↓
 
Home » Prediction for tomorrow’s hearing

Prediction for tomorrow’s hearing

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t think one single Senate vote depends on how Ford and Kavanaugh perform on Thursday, or even whether or not she shows up. The voting will go entirely according to politics and party, and the few possible swing votes will vote on calculations of self-interest.

Ford is a MacGuffin at this point, as are the others. She has served her purpose for the left even before she testifies.

Comments

Prediction for tomorrow’s hearing — 52 Comments

  1. That’s how I see it too.

    I now think it likely that Ford will testify. Simply because if she doesn’t show up, protesting that her lawyers advise her that the Republicans haven’t agreed to the conditions necessary to a fair hearing… there’s too great a chance that it will backfire on the democrats. Being perceived as a lack of confidence in her accusation.

    She doesn’t have to prove it happened. He can’t prove he didn’t do it. It’s a classic she said, he said. So her comportment will be critical. The other determinative factor will be how probing are the questions asked by the sex crime prosecutor that the Republicans are bring in. There are huge gaps in her recounting of what happened and multiple contradictions in the prior details she has offered. If the prosecutor thoroughly probes those areas, it will expose them and likely fluster Ford, harming her credibility and pulling away the political cover from the wavering Senators. If the prosecutor throws her softball questions, then we’ll know that the Left either got to her or that she’s a liberal democrat. It really all comes down to how well she does her job. Reportedly, she’s one of the best in the country.

  3. This whole poo-flinging exercise has no relevance to the voting by the Committee or the full Senate. None. Zero Zip Zilch Nada.

    The Boss says, “She has served her purpose for the left even before she testifies.” Absolutely true.

    She gave the media something to scream about & to further exacerbate the cultural divide in this country. She gave the next two liars cover fire while they rehearsed their BS tales of woe. AND she gave the fake Rs a pretense for preening their cool kid credentials. She could die in her sleep tonight & it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.

    BUT…any Rs out there in cuckRINO-land (Collins, Flake, Murkowski et al) you’ve been warned…they’ve shown you who they are…Do not re-elect those who will gladly sell the duly elected President, an honourable man like Judge Kavanaugh & this country down the river just to be seen as one of the “in” crowd.

    I pray this bites the Ds square in the butt…really I do. I’ve said it before…Until now I didn’t have a dog in the Roe v Wade fight. BUT NOW…once Kavanaugh is seated I hope a case gets to the Supremes to test it. I would love to see the heads exploding if it got overturned and sent back to the states.

    And…old RBG…I’d be ok to watch her funeral on TV here real soon so President Trump can appoint another conservative jurist.

  4. I think it is 95 to 5 that she does not show up. I expect a nasty letter from her lawyers accusing the committee of bullying and all the other offenses of the feminists.

  5. Can someone explain to me why The Anita hill fresco didn’t help bush senior’s re-election besides ross perot playing Jamie Lannister the king slayer?

  6. However, if Ford doesn’t show up … I think that’s a big black-eye for the Dems, enough to kill the anti-Kavanaugh protest.

  8. Now is a great time trump restarts the space program, dump all the democrats on mars and destroy the ships.

  10. Sticking with my predictions on the post from earlier today:

    I think the Gang of Four-plus-Four would all have voted to confirm on the original date, because they didn’t see any cover for voting no.
    Feinstein hoped to introduce that reason with the Ford letter, and, had everything stopped right there, I think the Dems would all have gone to NO, as would some or all of the Reps.

    With the flakiness (pun intended) of the denunciations now blindingly apparent, I can’t predict what they will do.

    As Neo said, they will calculate their own individual self-interest according to the political state of their States — I just don’t know for sure what that is for each of them, although there are plenty of speculations flying around.

  13. The NEA President issued a statement.
    http://lilysblackboard.org/2018/09/as-the-kavanaugh-nomination-proceeds-what-messages-are-our-students-getting/

    My guess is we will see a statement issued by NASA, OSHA, DOJ, all state attorneys general (Democrat ones), PBS, NORAD, the EU, the Pope, and we will discover that Kavanaugh colluded with the Boston Catholic church priests to …. do something.

    In short, it will be a circus and no points will be made as the place will be shutdown from either bomb threats or protestors.

    It will not move most liberals to dislike their leaders either.

  14. I promise I wrote this (on the polygraph thread) before reading Steven Hayward’s post at PowerLine. Honest.

    “AesopFan on September 26, 2018 at 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm said:
    I was intrigued by Avenatti’s responses to some of the new information about his client. It’s an Onion-esque parody of the stances of the Democrats in the Senate.
    Are we sure Avenatti isn’t a troll being paid by Trump supporters?”

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/two-questions.php

    “2. Are we sure Michael Avenatti isn’t a Trump plant inside the other team’s camp? I’m having trouble explaining him in any other rational way.”

  17. I remember learning of a story as a child about a man confessing to crime because he is not a reformed man and doesn’t want to see an innocent man getting punished in his stead. I has been trying to find the name of the story but couldn’t

  18. More knowledge factors that I have seen for the first time today. Apparently it is in the New Yorker story (which I haven’t read, but is quoted in the link), but no one I’ve been reading has high-lighted it until now.

    https://hotair.com/archives/2018/09/26/wapo-mark-judges-former-girlfriend-wants-chat-fbi-senate-judiciary/

    “Was the second source Julie Swetnick? If not, that’s two other people who at least heard about drunken attempts at sex, although neither of these descriptions come close to the “gang bang ring” that Swetnick and her attorney Michael Avenatti allege. They also don’t include Brett Kavanaugh, and in fact there is no indication in either passage that Kavanaugh attended the parties described. However, it certainly paints a picture of wretched excess among the Georgetown Prep crowd in which very bad misunderstandings could easily transform into lifelong traumas.

    That could be very well what Rasor wants to say to the FBI. The problem with her testimony, however, is that Rasor wasn’t present for any of it. She wants to talk about what Mark Judge told her later about the party atmosphere, which may well have some political ramifications but would have no legal weight whatsoever, at least when it comes to Kavanaugh.”

  19. Doesn’t this kind of undercut the point about not questioning him until after Ford testifies? Or are these just the analog to opening statements by opposing counsel?
    Only they are delivered by the principals, since this isn’t a trial.

    (BTW, I hate this habit of publishing speeches before they are delivered; it takes all of the suspense out of watching the show, kind of like telling you who won the Derby before the race is run.)

    https://hotair.com/archives/2018/09/26/judiciary-committee-releases-kavanaughs-prepared-testimony/

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2018/09/26/breaking-christine-blasey-ford-releases-prepared-testimony-before-thursdays-hearing-n2522972

  20. Baklava on September 27, 2018 at 12:12 am at 12:12 am said:
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/bombshell-man-tells-judiciary-committee-he-did-it-not-kavanaugh/

    * * *
    Same story is posted at PowerLine.
    Commenter there:
    JJHLH • an hour ago
    So Ed Whelan was right? That would be a fitting conclusion to this Twilight Zone episode.

    * * *
    AesopFan on September 26, 2018 at 11:52 pm at 11:52 pm said:
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/a-case-of-mistaken-identity-2.php

    “I am Kavanaugh!” say 2 other men.

    Booker’s Spartacus moment comes full circle.

    (It’s become a popular meme in the last few hours.)

  21. Another data point.
    In a civilized country, these would all have been introduced at a trial 36 years ago.
    And an FBI investigation might or might not have turned up most of these cascading stories, but it wouldn’t do it nearly as quickly.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/exclusive-woman-who-partied-with-georgetown-prep-football-team-disputes-gang-rape-allegations/

    “Miller played lacrosse for Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School and provided a photo of her letter jacket to PJ Media to verify her attendance at the school.

    Miller says she went to a lot of parties with people from various local schools, but not the school Julie Swetnick attended. “I knew people from public and private schools and up and down the age groups because I’ve so many siblings. I knew rich and poor, conservative and liberal, some of the best minds across all industries and the simple.”

    Despite this, Miller says she never saw “or met” “Julie Swetnick,” and casts doubt that Swetnick, who graduated from Gaithersburg High School in Gaithersburg, Md., would have been at a party with Georgetown Prep students, since their social circles didn’t mix with the private schools. “Her witness would have to be inside the private school usuals. You can’t just go to a party of someone you don’t know, unless she had a friend inside the group,” she added.

    “There is a lightning-fast information highway through all high schools,” Miller explained. “This would have come out.” She later described it as “a massive pipeline of gossip.”

    As previously mentioned, Miller did not know Brett Kavanaugh personally, but their social circles overlapped. Miller went to Congressional Country Club, where her father was a member and Brett Kavanaugh’s calendar showed he played golf at in 1982. “

  22. Neo, that was a down-right scary post from the past.

    https://www.thenewneo.com/2009/10/03/the-willingness-to-believe-that-two-plus-two-makes-five/

    I’ll trade you one from Sarah Hoyt that seems relevant as well.

    https://accordingtohoyt.com/2018/09/25/the-myth-that-kills-a-blast-from-the-past-from-october-2012/

    “But men are not some aliens dropped on the Earth from afar – they’re our fathers, brothers, sons and husbands. They’re an integral part of what makes humans humans. They’re not a monolithic group, just like women aren’t, but statistically they’re better abstract-and-visual thinkers and the people who are more likely to think outside the box, just like statistically we’re the socially-oriented people, more detail-specialized and better at cooperating.

    Society – a civilized society – needs both to survive and go forward.

    But women have been sold on males-as-the-boogeyman and therefore they see evil intention and coordination and conspiracy behind males’ being people. Meet one abusive male, and you’ll go through life convinced that all men are like that. Does anyone do the same when meeting an abusive woman? I don’t know about you, but I’ve had bosses from hell in both genders. So, why is only one accused of being “oppressive”?

    Because it’s the myth. And it’s a myth the power-hungry people who took charge of the feminist movement (one that initially only wanted equality under the law) are happy to perpetuate. It’s a myth every college, every entertainment gatekeeper cherishes.

    It’s a poisonous myth. It’s also a stupid one. …

    I’ve watched the rise of this myth with slack-jawed amazement. HOW can you even think that. Guys, my men – and I live with three of them, husband and two sons – couldn’t “conspire” to keep chocolate hidden from me (they’ve tried.) And they’re all three of them brighter than the average bear. WHY would you think men in general would want to conspire to keep you in submission? Most modern guys wouldn’t know what to do with a truly submissive woman.

    …
    I have a friend who believes that it’s a pendulum. Men had the upper hand, now women do, then it will swing back.

    Unless science has some sort of pendulum too, I don’t see where she’s right.

    What I see is women who were freed by tech advances and who THINK they were freed by marching shoulder to shoulder and taking permanent offense. These women live in a state of paranoia, dreaming up male privilege that is invisible to anyone but them, and taking offense at ever more ridiculous things – even things that have nothing to do with gender – because they’re so terrified of men taking the upper hand again.

    …So… carry on. Dance around in your little fabric vaginas. Think that all men are out to get you. Refuse to have children, because some of them might be male. And scream, scream, scream about made-up outrage.

    That’s the way to bring civilization down and destroy the technological advances that brought us equality. If that’s what you want, DO carry on.

    Apres nous, le deluge.”

  23. BREAKING (because I am staying up way too late)*

    https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/man-apologizes-for-making-false-allegation-against-kavanaugh/
    September 26, 2018 | 11:57pm
    “A man apologized on Twitter for making a false accusation to his Senator about Brett Kavanaugh, in which he claimed the Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted his friend on a boat in Rhode Island.

    The man, whose name was redacted in documents from the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday night that he made a “mistake” when he said that Kavanaugh attacked his friend in 1985.

    Catalan’s Twitter account was identified in Senate documents, and he quickly issued the apology after news of his claims went public.”

    *
    https://xkcd.com/386/

  25. Well, this one talks about data points, but it’s kind of ambiguous about the conclusion (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
    (Market Watch (??))

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-brett-kavanaughs-denials-say-about-his-moral-reasoning-2018-09-26?link=TD_nypost_articles.7c7e0f416376f79f&utm_source=nypost_articles.7c7e0f416376f79f&utm_campaign=circular&utm_medium=MARKETWATCH

    Opinion: What Brett Kavanaugh’s denials say about his moral judgment
    Published: Sept 26, 2018 5:48 p.m. ET

    “For some, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s initial response to claims of sexual assault color the way they are considering the fairness of the nomination process. If his response had been more neutral, balancing his own defense with his impact on others, would that change how people think about the outcome? What makes a denial ethical?

    [how about: what makes a denial true or false?]

    Moral judgment is developmental, meaning that we mature in our ability to reason ethically over our lifetimes. There are various models to capture this development, and some differentiate, interestingly, along gender lines.
    …
    [cites Kohlburg’s six levels as a masculine perspective, and Gilligan’s three as a feminine model]
    …
    Ideally, people being tapped to sit on the Supreme Court have arrived at the highest order of moral development in one of these models. Using Kohlberg, one might expect a denial of someone with a highly formed conscience to defend himself by acknowledging that there are interests other than his own that should be served in this nomination process and that all should be considered impartially.

    It might sound more like the denial provided by Senator Al Franken when faced with his own #MeToo allegations: “I don’t remember it that way, I didn’t intend to hurt someone, but if I hurt someone, I am deeply sorry.” This acknowledges and allows for respect of a different perspective and a willingness to consider interests beyond one’s own.

    Using Gilligan’s model, balancing care for oneself with minimizing harm to others as the highest order of moral maturity, would arrive at a very similar sounding denial. Though one perspective focuses on justice and the other incorporates compassion, the defense has a common cadence: “I don’t think I did this. I am sorry if I did, or even if I didn’t, I am sorry someone else has been harmed.”

    Both would also contribute to a logical next step: let’s find out what happened to the degree that we can. Science backs this up: A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley reveals that people tend to use more recent data in making decisions rather than a more complete set of observations amassed over time. A more-thorough investigation contributes more data.

    [the trial by internet is amassing a vast amount of data points, some of are debunked almost as fast as they are published, and some of which seem to have staying power]

    Much attention is being focused on what is a fair process for Supreme Court nominees to be vetted. That is a good question and one I have also considered.

    A more salient question might be: What are the most important qualities of a Supreme Court justice? Achieving the highest order of moral development seems significant. That can be a hard element to calibrate in many nomination processes. But the way a nominee denies an accusation gives us another, highly relevant, data point.”

    * * *
    How about the quality of understanding the law and applying the Constitution?
    Seems much more salient to me than the judge’s personal ethical moral development, if that development leads him to misinterpret the law and ignore the Constitution.

  26. https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-double-standard-for-high-profile-sexual-misconduct-accusations/

    “But if the foes of Kavanaugh are determined to implement a new standard — that the accusation itself is sufficient evidence of guilt — then that new standard will be implemented for figures in both parties, whether they realize it or not.

    If you believe that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Keith Ellison, Al Franken, and Bobby Scott are all falsely accused, while Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Donald Trump, Blake Fahrenthold, Roy Moore, and Eric Greitens are all guilty as sin — or vice versa! — you’re part of the problem.”

  27. Déjà vu* all over again** but I liked the Wikipedia*** analogy.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/cognitive-science-false-memories-more-common-than-you-think/

    “Though Dr. Loftus’s findings have been unpopular among some, the first case she investigated convinced her of the importance of her work. In the 1980s, Steve Titus was falsely accused of rape. Plain and simple: The accusation was the result of a misidentification. The victim had first picked him out of lineup, saying, “That one’s the closest,” meaning that she thought he most closely resembled the attacker. Later in the witness box, she stated, “I’m absolutely positive that’s the man.” Titus was sent to prison but then released, with the help of an investigative reporter who found the real rapist. The journalist won the Pulitzer prize. But Titus lost everything: his job, his fiancée, his savings. He died of a stress-related heart attack shortly after, at age 35.

    It’s a tragic story and — other than the real rapist — one with no villains. It’s why Dr. Loftus believes that jurors should be made aware of the function of “false memory” when listening to witness testimony. She explains that memory functions “like a Wikipedia page” that one can go back and edit, as others can, too.”
    * * *

    * It should really be déjà vécu: “Déjà vu is a feeling of familiarity and déjà vécu (the feeling of having “already lived through” something) is a feeling of recollection.” — Wikipedia (***see how that all works together?) — the continual chasing of stories through the internet rabbit warren is very like “already living through the same story” and so they become “familiar” very quickly.
    **
    https://www.thenewneo.com/2018/09/18/memory-and-witnesses-victims/

  28. AesopFan@11:45,

    Flake has never been in doubt, as to how he’ll vote. In addition to his basic dishonesty in pretending to be a supporter of the Tea Party and his hatred for Trump, his future job prospects are far better on the left. Perhaps a “moderate Republican” commentator gig on CNN awaits. What should give pause is that Flake and Pence are the best of friends.

  30. Baklava – comment from your link.
    puhiawa | September 27, 2018 at 1:58 am
    I don’t know how Kav had time for this with his rape houses and cocaine shipping operation.

    * * *
    So far, Judge Kavanaugh is accused of assaulting more women than most young men his age even know.

  32. Geoffrey Britain on September 27, 2018 at 1:51 am at 1:51 am said:
    AesopFan@11:45,

    Flake has never been in doubt, as to how he’ll vote. In addition to his basic dishonesty in pretending to be a supporter of the Tea Party and his hatred for Trump, his future job prospects are far better on the left. Perhaps a “moderate Republican” commentator gig on CNN awaits. What should give pause is that Flake and Pence are the best of friends.
    * * *
    That fact is probably applicable to more Republicans than just Flake.
    People can be friends without agreeing on every policy position.
    I notice that Pence is staying out of all the discussions, very wisely so.

  33. A few comments excerpted from the Orwell post of Neo’s, just because they show that not much has changed since 2009, except to get worse.

    https://www.thenewneo.com/2009/10/03/the-willingness-to-believe-that-two-plus-two-makes-five/

    Richard Aubrey on October 3, 2009 at 11:01 pm at 11:01 pm said:
    I don’t know that liberals all believe themselves. Not all of them, anyway.
    When I explain something and finish up by saying, “I’m not telling you this because I think you don’t know it. I’m telling you this because you think I don’t know it. But I do.”, they quit arguing. If they really believed themselves, this wouldn’t cause them to quit.
    Finding themselves busted is different.
    * * *
    huxley on October 5, 2009 at 2:42 pm at 2:42 pm said:
    Richard A: People rarely change their minds as a result of one discussion, but they may make adjustments. Over time these tiny changes may add up to a large change.

    …
    I don’t believe that Mitsu is trying to mislead people. He works from a different set of assumptions about the world and attends to a different set of facts.
    …

    Mitsu aside, I think these discussions are important exercises and a lot safer than civil war. Participants can learn what arguments work and which don’t.

    Don’t forget that there are people reading these discussions who don’t participate but are trying to make up their minds. IMO it’s as important to pitch your arguments to those readers as the person whom you are debating.
    * * *
    Gray on October 5, 2009 at 9:52 pm at 9:52 pm said:
    The moral of this stupid-assed story is that some people must be tortured into believing 2 + 2 = 5.

    However, others must be tortured into believing 2 + 2 = 4.

    Either way, it’s about power. Truth (obviously if you’ve read this thread) has no power of its own….

    The unfortunate truth is the filthy left understands power; its roots and its ends. The dopey-assed right would rather argue, in good faith, about the value of 2 + 2, mistakenly believing that truth has a power of its own.
    * * *
    huxley on October 3, 2009 at 7:29 pm at 7:29 pm said:
    Here’s David Horowitz, a reformed radical, discussing power:

    It’s all instrumental – that is, when you are a radical, what you are thinking of is power. It’s about power. You adopt this position. You take up that issue, but it’s all to advance the power. They never think about what it’s going to look like or how to put it together.

    I can tell you, a radical never spends five seconds on thinking what makes a society work. That’s not the way they work. They want to know, you know, what they can get away with to advance this big agenda, which is you get power and you change everything.
    * * *
    Richard Aubrey on October 5, 2009 at 10:21 pm at 10:21 pm said:
    …
    It’s one thing to tell a lie that nobody can spot. Maybe it’s a bad idea to try to fool people with stuff they already know is wrong and thus prove yourself a liar.

  34. I would think the late appearance of another man claiming that he was the clumsy groper, and that Senate Judiciary staffers apparently interviewed him, twice, could bear heavily on Ford’s mind. Especially since, as I understand it, she will have to testify first. It will be difficult to flesh out a lie, when someone else is waiting to provide more precise details to the same story . . . as in, he was the one.

  35. “and the few possible swing votes will vote on calculations of self-interest. ”

    If there are any swing votes, the calculation of self-interest will greatly depend … on the results of the hearing.

    Not the evidence or lack of evidence, so much, as on the feelings in the voting public after seeing / hearing / reading Dem biased MSM news articles about the hearings.

    I’m now suspecting that the more Deranged are the accusations, the more the uncertain Rep voters will be outraged enough to actually vote. Meaning no Blue Wave; and even possibly a Red Wave.

    Plus, this Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome shows that Dem outrage is not against Trump, but against any and all Reps.

    Because it is Democrat Derangement Syndrome. Whether it’s Trump or Bush or Palin or Romney or McCain — the Dem Deranged folk believe that THIS Rep “is Hitler!”, the only evil man of the 20th century.

    From about 2003, when Krauthammer coined Bush Derangement Syndrome, we’ve had the wrong term: “Current Rep Target” — Derangement Syndrome. It’s not because of the Reps, it’s because of the Dems.

    Democrat Derangement Syndrome. We need to name it correctly — the leftists are very correct that language is important — name it, identify it when we see it, and laugh at it.

    All of Kavanaugh’s accusers are suffering from it, and most elected Dems, too.

    Dem Derangement << this is why the USA seems polarized.
    Dem Derangement << this is why there is so much anger and mistrust.
    Dem Derangement << why some Reps are being hounded out of restaurants.

  36. I predict Kavanaugh’s FoxNews interview will come back to haunt him. He unwittingly lowered the bar to reject him. Dems only have to demonstrate that was lying that interview to make the case that he’s unfit. He’s ironically in a similar position that he put Bill Clinton in.

    It appears the drinking age was 21 when he was in High School, not 18 as he claimed. His yearbook entries and writings of his best friend, Mark Judge, paint a convincing portrait of a wild frat-boy. “Renate Alumni” alone posses a major booby-trap for the Virgin.

    He may not have done the crime, but the cover-up may get him.

  37. Dave, was it Sydney Carton from Tale of Two Cities?
    “It is a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.” (When he goes to the gallows in place Darnay.

  38. In the early 1960’s a political thriller writer named Allen Drury was all the rage. This whole sorry episode about contemporary American POLITICAL life could have been a plot from one of his books.

  39. In the early 1960’s a political thriller writer named Allen Drury was all the rage. This whole sorry episode about contemporary American POLITICAL life could have been a plot from one of his books.

    Standards of classiness were a great deal higher in 1957.

    The Drury novel turned on blackmail and the exposure of men’s secrets: a homosexual tryst in one case, a psychiatric hospitalization in another, and old Communist affliations in the case of two others. The question for the reader is which of these exposures was proper and which was an instance of the Catholic moralist’s ‘detraction’ – the false witness which is manifest in the exposure of the faults of another without just cause.

    Problem for the analogy: there aren’t any secrets here. Mark Judge’s alcoholism is a matter of public knowledge and has been for 20-odd years. The sex offenses alleged are not secrets. They are lies.

  40. It appears the drinking age was 21 when he was in High School, not 18 as he claimed.

    The Maryland drinking age was modified in 1982 and incorporated a grandfather clause. It was 18 for those born prior to 1 July 1964 and 21 for those born that day and after.

    His yearbook entries and writings of his best friend, Mark Judge, paint a convincing portrait of a wild frat-boy. “Renate Alumni” alone posses a major booby-trap for the Virgin.

    Unless you fancy Renate screwed 14 members of the Georgetown Prep class of 1983, no it doesn’t. Again, he only makes a cameo appearance in Judge’s memoirs. Nothing about his academic or occupational trajectory since 1982 suggests problem drinking. No academic failure (all diplomas earned on time; professional licensure earned w/o incident), no citations, no car accidents, no lawsuits, no time in drunk tanks, no divorce, no job losses, nothing.

    If fantasy helps Democrats get through the day, fine. Could you at least keep it at your own kid’s table?

  41. If there are any swing votes, the calculation of self-interest will greatly depend … on the results of the hearing.

    Not necessarily. The point is to provide Nelson, Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Collins, Murkowski, and Flake an excuse for voting no. It’s also to play on the distinctive and peculiar stupidities to which Flake and Collins are prone. There may be enough chaff tossed into the faces of low-information-voters to accomplish that even if Blasey doesn’t show or Blasey is creamed by counsel.

  42. Roberta B Updegraff

    its similar but the story I watched was simpler. I think the circumstance was more like a man was sentenced to death, but for some reasons I forgot (either to visit his dying elderly mother for the last time or he needs to get out of jail temporarily to search for evidence that could exonerate him) he had to get out temporarily. A friend of his offered to bail him out by using himself as the collateral, if the prisoner doesn’t return the friend would get executed in his stead. For a while the prisoner hasn’t returned, as the friend is about to be executed, some in the crowd witnessing the execution commented on how stupid the friend was dying in the place of his friend who betrayed him, but the friend is at peace still firmly believing the prisoner would return. At Climax the friend returned, the king or whomever was in charge of the execution was deeply moved by their friendship and released them both. It could be a bible story from the old testament.

    there are actually two stories about friendship i heard from childhood that i am searching for beside the one I described above. Another one does sound very similar to the tale of two cities, but in this story the protagonist who scarifies himself to save a friend was a criminal who escaped from the law for a long time, reformed and became a rich man, for a long time i was so sure that was les miserables but it actually wasn’t. Not The Count of Monte Cristo as well

  43. Basically the premises is a man who escaped justice from a crime committed in his youth ended up reforming and becoming an upperclassman. He works very hard to hide his criminal past, he told on a new identity and now is generous and virtuous capitalist with many workers working under him. at the end of the story under some circumstance he is forced to oust his true identity of a criminal running from the law to save someone. I really thought it was Les miserables notably the Hugh Jackman character but i wasn’t at all. Could be Oliver Twist too.

  44. Dave – ” It could be a bible story from the old testament.”

    Almost all the really good stories could be from the Old Testament. The next best collection is Shakespeare, and this sounds like a mangling of the plot of one of his play. However, the original story — one of the best of the Greek tales — is this one:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damon_and_Pythias

    “In Greek historic writings, Damon and Pythias… is a legend illustrating the Pythagorean ideal of friendship. Pythias is accused of and charged with plotting against the tyrannical Dionysius I of Syracuse. Pythias requests of Dionysius to be allowed to settle his affairs on the condition that his friend, Damon, be held hostage and, should he, Pythias, not return, be executed in his stead. Eventually, Pythias does return, and the amazed Dionysius, impressed by the love and trust in their friendship, frees him and Damon.”

    You may be remembering one of these, which I have not seen:

    “For the 1962 film, see Damon and Pythias (film). For the Richard Edwards play, see Damon and Pythias (play).”

  45. Before looking at any of the news today, I want to bring up another literary and historical case (a play based on events) with which most of us are familiar, because we frequently trot out the speech advising against cutting down the Law to get at the Devil — because it is so frequently relevant.

    In the Kavanaugh case, the charges against the judge are not the same as the charges against Sir Thomas More (also a judge), but they are of similar character (denunciations) and substance (lies and insinuations). More is holding his own in court against the obviously biased judges, who seek to do the king’s will by any means, until Richard Rich gives his own perjured testimony (which occasions one of the best one-liners of the film, although it demeans a country which I hold most dear).
    More sadly reproaches his one-time friend for selling his integrity for worldly and political gain. Could not the same be applied to Senator Feinstein and all of those complicit in the false accusations against Judge Kavanaugh?

    “It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales?”

    However, it is More’s closing speech, after the verdict, that is most appropriate here, as it was in the denunciation of Clarence Thomas. It is not hard to substitute current language for the words that described More’s alleged crime.

    “Since the Court has determined to condemn me, God knoweth how, I will now discharge my mind … I am the king’s true subject, and I pray for him and all the realm. I do none harm. I say none harm. I think none harm. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, then in good faith, I long not to live. Nevertheless, it is not for the Supremacy that you have sought my blood, but because I would not bend to the marriage!!”

  46. AesopFan

    Thank You, Damon and Pythias is definitely it, I believe it was a European or Japanese cartoon series of classic short stories around the world. Happy Prince (a grandeur Prince statue enlisting the help of a bird separated from his pack to use the decorative jewels and gold coating of body to help the poor) was one of the episode I recall.

  47. Wow, the amazing power of stories, I watched the story on TV once in kindergarten age that is like close to 30 years ago but I can still recall like 90% of the details, at least more vividly than Ford could remember her alleged assault that actually happened to her.

  49. After reviewing a couple of psychological theories of “moral development” assumed by some as relevant to the rhetorical maneuvering in this fiasco, one of which largely posits selflessness as its highest stage, Aesopfan asks:

    “How about the quality of understanding the law and applying the Constitution?Seems much more salient to me than the judge’s personal ethical moral development, if that development leads him to misinterpret the law and ignore the Constitution.”

    Your review of that crap I studied in college, reminds me of the fact that it was – by and large – an ideology masquerading as a science, one intended to function as a replacement for older moral codes, in furtherance of a collectivist sociopolitical agenda, based on a Marxian influenced replacement anthropology.

    “

    Some beliefs of [Gilligan’s] theory are basic:

    Persons are understood to have varying degrees of dependence and interdependence on one another.
    Individuals impacted by the consequences of one’s choices deserve consideration in proportion to their vulnerability.
    Details determine how to safeguard and promote the interests of those involved. WIKI

    “From each according to their abilities, to each blah blah blah …”

    Yeah we never quite get to individual cases as in who should be sacrificially cared for and why … because there are no individuals in this hothouse world with its suffocating metaphysics.

    Oh and there is this, also from WIKI,

    “Carol Gilligan’s research methods and the scarce availability of her evidence have been criticized by many scholars and psychological researchers (e.g. Christina Hoff Sommers). This was especially relevant for the publication of her book In a Different Voice, for many researchers have searched for the evidence, which had been kept confidential because of the sensitive nature of the subject. That was however, according to some, a sign of obstruction of evidence, which is a recurring flaw with her studies”

    Yeah, how dare you demand for evidence. It’s so insensitive and UNCARING.

    The upshot if is that if you are willing to hang from the gibbet even if innocent, then you are morally developed. You know, like in the Soviet Union, in the 1930s.

  50. DNW on September 27, 2018 at 1:21 pm at 1:21 pm said:
    …Yeah, how dare you demand for evidence. It’s so insensitive and UNCARING.

    The upshot if is that if you are willing to hang from the gibbet even if innocent, then you are morally developed. You know, like in the Soviet Union, in the 1930s.
    * * *
    I put that up again on the live-hearing open thread (second break), because the WaPo commentators, in the first break, trotted out their demands of what Kavanaugh must say to be believed (never gonna happen even if he does).

  52. Pingback:Sentence first. Verdict Later. A Clip for These Times - American Digest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑