Kavanaugh Has Detailed Calendars That Seem To Refute Accusations

Holy crap.
If this turns out to be the crucial evidence...the mind reels. That would mean that, but for a kinda crazy-sounding, almost obsessive-compulsive habit, Kavanaugh's life and reputation would have been wrecked. But that's speculative at this point, obviously.

Lindsay Shepherd Can't Tell Us Whether She Was Found Guilty Of "Harassment and Discrimination" Because That Would Be Harassment

War is peace, motherfuckers

McCardle On Kavanaugh

I used to be one of those nasty little liberals who was snide about Megan McCardle. Embarrassing.
link:

   Ford isn’t merely the avatar of every feminist or Democrat who ever angered conservatives. She’s a person who, as best I can tell, sincerely believes that she was grievously wronged by a man who now proposes to sit in judgment on our most important moral and legal questions. She doesn’t deserve the shameful abuse she has suffered from partisans too blinded by their anger to see the person they’re wronging.
   But likewise, Kavanaugh isn’t the doppelganger of every prep-school predator or fraternity rapist. He isn’t a stand-in for every privileged white man who ever got away with something he shouldn’t have; he is not the distilled essence of the patriarchy. He’s an individual, not a stock character, one accused of a very specific act.
   In assessing whether Kavanaugh is guilty of that act, we of course consider his character. But we should not automatically ascribe to him the character of other white men, prep-school boys, high-school athletes, fraternity brothers, Catholics, pro-lifers, conservatives or lawyers we have known.
   No good cause, however just, requires the ritual scapegoating of members of a despised class as an atonement for the sins of the others. Women or men, Democrats or Republicans, we’re all Americans, and I’d still like to believe America is better than that.

The Ramirez Allegations Against Kavanaugh

Some criticisms.
(PJ Media isn't exactly neutral...but, then, they don't have to be.)
   Maybe someone who's heard a lot of such accusations and seen them investigated is good at telling the true ones from the false ones, but I'm not that person. Nothing about it screams false accusation to me. OTOH, I've been to a lot of parties where booze and sex are the major themes...and I've never seen anything even a little bit like the act described by Ramirez. The perpetrator'd have gotten thrown out on their ass. His ass...
   The UVa/Rolling Stone/"Jackie" accusations were obviously false. That was an easy case. Though, remember, the progressive consensus was not only It's true! But You are virtually a rapist yourself for even doubting it... Anyway. This doesn't scream false to me. Which isn't enough, of course. But it is a different kind of case.
   But, then, I've also never personally heard anyone make such an allegation falsely. Nor, for that matter, truly. So this is just way outside anything I've got actual experience with.

   I suppose the view that's coalescing in my head is: these accusations could be true. And, of course, I'm sorry they happened. And, of course, if they did happen, Kavanaugh likely has no business on any court. But here's the deal: if you want such accusations believed, you've got to make them sooner than 35 years later. You've got every right--and, perhaps, a duty--to speak the truth about what happened as you see it. But somebody like me shouldn't believe you. For which I'm also sorry if they're true. But all sorts of true things are said all the time about important things...which oughtn't to be believed. This is part of the human condition.
   Anyway, if we were omniscient, we might see that Kavanaugh is a creep. Or we might see that he used to be, but isn't now, and that he's learned more from his youthful creepiness than you and I learned from our youthful non-creepiness.
   What a mess.

Second Sexual Assault Allegation Against Kavanaugh

Whelp...though I don't think I should be playing this game...this doesn't sound particularly made-up to me., FWIW.

Hirono: As A Conservative Judge, Kavanaugh Doesn't Get Presumption Of Innocence

Holy crap.
And these people say this sort of thing with straight faces.

Kavanaugh Accuser: All Alleged Witnesses Now Dispute Her Story

link
And don't forget: her therapist's notes are also inconsistent with at least one significant detail of her story.
And there's this bit:

   In The Atlantic, Brookings Institution scholar Benjamin Wittes took the argument to its illogical extreme. Because of the political sensitivity of the situation, Wittes wrote, Kavanaugh “cannot…seek to discredit a woman who purports to have suffered a sexual assault at his hands.”
   “Even if [Kavanaugh] believes himself innocent, even if he is innocent,” Wittes concluded, “the better part of valor is to get out now.” That is, to withdraw his nomination.

I've seen this kind of insanity from the left here and there: men should not dispute rape charges even if they are innocent because (a) it causes psychological harm to the accuser, and (b) it promotes the view that some rape accusations are false...which...of course...they are, ex hypothesi, for the purposes of that very idiotic argument...

   This is in keeping with similar arguments, more widespread on the left, to the effect that one ('one' meaning: white people) should never dispute accusations of racism. Just listen and believe, shitlord.

   I'm in no way convinced that Ford is wrong. And I'm in no way saying that there aren't dumb arguments on the right as well....but damn...

"It's Understandable That Ford Didn't Come Forward Sooner"

Of course it is.
But that doesn't alter the fact that she didn't.
   The anti-Kavanaugh forces are trying to make skepticism about the accusations into misogyny / rape apologism. Those are straw men. No one's criticizing women who don't come forward right away. The point isn't that she did something wrong. The point is that, having not come forward sooner, her 30-year-later accusation can't, by itself, be used as the sole justification for believing that someone committed sexual assault.

More People Deny Knowledge of Kavanaugh-Ford Party And Incident

link
   As the lawyer points out, it's not a huge surprise that people who partied a lot have no memory of an unremarkable (for them) party 30 years ago... But that's not exactly the point. The point is that Ford's accusation isn't enough on its own. It needs support from collateral evidence, and it's not getting any.

Are We Feminizing Men?

Yes.
No.
Sort of?
I don't know.
To some extent?
When feminism was cool, the answer was: we're trying to knock off the irrationally rough edges that place artificial, arbitrary, unreflective limits on male autonomy.
But feminism hasn't been cool for a long, long time.
Now the answer is: you bet we are, because masculinity is T0000000000XXXXXIC and there's no such thing as men and women anyway and also there is such a thing but men are women and women are men and....all truth is falsehood.
I'm with the old-school, cool, egalitarian feminists...2.0...who don't think that everybody should be androgynous, but who do think that social pressure to conform to sex/gender roles should be loosened up a bit so that autonomous choice about modes of behavior is easier. It'd be good if people had more latitude.
   OTOH, I now think that there are non-stupid reasons for men to err on the side of masculinity, and for women to err on the side of femininity (so long as that doesn't make them passive... I think femininity may be a more complicated thing, honestly. Damn Rebecca Reilly-Cooper for complicating my thinking on that score...)
   Though, consider the hyperbolic gender shit of the '90s and aughts...and often still now...hyper-over-muscled dudes and hyper-super-sexualized women... I honestly see that stuff as just as weird as the other stuff. Dudes on steroids stomping around ostentatiously and self-consciously trying to be hyperbolically masculine and dudes in dresses look, well, basically the same to me. I do think dudes are better off being masculine-ish...they're certainly better off in the "sexual marketplace" (as the redpillers say)...but overdo it by even just a bit and you become a clown. There are some girls out there, undoubtedly, who are partial to more feminine men...but as a mating strategy, femininity is not a winning one for dudes.
   Anyway, there's this.
   Does anybody remember what my point was?

Student Editor Who Retweeted Article Pointing Out That Women Don't Have Penises Is Fired From University Journal

link

The since[-]deleted tweet has received backlash from former chair of LGBT Humanists Christopher Ward who claimed the post was 'factually incorrect' and not 'worthy of a debate'.

In less than ten years, we've gone from (a) Night is not day to (b) Night is day, shitlord, to (c) That night is day is not up for debate to (d) You are a bigot if you do not accept that night is day to (e) You will be deemed professionally incompetent and removed from your position if you dare suggest that night is not day.

   This is the most insane, deranged lunacy I've seen on a societal scale in my entire life.
   [And remember: I've got no objections to people representing themselves as the other sex under most conditions. I think everybody has a right to buck such conventions. I just think that truth and falsehood matter.]

Kavanaugh: Should We Care About The Details?

Or should we ask ourselves to generate a generic template of basically the following form, and apply it uniformly to cases that aren't extremely unusual:

Suppose A accuses B of sexual assault; suppose there is basically no collateral evidence either way. We should conclude that ______________.

I find myself trying to piece together a story out of wispy details. I just read an assertion that Judge, the alleged witness, was a bully. I felt that move the needle toward BK did it--appreciably. I find this happening a lot in such cases. I suspect it's a big mistake. Sometimes it takes just one little thing to move the needle. This is one of the things that leads me to prefer the generic approach. Make a general judgment and, except in extraordinary cases in which the alleged details warrant overriding that judgment, stick to it.
   Well into my 30s I realized I automatically kind of believed accusations of criminality. (I told my friend Peter the public defender this, and he said: "You'd make a good judge." Damn...) So I tried to kick that habit. I really believed accusations of sexual harassment and assault. That ended as I learned more about academic feminists, and after I saw actual instances of them using bogus accusations of "hostile environment sexual harassment" (by which they meant: questioning feminism) to achieve political ends. Also after my brother was falsely accused of assault against my psychopathic father, who was the actual assailant. A clearer case of injustice there never was...but there was no way for the judge or the jury to know that. They ultimately rendered the right verdict...though it was a near thing, and not necessarily decided on the most rational grounds. I knew what had happened...but had I been on the outside, I might very well have ruled against my brother. Now I know better. To the argument But why would the accuser lie about this?, I now think I know the answer, and it's: You simply cannot imagine all the possible reasons.
Read more »

Swedish University Professor May Get Fired For Saying That Men And Women Are Biologically And Anatomically Different

In other news, war is different than peace, freedom isn't slavery, and ignorance isn't strength...

Grand Frer Regarde Vous*: Judge Orders Le Pen To Have Psychological Testing For Posting Pics Of ISIS Murders

This is completely f*cking insane.
I mean...it takes a lot these days to actually, physically make my jaw drop...but this did the goddamn trick.

Per Instapundit: France: partying like it's 1789...

*Or something like that. I can stammer out like virtually no French...though JQ once told me that I can do more with the modicum of it at my disposal than anyone else she's ever seen. Which is the kind of compliment I find extremely aw-shucks-ifying. I actually wrote some pretty cool Basic programs despite knowing jack shit about Basic... Similar things might be said about my knowledge of philosophy...

Dorothy Roberts: What's Race Got To Do With Medicine?

Just heard the NPR "Ted Radio Hour" show on this on the way home.
Wow.
Just. So. Bad.
I just can't believe how these crazy fads driven by leftist politics so take over. She was saying things like "Ha ha can you believe that some doctors think that someone's race can tell them about their genes?!" Yeah...that sure is a crazy thing to think alright... Kinda like thinking that their sex could tell you about 'em...
   Presumably the actual sciences will continue to reject this kind of nuttiness...but who knows? They might also knuckle under nominally and just reintroduce race under another term.
   Anyway, then there was the Z0MG something about some kind of breath-measuring machine and race! argument. Apparently there's something called a "spirometer," which measures lung capacity, and maybe whites typically have greater lung capacity, and the machine was invented by a racist!!!!
   It was textbook fallacies on parade.
   When I was a kid, I was astonished by the stupid things people would say...but those were normal people. I went into academia because I thought it was some kind of refuge from that stuff...but it turns out...academicians are just as dumb and misinformed as anybody else. I mean...I dunno...maybe they're better. But if they are, they're not much better. Not enough better for all their alleged training. They've largely got a different set of prejudices--politically correct ones. But they seem just as likely (and currently perhaps more so) just to parrot what the people around them tell them they have to believe.

John Tierney: "Reeducation Campus"

Depressing as hell.
I'm not at all sure that universities can--or should--survive in their current form.

Trump Defends Kavanaugh Against Sexual Assault Charges...2

"You call that sexual assault?"

Do The Ideas Of The Contemporary Left Have Their Origin In Soviet Dezinformatsiya?

link...but...you aren't going to like it...

   That's the kind of thing I'd not have read without a radiation suit on ten years ago...but now I find it interesting. First, because some of it's true--e.g.: Joe McCarthy was kinda right, as it turns out (as the Venona decrypts prove). My God. I sure never thought I'd by typing sentences like that one... Holy crap! Also Operation INFEKTION. That shit's totally real, of course. And I've heard that stuff about non-representational art before, but don't know whether it's true or false.

   But, anyway... I'm not going to be in any way surprised if some of those other claims are true. There's a whole lotta crazy in that list. And they're crazy whether or not they were pushed by Soviet intelligence to ruin the West. There's no question about whether they're crazy; the only question is whether the Soviets ever tried to use them in ideological warfare. (Well...one or two aren't crazy...just false.)

   But...why not use the quasi-Cartesian trick of thinking about all such ideas in that way? It's a way to help break the hold of custom and habit. A lot of those ideas survive just because students and faculty have basically been brainwashed into them. They accept them largely because they just can't imagine them being wrong. They've never been able to back away from them long enough to get any perspective on them. Imagining them to be the products of Soviet intelligence is like thinking of them being suggested to you by the evil genius or some similar malevolent force. (Though...a lot of faculty don't think that the USSR was malevolent...) 

   Anyway...anybody know anything sane about the actual history of this sort of thing, if any?

It's National Preparedness Month!!!

You know what to do.
Or maybe you don't.

You May Not Be Ready For Skynet, But...

I, for one, welcome our new etc. etc.

Tu Quoque Watch: Teenage Cory Booker Made Out While Drunk Once

Oh come on.

Did Biden Call Trump Supporters "The Dregs of Society"?

I don't really care, and I'm done trying to figure it out. Five minutes is enough.
   Sounds to me like a "Trump said all Mexicans are rapists!" case. Biden kind of said something stupid, which his supporters are parsing closely and his opponents are interpreting loosely.
   But, again: I don't care.

Trump Defends Kavanaugh Against Sexual Assault Charges

link
This is me striving to keep a straight face.

Remember How Anyone Who Questioned The Obviously False UVA/Rolling Stone Rape Hoax Was a Rape Apologist?

Just asking.
No reason.
Some dead-enders like Amanda Marcotte still won't admit it was fake. Listen and believe...even in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary... Though I don't think Marcotte ever even admitted that the Duke Lacrosse accusations were bogus...
   It's different in the Kavanaugh case, of course...but the Jackie case was instructive: feminists and other progressives not only believed an obviously false story, but many insisted that anyone who doubted that obviously false story in any way was a "rape apologist." That mindset has in no way changed since that time. If they're willing to believe a patently absurd story like "Jackie's", it's no surprise that they're willing to believe the Kavanaugh accusation...which at least has the virtue of not being an obvious fabrication.

"Why Are Pediatrician Groups Conforming To Transgender Orthodoxy?"

link
The answer's pretty obvious: group think / social fad + the influence of the left on quadi-medical quasi-science.
Unfortunately, after this embarrassing spasm of lunacy is over, there won't be much soul-searching by the relevant quasi-sciences, any more than there was soul-searching after the satanic panic.

Kavanaugh Accuser Won't Testify Unless FBI Investigates; Grassley Says It Can't

link

Accuser's Schoolmate Says There Were Rumors Of Kavanaugh Incident At The Time

Big if true.

Hey, Men: "Shut Up" and "Step Up"

I.e.: do as you're told
Counterpoint: get bent.
Speaking for myself, I won't shut up, and I certainly won't shut up and "step up"...given that that means: do what we say and believe these unsubstantiated allegations. And don't give us any lip about it.
   That press conference is a nauseating joke, and it illustrates pretty well why the Dems are losing me and people like me. To some extent it's just cynical political expediency...I've learned to live with that. But to some extent I think they really believe the bullshit they're spouting. That's the scary thing. They aren't entirely separated from the PC left.
   Slow down...investigate...keep an open mind...try to find the truth. But don't preach to me your trickle-down radical feminist nuttery.
   Men are the problem? You want to play that apocalyptic game, then perhaps you should recognize that, without false accusations made by women, this particular problem would basically go away. Nobody thinks this kind of assault is permissible. We just don't know whether it actually happened. We also know that the left is addicted to false accusations--to some extent simply as a means to achieve their political ends. (Though I suspect that doesn't matter in the Ford case.)
   The Merrick Garland thing sucked...but at least it was kind of straight-up power politics. This stuff is even worse in my book. (Well...in some ways, anyway.)