Well, this politcal cartoon sure is spot on.

[acbytesla]

Of course it's not about proving anything as it's not a trial.

However, who ever ends up getting picked, and apparently there's a long list of potential candidates, there does appear to be some questions surrounding this guys suitability for the Job based on his past behavior.

To be fair, putting sexual assault aside - if the claims were he was just a normal but ****** rich kid who had a lot of fun in his younger days (probably at the expense of others), I don't think I would hold that against him. Most of us grow up.

I would without hesitation. That is unless I saw clearly that he did things for others not so fortunate. I mean if you were a privileged POS through high school and college and didn't actually try and make up for it by doing things for others when you were older, I'd assume you were just an older version of that POS.

 

[BadBoy]

I would without hesitation. That is unless I saw clearly that he did things for others not so fortunate. I mean if you were a privileged POS through high school and college and didn't actually try and make up for it by doing things for others when you were older, I'd assume you were just an older version of that POS.

Hmmm. I see what you mean and agree, it's just that I did things I now regret (nothing illegal - just social Faux pas) and I don't think you can hang the guy on drinking too much and being a bit of a wanker when he was 17 - if the person he is now can garner respect from his actions.

edit: Sexual assault puts him in another category though, and he should potentially be prosecuted for it no matter how long ago it was.

 

[smartcooky]

Of course it's not about proving anything as it's not a trial.

However, who ever ends up getting picked, and apparently there's a long list of potential candidates, there does appear to be some questions surrounding this guys suitability for the Job based on his past behavior.

To be fair, putting sexual assault aside - if the claims were he was just a normal but ****** rich kid who had a lot of fun in his younger days (probably at the expense of others), I don't think I would hold that against him. Most of us grow up.

The issue is who he is now, and for me his performance in the examination was really really poor given it was essentially an interview for a very important role. I thought he handled the questions generally very very badly. When he started to cry it made me feel sick. There's a woman in the room that says she was nearly raped and he's the one crying ffs. What a complete tosser.

I think Ford would make a better candidate for the job in my opinion. It requires someone with a bit of sophistication, empathy and sense of fairness. I don't think he displayed any of those characteristics.

It doesn't surprise me that trump chose him as in many ways he reminds me of Trump himself. I am as astounded by this potential pick for the supreme court as I was that Trump got into power. The anger shown by Lindsey Graham was astonishing in the light of what was being discussed. I don't think anyone could come away from that and think the accused was definitely innocent and so a measure of grimness and concern for making sure the correct candidate has been chosen would have been much more appropriate. I'm not saying L Graham should have said he now has doubts publicly, but to show a bit more humbleness in the face of such a raw and moving testimony. His spitting spat showed that he was more angry that they had to go through with all the hassle at all, a rich boy throwing a tantrum.

There are times that I think USA is screwed - the inmates are running the asylum.

Excellent post

 

[smartcooky]

edit: Sexual assault puts him in another category though, and he should potentially be prosecuted for it no matter how long ago it was.

I would love to see him officially (and this time properly) investigated for it; a criminal investigation with a view to prosecuting him. CBF should lay an official complaint to the Police in the area where she used to live. Put a PI on the trail of tracking down that house and tracking down the other potential attendees, plus all the people who came forward and were ignored by the FBI. Put some real, genuine Police pressure on Mark Judge - he's the key, he knows what really happened in that house, offer him 100% total immunity if he testifies against Kavenaugh.

An actual Police investigation might put the frightners up Kavanagh, because the one thing he did not want (and still does not wan) is anyone looking into his past. He clearly has things to hide; things relevant to his judgeship, and that he is scared of being made public.

 

[Lurch]

So far at least 650 law professors (including at Yale) have signed a letter stating their objection to Kav's being seated on the SC. That should count as having rather more weight for Kav's defenders to consider than the protestations of us unqualified detractors (like myself) here on a discussion forum.

Such learned opinion, plus the ABA's concern, plus the strong indicators of Kav's prior (2006) perjury, plus the utter sham of a whitewash of an 'investigation' directed and constrained by the White House, should make a "No" from Flake, Collins and Murkowski an easy decision. Even if this FBI report were to incontrovertibly absolve Kav of the assault allegations. He's forever tainted himself with the stench of that unforgivable sin for a judge/Justice; partisan political bias.

 

[acbytesla]

Hmmm. I see what you mean and agree, it's just that I did things I now regret (nothing illegal - just social Faux pas) and I don't think you can hang the guy on drinking too much and being a bit of a wanker when he was 17 - if the person he is now can garner respect from his actions.

edit: Sexual assault puts him in another category though, and he should potentially be prosecuted for it no matter how long ago it was.

I did too. But none of the things I did wrong were at the expense of those less fortunate. I also never sexually assaulted anyone.

I look at Kavanaugh and I see Greg Marmalard, Douglas Niedermeyer or George Willis, Jr. Privileged pricks with a sadistic streak.

 

[BadBoy]

I did too. But none of the things I did wrong were at the expense of those less fortunate. I also never sexually assaulted anyone.

I look at Kavanaugh and I see Greg Marmalard, Douglas Niedermeyer or George Willis, Jr. Privileged pricks with a sadistic streak.

exactly. Sort of person you really don't want on the Supreme court - unless you are Trump and think trampling over liberty and what the USA really should represent to the rest of the world, which brings us back to the cartoon and how appropriate it is.

 

[EvilBiker]

I know I'm coming into this late and hence most likely way off topic at this stage, but the cartoon in the OP reminded me strongly of this.

 

[quadraginta]

Quite right. I doubt anyone here really thinks that "Renate Alumnius" was a sign that she was included in the group. Really, makes no sense (especially with such classicist nerds that they use "alumnius" rather than "alumnus", which I totally expect is absolutely correct for grammatical reasons that I will never grok).

<snip>

It isn't.

Typo? Perhaps. Did it happen more than once? Confusion about the proper usage of "alumnus" and "alumni"? Maybe.

Did he take Latin in school? This is pretty basic, first year stuff.

 

[Hellbound]

Don't know if it helps, but google translate gives the following:

alumni->students
alumniu->alumniae
alumnius-Alumni (capitalization in the translation)

Don't know if that would help figure anything out?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I know I'm coming into this late and hence most likely way off topic at this stage, but the cartoon in the OP reminded me strongly of this.

What's the deal with the "Head Shower / Faucet" imagery?

 

[Belz...]

Maybe he meant Aluminium.

 

[EvilBiker]

What's the deal with the "Head Shower / Faucet" imagery?

That's a reference to a time when he had unprotected sex with a woman who he knew had HIV and then showered afterwards to get rid of the risk of contracting the virus.

The story of how Mr. Zuma came to have a shower head affixed to his skull is well known to all South Africans. South African cartoonist Jonathan Shapiro (known by his nomme de plume of “Zapiro”) first drew a cartoon of Zuma with a shower head attached, after Zuma – who had just lost his position as deputy president of South Africa under then President Thabo Mbeki – testified in court during a 2006 rape trial that he had, in fact, had unprotected sex with a young woman whom he knew had HIV. To protect himself from contracting HIV himself, he said, he had taken a shower quickly afterward.

 

[Lithrael]

That makes me wonder from time to time. Are these non-penetrative sexual assaults like groping and grabbing really as or more serious than young men getting beat up by other men?

Personally I think both are very serious, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s similar psychologically. If some guy cracked my jaw in high school cause I wouldn’t hide his drugs, and then he was up for the Supreme Court, I’d probably step forward n say something..

 

[JoeMorgue]

That makes me wonder from time to time. Are these non-penetrative sexual assaults like groping and grabbing really as or more serious than young men getting beat up by other men? Do they feel that much more violated?

There might be a fair and honest auxiliary conversation to be had about whether or not its helping anybody to automatically elevate "sex" crimes beyond other crimes or even separate them.

Bill Maher (yeah he's an idiot but fair point is fair point) was talking about the Michael Jackson molestation accusations and noted that, as far as had been made public, everything Jackson did seem to be fondling or inappropriate touching and he said

"When I was a kid I got just brutally beaten up by two bullies, I mean just held down and repentantly punched over and over in the face until I was unconscious. Now if I could go back and trade that for being gently masturbated under the table by a Pop Star... errrr" *Makes the "Hem and Haw" balance gesture with his hands*

I'm not saying he's right. The emotional aspect of sex can't be ignored. Getting beating up doesn't potentially... infect your very concept of sex and taint something pure and loving. But then we have to ask the question of whether or not telling everybody that sexual crimes are worse is making that better or worse. It's not an easy question to even figure out how to ask, much less answer.

But there might be a good discussion to be had, that maybe we as a society do need to have at some point, somewhere in that broad conceptual idea.

 

[Thermal]

Personally I think both are very serious, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s similar psychologically.

Losing a fight with guys IMO is not dehumanizing, nor would it make you feel as violated. It's just one in the loss column. You sometimes lose money, too, but it wouldn't spill over to how you view your own sexuality.

If some guy cracked my jaw in high school cause I wouldn’t hide his drugs, and then he was up for the Supreme Court, I’d probably step forward n say something..

If recent events are any indicator, you would be accused of being a gold-digging punk who picks fights. 'Where's your evidence? Pics or it didn't happen.'

 

[acbytesla]

There might be a fair and honest auxiliary conversation to be had about whether or not its helping anybody to automatically elevate "sex" crimes beyond other crimes or even separate them.

Bill Maher (yeah he's an idiot but fair point is fair point) was talking about the Michael Jackson molestation accusations and noted that, as far as had been made public, everything Jackson did seem to be fondling or inappropriate touching and he said

"When I was a kid I got just brutally beaten up by two bullies, I mean just held down and repentantly punched over and over in the face until I was unconscious. Now if I could go back and trade that for being gently masturbated under the table by a Pop Star... errrr" *Makes the "Hem and Haw" balance gesture with his hands*

I'm not saying he's right. The emotional aspect of sex can't be ignored. Getting beating up doesn't potentially... infect your very concept of sex and taint something pure and loving. But then we have to ask the question of whether or not telling everybody that sexual crimes are worse is making that better or worse. It's not an easy question to even figure out how to ask, much less answer.

But there might be a good discussion to be had, that maybe we as a society do need to have at some point, somewhere in that broad conceptual idea.

This is all very debatable. I think getting beaten to a pulp is probably far worse and could easily be far more emotionally devastating. And I'm pretty sure the law reflects that. My nephew did two years for throwing a single punch cold cocking the guy. He probably would never have faced that long of sentence if he hadn't been in trouble before for other drunken behavior and that he broke the guys nose in such a way the guy required surgery.

If you look at the laws on unwanted touching, there are nuances and a myriad of varying penalties.

 

[Thermal]

This is all very debatable. I think getting beaten to a pulp is probably far worse and could easily be far more emotionally devastating. And I'm pretty sure the law reflects that. My nephew did two years for throwing a single punch cold cocking the guy. He probably would never have faced that long of sentence if he hadn't been in trouble before for other drunken behavior and that he broke the guys nose in such a way the guy required surgery.

If you look at the laws on unwanted touching, there are nuances and a myriad of varying penalties.

Do you assume the law is a great arbitrator of fair penalties?

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is all very debatable.

Well yeah I said that. I wasn't making some sort of absolute declarative statement about anything.

I think getting beaten to a pulp is probably far worse and could easily be far more emotionally devastating.

I tell you two bullies beat me up when I was 9.

I tell you my uncle non-violently molested me when I was 9.

Which statement gets me more sympathy? Which statement makes me a bigger "victim." If I'm therapy at 40 years because I got beat up on the playground would that be considered normal?

 

[acbytesla]

Losing a fight with guys IMO is not dehumanizing, nor would it make you feel as violated. It's just one in the loss column. You sometimes lose money, too, but it wouldn't spill over to how you view your own sexuality.

I both generally agree and respectfully disagree. If one simply gets in an argument and it results in fists being thrown, you are absolutely right, it isn't dehumanizing. However a victim of violence can definitely be scarred and felt dehumanized. It doesn't have to be sexual for something to psychologically and emotionally damaging.