOP wants to hire an outside female attorney to do the questioning, while Dr. Ford's attorneys feel that would make it too much like she was on trial.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
elengil, of course your version of the statement would have been far better, but I think it's very naive to expect any Republican to publicly comment in a way that could be taken to imply that they believe Kavanaugh might not be telling the truth. In the same way, I'd be very surprised to see a Democrat publicly said anything that could be taken to imply that Ford might not be telling the truth.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
I find it very difficult to believe that Dr Ford is perpetrating a falsehood. She's an intelligent, successful woman with a family- in other words, she has EVERYTHING to lose by speaking out. She was clearly reluctant to do so because she knew the shitstorm that would hit her and her family.
An intell8gent, successful woman does not willingly walk into that on the basis of a lie.
Sent from a tiny phone keyboard via Tapatalk - typos inevitable.
Mornings wouldn't suck so badly if they came later in the day.
Meanwhile, Sen. Grassley has given Dr. Ford until 2:30 eastern time today decide whether to accept their proposal of a hearing on Wednesday, rather than on Thursday as she had requested.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
The odds she's lying are practically zero because, as elengil noted, it just doesn't make sense from a cost/benefits perspective. Naively, the most likely explanation is that she's telling the truth, IMO. But it's possible she misinterpreted events at the time, or that her memories have gotten muddled over the years, or something of that sort. If the Senate were composed of serious people, they'd put the nomination on hold until those possibilities could be investigated.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Buried at the bottom of the article is the important bit - that CRC where Ventry worked was behind Whelan’s bizarre tweets that accused an apparently random classmate of being Ford’s attacker on the basis that he looked like Kavanaugh and also Zillow somehow.
Politico reported Friday that CRC was behind conservative activist Ed Whelan’s suggestion that he had evidence that a classmate of Kavanaugh had been the perpetrator of the attack on Blasey Ford.
After tweeting and posting photographs and Google maps implicating Kavanaugh’s classmate, Whelan faced considerable backlash, including a statement from Blasey Ford herself saying there was “zero chance” she would confuse the two men. Whelan was forced to apologize.
I have, like, sixty-five posts I could have made but didn't, so this one doesn't count.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
So in the effort to accuse Kavanaugh's accuser of false accusation, an activist falsely accused someone else in Kavanaugh's circle. That's Coen Brother's material. I hope that activist gets sued for libel.
It also conceded that the party and the assault both happened, something they’ve been trying to deny.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Earlier in the week, Hatch spokesman Matt Whitlock tweeted that people should “keep an eye on” the Twitter account of Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who said he would in coming days confirm Kavanaugh was not at the party where Ford said the alleged sexual assault occurred.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
"A top press adviser helping lead the Senate Judiciary Committee's response to a sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has stepped down amid evidence he was fired from a previous political job in part because of a sexual harassment allegation against him."
That sentence is head-spinning. Good lord.
(I would react to the CRC saying but my head is still spinning.)
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
The latest word is that Dr. Ford's attorneys responded today to say that she accepted their invitation to testify this coming week, without specifying which day, or agreeing to specific details. So negotiations continue. Supposedly, there is a tentative agreement to do it on Thursday, but other issues such as whether the questioning will be done by the senators themselves or by an outside counsel hired by them.
So far as I know, it is unprecedented to have a Senate committee hearing with questions done by anyone other than the senators themselves. The reason they want to bring in an outside (female) counsel is that they won't like the optics of having an group of elderly white males grilling a woman.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
