Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, September 24, 2018

OTP 2018 September 24: Baseball and the presidency

He tells us that Theodore Roosevelt, for all his heroics and man of action persona, detested baseball. For TR, the game was too slow, too staid, too devoid of the rough and tumble he loved – even though as a good pol he sang its praises as it grew in popularity.

His daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth: “Father and all of us regard[ed] baseball as a mollycoddle game. Tennis, football, lacrosse, boxing, polo, yes. They are violent, which appealed to us. But baseball? Father wouldn’t watch it, not even at Harvard!”

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 24, 2018 at 08:48 AM | 3291 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 9 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›
   801. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:05 PM (#5751803)
I wish people would not respond to comments without reading the context in which they were made. In the one to which you were responding I did not express a view on whether his yearbook posts should play a role in his confirmation.¹ I was merely pointing out that there was no reason why anyone at any school, from Georgetown Prep to Falling Down Inner City School #7, would have been concerned about the long term ramifications of their yearbook quotes. I was responding to a claim by one of the two farthest left kooks (Perros/Davo - I forget which and don't feel like checking) that writing something potentially offensive in a yearbook entry was a sign of Rich White Male Privilege because they didn't have to worry about how it would affect their careers the way the rest of us do. Nobody had to worry about it.


I think they were actually relaying a comment from one of BK's classmates to that effect. But that's hardly an important marker in this debate. We don't need much more evidence that BK was a pampered, entitled dick nozzle as a teen and college student.

It doesn't matter that SC justice is a more important position than pizza deliverer. Though, yes, obviously there is conduct that would disqualify one for the former job that would not disqualify one for the latter. The issue here though, is the usefulness of the information imported by a (decades old) high school yearbook entry.


No matter how often you say otherwise, it does matter. If it didn't matter, the power brokers of the GOP wouldn't be so hellbent needy to push him through at all cost. But that aside, yes. Sure. The entire yearbook tangent is pretty weak and stupid. It actually detracts from the thing that every basically moral human being should be aghast at, which is the attempted rape.

Incidentally, I think it kind of incongruous to sneer at the phenomenon of people who appear to have been groomed their whole lives for a job like SC justice, but then also arguing that a blemish from someone's distant past should be held against them. (To be clear, I am not talking about rape when I say "blemish.") It's SC justice, not saint. So triumphantly saying "But SC justice" any time any issue arises does not resolve anything.


To be clear, any sneer past, present or future I may level against BK for being a groomed automaton and empty, soulless shell of a hack will be for the mere pleasure of calling a bag of dicks a bag of dicks. There's not secondary argument there for me. We mock douche-nozzles because they are douche-nozzles. That's reason enough.
   802. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:05 PM (#5751804)

It was truly a dreadful performance. Disqualifying, IMHO.
Your opinions are never either humble or correct. Or even honest. You don't believe the things you say, including this, and we all know it.
   803. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:07 PM (#5751805)
The obvious reasons no one on the GOP side wants Kavanaugh withdrawn: (1) the accusations don't appear to be true; . . .

They very much do appear to be true. You're simply deluded on the matter. Part of your delusion stems from you focusing like a laser beam on every last word and inference of the accusers, and not an iota to the howlers Kavanaugh has unleashed.

Sorry, I'm not taking my cue from someone trying to justify a Kafkaesque Star Chamber evidentiary standard based on unsworn allegations and rank hearsay, and who is already, I see from #795, attempting to justify Ford yet again avoiding testifying under oath because of who is asking the questions. For a long time I thought SBB was an actual lawyer who had an unfortunate tendency to unwisely comment imprecisely on topics outside of his narrow area of expertise, but his recent contributions here so badly miss the mark on fundamental concepts that I may have to re-evaluate.
   804. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:09 PM (#5751807)
Your opinions are never either humble or correct. Or even honest. You don't believe the things you say, including this, and we all know it.


This is yet another of your peculiar and weird, substance-free shticks, typically when I've taken a close look at the record and properly analyzed it. "We" all know that.

It was a dreadful, disqualifying performance in which he lied. Honestly. I've explained it at length. It besmirches the Court and its legitimacy, particularly at this historical moment, to go on Fox News with your wife and retail politic to the rubes. Lying while you do it makes it even worse.

Honestly, that's my opinion. I was leaning toward believing Ford/Ramirez, with some reservations -- maybe something like 65-35. Now I'm at 95-5. And I know for a fact Kavanaugh is lying about remembering the party. Since "I wasn't at the party" is the meme of not just him but Smyth, Judge, and I think at least one more, the entire edifice is exposed. None of them can truly remember not being at "the party," and to a very significant degree the record hasn't even developed to the point where there is "the party." You and yours bust on Ford for not remembering enough details of when and where. The flip side to that is that it if no one knows the when and where, a person can not say for certain that they weren't there. Their insistence is kind of the quintessential, "they dost protest too much."

You've countered it with things like "He had calendars."
   805. perros Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:10 PM (#5751808)

Think we must. Let us think in offices; in omnibuses; while we are standing in the crowd watching Coronations and Lord Mayor's shows; let us think as we pass the Cenotaph; and in Whitehall; in the gallery of the House of Commons; in the Law Courts; let us think at baptisms and marriages and funerals. Let us never cease from thinking -- what is this 'civilisation' in which we find ourselves? What are these ceremonies and why should we take part in them? What are these professions and why should we make money out of them? Where in short is it leading us, the procession of the sons of educated men?"

Virginia Woolf, Theee Guineas
   806. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:11 PM (#5751809)
The present-day New Yorker would have revolted Thurber and sent White into a deep depression.


Bad as his eyesight was, Thurber probably wouldn't be able to read it.
   807. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5751812)
Sorry, I'm not taking my cue from someone trying to justify a Kafkaesque Star Chamber evidentiary standard based on unsworn allegations and rank hearsay, and who is already, I see from #795, attempting to justify Ford yet again avoiding testifying under oath because of who is asking the questions.


There's no such thing as a "Star Chamber" in a job interview. You're using terminology that doesn't remotely fit. If we get to the point where Kavanaugh is on trial in Montgomery County or somesuch, wake me and we'll talk Star Chamber and Kafka.

Any comment on my substantive conclusion, with ample description and analysis, about Kavanaugh's lies? Doesn't seem like you're paying a whole lot of attention to the things he's saying, unsurprisingly.

The funny thing (*) is that you're claiming on Kavanaugh's behalf something like my third paragraph of 704, but even Kavanaugh himself isn't saying that.

(*) Well, there are many funny things here, but this is a big one.
   808. perros Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5751813)
Kavanaugh is an utter fraud, a pathological liar, a political hack unfit for the position he already holds.

Nobody gives a #### about a goddamned yearbook, Nieporent. We care that one political party is intent on raping the country.

Plough ahead.
   809. PreservedFish Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5751814)
The present-day New Yorker would have revolted Thurber and sent White into a deep depression.


I remember thinking it was a shame when the New Yorker endorsed Kerry, their first ever political endorsement, I believe. Not because of Kerry, because I don't understand how anyone would have voted for more Bush, but because of the break in tradition.
   810. . . . . . . Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:18 PM (#5751816)
The issue with Kavanaugh, to me, isn't whether the specific allegations are true. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Memory is too imperfect at 35 years to know for sure.

But it is, IMO, incontrovertible that Kavanaugh was a notoriously aggressive and inappropriate drunk from high school through, at minimum, law school. That's disqualifying for me. Not the drunk part. The "aggressive and inappropriate" part, and that he continued to drink super heavily even after he knew he was aggressive and inappropriate. I know many Jekyll/Hyde types when it came to drinking, and all of them (1) had a fundamental character much closer to who they were when drinking than who they were when sober and (2)if they were decent, recoiled from excess boozing as soon as they got old enough to fear what it tuned turned them into, which was generally some time in college.

Who you are as a 17 year old with all the money you could need, tons of status, and 6 beers in you, is who you are. Not the choirboy act he puts on today. I just don't trust the man's character for the Court. Obviously the Court has plenty of bad people on it - I assume the lawyers in this thread have heard the horror stories about how Kagan treats her clerks - but decent people have historically been better justices.
   811. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:20 PM (#5751818)
No. You're saying that a man accused of attempt rape should not be confirmed to SCOTUS.

No. I'm saying a man credibly accused of attempted rape should not be confirmed to the SCOTUS. That you invoke a higher requirement for credibility because you're a pedantic dick nozzle on occasion is on you, not me. I have seen absolutely zero reason to believe Ford is lying. Zip. None.
I don't invoke a higher requirement for credibility. I require something beyond a naked accusation. It's not "credible" just because it might accomplish what you hope it will politically.


EDIT: Sorry, wanted to respond to this one other statement by Sam:
I have seen absolutely zero reason to believe Ford is lying. Zip. None.
For the fifteenth or twentieth time: what if she's mistaken? Have you seen any reason to believe that she's correct? Nope. "Zip. None."

Moreover, "I don't know why this person might lie" is not the definition of "credible."
   812. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:22 PM (#5751820)
I require something beyond a naked accusation.


Everyone here does. The standard is easily met here. Easily. It's been explained at length, by multiple people.

Ford's is credible because of, inter alia, lack of motive, telling other people, the likelihood she and Kavanaugh knew each other, what we know about Kavanaugh and Judge's drinking, and the lack of credibility of statements by Kavanaugh and his defenders primarily revolving around their confidence at not being at the party when they don't even know when or where the party was.

Ramirez's is credible because of, inter alia, lack of motive, other people hearing about it contemporaneously, other people testifying as to Kavanaugh's drunkenness, its parallels to the Ford claims, and the lack of credibility of statements by Kavanaugh and his defenders.

Kavanaugh's recent public statements have simply not been credible. His "sexual assault" construction, as I've explained, screams "wiggle room." Moreover, a person confident in his story would have said essentially what I said in the third paragraph of 704. He has not said that, and has lied about the confidence he has that he was not at "the party." Since he'd likely sail through if he'd simply said what I said in the third paragraph of 704, the fact that he hasn't speaks volumes. His overconfidence in his memory of 36-year-old details is not credible or explainable; Ford's and Ramirez's underconfidence is eminently credible.

You're the one looking to accomplish political things.
   813. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:29 PM (#5751825)
ABC News Politics

Verified account

@ABCPolitics
20m20 minutes ago
More
Email obtained by @ABC suggests longtime Trump associate Roger Stone sought contact with WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange through intermediaries during 2016 campaign. https://abcn.ws/2OdeuxM


Feels like this is a Mueller leak intended to put the pressure back on Trump after the NYTs story earlier this week.

I don't invoke a higher requirement for credibility. I require something beyond a naked accusation. It's not "credible" just because it might accomplish what you hope it will politically.


Funny how none of this came out with Gorsuch. Maybe Gorsuch kept his hands and dick to himself and didn't drink like a privateer. perros' descriptions of Kavs are accurate. He's the Shining City on a Hill of douche-bag white male privilege. He does not deserve a SCOTUS seat, not in 2018.
   814. perros Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:29 PM (#5751826)
The New Yorker politics content is subpar, but Jane Meyer is an outstanding reporter from all accounts. Here's James Fallows take:


George W. Bush used to say, “When I was young and stupid, I was young and stupid.” Kavanaugh is not giving himself any such out. He is not referring to embarrassing misunderstandings, or mistakes of immature judgment, or possible vagaries of memory, or decisions he badly rues in retrospect. He is saying that he was literally virginal in high school and college. He has never done anything like this. He is absolutely not this kind of person. He would not ever treat women in this way. The charges are All. Absolutely. False. Every. One. Of. Them.

As an argumentative stance, this is obviously risky, since an absolute claim can be undone by even a single proven counter-example. It’s odd because it’s a mismatch with the ample evidence of serious drinking as part of the young Brett Kavanaugh’s reputation — self-described in his speeches until recently, and by his high-school and college associations. (“He was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of that time, and he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk,” James Roche, his freshman roommate at Yale, said this weekend in a statement.)

Also, the stance of complete purity is either inconsistent with, or a creepy complement to, the very aggressively sex-related line of questioning that the 30-something young lawyer Kavanaugh proposed that prosecutor Kenneth Starr ask the incumbent president, Bill Clinton. (Eg: “If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?” That was one of a series of questions Kavanaugh proposed, and Starr had the judgment not to pursue.)



To the best of my knowledge (will gladly update if there are corrections), here are the Republican Senators who have clearly called for an FBI investigation of the allegations and the evidence:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, is not yet on that list, because she has given only oblique indications of support. According to NBC, she said on Tuesday morning of an FBI investigation: “It would sure clear up all the questions, wouldn’t it?” She could answer her own question by saying that she won’t vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination until there has been an investigation. As a member of the Republicans’ wafer-thin 51-49 majority in the Senate, she has enormous power to change the outcome here, if she chooses to exercise it. The same is true of every other Republican.)
   815. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:29 PM (#5751827)


Nor are we certain that he lied, outright, with regard to the stolen Dem memos.
There's certainly no evidence he lied at all, "outright" or otherwise. The emails Leahy tried to seize on didn't prove anything at all. None of them had a memo as an attachment. None of them said anything like, "Here's some information that I got by hacking the congressional server."
   816. perros Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:35 PM (#5751829)
I know many Jekyll/Hyde types when it came to drinking, and all of them (1) had a fundamental character much closer to who they were when drinking than who they were when sober and (2)if they were decent, recoiled from excess boozing as soon as they got old enough to fear what it tuned turned them into, which was generally some time in college.

Also, there are friends with whom we refused to be drinking buddies because it turns them into creeps of one sort or another. Not that I haven't done incredibly stupid #### under the influence. My current drinking is maybe a six pack a week. Avoids kidney stones.
   817. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:36 PM (#5751830)
Kavanaugh is not giving himself any such out.


Actually, he is.

This construction screams "out," as it allows for physical conduct short of "sexual assault" to have occurred (*):

And the truth is, I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or otherwise. I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone in some place. But what I know is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or at any time in my life —


He has never done anything like this. He is absolutely not this kind of person. He would not ever treat women in this way. The charges are All. Absolutely. False. Every. One. Of. Them.


Fallows's rhetoric sounds good, but Kavanaugh didn't say a single one of these things last night. He quite carefully said something quite different.

(*) It also permits of physical contact by K with F short of "sexual assault" and F being "sexually assaulted" by someone else.
   818. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:38 PM (#5751831)
But it is, IMO, incontrovertible that Kavanaugh was a notoriously aggressive and inappropriate drunk from high school through, at minimum, law school.

There's virtually no evidence that is true. That was a time period in which Kavanaugh finished 1st in his class at an elite high school while playing two varsity sports, graduated cum laude from Yale while playing junior varsity basketball and writing for the Yale Daily News, and excelled at arguably the highest rated law school in the country (Yale again) sufficiently to be Notes Editor on the Law Journal, and snag a string of Federal Court Clerkships, culminating with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Those are difficult things to do under any circumstances, much less as a "notoriously aggressive and inappropriate drunk". If Kavanaugh had such a serious long-term drinking problem, shouldn't there be at least one incident with solid evidence? Multiple accusers, actual corroborating witnesses, or a night in the drunk tank? Not a hint of any that.
   819. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:42 PM (#5751832)

"I may have met Dr. Blasey back then, and may have been at a party with her at some point, but I have no recollection of either, it was a long time ago, it's very possible I never was. I categorically deny doing to her what she claims I did, or anything like it."

Simple. The thing one would say if one was confident that was the truth.

But he obviously doesn't want to say that.
But he obviously has said that. This was the media's dishonesty about Roger Clemens. "If you want me to believe you, you must jump through this hoop, in exactly this way. If there's a slight variation, I will call you a liar." "Psych! I'll call you a liar anyway." Kavanaugh has denied it multiple times in multiple ways, and of course there is not one right way to say something anyway.
   820. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:45 PM (#5751833)
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULUS: "It does seem, though, that the president has already reached a judgment about their stories, and there does seem to be a pattern here. When Roy Moore is accused, when Bill O'Reilly is accused, when Roger Ailes is accused, when Rob Porter is accused, and now when Brett Kavanaugh is accused, the president consistently, every single time, takes the side of the man."

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS: "It's interesting that you say that. It's a lot of Democrats that like to ignore Keith Ellison and Corey Booker. They love to fight and champion women until they disagree with them."

STEPHANOPOULUS: "Al Franken lost his job in the Senate."

SANDERS: "And a number of other Democrats should have the same type of scrutiny. Look, the president... "

STEPHANOPOULUS: "What's the answer to my question? Every single time, the president has taken the side of the man against women accusers."

SANDERS: "That's not true, and in this case, the president knows Brett Kavanaugh."
   821. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:45 PM (#5751834)
In theory, Kavanaugh is still potentially criminally prosecutable in the state of Maryland (*) and typically defense attorneys are extremely careful about having their clients talk about things that may be the subject of even unlikely criminal investigations and prosecutions. That's probably where the "sexual assault" terminology, and the "out" I've discussed, is coming from. It doesn't fit the questioning or the context in the least.

(*) My recollection is that there's no SOL for this in MD and I'm at about 92% confidence in that recollection. I'm too lazy to confirm and will withdraw the comment if this premise is wrong.
   822. . . . . . . Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:48 PM (#5751836)
There's virtually no evidence that is true. That was a time period in which Kavanaugh finished 1st in his class at an elite high school while playing two varsity sports, graduated cum laude from Yale while playing junior varsity basketball and writing for the Yale Daily News, and excelled at arguably the highest rated law school in the country (Yale again) sufficiently to be Notes Editor on the Law Journal, and snag a string of Federal Court Clerkships, culminating with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Those are difficult things to do under any circumstances, much less as a "notoriously aggressive and inappropriate drunk". If Kavanaugh had such a serious long-term drinking problem, shouldn't there be at least one incident with solid evidence? Multiple accusers, actual corroborating witnesses, or a night in the drunk tank? Not a hint of any that.


It's hard to answer this without sounding like an #######, but, you're wrong. I was basically drunk or high for about 6 years of my late teens and early 20s, and my credentials aren't all that much worse than Kavanaugh's. One of my college friends was even worse than me - a terrifying monster when drunk who basically swore off the demon liquor forever at age 22 - and he's very prominent doctor who just finished his fellowship at MGH. Another lunatic drunk friend of mine who was most famous for losing a game of pong and then going up to the second floor of our fraternity house and throwing a goddamned microwave out the window onto the roof of the car of the guy who won, he clerked for (IIRC) Edith Jones and is now a trial attorney at DOJ.

EVERYONE who went to college with Kavanaugh says he's a drunk. His yearbook brags about his drinking. HIS OWN SPEECHES BRAG ABOUT HIS DRINKING.

Take the partisan blinders off. We're never getting this ########## on the Court and the faster we all get with the program of flipping to Barrett, the more likely it is that we can salvage something out of this shitshow failed nomination.
   823. . . . . . . Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:50 PM (#5751837)
Also, dude, if you come from the right background, you can get away with basically any drunk shenangians without the cops doing more than sending your drunk ass home. The stories I can tell.
   824. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:55 PM (#5751838)
But he obviously has said that.


No, he hasn't. He definitely didn't say it last night. He actually had two chances (maybe more if the NYT truncated another out of its version of the transcript), and didn't say it either time. Both times he was asked about details he simply said, "I've never sexually assaulted anyone." I will concede a "No" to the first long-ass rambling question on these lines, but it reads like a throwaway, a brief speedbump on the way to, "I've never sexually assaulted anyone," and I will assert that this conclusion is buttressed by his use of the past tense -- "I had never sexually assaulted anyone" right after "No." Strange.(*)

At no point did he say, "I've never had physical contact of any nature with Christine Ford" -- or anything close. Seems quite simple to say. If you can say with confidence that you were never at a party in a big area of hundreds of square blocks, it would seem quite simple to say with confidence that you never had physical contact of any nature with CF.

And of course he didn't tell the truth about his confidence level in not being at the party, which is all over my suggested statement. The whole thing goes together. He did not say anything like that statement.

(*) Indeed, saying "had" there kind of sort of looks like lack of confidence that the "No" is accurate. (**) There are of course other plausible explanations.

(**) The transcript:

And other assault victims say that they’ve had similar memories where they remembered exactly what happened but they didn’t necessarily remember the events surrounding it. You have categorically denied that this happened. Did anything happen?

JUDGE KAVANAUGH: No. I had never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not ever. I’ve always treated women with dignity and respect.

Listen to the people who’ve known me best through my whole life, the women who have known me since high school, the 65 who overnight signed a letter from high school saying I always treated them with dignity and respect —
   825. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:58 PM (#5751842)
David, "black-out drunk" is a state that can only be confirmed for certain by the person who is drunk (Kavanaugh.) Thus, the roommate's reportage of his state of inebriation can't be said to be certain that he was in fact black-out gone. Only that he was incoherent, angry and aggressive. Thus, "near."
People, do you not understand that "black out drunk" is not synonymous with "really drunk"? Nor is it the same thing as passing out from being drunk.

One can be so drunk that one is close to passing out, sure. So nearly passed out. But not nearly blacked out.
   826. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:58 PM (#5751843)
. . . . . . ., #822-823:
It's hard to answer this without sounding like an #######, but, you're wrong. I was basically drunk or high for about 6 years of my late teens and early 20s, and my credentials aren't all that much worse than Kavanaugh's. One of my college friends was even worse than me - a terrifying monster when drunk who basically swore off the demon liquor forever at age 22 - and he's very prominent doctor who just finished his fellowship at MGH. Another lunatic drunk friend of mine who was most famous for losing a game of pong and then going up to the second floor of our fraternity house and throwing a goddamned microwave out the window onto the roof of the car of the guy who won, he clerked for (IIRC) Edith Jones and is now a trial attorney at DOJ.

EVERYONE who went to college with Kavanaugh says he's a drunk. His yearbook brags about his drinking. HIS OWN SPEECHES BRAG ABOUT HIS DRINKING.

Take the partisan blinders off. We're never getting this ########## on the Court and the faster we all get with the program of flipping to Barrett, the more likely it is that we can salvage something out of this shitshow failed nomination.

Also, dude, if you come from the right background, you can get away with basically any drunk shenangians without the cops doing more than sending your drunk ass home. The stories I can tell.

But, two varsity sports! Two varsity sports!
   827. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:00 PM (#5751844)

But, two varsity sports! Two varsity sports!


Three, if you count "train participant".
   828. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:02 PM (#5751845)
There's virtually no evidence that is true. That was a time period in which Kavanaugh finished 1st in his class at an elite high school while playing two varsity sports, graduated cum laude from Yale while playing junior varsity basketball and writing for the Yale Daily News, and excelled at arguably the highest rated law school in the country (Yale again) sufficiently to be Notes Editor on the Law Journal, and snag a string of Federal Court Clerkships, culminating with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Those are difficult things to do under any circumstances, much less as a "notoriously aggressive and inappropriate drunk". If Kavanaugh had such a serious long-term drinking problem, shouldn't there be at least one incident with solid evidence? Multiple accusers, actual corroborating witnesses, or a night in the drunk tank? Not a hint of any that.


How incredibly naive - or an awesome attempt at feigning being obtuse.

My best friend in college finished undergrad in three years, then finished near the top of his class in med school, and finally - matched into John Hopkins neurology residency.

He was also an alcoholic. Not just a binge drinker/excessive drinker like we thought - and would have considered ourselves - but a flat-out, bottle a day alcoholic. It fell apart for him in the 2nd year of his residency (he's been sober for 17 years now and did manage to climb his way back in medicine as a transplant surgeon), but he basically made it halfway through the final step of an equally rigorous academic and post-graduate career. He was also an all-state swimmer in high school and graduated at the top of his high school class.

And like I said - his excessive/binge drinking was actually far more/far worse.

The idea that just being what the literature would call a 'problem drinker' (setting aside whether one wants to buy the definition or not) is incompatible with high achievement is utterly laughable.
   829. PreservedFish Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:03 PM (#5751846)
#818 sounds like Kavanaugh's mom wrote it.

while playing junior varsity basketball and writing for the Yale Daily News
   830. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:03 PM (#5751847)
Also, dude, if you come from the right background, you can get away with basically any drunk shenangians without the cops doing more than sending your drunk ass home. The stories I can tell.

My favorite was a friend of mine who got pulled over for drunk driving (on a night when he was SMASHED). The cop just gave the kid a ride back to his house (in the back of the cop car!) and told him to get a cab next time.

The kid’s dad was......the chief of police. It has its perks!
   831. Lassus Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:08 PM (#5751849)
I'm not sure who is following Avenirritatnt, but the tubes he says that a third Coach K accuser - a former US Mint employee - is appearing in 48 hours. And 4chan is claiming they pranked him on said third accuser (which he denies).
   832. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:09 PM (#5751850)
My best friend in college


Mine was a chemistry major, smart guy. Had enough credits to graduate after the fall semester, but his financial aid allowed him to stay in the dorm for the next semester, after registering for classes, which he withdrew from. He spent almost every night drunk and aggressively belligerent. He tortured everyone.

If making money is a measure of a person's success, he is wildly successful. Retired from a large consumer products company before he was 50, owns lots of real estate in Boston, still has projects where he's developing products for household use. He drinks lightly now. Back then? He was just this side of out of control.

Votes Republican, 100%.
   833. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:09 PM (#5751851)
It's hard to answer this without sounding like an #######, but, you're wrong. I was basically drunk or high for about 6 years of my late teens and early 20s, and my credentials aren't all that much worse than Kavanaugh's. One of my college friends was even worse than me - a terrifying monster when drunk who basically swore off the demon liquor forever at age 22 - and he's very prominent doctor who just finished his fellowship at MGH. Another lunatic drunk friend of mine who was most famous for losing a game of pong and then going up to the second floor of our fraternity house and throwing a goddamned microwave out the window onto the roof of the car of the guy who won, he clerked for (IIRC) Edith Jones and is now a trial attorney at DOJ.


Everyone similarly situated has similar stories. It's blatantly obvious. There's kinda maybe something of an imperfect connection in aggregate between partying frequency and success; there isn't a smidgen of an iota of connection between behavior when partying and success.

I'm not even sure who Clapper's trying to fool with the "but look at his grades" routine.
   834. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:13 PM (#5751853)
And the two accusers aren't just random classmates, both have been reported to be very active politically in opposition to the current administration.

Now, I only have one job, I don’t write for a school paper and play two varsity sports, so my bad if I missed this today, but did we ever get a cite for this claim?
   835. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:15 PM (#5751854)
It's hard to answer this without sounding like an #######, but, you're wrong. I was basically drunk or high for about 6 years of my late teens and early 20s, and my credentials aren't all that much worse than Kavanaugh's. One of my college friends was even worse than me - a terrifying monster when drunk who basically swore off the demon liquor forever at age 22 - and he's very prominent doctor who just finished his fellowship at MGH. Another lunatic drunk friend of mine who was most famous for losing a game of pong and then going up to the second floor of our fraternity house and throwing a goddamned microwave out the window onto the roof of the car of the guy who won, he clerked for (IIRC) Edith Jones and is now a trial attorney at DOJ.


We went over this the other week. Nobody that is half serious thinks that heavy drinkers can't excel in life, including at the absolute highest circles of politics and influence. Hell, just today a really good friend of mine, who has a great job, a beautiful brownstone in NYC and a serious GF with looks and brains admitted to me and our other good friends that he's seeking help for alcoholism after spending the last two weeks curled up in bed with a bottle of Jamison, only leaving the house to go buy more booze.

   836. . . . . . . Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:17 PM (#5751856)
I'm not even sure who Clapper's trying to fool with the "but look at his grades" routine


It's a great example of the disconnect between how the meritocracy actually works, what really happens if you're elite, and how the flyover people think it works.

Like, rich high achieving kids get ###### up drunk and punch and grope each other and crash cars and do all that #### too. Scumbaggery is an equal opportunity virus.
   837. Zonk just has affection for alumni Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:20 PM (#5751858)
It's hard to answer this without sounding like an #######, but, you're wrong. I was basically drunk or high for about 6 years of my late teens and early 20s, and my credentials aren't all that much worse than Kavanaugh's. One of my college friends was even worse than me - a terrifying monster when drunk who basically swore off the demon liquor forever at age 22 - and he's very prominent doctor who just finished his fellowship at MGH. Another lunatic drunk friend of mine who was most famous for losing a game of pong and then going up to the second floor of our fraternity house and throwing a goddamned microwave out the window onto the roof of the car of the guy who won, he clerked for (IIRC) Edith Jones and is now a trial attorney at DOJ.


Heh... microwave? Pshaw... I had a lunatic buddy who specialized in throwing anything and everything off the top floor. Kegs, microwaves, TVs... the action of getting drunk and throwing items from high places came to be named after him - as pulling a "John Doe". At the first post-undergrad wedding of friends - he managed to get himself arrested by seeing how many items he could throw through the hotel room window (the finally was all the lamps, the TV, and one of the chairs).

He is, today, a C level exec at a silicon valley company that I won't name but everyone has heard of...

   838. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:22 PM (#5751860)
George W. Bush used to say, “When I was young and stupid, I was young and stupid.” Kavanaugh is not giving himself any such out. He is not referring to embarrassing misunderstandings, or mistakes of immature judgment, or possible vagaries of memory, or decisions he badly rues in retrospect. He is saying that he was literally virginal in high school and college. He has never done anything like this. He is absolutely not this kind of person. He would not ever treat women in this way. The charges are All. Absolutely. False. Every. One. Of. Them.

As an argumentative stance, this is obviously risky, since an absolute claim can be undone by even a single proven counter-example.


I have a soft spot for Fallows' writing and style, but this is a decidedly pre-Trump point of view. Kavanaugh is playing the Trump playbook. Deny, deny, deny, smear, deny some more, smear, deny. If you get caught in a lie about it, deny that you said the first thing that contradicts what you just said. Accuse the media of making it up. Go back to denying.

Brett Kavanaugh is a bit of a mascot case for a certain type of GOP cultist from the 80's and 90's. And he, as has his entire party, has fully embraced the fascistic tactics of declaring the truth to be whatever they say it is that Putin taught Trump.
   839. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:22 PM (#5751861)
I thought the most telling part of Kavanaugh’s puffpiece interciew on Fox yesterday was when he admitted to drinking in high school only by immediately nothing that he was over the state’s legal drinking age.

He’s not concerned with the moral or spiritual consequences of his behavior; all that matters are the legal ones.

Because those are the ones that impede his rise to power.
   840. . . . . . . Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:23 PM (#5751862)
Heh... microwave? Pshaw... I had a lunatic buddy who specialized in throwing anything and everything off the top floor. Kegs, microwaves, TVs... the action of getting drunk and throwing items from high places came to be named after him - as pulling a "John Doe". At the first post-undergrad wedding of friends - he managed to get himself arrested by seeing how many items he could through the hotel room window (the finally was all the lamps, the TV, and one of the chairs).


Oh, hell yes. We'd save old appliances and then once a year have a weekend afternoon where we'd take a keg up to the second floor balcony, get sauced and throw 'em all. CRT TV's are the best, they've got a vacuum inside so when they break they kind of implode and then rebound and it's the most fantastic explosion and sound.

I cannot more highly recommend this as a mental health day.
   841. . . . . . . Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:26 PM (#5751864)
But more seriously, this heightens the point: you can be brilliant and a drunk; you can be a high achiever and rowdy; you can be studious and a partier. None of those things are disqualifying. But what Kavanaugh seems to have been known for is being belligerent - hostile to OTHERS. And that's the line you can't cross with your oat-sowing shenanigans. Because even as a drunk 19 year old your reptile brain should be screaming at you DONT HURT OTHER PEOPLE.
   842. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:27 PM (#5751865)
It's a great example of the disconnect between how the meritocracy actually works, what really happens if you're elite, and how the flyover people think it works.

Like, rich high achieving kids get ###### up drunk and punch and grope each other and crash cars and do all that #### too.


Pretty much, yeah.

   843. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:27 PM (#5751866)
It's hard to answer this without sounding like an #######, but, you're wrong. I was basically drunk or high for about 6 years of my late teens and early 20s, and my credentials aren't all that much worse than Kavanaugh's. One of my college friends was even worse than me - a terrifying monster when drunk who basically swore off the demon liquor forever at age 22 - and he's very prominent doctor who just finished his fellowship at MGH. Another lunatic drunk friend of mine who was most famous for losing a game of pong and then going up to the second floor of our fraternity house and throwing a goddamned microwave out the window onto the roof of the car of the guy who won, he clerked for (IIRC) Edith Jones and is now a trial attorney at DOJ.

Neither your unmentioned credentials, and most certainly those of your friend, appear to be in the same zip code as Kavanaugh. A trial attorney at DoJ? Please. More importantly, your friend was "famous" for throwing that microwave off the roof. That's typically the case - the drunk may skate by for a while, although typically not as long or as well as Kavanaugh, but everyone has an anecdotal drunk story about them. Not so Kavanaugh. Again. you would have to be an amazingly lucky person to have all that going on, yet never doing anything in front of two witnesses, not having your single-accusers make any indication to anyone for decades, not having any contemporaneous corroboration (not so much as a diary entry), and yet have all the people named by your accusers as being present dispute the accusation.
   844. JL72 Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:27 PM (#5751867)
There's certainly no evidence he lied at all, "outright" or otherwise. The emails Leahy tried to seize on didn't prove anything at all. None of them had a memo as an attachment. None of them said anything like, "Here's some information that I got by hacking the congressional server."


That ignores that one of the emails that Kavanaugh received from Miranda includes the text of a draft letter (including typos). A letter never made public. Why Leahy would have sent around a draft letter to the Republicans is a question Kavanaugh never seems to consider.

Yet even after the Miranda theft blew up, Kavanaugh continued to say that he did not ever receive any stolen information, full stop. Only now that emails have been disclosed has he softened that position.
   845. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:30 PM (#5751869)
Not so Kavanaugh.


That's wrong. His roommate at Yale has come forward and outed him as "an aggressive drunk". Just because he hasn't given any specifics (yet) doesn't mean he doesn't have any. Schmuck.
   846. PreservedFish Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:30 PM (#5751870)
I have really enjoyed the last 20 comments. Nice work by zop.

By the way, there's a (very very small) fancy dining conversation in the Pop Culture thread you could contribute to. Ever been to Alinea?
   847. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:31 PM (#5751871)

I don't know how to break this to you gently Clapper but you are being silly. She has not yet had the opportunity to testify yet, so yelling about how there is no sworn testimony yet is dumb.
That is not correct. Or at least is not substantively correct. It is technically correct that she has not had the opportunity to testify at a hearing. (Though -- hey, crazy banana guy -- that's her fault! She could have come forward when the hearings were taking place!) But she has had the opportunity to be interviewed by committee staff, which would be under the same penalty for lying as testifying under oath would, and she has refused to cooperate.
Secondly we have not seen what she has to say under oath. Comparing various second and hand sources - including notes from her therapist - is kind of dumb, especially when you are so lightly gliding over all the inconsistencies in the various BK prevarications of the day.
This is priceless. Half the people here have branded Kavanaugh a rapist based on those words, and BM never says one word. But when Clapper analyzes those same words, all of the sudden BM feels the need to note that they're secondhand.
   848. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:32 PM (#5751872)
Clapper, #843:
everyone has an anecdotal drunk story about them. Not so Kavanaugh.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8GGpYFmkYI&t=0m1s
   849. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:36 PM (#5751875)
When I was younger I frequently drank to excess, and in that drunken state I occasionally treated women monstrously. I’m not sure if anything rose to the level of criminality, but I’m certain they were immoral and deeply hurtful.

There’s no weakness in admitting this. Even in a secular context: acknowledging your mistakes and misdeeds isn’t shameful. Trump’s “deny deny deny” playbook is so morally disgusting, as it treats forgiveness and mercy as unobtainable.
   850. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:36 PM (#5751876)

That ignores that one of the emails that Kavanaugh received from Miranda includes the text of a draft letter (including typos). A letter never made public. Why Leahy would have sent around a draft letter to the Republicans is a question Kavanaugh never seems to consider.
No, it doesn't ignore it. Kavanaugh's contemporaneous response to the letter was "Who signed this?", indicating that he thought it was a real letter, not a draft letter.

Moreover, Miranda did not respond, "Nobody; this is just a draft." Miranda said, "I am told that all Dems on JC."
   851. . . . . . . Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:37 PM (#5751877)


By the way, there's a (very very small) fancy dining conversation in the Pop Culture thread you could contribute to. Ever been to Alinea?


No - I don't get to Chicago very often, so haven't had the chance to explore fine dining there. When I do go, I so so so much dig the cheap food, the Italian beef and the hot dogs and such, that I don't make it out like I should.
   852. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:38 PM (#5751878)
but everyone has an anecdotal drunk story about them. Not so Kavanaugh.


You mean other than the bedroom drag-grope of the 15-year-old chick and the freshman dick display anecdotal drunk stories?

Whether or not intended, this is just terrific performance art by Clapper. (*) Hopefully there's more to come.

(*) Kavanaugh can't be a drunk; if he was, there'd be stories out there about him doing drunk things!!! Priceless.
   853. PreservedFish Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:44 PM (#5751881)
Seriously Clapper, do you think that Kavanaugh's resume is some sort of proof that he couldn't get rowdy on the weekends?
   854. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:45 PM (#5751883)
(And how much time do you guys have to scroll back through ten years of FB posts anyway?)

Really? After all the discussion here about the Comey reveal of the late treasure trove of HRC emails and near instantaneous verification days later? It's basically a slightly more sophisticated version of ctrl-f and we get a report back from our screening vendor in one business day. It is also getting to the point where the ML software is sufficient to pick out pictures as well as text, but the hit rate there isn't quite as good.


I've recommended a number of people for hiring out of school, in which I essentially made the decision even though it wasn't ultimately up to me. Never once thought or cared to be bothered with going back through their social media posts -- not even enough to have the HR director do it. I interview them and look at their resume and cover letter. And I have had no problems post-hiring.
   855. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:45 PM (#5751884)
A few more Senate polls today:

FL-- Nelson 53%, Scott 46%
MT-- Tester 49%, Rosendale 45%
AZ-- Sinema 47%, McSally 44%
MA-- Warren 56%, Diehl 30%
   856. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:46 PM (#5751885)
The New Yorker politics content is subpar, but Jane Meyer is an outstanding reporter from all accounts. Here's James Fallows take:

George W. Bush used to say, “When I was young and stupid, I was young and stupid.” Kavanaugh is not giving himself any such out. He is not referring to embarrassing misunderstandings, or mistakes of immature judgment, or possible vagaries of memory, or decisions he badly rues in retrospect. He is saying that he was literally virginal in high school and college. He has never done anything like this. He is absolutely not this kind of person. He would not ever treat women in this way. The charges are All. Absolutely. False. Every. One. Of. Them.


This is amazing. People are actually expressing outrage that Kavanaugh has the temerity to say that he didn't attempt to rape anyone and that there could be no mistake about that.
   857. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:47 PM (#5751887)
Neither your unmentioned credentials, and most certainly those of your friend, appear to be in the same zip code as Kavanaugh.


Cum laude from Yale in US history, apparently no honors from Yale Law? I mean, obviously a smart guy, but let's not go overboard here. (I'll change my tune if he graduated with honors from Yale Law. Not seeing it on Wikipedia.)

A trial attorney at DoJ? Please.


Did Kavanaugh ever first chair a complex litigation?
   858. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:49 PM (#5751888)
Neither your unmentioned credentials, and most certainly those of your friend, appear to be in the same zip code as Kavanaugh. A trial attorney at DoJ? Please. More importantly, your friend was "famous" for throwing that microwave off the roof. That's typically the case - the drunk may skate by for a while, although typically not as long or as well as Kavanaugh, but everyone has an anecdotal drunk story about them. Not so Kavanaugh.


Mmm, YC, probably not the best argument.
   859. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:51 PM (#5751889)
I know people who are flat out drunks who have been highly successful both in school and in their professional and personal lives. There's no pro-Kavanaugh hay to be made by arguing that he couldn't have been both a drunk AND so successful.

Why deny that he was a drunk in his younger years, when there's plenty of evidence that he was including his own statements and his implicit acceptance of it in last night's interview? If one can't concede this point it hurts their credibility in other arguments.

(Just a WAG and not based on sound analysis but I'd actually bet that he's still a major drunk. We've heard no stories about him reforming the habit and his face has that telltale reddish hue.)
   860. PreservedFish Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:52 PM (#5751890)
#856 - I agree that the article excerpted is inaccurate. There's not a ton of difference between Bush's “When I was young and stupid, I was young and stupid” and Kav's "I think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe a bit."
   861. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 06:53 PM (#5751891)

Also, in my opinion, an odd construction. In both respects -- (a) that he'd concede that she had been assaulted, when he has no clue one way or the other and when, given what she's said about him, she's a liar; and (b) that he wouldn't just say straight up something like, "But I assure you I never did any such thing," in lieu of doing it by inference.
Your opinion is stupid and illiterate. He did not "concede" that she had been assaulted. He said "I am not questioning" whether she had been assaulted, which is not remotely the same thing. And it's not even a tiny bit odd. Since this is political rather than just legal, his defense is not "She's a liar liar pants on fire." His defense is, "I didn't do it, so she must be mistaken." And he did say straight up something like, "But I assure you I never did any such thing," which you yourself quoted, so I'm not sure why you're lying about it.
   862. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:00 PM (#5751894)
Donald Trump Jr.

Donald Trump Jr.

Verified account

@DonaldJTrumpJr
7h7 hours ago
More
Well said realDonaldTrump

“We will never surrender American sovereignty to an unelected...global bureaucracy. America's governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism & we embrace a doctrine of patriotism.” unga

2,354 replies 12,956 retweets 38,613 likes
Reply 2.4K Retweet 13K Like 39K Direct message
   863. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:00 PM (#5751895)
Dershowitz:

...Dershowitz spoke to the Herald’s Sean Philip Cotter yesterday about the hearing planned for Thursday, when both Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are expected to testify, and his concerns about due process:

“Much stands on Thursday. It’s wrong for anybody to say at this point he’s lying or she’s lying. We just don’t know. People are just seeing what they want to see. Democrats basically are saying, ‘We hope he assaulted her,’ and Republicans are saying ‘We hope he didn’t.’

That’s why I am in favor of the FBI continuing its background check. I am in favor of the hearing — the American public wants to hear both sides. I’m in favor of her testifying and then him testifying. It can’t be the other way — that would be so against the traditions of America.

Though in the end, we won’t know much more. It’ll still be uncertain.

In the absence of a high level of proof, they should confirm him.

You need more than a toss up, more than 50-50 chance it happened, in order to vote against him. You need very significant evidence in order to disqualify someone from serving on the Supreme Court.


   864. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:02 PM (#5751897)
Also, from a different source:

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz on Tuesday implored the counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask tough questions of Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

"A good cross-examining lawyer has to be gender-free, has to raise the same kinds of tough questions about repressed memory and how to reconstruct memory," Dershowitz, who is also an opinion contributor for The Hill, said on "Fox & Friends."

"Any woman or man who is afraid to be tough in examining her, or cross-examining him, should not have that job," Dershowitz added.

...

Attorney Michael Avenatti, who is representing adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in her suit against President Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen, has said a third woman will come forward with allegations against Kavanaugh this week, though he has not provided specifics.

Dershowitz chastised Avenatti on Tuesday, saying he's bad for the legal profession.

"He may help himself in the sense of getting more clients, but he has acted less than completely responsibly not only in this instance but in other instances as well," Dershowitz said.
   865. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:02 PM (#5751898)
And the truth is, I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or otherwise. I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone in some place. But what I know is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or at any time in my life —

This leaves wiggle room for K doing something physical with F, but it falling short of what K might term, "sexual assault." Again, too cute by half.
Once again it's impossible to tell how much of what FLTB is doing is fake lawyering and how much is trolling. It's possible to read that quote that way, but that isn't all that Kavanaugh said. He also said, inter alia:

• No. I had never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not ever. I’ve always treated women with dignity and respect.
• I was never at any such party.
• [In response to "Nothing ever physical, you never met her, never kissed her, never touched her, nothing that you remember?"] Correct. I – I never had any sexual or physical
activity with Dr. Ford.
• I have never sexually assaulted anyone. I was not at the party described. I was not anywhere at any place resembling that in the summer of 1982.

There is no wiggle room in there. He never sexually assaulted her. He wasn't at the party Ford described, there was nothing ever physical, never met, kissed, touched her. Never had any physical activity with her.
   866. . . . . . . Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:03 PM (#5751899)
Cum laude from Yale in US history, apparently no honors from Yale Law? I mean, obviously a smart guy, but let's not go overboard here. (I'll change my tune if he graduated with honors from Yale Law. Not seeing it on Wikipedia.)


Yeah, Kavanaugh obviously has great credentials but so do a lot of other folks. Kavanaugh is distinctive for angling for SCOTUS (or at least to be a federal judge) pretty much from senior year of college, and having tailored his whole resume toward that goal. Some of us wanted to do deal work or just didn't want to have to whore ourselves out to politics, even if we're literal card-carrying members of the federalist society.
   867. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:05 PM (#5751900)
For the fifteenth or twentieth time: what if she's mistaken?


There is a non-trivial chance she could be mistaken. Given what the experts tell us, and what I have seen first hand (small sample size alert), I don't think it likely.* Maybe 10-20% chance. Now, that 10-20% doubt is certainly enough to acquit him if this were a criminal trial. But it's not. If she appears credible in her testimony, that would do it for me.

* and that's why expert testimony is crucial, if one were interested in trying to find out the truth as best we can. Absent that, the questions write themselves: "Dr Ford, you have given compelling detailed testimony about the alleged incident, but you can't tell us exactly when or where this took place. Since your memory is so hazy on those details, why should we believe the other details?"

Because that is entirely consistent with how the brain and memory deal with these things, that's why.
   868. Morty Causa Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:08 PM (#5751902)
The present-day New Yorker would have revolted Thurber and sent White into a deep depression.

I remember thinking it was a shame when the New Yorker endorsed Kerry, their first ever political endorsement, I believe. Not because of Kerry, because I don't understand how anyone would have voted for more Bush, but because of the break in tradition.

Those fables of Thurber's, as well as other stuff of his, served as eternal irritants to the McCarthyite mentality and the repressive conservative temper. And it had to be especially galling to callous and coarse that he, White, and others did it with such pervasive grace and brio. I remember years ago, in the '70s, I think, reading that Wm. F. Buckley had characterized Thurber as "an evil genius, like Beethoven." At the time, I thought, what, that guy who drew cartoons with people that looked like unbaked cookies (as Dorothy Parker put it), that guy who had made the Thurber dog an institution ("For heaven's sake, why don't you go outdoors and trace something?"). I was truly flabbergasted by Buckley's comment. I need to trace the source and context of that comment.
   869. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:18 PM (#5751910)
He did not "concede" that she had been assaulted. He said "I am not questioning" whether she had been assaulted, which is not remotely the same thing.


They are in fact remotely the same thing; in this context they're essentially the very same thing.

His defense is, "I didn't do it, so she must be mistaken."


He didn't say he didn't do "it," he said he didn't "sexually assault" her. That's what he said when he gave his description of "the truth." The "truth" wasn't "I have no recollection of any physical contact with her whatsoever," it was "I've never sexually assaulted anyone."

There's no question he left himself a rhetorical "out." I've explained why and how. No need to repeat it here.

And it remains discordant that he's unambiguously positive he wasn't at an unidentified party (*), but doesn't show the same unambiguous positivity about physical conduct with her, but only "sexually assaulting" her.

(*) Which, again, is a lie.

   870. -- Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:26 PM (#5751914)
• [In response to "Nothing ever physical, you never met her, never kissed her, never touched her, nothing that you remember?"] Correct. I – I never had any sexual or physical
activity with Dr. Ford.


This isn't in the Times transcript. Weird omission, but I will concede the point having now checked it in the full transcript.

• I have never sexually assaulted anyone. I was not at the party described. I was not anywhere at any place resembling that in the summer of 1982.


I now see this in the full transcript, and it makes the lie even worse. Never in any "place resembling" an undescribed house near C and E-W H in the summer of 1982, whether at a party or otherwise? That's just flat out laughably absurd. Jaw-dropping. So ridiculous that I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he didn't really mean it and somehow just meant to repeat that he's positive he was never at a party at a place like that in the summer of 1982. That's still a lie, but at least it's within the realm of possibility.

So we're left with him lying about his confidence re a party in the area and him ducking the FBI question. Still very much not a good look.
   871. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:34 PM (#5751918)
864- I think much of Dershowitz’s reputation is unearned, but there’s no denying his expertise when it comes to raping teenage girls.
   872. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:37 PM (#5751920)
   873. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:47 PM (#5751924)

Fantastic. Now, Yankee Clapper knows more about what the New Yorker's reporter heard and saw than the New Yorker reporter who said what she heard and saw. Is there any limit to his insight?
It's unclear what this means. The New Yorker article speaks for itself. If the reporter is trying to bolster it with stuff that didn't even meet the low editorial standards that allowed them to write such a sad article, then we probably should ignore it.
   874. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:50 PM (#5751927)
You mean other than the bedroom drag-grope of the 15-year-old chick and the freshman dick display anecdotal drunk stories?

You mean the stories that everyone named as being present denies? That doesn't sound at all similar to the anecdotes recounted on this page, where (since I assume you all don't lie about everything) multiple witnesses could easily provide consistent accounts of the behavior in question. All your drunken friends engaged in open & notorious conduct that could easily be pinned on them. They all also apparently eventually crashed & burned, contrary to Kavanaugh based on all that is known. You're just hanging a stereotype on Kavanaugh and pronouncing him guilty based on the stereotype. I'm not saying Kavanaugh was any kind of teetotaler, he undoubtedly drank similarly to most college students or young adults, which usually includes a bit of excess, coupled with some bragging or exaggeration about that excess. That is not remotely like being blackout drunk or an alcoholic.
   875. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 07:55 PM (#5751928)

Using the address of a place rather than a name of the place does not "limit the geographic scope" in any way.

That isn't what happened, and yes it does. Columbia Country Club is a huge tract of land; an intersection of two streets is a tiny sliver of land. The number of houses "near Columbia Country club" outnumber those near the intersection of C and E-W H by a factor of hundreds.
I forgot about your unfamiliarity with the English language. Anything near the club, which is hardly "huge," is near those roads. (Note that even your attempt at pedantry is false; he didn't say near the intersection of those roads. He said it was a house near those roads.)

The other is if one always went to certain places for parties. That might.

And that doesn't apply to him either. It really doesn't apply to any 17 year old in a place like Bethesda who goes to parties.
This is pure trollery. It really applies to every 17-year old in a place like Bethesda who goes to parties. Not that you would know anything about Bethesda, 17-year olds, or parties.
   876. perros Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:01 PM (#5751931)
Maybe 10-20% chance.


No.
   877. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:05 PM (#5751934)
Maybe 10-20% chance.


No.


I was being generous. It's certainly non-zero. If it's 5% or 15%, it doesn't really change the calculus.
   878. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:07 PM (#5751937)
Which of course....is in a scene the difference between worldly remorse and godly remorse. The forgiveness the mother was trying to provide was selfish. She wasn't doing God's will. She was acting out of pride, and tgis pride has resulted in her downfall. She is ungrateful because of how much peace God appeared to have granted to her heart but when she learns that the peace is being shared with her enemy, she doesn't consent to this, and reacts with violence and anger.

The Killer, on the other hand: he actually has sought godly forgiveness and been born again in Christ....and that is why he is at peace. He has repented his sins and is serving his sentence with no complaints, and that is why he is sincerely happy to learn that she will get to share in his joy.

....This conflict is incredibly difficult to accept. And no art has done as good a job dramatizing it.
I'm sticking with "goys are weird." In Judaism, forgiveness must be earned, and god does not forgive offenses against other people, at least not until the victims forgive first. (I'm oversimplifying a bit, but that's the essence.)
   879. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:08 PM (#5751938)
Any comment on my substantive conclusion, with ample description and analysis, about Kavanaugh's lies? Doesn't seem like you're paying a whole lot of attention to the things he's saying, unsurprisingly.

There is no there there. It's laughable. Appalling, even. Your homage to unsworn testimony alone disqualifies you from being taken seriously. I could go on, but I won't.
   880. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:12 PM (#5751940)

First, if you're actually disqualifying people for ten-year old Facebook posts from when they were in HS, I question your judgment, assuming that they weren't confessing to serious crimes (i.e., more than underage drinking) or posting pictures of themselves burning crosses or something. (And how much time do you guys have to scroll back through ten years of FB posts anyway?)

This is kind of dependent on your industry and situation, but whenever I apply for jobs, I can rely on them getting 100-400 applications from entirely qualified people who'd do great jobs. Given the glut of candidates, it's easy to ditch candidates for even the most minor things, because, hey, you've still got scads of great candidates.
But that's false precision. Everyone has something wrong with them. Ditching some candidates because one happened to find some minor thing on Facebook doesn't mean that one is getting employees without minor issues. Once one winnows the pool by eliminating the clearly inferior or ones with major issues, one might as well just pick at random.
   881. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:15 PM (#5751941)
Not a single person in history -- at least before now -- has ever lost a job opportunity because of something written in his or her high school yearbook.

Roy Moore?

Touche; I LOLed. (But that was the girl's yearbook, not his!)


I would have made the comment anyway, but I misread your post as "...written in a yearbook." I thought it couldn't have been teed up any better.
   882. perros Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:17 PM (#5751943)

I was being generous. It's certainly non-zero. If it's 5% or 15%, it doesn't really change the calculus.


Let's agree this would take expert investigation and testimony. The GOP doesn't need generosity to dismiss her claim, but of such room for doubt they will sway uninformed public opinion. I certainly agree memory -- and human perception -- doesn't work the way we commonly think it does.
   883. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:21 PM (#5751946)
David N, #873:
If the [New Yorker] reporter is trying to bolster it with stuff that didn't even meet the low editorial standards that allowed them to write such a sad article, then we probably should ignore it.


Conversely, your hypothetical assertion about a stranger's hypothetical motives and your personal pique about her magazine's editorial caliber is gripping and compelling.

That makes two persuasive attempts to delve into the reporter's subconscious. You and Clapper should team up and do a mind-reading stage act.
   884. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:22 PM (#5751947)
Let's agree this would take expert investigation and testimony. The GOP doesn't need generosity to dismiss her claim, but of such room for doubt they will sway uninformed public opinion. I certainly agree memory -- and human perception -- doesn't work the way we commonly think it does.


Absolutely. Mine was just a WAG, and as I said, doesn't really change things if it's off by a little.
   885. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:22 PM (#5751948)
Yankee Clapper, #879:
I could go on, but I won't.


Your biggest lie yet.
   886. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:23 PM (#5751950)
Entirely predictable, as some here previously noted - Second Kavanaugh Accuser Refuses To Cooperate With Committee:
Deborah Ramirez, a Yale University classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, is refusing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee about her accusation against Kavanaugh, a GOP lawmaker said Tuesday.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., who sits on the committee, said a lawyer for Ramirez told committee staff she would not speak to them about her allegation that Kavanaugh flashed his naked groin in her face during an alcohol-laden party their freshman year. Ramirez made the accusation in a blockbuster Sunday night New Yorker story.

“Our counsel repeatedly tried to reach him,” Kennedy said of Ramirez's lawyer. “They finally did reach him, and he said we are not issuing a statement. He said if you want our statement, read the New Yorker.”

That would be the New Yorker article in which everyone Ramirez named disputed her account, and neither the authors nor any other media working the story could find even one witness to corroborate her accusation.
   887. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:25 PM (#5751953)
“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski told the New York Times Monday night. “It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”

Sounds like you’re down to 50 votes now.
   888. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:28 PM (#5751959)
Garrett Haake @GarrettHaake
News: The Senate Judiciary committee has set a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination for 9:30 Friday morning.


Well.
   889. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:35 PM (#5751961)
“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski told the New York Times Monday night. “It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”

Looks like you’re down to 50 votes now.

It's always been about the votes. The votes of about 8 or 10 possibly undecided Senators, and the votes of the voters 6 weeks from now. And it wouldn't surprise me if Murdowski's been listening to those voters, even if she isn't up for re-election until 2022.
   890. Morty Causa Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:40 PM (#5751964)
We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski told the New York Times Monday night. “It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.

That is just horrible.
   891. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:40 PM (#5751965)
Entirely predictable, as some here previously noted - Second Kavanaugh Accuser Refuses To Cooperate With Committee

The Latest: Lawyer for 2nd accuser offers sworn statement
The attorney for Brett Kavanaugh's second accuser says his client wants to give a sworn statement to the FBI.

John Clune tweets that he's been trying to talk to Senate Judiciary Committee staffers about how Deborah Ramirez can swear to her account of sexual misconduct by President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee. Ramirez told The New Yorker that Kavanaugh exposed his genitals to her during a party at Yale 35 years ago.

"Ms. Ramirez is ready to swear to the FBI under penalty of perjury," Clune tweeted. "Why won't the Senate Judiciary Committee welcome that?"
   892. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:42 PM (#5751967)
Whatever the final result, it seems all but certain that almost every GOP Senator will support placing this vile, unrepentant sinner on the Supreme Court.

Lord help us.
   893. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:43 PM (#5751968)
"Ms. Ramirez is ready to swear to the FBI under penalty of perjury," Clune tweeted. "Why won't the Senate Judiciary Committee welcome that?"


Because they accept only swears the Jesus you idolator.
   894. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:46 PM (#5751971)
"We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won't be. They won't be. Let's not let our great country be laughed at anymore."

And now, it's true.
Aaron Blake on Trump's U.N. speech:
Fox's Twitter account clipped what Trump said immediately before AND immediately after the laughter. The laughter appears in neither clip.
   895. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:47 PM (#5751972)
The confirmation process is before the Senate, not the FBI. For almost 240 years witnesses have testified under oath at confirmation hearings and numerous other Congressional inquiries. Everybody does it routinely - except the Kavanaugh accusers.
   896. Howie Menckel Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:47 PM (#5751973)
Garrett Haake @GarrettHaake
News: The Senate Judiciary committee has set a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination for 9:30 Friday morning.

to be fair, Senate rules say that any possible vote has to be noted 3 days beforehand.

Grassley is claiming that if they hear the testimony and then they are not ready to vote on Friday, then they won't.

report to your precinct captains to find out your respective opinions about that line
;)
   897. perros Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:49 PM (#5751974)

Whatever the final result, it seems all but certain that almost every GOP Senator will support placing this vile, unrepentant sinner on the Supreme Court.


Agreed, but be careful casting bread there, Davo.
   898. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:49 PM (#5751976)
(1) the accusations don't appear to be true

You have no clue about this.
Huh? He doesn't know whether they're true, but he can form an opinion about whether they appear to be true. Once again, you are silent when 50 people claim that the accusations are "credible," but one person says he thinks they're not credible, and you jump all over it.
(2) he likely has the votes

Then why not just vote already? The GOP can vote whenever they want.
I already explained it to you: Republicans, unlike Democrats, care whether the accusations are true.
(3) withdrawing would increase the political impact of the accusations

Wait a minute. You mean if the accusations have an effect they will have had an effect? Brilliant! (EDIT: And you have no idea what the political impact is anyway)
No, he doesn't mean that at all. You appear unclear on this conversation. Davo asked why the nomination wasn't withdrawn. YC was giving reasons why. Not making any conditional claims. Withdrawing would make it seem like an admission that the accusations had merit. It would not mollify Democrats, and it would anger Republicans.
(4) there is no political fallout to confirming a vindicated Kavanaugh

Then why not just vote already? The GOP can vote whenever they want.
Asked and answered: Republicans, unlike Democrats, care whether the accusations are true.
   899. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:50 PM (#5751977)
The two things that really bring the disparate GOP senators together in the Trump Era seem to be
1) Vast transfers of wealth away from the destitute and towards the obscenely wealthy; and
2) Placing rapists on the Supreme Court
   900. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:50 PM (#5751979)

Isn't Kavanaugh's career filled with blemishes though?
No.
Page 9 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMLB must fix glaring problem that ruined an all-time classic
(98 - 12:09pm, Oct 21)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogMLB -- Manny Machado, Yasiel Puig embrace their villain roles all the way to the World Series
(1 - 12:00pm, Oct 21)
Last: Rough Carrigan

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(803 - 11:58am, Oct 21)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOTP 2018 October 15: The shift in focus from sport to politics
(1454 - 11:13am, Oct 21)
Last: baravelli

NewsblogMookie Betts to second base? Alex Cora isn’t ruling it out | Boston.com
(7 - 10:52am, Oct 21)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens

NewsblogLEAGUE CHAMPION SERIES OMNICHATTER! for the 2018 Playoffs!
(2616 - 10:43am, Oct 21)
Last: perros

NewsblogWhat It Took to Write About Baseball as a Woman
(26 - 10:27am, Oct 21)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogThe Brewers are becoming more and more positionless on defense | SI.com
(23 - 10:26am, Oct 21)
Last: Greg Pope

NewsblogFor Dave Dombrowski, Another World Series on the Path to the Hall of Fame - The New York Times
(3 - 7:43am, Oct 21)
Last: Der-K: at 10% emotional investment

NewsblogOT - October 2018 College Football thread
(156 - 11:42pm, Oct 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogWhy The Dodgers' WS Odds are So High
(27 - 11:28pm, Oct 20)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogCatch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (October 2018)
(544 - 10:57pm, Oct 20)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogBest 2018-19 Hot Stove value may be in trade
(2 - 6:44pm, Oct 20)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogAstros' Jose Altuve underwent surgery to repair right knee injury
(1 - 6:01pm, Oct 20)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

Sox TherapyAmerican League Champions!!!!
(32 - 5:17pm, Oct 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Page rendered in 0.8652 seconds
46 querie(s) executed