Watch Vice President Mike Pence’s eulogy for President George H.W. Bush. He says it far better than I could write it.
Compare the senior Bush with those presidents that came after him. Bill Clinton was, and ultimately remained, a frat boy with a lefty tinge at Bush’s age but George was flying an Avenger torpedo bomber and being shot at by the Japanese (downed twice).
A young George Bush, center, with Joe Reichert, left, and Leo Nadeau during World War II. (Robert B. Stinnett/National Archives)George HW Bush is rescued by USS Finback, Sept. 2, 1944. (Credit: PHOTOSHOT)
His son, George W., went into the Air National Guard. Then we have Barack Obama who at the same age went to Occidental and later Columbia to major in poli sci, smoke some pot, and dabble in socialist glamfests (for instance, the Socialist Scholars Conference), all in preparation for a life as a lefty agitator. Finally, we have our current and petulant twitter-in-chief, Donald Trump. He inherited daddy’s wealth and spent the rest of his life as a celebrity developer at the same time as many of his peers were risking their lives in jungles across the Pacific, as the elder Bush did in WWII.
Barack Obama in college. Occidental or Columbia? (Getty images)
Some have placed the moniker of “wimp” on the elder Bush. Such labeling is evidence of how present clichés insult the past. George H.W. Bush came from a time when a calming tone of voice and a code of decency were signs of good upbringing. How could he be a “wimp” when he was the youngest Navy aviator, survivor of two splashdowns, and still persisted in being launched from a carrier till the war ended (50+ launches)? We are so shallow today that voice and propriety can be used against you.
We could have done so much worse as we did with 3 of the 4 (maybe 4 of 4 depending on your rankings) that came after him. I salute you, President George H.W. Bush.
The “Society” in the title refers to a loose body of people and organizations who have similar backgrounds and enough of a common orthodoxy to distinguish as an identifiable social element, like, for instance, Protestants. In this case, it’s the background identifiers of degreed/middle-to-upper-class/urban/seemingly-professional and progressive/left in their philosophical orthodoxy. The “Puff Piece” in the title is the all-too-familiar journalistic softball interview with overtones of saccharine flattery that’s reserved for prominent people in the news who confirm the Society’s biases.
Case in point: “Seeking a Safe, Green Colombia” in National Geographic Magazine of January 2018 about Colombia’s ex-president, Juan Manuel Santos. He gets the treatment because he’s said to be about “peace” and he chants the clerisy’s doctrines on “climate change”. He knows the lingo and says all the right things. Thus, he’s beatified. Look at the magazine’s saintly photo from the article.
Saint Juan Santos
The “peace” part of his beatification has to do with his cramming down the throats of Colombians a detested agreement with FARC, the narco-terrorist organization. When put on the ballot, Colombians rejected it despite the weight of the world coming down on them to approve it. So, Santos got around those pesky voters with a jam-down in the legislature.
And what of the agreement? First off, Colombians hate FARC. Next, the settlement gave amnesty to murderers, bribed the killers to stop the killing and mayhem, and rewarded them with seats in parliament. For millions of FARC’s victims, what’s not to like?
Victims of FARC protest in Colombia during the peace talks with FARC.
And for that, the guy wins the Nobel Peace Prize. But what really earns his elevation to sainthood is his expressed worship of the clerisy’s iconography of “climate change” with statements like “… we are destroying Mother Earth”. For the Society’s parishioners, that’ll do it.
No such treatment was accorded the previous president, Alvaro Uribe, the winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009. But he doesn’t sing the Society’s doctrines and he opposed the terrorist cave-in. What a flawed world we live in.
Ex-Colombian President Alvaro Uribe receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Pres. George W. Bush in 2009.
I know, I know, it’s faulty thinking to draw grand conclusions about an entire generation on a sample of one or a few individuals. For millennials, they’ve been given a bad rap for a host of alleged sins. Yet, a certain type is beginning to recur among them in my explorations of news and information: the ill-informed college-educated in positions of societal influence. A classic example of the phenomena appeared yesterday in an interview of Luke Zaleski by Hugh Hewitt.
Luke Zaleski with son.Hugh Hewitt in his broadcast studio.
Zaleski seems to be in his mid-to-late 30s, a U. of Delaware graduate in Philosophy, and is currently Legal Affairs Editor for Condé Nast publications. He exhibits much of the hyper-progressivism of the deeply-entrenched left in today’s media, replete with a dislike for Trump and Republicans, an embrace of identity politics, and rampant victimology. And its all wrapped in a thin verneer of knowledge and understanding.
For example, here’s Zaleski on Hewitt’s lack of “diversity” in the previous day’s guests – Mike Lupica (sports writer), Sen. Tom Cotton (R, Arkansas), and Sen. John Cornyn (R, Texas):
“I feel like the sports world … would benefit from having more people of color and women … prominent in the conversations.” The diversity schtick on parade, eh? As for Cotton and Cornyn, he says, “… these guys are kind of the enemies of progress”.
Zelaski on his level of understanding of history as it relates to today’s issues and climate of opinion:
Hewitt asked him, “…was Alger Hiss a communist spy?” Zaleski dodged the question by mentioning Wikipedia and “I’m not a historian. I’m not an expert. I’m not interested in conspiracy theories. I’m not interested in debating Alger Hiss”. Mmmmm.
Another example of more recent history, Hewitt asked him, “Have you read The Looming Tower?” The quick and short of it, No! Since he didn’t mention any other book on the rise of international terrorism, I can assume he doesn’t read in depth, particularly on that topic.
Zaleski’s unfamiliarity with the principal characters involved in Iran’s export of its brand of Islamic extremism was evident when Hewitt asked him, “What is your opinion of Qasem Soleimani?” Zaleski’s answer: “I’m not familiar with that person.”
Remember that this guy, Zaleski, is an editor in a major media organization (look up Condé Nast).
Zaleski showed profound ignorance of nuclear weapons. Hewitt asked him, “So which part of the nuclear triad needs fixing the most?” Zaleski jumped to an unresponsive generality, “I’d like to see global denuclearization.” Related questions about our weapons systems were similarly met with befuddlement.
As a “Legal Affairs Editor”, one would think Zaleski has some legal training or even a law degree. Well, no. His background is as a “fact checker” for 20 years. Since “legal” is his beat, you’d think that he would be aware of the Supreme Court’s recent 8-0 smackdown of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its abuse of the Endangered Species Act. But no.
I could present more on the interview but I think that you get the idea. A modern college education does not, ipso facto, dispel ignorance, let alone promote wisdom.
RogerG
Here’s the link to the transcripts of the interview: http://www.hughhewitt.com/luke-zaleski-legal-affairs-editor-at-conde-nash-former-director-of-research-at-gq/?fbclid=IwAR3Scthy-2tCxV5gKtPCKq5A79eMp-FkG7mK5R0n7UrtrbZSDqtqBEhiq3A
This is my planned (emphasis on “planned”) final thought on the Kavanaugh fracas since Justice Kavanaugh is now safely on the Court. The Blasey-Ford story was truly the perfect false allegation. She weaved a tale without a place and time, leaving aside the complete lack of witnesses. Thus, how could it be refuted? Any statement missing these details cannot be empirically examined. A defense based on alibis is almost impossible. It’s the perfect charge for igniting the mob for a political lynching.
Blasey-Ford’s tale should be treated no different from a clearly proven false allegation, with the exception of fitting a new pair of handcuffs on the perjurer. The story can’t elicit any action by anyone with adult reasoning, and needs to be handled with discretion and not in a public forum under the glare of partisan predators and their street mob. If it were otherwise, we’re back to political vengeance meted out by the Paris mob of the French Revolution.
A Parisian mob storms the Hotel de Ville in 1789.Deja vu all over again.
Sad that the Democratic Party has become the leading advocate of mob rule.
I plan no further comments, barring the elevation of Jerry Nadler (D, NY) to the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. He promises impeachment-mania to satisfy the bloodlust of the lefty street mobs.
Illustration showing a woman executed by hanging, for the practice of witchcraft, 1692. Published in ‘A Pictorial History of the United States’, 1845. (Photo by Interim Archives/Getty Images)
In the Salem Witch Trials of the 1690’s, the judge admitted “spectral evidence” (dreams and visions) into court, something criticized by Cotton Mather. The boosters for the Kavanaugh accusers are demanding the return of “spectral evidence” when they demand the accusers’ stories be accepted despite the evidence, lack thereof, or counter-evidence. They circumvent simple reason with the wrong question: Why would she (the accuser) lie? The proper question is, Did she lie?
Blasey-Ford testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sept. 27, 2018.
The “why” query solely relies upon a window into the accuser’s mind – the “spectral evidence” of 1692 Salem. Rather, the latter question moves us in a fact-based direction, even though the matter still may have no quick and easy resolution.
Did Blasey-Ford lie? I don’t know. That requires some evidence of intent. Though, it must be admitted that her testimony was riddled with an absence of critical facts and the presence of probable untruths. Her role in the saga is increasingly looking like a willing participant in a smear campaign. Her story isn’t aging well.
As for the others (Ramirez, Swetnick), their’s are fictions that belong in the “lie” category. The scorecard: 2 lies and 1 highly questionable tale.
RogerG
*Thanks to Kevin D. Williamson for raising the topic.
The new lynch mob: Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., joined by from left, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.
Decency requires much more from an accuser than a ballistic and life-changing charge against another person. Try proof. Instead, we are getting a claim of preference for a person with the preferred genitalia. Lacking any evidence – and as the evidence mounts contradicting the veracity of the accusers – we are asked to jettison the requirement of simple proof and accept the story solely based on the gender of the accuser and nothing else – indeed, in spite of everything else. In the meantime, the accused’s life and name are left hanging in the balance for all time.
Making perjury acceptable? Christine Blasey-Ford, Deborah Ramirez, Julie Swetnick (l-r).
Please, don’t come to the defense of Blasey-Ford’s unsupported story by citing other unsupported stories. That’s just lining up the attention-seeking partisans willing to take one for the partisan team. Their stories are dissolving like salt in boiling water.
Blasey-Ford’s story is taken as “compelling” only because she performed in a sincere manner. It’s a performance-based judgment. If you support her, I hope that you don’t face an accuser who only performs well.
Well, her whole story is teetering like a drunk after the Super Bowl. The fear of flying, ha! (See the transcripts – see my previous post for the reference) The second door installed in her house due to claustrophobia, ha! (See the contractor’s notes) The unfamiliarity with polygraph tests, ha! (Her ex-boyfriend’s letter) The claim of supportive witnesses, ha! (3 denials and 1 “can’t remember”) The claim of ignorance about the Judiciary Committee’s willingness to come to her, ha! (Grassley submitted 4 documents asking to interview her in California)
All she’s got is her performance before the committee … and the zealousness of the looney-Left and their blue-bubble followers in the media. Maybe that’s the crux of the matter. Stories like this can only gain traction among people who lack self-awareness of their social isolation in the Malibu-SF and Acela corridors.
The lefty smear-merchants of today are actually making a case for the white female accuser of Emmett Till back in 1955. He was falsely accused and murdered. Always believe the woman, right? I only present the picture below to drive home the consequences of gender-based “justice”. It ain’t pretty.
Christine Blasey-Ford as she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sept. 27, 2018.
In their perpetual-motion fabrication of accusations against Kavanaugh, stories stripped of even elementary proof are enlisted in defamation for partisan political purposes. The one labeled “compelling” – Blasey-Ford’s (B-F) – is no more credible than the other Bigfoot-type sightings.
In an effort to legitimize the illegitimate, B-F’s press advocates – meaning most of the press – parrot her best friend’s lawyers in denying their client’s denial of knowing Kavanaugh and the infamous party. Got it?
Yeah, her bff (Leland Ingham Keyser) didn’t contradict B-F; she just wouldn’t confirm the story, nor could she since she wasn’t there and doesn’t know Kavanaugh, according to bff Keyser. Come to think of it, for investigatory purposes, bff clearly contradicts B-F’s tale.
Leland Ingham Keyser (l) and Christine Blasey-Ford.
Judge for yourself. Bff Keyser’s lawyer, speaking for his client, said, “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” Simply put, how does that sound to you (besides too many b’s and f’s)?
Oh, but bff Keyser believes B-F … but won’t confirm. I think that we’ve entered one of Dali’s surreal paintings.
At Thursday’s kangaroo court, when confronted with her bff’s non-confirmation [translation: “denial”], B-F answered with a loopy, cobbled-together non-response. Judge for yourself:
* Rachel Mitchell, special counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, reminded B-F of the denials of the 4 people mentioned in her written account, including bff Keyser.
* B-F’s response: “Leland has significant health challenges, and I’m happy that she’s focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et cetera. So I’m glad that she’s taking care of herself.”
Go ahead, parse that. Bottom line: B-F’s story is one that won’t add up. The best-friend-forever doesn’t appear willing to commit perjury, but the Dem goon squad on the committee and the lefty hive are at the ready to swarm.
This isn’t the stuff that makes for “compelling”. It is good enough for demagoguery.
Read the hearing transcript here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/kavanaugh-hearing-transc…/…
Joseph Nye Welch, general counsel for the US Army, at the McCarthy Hearings, June 9, 1954.
I can think of no better response to the shameful display of Democrats at the Kavanaugh hearings than the one given by Joseph Nye Welch, general counsel of the US Army, to Sen. Joseph McCarthy in 1954: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? Senator.”
No, few Dems in the US Senate have any sense of decency. Following the Lenin/Alinski playbook of the ends always justifying the means, they have championed baseless charges against Kavanaugh. Their goal is to stop the nomination at all costs, even if it means destroying people’s lives.
Blasey-Ford isn’t any help. Still, she can find no one to validate her story other than her personal feelings. Others mentioned in her story deny it. That’s not validation, Christine; it’s therapy.
If anyone thinks that there is any credibility to these wild claims, that person should stay away from the Kool-Aid punch bowl being served at MSNBC. In summary, there is no corroboration for any of it. And if there is no corroboration, there’s no there there. The whole thing is reminiscent of the child sex-abuse hysteria of the 80’s and 90’s and false accusations of campus rape by Mattress Girl, and those directed at a UV fraternity and the Duke lacrosse team. All won $$$$ in settlements for false charges and slander.
The Dems are playing the more-investigation card. Cut the crap. Translation: delay the nomination … forever. Their modus operandi involves making a baseless allegation no matter how wild, call for an investigation by anyone and everyone, gin up more baseless allegations, ad infinitum, till the Republicans or the nominee withdraws the nomination.
The problem for the more-investigations crowd: there’s no limiting principle. Easily conjured and baseless charges can be cooked up at any moment. There’s no end to it, particularly if you’re a conservative and Republican.
These claims would not be the stuff of investigation by a detective division or DA for long. There’s no corroboration and plenty of counter evidence. A statement would be taken and then the person would be shown the door. End of story. And that’s how real justice works.
Make no bones about it. From the gitgo, this is an attempt to prevent the president from exercising his Article II duty. And no concession is to be made for honor and decency.
Don’t conflate the Merrick Garland case with Kavanaugh. Garland’s nomination was treated according to the Biden Rule: no SC nomination approvals during a presidential election year. Sen. Biden (D, Delaware) stated it; the Republicans were faithful to it.
The rogues gallery of the shameless and repulsive:
Sen. Kamala Harris (D, Calif.)Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, Calif.)Sen. Corey Booker (D, New Jersey)Sen. Mazie Hirono (D, Hawaii)Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D, Conn.)Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D, New York)Sheldon Whitehouse (D, Rhode Island)Sen. Charles Schumer (D, New York)
Many more senators with a “D” after their name – that means you, Sen. Dick Durbin – could be inducted into this hall of shame. Space requires some restraint by limiting the inductees to those constantly running to the microphones and cameras to defile reputations. These suspects come readily to mind.
And, of course, we have the bewildered:
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Charles Grassley (R, Iowa)
Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Charles Grassley, in probable consultation with his colleagues, agreed to a week delay of the committee vote on the nomination upon the request of a Dem committee member. Quite rightly, a person could be excused for suspecting something was up. It was. An orchestrated hell broke loose – a shameful and disgusting orchestrated hell.
The Senate Republicans always appear flat-footed when it comes to women making charges against other Republicans and conservatives. The Dems are much more agile. Look at their dexterity in defending Bill Clinton. They smeared Ken Star, created new partisan media flagships in the form of MoveOn.org, rhetorically manipulated Clinton’s perjury and perversities into Republican prurience, and vilified the women accusers of Clinton’s adult sallies into rape and less abusive forms of abuse. And got away with it! Heck, his chief enabler, his wife, Hillary, was only 43 electoral votes shy of appointing liberals to the bench and wreaking other havoc on our republic.
Of course, lefty types dominate the newsrooms which makes a headwind for Republicans but fills the sails of the Dems’ political racing yachts. The Dems have a perpetual downwind advantage. So, credible charges of rape quickly go down the memory hole as hazy teenage charges of teenage antics of ancient vintage get the full rectal examination. Go figure.
Lets’ face it. The Kavanaugh imbroglio is about one thing: keeping a conservative from joining the 8 other potentates in black robes … at all costs! It stands to reason. Progressives wouldn’t be progressives if they weren’t on a mission to remake mankind in their own image. The state, not churches, is the engine for the recreation since their image doesn’t comport with the biblical one. So they fight tooth and nail to control the levers of power. It’s who they are. It means so very much to their political identity.
On the far end of the lefty side of the political spectrum, we have Lenin, a political operator whose credo entails the ends always justifying the means. The notion has seeped into the owner’s manual of politics for Dems in their drive for perpetual reform. The connection is not surprising since lately they have been ideologically sliding ever closer to the old and still-deceased goat in his Kremlin mausoleum. He endorsed state-sponsored terror. The Dems are only slightly more humane, stopping short of the blood on the wall and floor, even though we’re getting close to that. Simple decorum and decency be damned.
Their enthusiasm to get us back on the track to the pc-plagued nirvana means ginning up the hive, using anything at hand. And they have a political mre-equivalent in the estrogen-rich swarm of women’s marches and Mee Too.
Vagina caps for participants in the Woman’s March of January 2017.Woman in vagina suit at the Woman’s March in January 2017.
Everything gets tossed into that maelstrom including Supreme Court nominations, and especially Supreme Court nominations. If the Dems can’t find anything compromising in the nominee’s adult and professional background, just extend the time frame to childhood or at least those in-between years of 15-18. In fact, the teenager phase with its hormonal hyperactivity is probably dense with potentialities for later chicanery. The Dems have hit upon a rich source of tar for their brushes.
One thing about our modern overheated politics is the huge number of willing recruits into the legions of political cannon fodder. What budding NeverTrumper and SJW, with some long-ago life intersection with Kavanaugh, or not, wouldn’t relish the opportunity to step forward to take one for the team? Brush off Andy Warhol’s 15-minutes-of-fame moniker, but replace “fame” with “shame”.
The Folly of “No Woman Lies”
People with vaginas for headgear are chomping at the bit to enter Warhol’s hall of mediocrities. They have in mind a war with the white male patriarchy in the form of Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, the guys running CBS and NBC, and any of the other suits in charge of things. But bear in mind that along with the certified brutes we have Columbia University’s mattress girl, Emma Sulkowicz. Fully reminiscent of the sexual revolution’s hookup culture in the college dorm rooms of today, she had consensual sex with fellow student Paul Nungesser. Somehow she turned it into a cause replete with agitprop. (1)
The accuser: Emma Sulkowicsz and her dorm mattress and her supporters at Columbia University.The accused: Paul Nungesser.
The University of Montana tells its incoming freshman “Almost no one lies [meaning female accusers]” in its flabby attempt to assuage the female-genitalia-headgear squads. (2) Really, no woman lies? Emma did.
She filed complaints against Nungesser with the school and New York police and both concluded that action was unwarranted. Corroboration – you know, that thing that presupposes that we are not a god with the power to make pronouncements from a heavenly throne and therefore we must backup what we say – was lacking. There was much to contradict her. And she pursued him as a sexual interest for months after the purported “assault”. She concocted a sham and turned it into a cause.
For 3 years Sulkowicsz was the poster child of the campus “rape culture” movement. The hifalutin Feminist Majority Foundation and others heaped honors upon her for her “courage”. Harassment on campus – the real kind – haunted Nungesser till graduation. Then, in 2017, Nungesser sued Columbia. In the settlement, Columbia apologized and promised “that every student — accuser and accused, including those like Paul who are found not responsible — is treated respectfully and as a full member of the Columbia community.” (1) Mea culpa, but now the cause takes on a life of its own. The genie is out of the bottle.
The Silkowicsz-Nungesser case illustrates the enthusiasm of left-wing activists to turn the Fifth Amendment into the irrelevance of the Third. Lenin would be proud. It’s a rewrite of western civilization’s legacy of enlightened jurisprudence. The rights of the accused are supplanted by the ambiguous “preponderance” of believability and the need to protect at all costs the feelings of the accuser and her allegation from being questioned. The woman-as-accuser is our new god.
The event is only a small chapter in a long tale of moral monstrosities. They include the 2006 public lynching of the Duke lacrosse team, complete with the connivance of the local DA, and the subsequent vindication of the accused and Duke’s agreement to pay the 3 male students $20 million each. Rolling Stone in 2017 had to cough up $1.65 million to the Virginia Alpha Chapter of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity for its hit piece on the group for a false claim of gang rape. Additionally, the Rolling Stone writer of the article, Sabrina Erbin Erdely, was assessed $3 million for defaming Nicole Eramo, a Virginia University administrator, as the “chief villain”. (3)
The history of our current “rape culture” hysteria is a mixed one. There are real instances of real assaults along with mutual abuse and bald-faced lies. It’s really a story of the sexual revolution’s Sherman’s March through the culture and college life. Hookup, be sexually liberated, experience this integral part of the college experience, and consequences be damned. That’s the message and the kids live it. Don’t be surprised that we lose much of our cultural integrity along the way with a few out-of-court settlements and ruined futures to boot.
Private citizens accused of high-octane falsehoods, and few things are more high-octane than a charge of rape, have recourse to a court of law. Brett Kavannaugh, as a public figure, presents the perfect target. He can be smeared without consequence by any accuser and their huckstering Dem supporters. Support her, damn him, and expunge any semblance of fairness from our deliberations is their sickening message.
We can only hope that they won’t get away with it at the ballot box come November.
The Miasma of Polygraph Tests and Repressed Memories
Miasma by Brian Mashburn.
Unbeknownst to Brett Kavanaugh as he jumps in the water of the nomination approval process is that he just became chum for a partisan shark frenzy. Thrown in as accusatory chum for Dem sharks is Christine Blasey-Ford. She purports an attempted rape by Kavanaugh of 36(?) years ago but witnesses dispute her story. She’s fuzzy on the details. But she is to be believed despite her own 4 witnesses contradicting her and no other evidence.
Oh, she has passed a polygraph test. What about that test? For her examination, Blasey-Ford was asked only 2 questions with the important one being, Is your written statement truthful? This was no deep dive into her accusations. The examiner said that this was to avoid traumatizing the accuser. The test only tells us that she has a foggy recollection, since her written accusation is so foggy, but she believes it. But is it the “truth”?
A polygraph test measures certain bodily reactions such as heart rate and blood pressure to an interviewer’s questions. If the subject remains calm, ipso facto, she must be telling the truth, or so it is assumed. No, it’s only proof that she remained calm, period. Remaining calm can be an intuitive or coached skill. The test also might indicate that the subject believes in something that isn’t true. And aren’t we really concerned about getting to the truth and not ending proceedings with a measurement of a person’s serenity?
Criminal defense attorneys, and most jurisdictions in the country, find polygraph tests highly suspect. Here’s from one law firm’s website: “… a polygraph machine does not have any reliable capacity for detecting the truth or falsity of a statement…. While these [blood pressure and heart rate] may be indicators that a person is lying, they may also simply indicate that a suspect is feeling pressurized by the interrogation even if they are telling the truth.” (4)
What are we to conclude? Blasey-Ford has a long-in-the-tooth murky allegation and she remained calm as an examiner asked her about her “written statement” and not the details of it. Is this the stuff of truth or even justice? Hardly.
But she has “repressed memories”, which can be scientifically suspect and an excellent source of fairy tales. Many adults have languished, and are languishing, in prison due to testimony of “repressed memories”. The use of “repressed memories” catapulted Florida state attorney Janet Reno to fame and a seat in Bill Clinton’s cabinet as Attorney General. Sadly for Reno and the claque of psycho-therapist fans of “repressed memories”, the convictions are being reversed. It’s a poor rack for Dem”solons” to hang their hat.
It’s not that people can’t have “repressed memories”. The problem lies in the tactics in the conjuring of them into the rudiments of testimony. Even as strong a defender of the phenomena as Jim Hopper (Teaching Associate in Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry of Harvard Medical School) acknowledges that, “There is strong evidence that people can sincerely believe they have recovered a memory or memories of abuse by a particular person, but actually be mistaken [my emphasis]”. Further he writes, “There is strong evidence that such memories have led to accusations about particular events that never happened and accusations of people who never committed such acts.” For Hopper, the potential for misuse of the theory lies with the therapist. (7) True, very true.
“Repressed memories” as false accusations turned into false convictions? Enter Harold Grant Snowden, Bobby Finje, Janet Reno, and the “Miami Method” into the unhinged child sex-abuse saga of the 1980’s and 1990’s. (6)
Harold Grant SnowdenBobby Finje, 14, at the time of his rial.
The “Method” involved a brew of “expert” testimony, multiple child witnesses, and questionable physical evidence. The physical evidence is doubtful because it might, or might not, be supportive of the charges. The tests for sexually transmitted diseases produce positive results for conditions not necessarily sexually transmitted. The tests as corroboration don’t corroborate. And, by the way, conveniently for Janet Reno, the test samples were mysteriously destroyed. Witting or unwitting destruction of evidence by the state?
What of the multiple young accusers who allegedly confirm each other’s stories? The problem with their testimony is the same as with the testimony of the child-therapist “experts”. The children were saying things on the stand that came out of the interview sessions of therapists Joseph and Laurie Braga.
The characters of Joseph and Laurie Braga as depicted with kids in the made-for-tv movie “Unspeakable Acts”, 1990.
Later courts found their techniques suggestive and coercive to the point of planting false “memories” in the kids’ heads. Young adolescents playfully interact with an interviewer when the questioner starts presenting elements of a scenario no matter how outlandish. An Easter-bunny-believing kid can come to accept the reality of the Bragas’ new artificial reality. The kids on the stand were confirming a Braga story of the suspect’s abuse of children in oral/anal sex, spaceships, dismembering babies, and Satanic rituals. The Bragas added new meaning to the word “travesty”.
Both Snowden and Finje were exonerated. Bobby Finje, 14 at the time of the accusation, was acquitted by a jury. It took Snowden 11 years to be cleared on appeal. Many of the other convictions were overturned or sentences commuted by parole boards due to “substantial doubt” about guilt. (8)
Janet Reno still became Attorney General. She refutes the Peter Principle because she kept rising despite showing incompetence at lower levels.
Caution is wise when tinkering with the “repressed memory” stuff.
Today, caution is out the window as the old child sex-abuse hysteria feeds into another hysteria, the delirium to neuter Trump and conservatives. Blasey-Ford’s hypothetical “repressed memories” of attempted rape first appeared in marital counseling in 2012. That’s a 30+-year repressed memory. Important details are missing, the named 4 witnesses/participants deny it, and her verbal and written statements contradict her therapist’s notes.
The only non-corroboration corroboration is that of people who confirm that she mentioned the matter to them not in 1980-1-2-? but in … 2012. Kavanaugh’s name wasn’t attached to the story till 2016 or 2017.
So what do we have? We have a repressed memory of an event allegedly with many people present but none can validate. What can we conclude? We can conclude that she was serene while wired to a polygraph. Anything more than that belongs in the fever swamp of The Resistance.
Auditioning for the Role of Additional Accuser
The week-long interregnum in the Kavanaugh hearing was a busy time for the left-wing/Dem hive. Its minions went fishing for candidates to fill roles in the expanded cast of their not-based-on-facts docudrama, “The Sick and Evil Brett Kavanaugh”. It didn’t take long for auditioners to show up.
The New Yorker article on the second Kavanaugh accuser, Deborah Ramirez.
The New Yorker made a splash with a second accuser, Deborah Ramirez. She claimed Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a Yale party in the early 1980s. She was drunk; there are gaps in her memory; she pieced together the story over 6 days of flogging her memory and consultations with her attorney; and the red flag in these allegations: no reliable corroboration.
The New York Times couldn’t find anyone. The paper reported,
“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.” (9)
Only one person could admit to hearing something like this from someone. That attempt at validation lies somewhere between not-for-certain hearsay and hallucination.
Next, we have the tall tales of Julie Swetnick.
Julie Swetnick
Her story upped the ante from mere attempted rape and exposure to serial gang rapist. Now we’re getting close to the Satanic-rituals-in-spaceships style of accusation that was evident in the 1980’s child sex-abuse fever. She spins a tale of Kavanaugh at 10 drug-induced gang-rape parties from 1981 to 1983. Further, she was raped at one of them in ’82. What she was doing at high school parties when she was a sophomore in college is anyone’s guess. (10)
And, as in all the others, no one can corroborate. How is it that serial gang rape in a small community of high school students – with one college sophomore in attendance – can go unnoticed for 35+ years? How is it that corroboration is so difficult about something so heinous and so well attended for such an extended period? Her claims evaporates any possible meaning of credible.
There have been other stories coming down through the ether equally as bizarre. The fact is, there appears to be no shortage of auditioners. My Demdar (radar capable of detecting Dem bogies) is activated. Lawyers and other handlers within the loose network of Dem operatives have fingerprints all over much of this.
This May Not Be A Criminal Court But It Certainly Looks Like A Lynching.
One of the Dem talking points in response to their clear intent to discard the presumption of innocence is to assert that the Kavanaugh hearing isn’t a criminal trial. Yes, and neither was the above.
The Dems intentionally miss the point. The presumption of innocence and the rest of the rights of the accused go to the heart of elementary fairness, one of the great projects of western civilization. That legacy was an attempt to establish and codify the simple rules of fairness. The rules are more than a matter of guidelines for court proceedings. They touch upon how we relate to one another in the broader course of our lives. The Dems have conveniently forgotten them in their zeal to smash their opponents.
Here’s a sample of the forgotten civilized principles that the Dems would do well to remember. (1) Before the accused can defend themselves, he or she must know the accusation in order to refute it. (2) The burden of proof must rest with the accuser since it’ll be forever hard to prove a negative – the demand that a person must prove that he or she didn’t do it. (3) The charge must be stated in a falsifiable manner. That is, it must be stated in way for it to be capable of being proven or disproven. It’s simple logic (see the writings of the philosopher Karl Popper). (4) And a charge against a person can’t be allowed to stand on the say-so of one person alone. More is required.
That’s how it should be, but that’s not how it is for the Dems when the swing seat on the Supreme Court is in the balance. It’s amazing how quickly they jettisoned our inheritance for a leg-up on those who disagree with them. Disgraceful. Disgraceful.
RogerG
Footnotes and Bibliography:
A full accounting of the Emma Sulkowicsz episode is found here: “It’s High Time Columbia’s Mattress Girl Was Discredited”, Mona Charen, National Review Online, 8/4/2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/columbia-university-mattress-girl-emmas-sulkowicz-paul-nungesser-lawsuit-rape-accusation-exonerated/
Once more, Mona Charen: “What the Left and Right Don’t Get About Campus Rape”, Mona Charen, The Federalist, 8/31/2015, http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/31/what-the-left-and-right-dont-get-about-campus-rape/
“Rolling Stone to Pay $1.65 Million to Fraternity Over Discredited Rape Story”, Sydney Ember, 6/13/2017, NYT, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-rolling-stone-frat.html
“Why Polygraph Tests Are Not Admissible in Court”, Broden & Mickelson: Criminal Defense Attorneys website, 10/13/2015, https://www.brodenmickelsen.com/blog/why-polygraph-tests-are-not-admissible-in-court/
An excellent introduction into the mania about child sexual abuse at daycare centers can be found here: “The Child Terror”, PBS Frontine, originally aired on 10/27/1998. A synopsis and transcripts can be seen at https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/terror/.
“Harold Grant Snowden”, The National Registry of Exonerations: A Project of the University of California Irvine Newkirk Center for Science and Scoeity, University of Michigan Law School & Michigan State University School of Law, https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3871
“Child Abuse: Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse”, Jim Hopper, https://www.jimhopper.com/child-abuse/recovered-memories/
A recounting of the 14 significant child sexual-abuse cases can be found here: “Day-care sex-abuse hysteria”, wikipedia.org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria
“Christine Blasey Ford Reaches Deal to Testify at Kavanaugh Hearing”, Sheryl Stolberg and Nicholas Fandos, New York Times, 9/23/2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-testify.html
“Things Fall Apart: NYT Delivers Another Kill Shot To Kavanaugh Sexual Misconduct Fiasco”, Matt Vespa, Townhall.com, 9/27/2018, https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/09/27/things-fall-apart-nyt-delivers-another-kill-shot-to-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-n2522947
Bedlam was a hospital for the mentally disturbed in London – officially named the Royal Bethlem Hospital. Right? Wrong. It’s been moved to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room. The overwhelmed director of “bedlam”, Sen. Charles Grassley, seems bewildered by the antics of the hostile and equally unstable medical staff, the Dems, as they make a mockery of the profession with the assistance of the inmates, the voluble hair-trigger left. Welcome to the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body”. Ha!
A protester is led away by police after disrupting the second day of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Capitol Hill.Protester is removed during the fourth day of Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, September 7, 2018. REUTERS/Chris Wattie.U.S. Capitol Police remove a protester from the Kavanaugh hearing.Protesters outside the capitol during the Kavanaugh hearings.
The hostile “bedlam” staff – Dems – have unleashed at the last minute, after sitting on it for 2 1/2 months, a vague charge of teenage sexual misconduct from 36(?) years ago. 36(?) years ago! The accuser can’t substantiate nor provide important details because she is about as hazy about the alleged incident as the allegedly drunken teens were the alleged morning after. Something that wouldn’t get past the Dean of Students smell test is now grist for the inmates running the Senate’s asylum.
Christine Blasey-Ford, the accuser with the hazy memory.
The Dems sprung it at the last moment so it couldn’t be properly vetted by the sober-minded. For it to be vetted now, the inciters of bedlam would accomplish their goal: delay, delay, delay. They had their chance in those 2 1/2 months and a week of witness interrogation and took a pass. They knew about it and knowingly waived their right by sitting on it.
Blasey-Ford demanded anonymity and she also waived her right by doing so. Instead, an outrageously hazy charge benefits from outrageous demands like the insistence on the accused going first, the FBI swallowed in a months-long probe, and the insistence on giving a “voice” to a mouth with not much to say. Nothing like turning the 5th Amendment, Blackstone, and common decency upside-down.
The nomionee, Brett Kavanaugh, having to sit through the antics.
Blasey-Ford and the Dems had a 3-month window to smear reputations while retaining at least some semblance of due process. It’s disgraceful for them to profit from political hooliganism.
Take a few depositions under oath and the next day, Tuesday, have the vote.
