Fred Guttenburg, father of one of the Parkland shooting victims, has done a pretty good job of dressing down Brett Kavanaugh for complaining that his family is "totally and permanently destroyed" by the sexual assault allegations leveled against him by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. But I don't think he went nearly far enough, so I'm going to pile on:
Judge Kavanaugh, you have no clue what having your life ruined even looks like, let alone having come within artillery range of actually having it happen to you. You are living one of the most privileged lives ever lived by a human being in the entire history of our species. You are one of the most elite and powerful citizens of the wealthiest and strongest nation in the history of human civilization. You have a healthy and intact family, a roof over your head, hot and cold running water that you can drink without getting sick. You have a secure job that you will likely keep despite the credible allegations of criminal behavior that have been leveled against you. You have not been charged or perp-walked. You have not suffered brutality at the hands of law enforcement. You have not been convicted and served time for a crime you did not commit. You have not been the victim of sexual assault. The only thing that has happened to you (so far) is that someone levied a charge against you that has (so far) delayed your confirmation to the Supreme Court. If that is the worst thing that ever happens to you in your life then you are fortunate indeed. It is pathetic that you would complain about it at all, let alone in the petulant tone of a spoiled and entitled adolescent. The only disgraceful behavior here is yours and that of your supporters.
Seriously, dude, man up. The charges levied against you are serious and credible. If you really wanted to clear your name, you should have done it by calling for an FBI investigation, not by whining and sniveling about how unfair the process has been. Life has not been unfair to you. The thumb of fate has tilted the scales heavily in your favor. Even if these charges are false (doubtful) and even if they end up derailing your nomination to the Supreme Court (also doubtful) you will hardly be the first person in history who failed to get promoted for some random reason. These things happen in life. Deal with it.
Logical Fallacy Season at Rondam Ramblings
ReplyDeleteIt's almost October, so we're getting close to Logical Fallacy Season.
Ron kicked it off early with a giant broadside of Relative Privation, also known as It Could Be Worse Fallacy. Is it because it gives you reason to ignore and dismiss the grotesque, unethical, unfair, and dirty deeds perpetrated upon Judge Kavanaugh, his wife, and two daughters? Anything the Democrats do him, short of nailing him to a cross and crucifying him, can be ignored and dismissed for "it could be worse!".
>The charges levied against you are serious and credible.
Serious, yes.
Credible, no. Not even close to being credible. In fact, trending towards being an outright falsehood.
>If you really wanted to clear your name, you should have done it by calling for an FBI investigation,
You've been watching the #FakeNews again, haven't you? The Demonrats, antifa, all the protesters, and other far-left loonies are all wrong on this question.
In fact, calling for an FBI investigation just shows how STUPID they are.
Here's why:
The Senate has the duty to advise and consent on judicial nominations.
The FBI will perform a background check, which is just collecting information and interviews. No conclusions drawn. No investigation done, either.
The FBI is not used to investigate any questions around judicial nominees.
The FBI is not used to investigate anything related to Congressional oversight of the Executive branch.
Because . . . duh! . . . Congress can't fulfill it's Constitutional duties of advice, consent, and oversight by using investigators in the Executive branch to investigate the Executive branch!
Don't you see the conflict of interest present in having the Executive branch investigate itself?
Therefore, Congress has it's own investigators and investigative service.
Any oversight of the Executive branch that requires investigative effort is run entirely by investigators from Congress.
Congressional Investigations.
What of all those Senators asking for an FBI investigation? Dumbasses, every one of them.
Finally, there is an opportunity cost in having the FBI conduct a supplemental investigation - namely, if the FBI is chasing down ghosts from 36 years ago, then they aren't doing something else. In would be more effective for the FBI do to "something else," or even "anything else."
> Credible, no. Not even close to being credible.
ReplyDeleteWhy not? Even Republican women say that all boys attempt to rape women in high school. Why would Kavanaugh be any different?
"The FBI is not used to investigate any questions around judicial nominees. [...] What of all those Senators asking for an FBI investigation? Dumbasses, every one of them."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, strangely, this seems not at all limited to "Demonrats, antifa, all the protesters, and other far-left loonies" as you claimed. Instead, GOP Senators have also called for an FBI investigation. And your GOP President has now ordered the FBI to in fact do such an investigation.
One wonders whether your "dumbass" radar perhaps got wired backwards...
Kavanaugh: never been daunted
ReplyDelete@Luke:
[Publius]
>> Credible, no. Not even close to being credible.
[Ron]
>Why not? Even Republican women say that all boys attempt to rape women in high school. Why would Kavanaugh be any different?
Luke, here is an example of Ron trolling his own blog.
He could have replied along several vectors, such as:
1) he's not committing the logical fallacy of relative privation
2) support for the credibility of the charges against Kavanaugh (even though there is no - zero - supporting evidence & the charge is from 36 years ago, making it completely unfair to defend against)
3) "Hey, I didn't know that about Congress. Makes sense"
4) "It doesn't matter that Congress has investigators, the public prefers the FBI because . . . "
But what does Ron come back with? A troll about all boys attempt to rape women in high school and why would Kavanaugh be any different.
Which is off topic to the question as to whether Kavanaugh is a "whiner" or Ron has committed the logical fallacy of relative privation.
This is just one example of Ron's intellectual laziness over the past several months. His mind is also closing with posts such as Republican voters are completely insane, In your face, liberal haters!, and in one comment, saying he can't talk to Republicans/conservatives betc..
I would put the time of Ron's mental break at August - October 2017, when he published Supporting Donald Trump is no longer acceptable..., and The utter absurdity of the pro-life position.
@Don
>And yet, strangely, this seems not at all limited to "Demonrats, antifa, all the protesters, and other far-left loonies" as you claimed. Instead, GOP Senators have also called for an FBI investigation. And your GOP President has now ordered the FBI to in fact do such an investigation.
Depends on the Republican.
Flake - Dumbass. Double Dumbass, in fact.
Murkowski - Dumbass
Collins - Dumbass
Grassley, President Trump - not dumbasses, but they need the votes of the 3 dumbasses listed above.
One wonders whether your "dumbass" radar perhaps got wired backwards...
Oh no, it's working quite well. In fact, it just acquired another bogey.
> all boys attempt to rape women in high school and why would Kavanaugh be any different.
ReplyDeleteNot my position but that of a Republican woman, and one which I have not seen a lot of Republicans rushing to disown.
> But what does Ron come back with? A troll
And what does Publius come back with? An ad-hominem.
> the logical fallacy
Pot. Kettle.
But this post was not about logic. It was about my personal assessment of a man's character. Reasonable people could disagree. So let's see if we can disagree like reasonable people, and let me ask you again: why do you think the charges against Brett Kavanaugh are not credible?
@Ron:
ReplyDeleteIf you really wanted to clear your name, you should have done it by calling for an FBI investigation
I agree with everything you say in the post except this particular statement. It is not Kavanaugh's job to call for an FBI investigation (or any other investigation) of allegations against him. It's the Senate's job to call for whatever investigation they think is necessary in order to come to a decision about Kavanaugh's nomination. And that should have been done a couple of months ago, when, as I understand it, Senator Feinstein first received the letter from Dr. Ford. The fact that it took a three-ring circus in full public view to get an investigation to happen is disgraceful.
I also can't resist commenting that this whole brouhaha about the sexual assault allegations has completely distracted attention from Kavanaugh's actual views (for example, that ISPs should be able to restrict what websites you can visit the same way cable TV providers pick which channels they will provide for you to watch), which IMO disqualify him regardless of any other factors. The Republicans have been quick to pounce on this: I'm seeing TV commercials now saying that Kavanaugh should be confirmed because the charges are false--as if there couldn't be any other possible reason for not confirming him.
@Peter: "as if there couldn't be any other possible reason for not confirming him."
ReplyDeleteBut there is not "any other possible reason" which would appeal to a majority of the US Senators. In so far as Kavanaugh is biased about his politics or the law, he is biased in the direction that a majority of the Senators approve of.
The vast majority of the Senators have already made up their minds, long ago. Almost all Republicans will vote in favor of confirmation, and almost all Democrats will vote against, both regardless of any ongoing investigation. There are only a tiny handful of remaining Senators who are on the fence, and might decide at the last minute based on what happens this week.
Your concern, about "actual views", has already been taken into account, and resolved by the ~95 Senators who will not be swayed by anything new that happens this week.
@Don:
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of the Senators have already made up their minds
Yes, I know. But...
Your concern, about "actual views", has already been taken into account, and resolved by the ~95 Senators
...I don't think those ~95 Senators made up their minds based on anything related to Kavanaugh's actual views. I think they did so based on party tribalism. But even worse, the media and all of us are letting them get away with it, by not even bothering to talk about Kavanaugh's actual views, or to give the Senators any reason to think that they need to consider those views.
@Peter: Actually, I think it's pretty clear that Republicans are supporting Kavanaugh precisely because of his actual views, and in particular, because they think (correctly IMHO) that he's going to vote to overturn Roe. Lower courts are already starting to uphold increasingly restrictive abortion laws in anticipation.
ReplyDelete@Ron:
ReplyDeleteI think it's pretty clear that Republicans are supporting Kavanaugh precisely because of his actual views, and in particular, because they think (correctly IMHO) that he's going to vote to overturn Roe.
Well, to me, supporting a nominee because of his expected vote on one litmus test issue is not suppporting him because of his actual views, taken as a whole. But I admit that at this point I'm twisting language quite a bit. :-)
@Peter: It's not *just* Roe. I think they think Kavanaugh will be a reliable vote for corporations, against workers, against gay rights, and for the President (as long as he's a Republican).
ReplyDeleteAnd I think they're probably right about all of that.
Does Ron support Cat Juggling?
ReplyDelete>> all boys attempt to rape women in high school and why would Kavanaugh be any different.
>Not my position but that of a Republican woman, and one which I have not seen a lot of Republicans rushing to disown.
That's just you engaging in demagoguery again. An argument of the form "So-and-so hasn't CONDEMNED it!" and so forth, it's an argument for the weak minded. First, you don't know if the was seen or heard by your target. Second, one can't spend 24 hours again giving statements condemning things. Third, it's an attempt to set the agenda -- the target does not want you to sent his agenda.
How about you? Have you condemned cat juggling?
>> But what does Ron come back with? A troll
>And what does Publius come back with? An ad-hominem.
I'm not aware of any ad-hominem that I've directed at you.
But this post was not about logic. It was about my personal assessment of a man's character. Reasonable people could disagree. So let's see if we can disagree like reasonable people, and let me ask you again: why do you think the charges against Brett Kavanaugh are not credible?
1. No corroboration by any named witnesses
2. No specificity regarding time, place, or location.
3. Ford's shifting story
Not related to Ford's credibility:
4. Unfairness of bringing forward a charge from 36 years ago, when the defendant would have a hard time developing a defense.
In short, the complaint should have been dismissed without action.
Of course, the demonrats dirty tricksters wouldn't have that -- they would release it at time calculated to cause maximum
damage. Ford? She's roadkill to the demonrats. They manipulated her into a public hearing, which she did not want.
> I'm not aware of any ad-hominem that I've directed at you.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised. I don't think you'd recognize an ad hominem coming out of your own mouth if it turned around and bit you in the ass.
"This is just one example of Ron's intellectual laziness over the past several months."
> No corroboration by any named witnesses
We'll never know because the Republicans refused to subpoena Mark Judge.
> They manipulated her into a public hearing, which she did not want.
Indeed she did not. So why do you think she did it? In fact, why do you think she came forward in the first place? One your theory, C.B.F. committed perjury. Why? To what end?
Demonrat Dirty Tricks
ReplyDelete> I'm not aware of any ad-hominem that I've directed at you.
>I'm not surprised. I don't think you'd recognize an ad hominem coming out of your own mouth if it turned around and bit you in the ass.
>"This is just one example of Ron's intellectual laziness over the past several months."
That's not an ad-hominem. That's like a movie review (**) or perhaps a blog review.
right: quantum mechanics
wrong: everything else
> No corroboration by any named witnesses
>We'll never know because the Republicans refused to subpoena Mark Judge.
What would you expect to learn beyond his statement?
> They manipulated her into a public hearing, which she did not want.
>Indeed she did not. So why do you think she did it? In fact, why do you think she came forward in the first place? One your theory, C.B.F. committed perjury. Why? To what end?
On July 10, the morning after President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he’d oppose the nomination “with everything I’ve got.”
When the attempted borking during the hearings didn't work, the Schumer moved onto Plan B - the sexual allegation and 11th hour character assassination.
Now that the Demonrats efforts have failed, they have no more use for Christine Ford.
Cat juggling then, you're for it?
> > On your theory, C.B.F. committed perjury. Why? To what end?
ReplyDelete> Chuck Schumer
You do understand that C.B.F. stands for Christine Blasey Ford and not Chuck Schumer, yes?
> attempted borking
I actually went and read that article. Towards the end it says:
"Judge Kavanaugh is much shrewder. His calm judicial demeanor..."
I couldn't read any further because I was laughing too hard.
Ye have made it a den of thieves
ReplyDelete>"Judge Kavanaugh is much shrewder. His calm judicial demeanor..."
I couldn't read any further because I was laughing too hard.
Perhaps you should focus on shrewd.
During the initial hearings, he displayed his calm judicial demeanor.
Here is a painting of Jesus delivering the Sermon On the Mount.
During the second hearing, he attacked the democrats.
Here is a painting of Jesus driving the money changers from the Temple.
@Publius:
ReplyDelete> Jesus
If you don't see the difference between Jesus and Brett Kavanaugh then you are beyond my ability to help.
I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker
ReplyDelete>If you don't see the difference between Jesus and Brett Kavanaugh then you are beyond my ability to help.
What, Rondam Ramblings is now a therapy platform? Just what kind of therapist are you?
You're familiar with metaphors, and that some people consider Jesus a role model for how they conduct their lives. How do the two examples from Jesus's life inform us on Kavanaugh's behavior during the two hearings?
John 10:11-12
11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.