Character and crucible: Thomas and Kavanaugh
Yesterday I put up a short clip of Clarence Thomas excoriating the Senate Democrats at his 1991 hearing. I want to highlight it now:
Thomas speaks with great eloquence, but it’s his affect that is especially arresting. You can feel his outraged dignity in every word and every glint of his eye. It is all the more powerful for being under control.
You know that this is a man who’s been through the fire before. And if you know Thomas’ personal history, you know that he had a great many early struggles with poverty and discrimination, and triumphed over them all by dint of hard work and determination.
Arthur Miller’s play about the Salem witch trials is called “The Crucible,” and the meaning of that word is this:
1 : a vessel of a very refractory material (such as porcelain) used for melting and calcining a substance that requires a high degree of heat
2 : a severe test
3 : a place or situation in which concentrated forces interact to cause or influence change or development
So we have a crisis that functions not only as a test, but as a formative experience enhancing character. Some pass it, some melt.
Clarence Thomas’ speech had special force because of the element of race it contained. His listeners knew it, too. When Thomas said he was facing “a high-tech lynching,” the word “lynching” had a very specific meaning which he emphasized by following it up with this:
…it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas. And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you: you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured, by a committee of the US Senate rather than hung from a tree.
What Thomas is doing there, among other things, is taking the Democrats’ cloak of “we are the party of civil rights” rectitude and ripping it away, exposing the corollary “only if you toe our party line; otherwise we will destroy you with every trick in our nasty book.” Now that nearly thirty years have passed since that hearing, we’ve seen that play out time and again. It is open season on conservative blacks, not just Clarence Thomas (who has continued to be disrespected and excoriated by the left) but on all blacks who “think for themselves, do for themselves, have different ideas.” It’s true for women, too; Republican women aren’t real women, as someone like Sarah Palin learned all too well, and as the rest of us observed.
Fast forward to the Kavanuagh situation, in which Kavanaugh is also being lynched. Jimmy Kimmel’s light little joke last night (Kimmel’s “’compromise’ to the battle of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination is to chop off the judge’s ‘pesky penis,’ should he be confirmed”) was not really funny and was in obvious bad taste, but what Kimmel may or may not have realized is that it harks back to some exceptionally vile body desecrations that sometimes occurred during lynchings.
Even so, of course, Kavanaugh doesn’t have the option of saying he’s an uppity black being lynched. Clearly, he’s not. Au contraire. He’s a “privileged white guy” who went to the finest schools and according to all previous reports has played by all the rules. But for that reason, it is possible that (although he’s been a federal judge) this is the first real crucible that he’s been through.
If that is in fact the case, it would certainly not be his fault. Fortunately for most of us, most of us have never experienced anything remotely like the terrible public pressure he’s under. But at this point it would help if he had, if not Thomas’ history, at least the gravitas and fire that Thomas brought to his hearings because of his previous experiences that had helped to forge (that’s an appropriate word, too, in terms of the crucible metaphor) his steely character.
I don’t know that much about Kavanaugh’s life. Perhaps he has endured tests of his own that will stand him in good stead throughout this terrible ordeal. I hope that something will sustain him. Perhaps his faith, which apparently is strong, and his family.
Being associated with President Trump isn’t for the faint of heart. Ask Paul Manafort, for example; whatever he has done or hasn’t done, guilty or not, does anyone think he’d stand convicted now had he not had his little fling with the Trump campaign? Of course not. And ask Michael Flynn or Carter Page or Michael Cohen or any number of other people whose lives would probably be going quite smoothly right now were it not for the fact that they worked for Donald Trump and the left decided to try to destroy them.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed and the Democrats win the House in November, the new House may try to impeach him. If he’s not confirmed and the Democrats win the House in November, the new House may try to impeach him from the judgeship he now holds. If they have the votes, they can do it, too. I don’t know how far they will go with this. But they have conjured up forces of rage and destruction that they may have to placate by sacrificing Brett Kavanaugh further, and putting him through a few more crucibles.
Neo, as your excellent post on the Salem witch trials demonstrates, these hysterical episodes do happen. It’s very sad to be living through one, and to know that the leadership of the Democrats have set this off deliberately, and with malice.
The only defense that I can see is for all fair-minded people to vote against all Democrat congressional candidates in the general election. If they begin to leave their mania behind and want to behave reasonably, then we can once again agree to disagree.
With the passage of time I had forgotten how magnificent was the defense Justice Thomas presented in so few but devastating words. I hope that Kavanaugh finds the passion and eloquence to respond accordingly should any of his accusers take an oath and testify before the Committee.
I was thinking of your son saving you from the mouse. And of course thinking of you saving me from my fear of ballet. Keep fignting. With your shield or on it.
If I were to characterize the Kavanaugh interview, I would say ‘earnest’.
I believe he’s sincere. He kept calling for a “fair process.” I know he’s walking a tightrope, but he does need also need to leave aside the assault accusation and go on the attack and accuse the Democrats of subverting our legal process. Can it be done?
Can he describe what a “fair process” would be without it being turned against him as an attack on the women bringing the charges?
I guess the distinction between Thomas and Kavanaugh, besides race and privilege, is the type of offense they were accused of. Thomas was accused of sexually assaulting Hill’s mind, versus the physical sexual assault (including suffocation) that Kavanaugh is accused of.
“The Supreme Court is not worth it … I am here for my integrity.”
What strikes me still today is that Thomas rightly condemned the lynch mob nature of the public and media-circus hearings about Hill’s allegations, and yet the Democrats have continued to use the same tactics over and over again, without any compunction or compassion.
These are the people who want to run your lives, and as Thomas said, no one in America should have to suffer what he endured.
Judge Kavanaugh is not the only one under attack.
The people of America are in the crucible: the dross must be purged, or all the ore will be discarded.
Neo, thanks for reminding me to the fact that ballet and knife fighting are fit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujo65bBRQ4I
Well, duh! War dances are to teach fighting skills.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/are-the-democrats-throwing-ellison-under-the-bus.php
“It isn’t hard to see what could be going on here. The Democrats care much more about Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court than they do about who is Attorney General of Minnesota. If Ellison has become an embarrassment to their smear campaign against Kavanaugh, they will be perfectly willing to throw him under the bus, just as they sacrificed Franken to enhance their chances of defeating Roy Moore in Alabama. ”
* * *
Democrats always look to the long game, and are never averse to eating their own.
I hope they make a good meal of him.
Interesting to see the compare-and-contrast of the party & media treatment of Ellison vs Thomas, which totally vindicates Thomas’s remarks about “uppity blacks” and Democrat attacks.
“What Thomas is doing there, among other things, is taking the Democrats’ cloak of “we are the party of civil rights” rectitude and ripping it away, exposing the corollary “only if you toe our party line; otherwise we will destroy you with every trick in our nasty book.” Now that nearly thirty years have passed since that hearing, we’ve seen that play out time and again.” – Neo
I have long been decrying the group treatment which the Dems are afflicting on Reps: like the older Dem Party KKK used to treat Blacks badly, and dehumanized them with insults; like German Nazis treated Jews badly, and dehumanized with false accusations and insults.
US Dems, like many elite liberals in Europe, are insulting and dehumanizing those who disagree, and treating all individuals of a group as being essentially the same.
The Dems are deranged – they suffer from Democratic Derangement Syndrome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiKFYTFJ_kw
“The Greatest haka EVER?”
Back in my Rugby days we used to style ourselves on the New Zealand All Blacks. Now my girlfriend points and laughs and says what kind of idiot were you playing Rugby into your forties? Now I need a double hip replacement.
deranged,. Now there’s a good word.
Allahpundit at HotAir does some close analysis of the composition of the crucible and the fire that is heating it.
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/09/25/report-eight-republican-senators-currently-undecided-kavanaugh/
3:31 pm on September 25, 2018
“Forty-three Republicans have pledged their support to Kavanaugh. Eight GOPers remain undecided. They are Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine; Bob Corker, R-Tenn.; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.; James Lankford, R-Okla.; Jerry Moran, R-Kan.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Ben Sasse, R-Neb…”
…
“Four of the eight senators named by Pergram (Enzi, Lankford, Moran, and Sasse) are reliably conservative, hail from red states, and are presumably running for reelection. It’s unimaginable under those circumstances that any of them would make bitter enemies of their own base by siding with Democrats against Kavanaugh if it looks like he’s otherwise on track for confirmation. The game comes down to the other four, Collins, Murkowski, Flake, and Corker, the latter two of whom are retiring and free to vote their anti-Trump consciences.
Question: What if the hearing goes badly for Kavanaugh and two of those four declare their opposition, effectively killing the nomination? What does the rest of the GOP caucus do?”
President Trump when asked about the Kavanaugh interview while with Columbian President Duque at the UN had these remarks about Judge Kavanaugh:
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think he’s just a wonderful human being. I mean, I think it’s horrible what the Democrats have done. It’s a con game they’re playing. They’re con — they’re really con artists. They’re trying to convince — you know, they don’t believe it themselves, okay? They know he’s a high-quality person. They don’t believe it. It’s just resist and obstruct.
They’re playing a con game, and they play it very well. They play it, actually, much better than the Republicans. They’re lousy politicians, and they have lousy policy. They don’t know what the hell they’re doing. They want to get rid of ICE. They want to get rid of law enforcement. They don’t want to take care of our military. They want to raise your taxes. But they’re good at one thing — they’re good at one thing: that’s obstruction and resisting and con.
He’s one of the highest quality people. You know, when he said that really what he was focused on was trying to be number one in his class at Yale, to me that was so believable. I understand college very well, and I understand being number one in your class, and I understand a lot of things. When he said that, I understood exactly what — he was so truthful. And I think it came out. I mean, I hope it came out.
But for the Democrats to be trying to make him into something — let’s be nice about it — that he’s not. He’s a high-quality person. He’s a great intellect.
You’re also not seeing him on his footing. This isn’t his footing. He’s never been here before. He’s never had any charges like this. I mean, charges come up from 36 years ago that are totally unsubstantiated.
I mean, you, as watching this, as the President of a great country, Colombia, you must say, “How is this possible?” Thirty-six years ago? Nobody ever knew about it? Nobody ever heard about it? And now a new charge comes up, and she says, “Well, it might not be him.” And there were gaps, and she said she was totally inebriated and she was all messed up. And she doesn’t know it was him, but it might have been him. “Oh, gee, let’s not make him a Supreme Court judge because of that.”
This is a con game being played by the Democrats. Also, take a look at the lawyers. These lawyers are the same lawyers that have been fighting for years. They keep fighting. Take a look at the lawyers. And it’s a shame that you can do this to a person’s life.
And I’ll tell you, maybe even more important, who is going to want to go before the system to be a Supreme Court judge or to be a judge, or to be even a politician? I can tell you that false accusation and false accusations of all types are made against a lot of people. This is a high-quality person.
And I certainly hope — I certainly hope — it would be a horrible insult to our country if this doesn’t happen. And it will be a horrible, horrible thing for future political people, judges, anything you want. It would be a horrible thing. It cannot be allowed to happen.
And the Democrats are playing a con game. C-O-N. A con game. And it’s a shame. And they know it’s a con game. They know he’s high quality. And they wink at each other. They’re winking. They know it’s a con game.
Go ahead.
Q Should the second accuser be allowed to testify on Thursday? Would you welcome that?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I look at the second accuser — the second accuser has nothing. The second accuser doesn’t even know — she thinks, maybe, it could have been him, maybe not. She admits that she was drunk. She admits time lapses. There were time lapses.
This is a person and this is a series of statements that’s going to take one of the most talented, one of the greatest intellects, from a judicial standpoint in our country, going to keep him off the United States Supreme Court.
You know, I said something this morning: He has the chance to be one of the greatest justices ever in the United States Supreme Court. What a shame. And what a shame it is for the so many other people whose world that isn’t. That’s not his world, and it’s not their world.
These are legitimate people. They’re not in the world of con, and the world of obstruct, and the world of resist. He never thought this was even a possibility. He’s startled. He can’t believe this is happening.
His wife is devastated. His children are devastated. I don’t mean they’re, like, “Oh, gee. I’m a little unhappy.” They’re devastated. And it’s because these Democrats — and they know. They know. When I see Schumer, who never even saw this woman, “I believe her 100 percent,” and I see these other senators that I deal with on a daily basis — I know them better than they know themselves — it’s just a game for them. But it’s a very dangerous game for our country.
“they have conjured up forces of rage and destruction that they may have to placate by sacrificing Brett Kavanaugh further, and putting him through a few more crucibles.”
I very much doubt that other than a very few, those on the Left have any real grasp of the depth of the cumulative rage they have been conjuring up over the past 10 years on the right. They are playing with fire and will not stop, in fact their ‘arsonist’ activities are increasing precipitously.
As they progressively “cut down all the laws” and customary civilities, they are removing the very protections and restraints that we on the right have desperately clung to, not just for our protection but for theirs as well. Hoping against hope that they would come to their senses. But fanatics never learn, being congenitally incapable of self-reflection.
Totalitarian ideologies are inherently incapable of living to let live. Fanaticism is arguably, the human manifestation of a cancerous rabies and the only cure for a rabid dog is to put it down. When faced with a malignant cancer, the only choice may be to either cut it out of the body or suffer the death of the host.
My opinion of Judge Kavanaugh was not enhanced by his interview. I believe he answered truthfully, but he did not show the controlled masculine rage that Thomas exhibited. And it’s probably because his life has been too easy. He is doing his best, but down deep he’s not a lion-hearted male. (Not a hint of toxic masculinity! Which may be to his credit with younger generations. Not for my age group.) Fortunately, Trump is behind him and not wavering. If Trump showed even a jot or tittle of hesitation, Judge Kavanaugh wouldn’t be able to weather the storm. Hang in there and fight the good fight Judge. You have everything to lose if you don’t.
A few short years ago (even with the precedents of Bork & Thomas & others), I would not credit speculations such as these; now, I totally agree with them.
https://www.redstate.com/diary/Martin_A_Knight/2018/09/25/thursday-democrats-will-try-trick-kavanaugh-testifying-first./
(quoting Erick Erickson)
“This whole thing really is predictable
If I had to guess, here’s what I think will happen on Thursday.
Kavanaugh will show up and Ford won’t. The Democrats, feeling charitable, will offer to let Kavanaugh testify and get his side of the story told so he can clear his name.
Both sides will grill him and the Democrats will ask him a series of weirdly specific questions.
Once he is done, Christine Blasey Ford, her lawyers, and a bunch of progressive activists will storm the room and demand that Ford now be heard. Democrats will demand she be heard. The Republicans will cave.
She’ll then give testimony designed to cast doubt on Kavanaugh based on the weirdly specific questions the Democrats asked.”
Erickson is also making some good points on Twitter:
“One of the numerous reasons I don’t believe Christine Blasey Ford is because she and her attorney totally invested in the Democrat talking point that she couldn’t get a fair hearing with all those white male Republicans and now insists only they ask her questions.”
“To review, we started with an attempted rape allegation, moved to “he exposed himself,” and now we’re at he drank in college. The only pattern of conduct we’re seeing is one of desperation by the Democrats.”
“We went from progressives attacking President Trump for not drinking in 2016 to attacking Brett Kavanaugh for drinking.”
Brian E:
Wow, that’s quite a quote from Trump. It’s not only clear and actually quite eloquent without being highfalutin, but it shows what has always been apparent with him: his canny shrewdness about people. He gets how people operate, because he’s lived in the world of operators his whole life.
https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/09/25/new-york-times-investigates-kavanaughs-high-school-yearbook-hides-ax-source-grind/
“The very fact that this is being covered rather than Christine Ford’s fanciful tale shows that the New York Times realizes just how weak her story is and they are flailing about trying to find something, anything, to hurt Kavanaugh. It is almost like they are crying out, “Look at us. We can beclown ourselves just like the New Yorker.””
HotAir sources the initial reporting on Yearbookgate to Mollie Hemingway,
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/new-york-times-hid-multiple-key-facts-in-kavanaugh-yearbook-hit/#.W6orkpO7Atc.twitter
which was all based on this story
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html
and adds some editorializing.
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/09/25/nyt-stealth-edit-ramirez-article-downplay-dem-activist-sources/
“Mollie’s right to flag this as a questionable practice, especially given the toxically politicized this confirmation process has become.
However, this only matters if one believes that this line of reporting means a damned thing in the first place. The New York Times would have us believe that a high-school yearbook entry perhaps referencing teenage sexual obsession (other alums deny that interpretation) has any bearing at all on the fitness of a man for public service 36 years after the fact. The Times spent 1600 words analyzing this as somehow relevant information, as though no time at all had passed since 1982 and Kavanaugh had not demonstrated maturity, professionalism, and courtesy throughout his adult career in the law.
The shame involved here isn’t that the Times removed the name of a source whose presence might call into questions the motives of those pushing the “Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook makes him unfit” narrative. It’s that the Times hasn’t deleted the entire article yet. It’s a shameful exercise, setting up a standard for character that’s not only impossible to meet but so clearly wrong as to be painfully obvious outside the editorial halls of the Paper of Record. Who among us remains exactly as mature as they were at 17? Do we even know anyone who hasn’t grown since that time with age and experience? Good Lord, literally no one would qualify for public service under this standard.
Can we get back to discussing Kavanaugh’s work on the bench now? Please?”
Hemingway:
“The last line of the article is “[Dolphin] and a second friend of Ms. Dolphin’s denied that there was any sexual contact between Ms. Dolphin and Judge Kavanaugh or anyone else in his circle.” A similar denial was the first line of a statement to the New York Times from some of the men mentioned in the article, but it was not printed. It began, “None of us has ever taken part in any kind of verbal conduct or physical actions described by the Times and never bragged about or suggested any such thing.”
The Times, which allowed anonymous sources to make the claim of sexual bragging that forms the basis of the story, would not allow anonymous sources to dispute that claim or defend the group of classmates.”
From the news stories I’ve read over the years, women who falsely accuse a man of rape are practically never punished and, when they are, it’s usually a slap on the wrist.
However, there is a story out today, about a former military officer, an Army Colonel, who won a $8.4 million dollar verdict against a women who accused him of rape some years ago, and derailed his military career.
The problem with these large monetary penalties is that those against whom the penalty is levied very rarely have the money to pay, or if the penalty is somewhat achievable, they disappear, or they deliberately take jobs that pay so little that they could never pay off the penalty.
But, the damage done by such an such an accusation, once lodged, can never fully be remedied; the accused’s reputation completely repaired, relatives, friends, and colleagues back in place and relations with them fully restored, career and life back on track, etc.
The money is almost irrelevant, since it can’t really restore the reputation, relationships, and prospects that were destroyed.
It just can’t be done.
For this reason, the penalty for trying to destroy someone’s life by a false allegation of rape should carry, as the primary penalty, many years in jail, not a likely un-collectible financial penalty.
Neo,
I was also impressed with President Trump’s response.
He’s dealt with these people all his life and he’s not afraid to call them out for their hypocrisy.
He’s a privileged white guy who went to the finest schools and according to all previous reports has played by all the rules. But for that reason, it is possible that (although he’s been a federal judge) this is the first real crucible that he’s been through.
Yeah, he’s the privileged white guy. Everything has been just sooooooooo easy for him. He’s slid through life like a bobsled down an iced run. He’s never faced serious troubles, no real crucibles for this guy. Only blacks, minorities and women face real crucibles. [That’s heavy sarcasm for those who didn’t notice.]
Here’s a news flash for those who haven’t noticed: being a Christian white guy hasn’t exactly been a huge advantage for at least the last 30 years. How many steps up the ladder has the system tried to push Kavanaugh down and insert an affirmative-action candidate in his place? As with university admissions, how many times has Kavanaugh had to be 25% better just to be considered adequate?
The very fact that Thomas was black and was able to shut everyone up with an accusation of “high-tech lynching” was a big advantage that Kavanaugh does NOT have. Nobody even has to pretend to give a shit about the indignities suffered by the white guy — or his achievements. F*ck-em, he’s just a privileged white guy. High time he got to feel the disrespect the rest of us do.
The real challenge for Kavanaugh is not whether he’s struggled through any crucibles. He has. The real challenge for him is whether anyone cares what he has to say about his own “high-tech lynching” or whether he’s just considered dispensable. Nobody’s going to be called racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc if Kavanaugh gets screwed. Tough luck, man.
Question: What if the hearing goes badly for Kavanaugh and two of those four declare their opposition, effectively killing the nomination? What does the rest of the GOP caucus do?”
Corker is 66 and likely has adequate retirement income lined up, nothing you can do about him. Murkowski isn’t up until 2022, when she’ll be 64 years old. If she’s bound and determined, not much you can do. Since she’s been successfully primaried before (but managed to prevail in a write-in campaign), she may be disinclined to ignore the base, especially because Flake is retiring because he could not even raise funds to contest a primary, much less prevail in one. In re Collins, she’ll be 68 in 2020 when she’s up for re-election. The threat to her will depend on her future plans. If she’s retiring anyway, cannot touch her. As for Flake, he’s 55 and has nothing to fall back on professionally. He might be able to land a position lobbying, but there’s a special class of quondam member of Congress who cannot make a living at that. Remember Gary Condit? Like Flake, he had nothing to fall back on and unlike other members, he could not build a lobbying career. He ended up trying to run a Baskin & Robbins franchise in Arizona. Not successfully, either. So, McConnell and other sachems need to make clear to lobbying firms in Washington that the doors will be closed to Jeff Flake under certain contingencies, and it needs to be made clear to Flake that he stops jerking everyone around or he’ll be selling ice cream to people until his pension and Social Security are ready to pay – in about 11 years.
Even for Dems, some people don’t get to ride on the band-wagon.
I suspect he is coming from outside the carefully scripted group around Feinstein and Ford, and no one trusts a loose cannon.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/24/senate-democrats-deborah-ramirez-avenatti-838124
“While most Democrats are taking Ramirez’s allegation seriously — if not to the extent they’re publicly backing Ford — they’re stopping far short of giving the same treatment to a third, undisclosed woman linked to the nominee and represented by celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti.
Avenatti has tweeted that his client is a “woman with credible information” concerning “the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs” by Kavanaugh and his longtime friend Mark Judge, whom Ford has identified as the third person in the room during the alleged assault against her. But Democratic senators are treading lightly on the claims from Avenatti, who also represents Trump accuser Stormy Daniels and is weighing a presidential run.”
The modern Democratic Party has become the party of Evil.
I’ve said it before, and say it again.
Moral relativism and multi-culti, laced with “concern” about the so-called rights of sexual deviants and the sexually confused, pushing Islam and condemning Christianity, making people of color a superior class, boosting totalitarianism, that is the Democrats today. They want the USA to become Liberia or northern Nigeria.
They are Evil.
If you needed any more evidence that Democrats’ principled stands depend entirely on politics, here is this item. However, I do confess to being confused as to why Harris would want to protect the RC church. I thought religion was a prime target of the Left.
https://www.redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2018/09/25/kamala-harris-champions-sexual-abuse-survivors-unless-theyre-victims-catholic-priests/
“SF Weekly reporters, among others, requested a copy of the DA’s files on Catholic clergy sexual abuse. For five long years, despite her predecessor saying there was no reason to withhold the documents, Kamala’s office told reporters to pound sand. In 2010, SF Weekly filed a Public Records Act request to compel her to release the documents. A deputy DA replied that “Harris’ investigative files were not subject to California’s government transparency laws.”
Say what? The reporter, Matt Smith, conferred with legal counsel and was told that the DA’s office could release the files if they wanted to. Other Bay Area District Attorneys made their files public, but Kamala’s office never did.
…
But, now that the cases were resolved, Hallinan told reporters he was of the opinion that Kamala should release the documents. Victims’ names could and should be redacted, but the public, especially members of the Catholic Church, have the right to know who the pedophiles were and what their leaders did (or didn’t do) to solve the problem.
Kamala Harris now has the gall to bully Brett Kavanaugh about producing every memo he ever wrote, and to pose as a person who’s only interested in protecting people from sexual predators.
Put a sock in it.”
* * *
In these days of being fired or mobbed for inadvertently using an idiom that used to be uncontroversial but is now a dog-whistle for something deplorable, I looked up the final phrase.
Phew.
I think we’re okay here, unless there is a victim’s group for oppressed audio playback devices.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=put%20a%20sock%20in%20it
“Originally meant “Turn the Volume down.”
In the days before Electricity* there was no Volume Control on a record player (Gramophone) so the only way to reduce the volume down was to “Put a sock” (Or other item) in the speaker to muffle it.”
*Must have been the early turn-crank model.
The Other Gary:
I made it very clear that I know little about Kavanaugh’s actual life and what crucibles he has faced, and that I hope there have been enough of them to help him through this. I also think it’s clear that “privileged white guy” is a reference to the way the left paints him. But it is also a fact that Thomas had clearly, from his known personal history, faced a lot of enormous challenges in his life that were obvious and that I believe were reflected in the outrage and dignity he expressed during that speech. He also had the advantage of being able to refer to being black, and the terrible history of persecution against black people, up to and including lynching. Kavanaugh has no such options.
He’s a privileged white guy who went to the finest schools and according to all previous reports has played by all the rules. But for that reason, it is possible that (although he’s been a federal judge) this is the first real crucible that he’s been through.
He had an affluent upbringing to be sure. His father and his mother were well-connected for certain purposes. I don’t think the lobbyist for the toiletries industry or a local prosecutor in Maryland has the kind of pull that gets you into Yale, that gets you into Yale Law School, or lands you three clerkships with federal judges. However, if you can find the tracks that show that his father was able to get him a hearing by working the phones, you can certainly lay out the case for us.
He didn’t get through Yale because papa Kavanaugh’s phone calls to Congressman Fatbutt or to the chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission get returned. He didn’t get through Yale Law School for those reasons, either. He did not pass the bar exam for those reasons, either. It’s a reasonable inference that he did not have to hold down a job during the academic year, not because he’s privileged, but because he’s an only child and his mother and father were well paid and wanted to run it that way, so he did have that advantage.
One thing he did know how to do was to make and leverage connections, but he didn’t do anything notably shady in developing and using those kind of people skills. And compare his accomplishments with anyone appointed to the Court between 1912 and 1982.
One thing you can also do is compare his occupational trajectory with a random sample of 30 youths who attended Georgetown Prep between 1977 and 1985. Good starts aren’t guarantees.
I am encouraged by McConnell’s tough stance in defence of BK. Bring back Palin’s in your face straight shooter attitude. Do it before there is a hot war of ideas.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/feelings-dont-care-about-your-facts/
BY JIM TREACHER SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
“My fellow Americans: I feel like I need to say this.
A lot of you are angry. You’re concerned about what’s going on right now, and you’re worried about the future. You’re disgusted by the actions of your political opponents, and you feel hope and anticipation whenever there’s the slightest possibility that their goals will be thwarted. You’re filled with dread when they’re winning, and you’re lifted into paroxysms of joyous schadenfreude when they fail.
Good news: Those feelings are all you need! If there was ever a time in American history when it was worthwhile to pay attention to facts and evidence, those days are over. Thanks to the cutting-edge technology of the early 21st century, choosing to go with your gut has never been easier or more effective. Name the outrage, and you’re just a click away from the corresponding mob.”
What sort of responsibility does a journalist or a newspaper have to his readers, or to his history — or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? It hardly ever happens because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist usually always gets away with it. …
Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors, and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be rectified; they will stay on in the readers’ memories. How many hasty, immature, superficial, and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification. The press can both simulate public opinion and miseducate it. Thus, we may see terrorists described as heroes, or secret matters pertaining to one’s nation’s defense publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: “Everyone is entitled to know everything.” But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era. People also have the right not to know and it’s a much more valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk…. Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the time and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press.
—– that was from Solzhenitsyn at Harvard in 1978
“…the controlled masculine rage that Thomas exhibited”
I don’t believe unconrolled masculine rage is warranted. Actually, I believe that is the job of women. we live in a community. Women make us into gentlemen.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/ronan-farrow-senate-democrats-actively-came-looking-for-new-kavanaugh-accusation/
BY MATT MARGOLIS SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
“Check out what Ronan Farrow said on Good Morning America earlier today:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Why did [Deborah Ramirez] come forward?
FARROW: She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim. She did not flag this. This came to the attention of people on the Hill independently, and it has cornered her into an awkward position. She said, point-blank, I don’t want to ruin anyone’s life, but she feels this is a serious claim. She considers her own memories credible and she felt it was important to tell her own story before others did for her.
Got that? Democrats sought her out. Democrats were obviously free to investigate, but according to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Democrats withheld this info from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
…
So, let’s connect the dots. Senate Democrats, clearly realizing that Christine Blasey Ford’s claims weren’t credible, sought to find a second accuser. They found Deborah Ramirez, who wasn’t sure that the incident she “remembers” actually involved Kavanaugh. After six days of “carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney,” she says, “Yes, it was Kavanaugh.” Are you buying this?
As I previously reported, Deborah Ramirez’s allegations were already weaker than Christine Blasey Ford’s. These new details make it increasingly obvious that this entire thing was a set-up by Senate Democrats who knew Ford’s claim wasn’t holding up, especially after all of Ford’s witnesses denied her claim.”
So Ms (Recovered Memory) Ramirez isn’t willing to testify before the committee.
Astounding, Charlie Brown.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/gop-lawmaker-second-kavanaugh-accuser-refusing-to-talk-to-congress
I’m not a constituent. What the hell are you doing wrong up in Maine and Alaska? Have none of your Senators raised sons? No mother can do their jobs?
On the one hand all the daughters are victims. On the other, all the boys are rapists.
Good job, girls.
It’s all about believing victims.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-yorker-journalist-further-demonstrates-why-you-should-ignore-its-reporting-on-second-kavanaugh-accuser
I’m not a constituent. What the hell are you doing wrong up in Maine and Alaska? Have none of your Senators raised sons? No mother can do their jobs?
Collins is childless. Murkowski has sons. Flake has a daughter and four sons. Corker has just daughters.
Collins and Murkowski have always been difficult for party whips. What’s grossly amusing about the other two is that the candidate Jeb Bush might have nominated is sent by the President and they’re still playing games.
Ok. but how can they trust me to defend the country?
Excellent essay: one of your best.
Great discussion as well. Thanks also for the to-the-point Trump quote.
Primary the RINOs? If I recall correctly, that did not work so well when the Tea Party tried it. The GOPe refused to support or cooperate with the newbies, so they mostly went down to defeat.
The accusations against Kavanaugh are entirely made up of slanders and hearsay. Of course, that is the content of virtually all Dem assertions against Packs.
Perhaps, if the cats could be herded together, Packs should resolve that, when there is next a President from the Jackass party no Pack senator will vote to confirm any, repeat any, nominees that Pres puts forward. If the Packs have control of the Senate, nobody gets confirmed for anything. Make it plain to the Dems that, until they behave in a civilized manner, they cannot govern. After all, they are trying to prevent the Packs from governing, and it’s not like the GOP has been slandering Dem nominees.
For anyone interested in the transcript of the Thomas statement:
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/PDFFiles/Clarence%20Thomas%20-%20Judiciary%20Committee%20Statement.pdf
Primary the RINOs? If I recall correctly, that did not work so well when the Tea Party tried it. The GOPe refused to support or cooperate with the newbies, so they mostly went down to defeat.
1. There are only a scatter of Republican members of Congress who are off the reservation more than about 20% of the time. There are none whose voting records resemble the median of the Democratic caucus more than they do the median of the Republican caucus. In the Senate, Susan Collins is about half-way between the medians.
2. The RINO discourse is inane. John McCain, who was the Republican presidential nominee, has been so described. When you’re the Republican presidential nomineee, you define what an authentic Republican is, not some combox blowhard. In Congress, McCain voted with the American Conservative Union 77% of the time between 1994 and his death.
3. It’s legitimate to primary people you disagree with on dealbreaker issues, or people verbally contemptuous of the base, or people who throw a spanner into the works at inopportune times. That’s somewhat different than just having policy disagreements with the caucus. John Hoeven is off the reservation a great deal, but he isn’t creating trouble in re Kavanaugh and I don’t think you can find an array of cornhusker kickbacks enacted just to please him.
4. No clue who you fancy ‘went down to defeat’. Roughly 1/3 of the Republican House caucus are militants. The salient problem is that an array of people were elected as militant or elected under a certain understanding, then shivved their own constituency. Kelly Ayotte was one of the more egregious examples of that. So was Renee Elmers.
5. The problem the Republicans have had is that the Senate is closely divided, it’s parliamentary rules are inane, AM McConnell bollixed an opportunity to enact better parliamentary rules, and key people in gatekeeper positions in both caucuses give priority to tossing bon bons at business lobbies (see the Export-Import Bank) and otherwise doing what their donors tell them to do. Oh, and there’s the hardy perennial, the tax cut enacted without corresponding spending cuts. The Republican leadership just stinks. The rank-and-file in the Republican caucuses are willing to put up with these stinkers.
It was not to protect the Church. It was because it might reveal that 80 percent of the abuse of youth was perpetrated by homosexuals focusing on pubescent males; homosexuals who had infested the priesthood through the active connivance of homosexual prelates already in place. [The Church’s misguided assumption in the 1970’s that celibacy is celibacy, no matter what the “orientation”, and that homosexual clergy were just as likely to take their vows as seriously as heterosexual priests was another factor in corrupting the ranks]
To address the issue while trying to paper over the actual break down of the categories, would have been counter productive from a “progressive” point of view.