New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[The Big Dog]

“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members"
-Mohandas Karamchand "Matahma" Gandhi

The USA fails this measure on multiple levels

Location: New Zealand.

‘K.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh has been told by people he trusts that he's done things that he considers out of character, without any memory of it. In a strange way I give him credit for initially trying not to lie about it. Belligerence does not make someone more credible to me but I guess some people disagree.

To an objective observer, belligerence makes some neither more nor less credible. Neither does sincerity. Neither does any emotion shown by Kavanaugh or Ford.

It was really sad to me to hear so many people saying so many variations of, "since we don't have any hard evidence to go by, all we can do is judge which one was more believable."

No, no, a thousand times no.

 

[Cabbage]

Location: New Zealand.

‘K.

A fact is a fact, regardless of the location of the observer of the fact.

What's your location, by the way?

Honestly, I've always suspected it was Russia.

 

[River]

I don't know why you call it delusional. Teenagers ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX. To think they are not is what is delusional. Creating the happiest healthiest society possible, paying the very minor cost of providing birth control is sensible.

When I was attending the Unversity of Washington in the early 80s, I worked 30 hours a week and couldn't afford my tuition and rent let alone beer or going to beach week or parties like Justice Kavanaugh and his ilk. I lived on the meal that came with my shift at a restaurant,Top Ramen and little else.

But I did have a girlfriend and we had sex like rabbits. That was about the only thing that made those years bearable. And guess what, I paid little or nothing for birth control. I would go to a Planned Parenthood clinic and they provided condoms either free or at a fraction of the cost of a drug store. I never got a girl pregnant. And I've been a taxpaying citizen who helps the homeless and the elderly.

I also was friends with a girl who got pregnant who thought she would have to quit school and because of Planned Parenthood she got a low cost abortion. She is now a doctor of Oncology.

IMO, free birth control is money very well spent.

Good for PPH. Lets see if they can do that without government assistance. I have no problem with them giving out condoms. I don't want to pay for it.

Guess what? I waited until after marriage to have children. I never had any "free" birth control. Still don't. I pay my own bills. Including having two children before I had any health insurance. I am not in debt to anyone, nor will expect any part of society to pay my bills or give me free stuff so I can have sex without worry.

Meanwhile people die from cancer, and have to pay their bills. Pregnancy happens because of actions you take.

 

[acbytesla]

Good for PPH. Lets see if they can do that without government assistance. I have no problem with them giving out condoms. I don't want to pay for it.

Guess what? I waited until after marriage to have children. I never had any "free" birth control. Still don't. I pay my own bills. Including having two children before I had any health insurance. I am not in debt to anyone, nor will expect any part of society to pay my bills or give me free stuff so I can have sex without worry.

Meanwhile people die from cancer, and have to pay their bills. Pregnancy happens because of actions you take.

Out of curiosity. Are you against government aid for the poor as well?

 

[River]

I'm not conflating anything, I'm just refusing to along with your unsupported premise that there are plenty of loving homes to take in all neglected children.

The only possible answer is it depends. If you can pop them all into families that are dying to take them (ideally at no cost to the state), sure, "pick them up." (That sounds like you're talking about the pound btw).

If you're taking them from one sub-optimal environment and putting them in another (i.e., reality), you weigh the resources you have and see if their home lives can be improved. (Possibly by providing contraception.)

Well, you've moved the bar a little. You've already said you're not against abortion on principle, so now we're talking about rational public policy.

It depends on whether I'm screwing them.

But seriously, in general, yes. If in the anti-obesity case something costs $10 a year and drastically curtails heart disease and diabetes, why wouldn't I want it to be publicly funded? If sexy old men make society better for a nickel a day, why not?

I suggest having policy-makers look at cost-benefit data and find ways to help people in a bind without killing their incentive to do anything for themselves, while improving society as a whole.

We're obviously going to disagree here so lets let the topic resume the main talk here. As for the nickle a day thing, they can (anyone who wants the benefit) pay it themselves. I don't expect others supplement my sexual activities or birth control.

If you feel like there are not enough "good homes" waiting for children that are taken from "bad homes" by children services perhaps you have a bad idea about what they actually do with kids. Foster care is 100 percent better than a child living in a home where the parents cannot or will not take care of them. (or there is some other reason like abuse they are removed)

You've offered no alternative. What is a better way? Leaving them in the "bad home"? (never)

 

[River]

Out of curiosity. Are you against government aid for the poor as well?

I think people (all that are able) should be required to work for their welfare benefits. Those that cannot would be the exception.

 

[Minoosh]

To an objective observer, belligerence makes some neither more nor less credible. Neither does sincerity. Neither does any emotion shown by Kavanaugh or Ford.

An angry response is an indicator of deception according to this which is really not worth watching; it's a TED-type talk. It's a pretty boring video but the woman giving the talk had some credentials. More specifically, she was talking about looking for evasion, including non-denial denials. He answered "have you ever had blackouts" (paraphrasing) with, "Have you?" That's evasion. IMO, he didn't immediately answer "Never" either because knew he had, or because he was afraid credible evidence might turn up to contradict him.

It was really sad to me to hear so many people saying so many variations of, "since we don't have any hard evidence to go by, all we can do is judge which one was more believable."

No, no, a thousand times no.

What is your point supposed to be? I'm not trying to be snarky; I just don't know what you mean with your "a thousand times no" comment. Isn't that what the Senate hearing was for? Which people are you talking about and what is sad about it?

 

[acbytesla]

I think people (all that are able) should be required to work for their welfare benefits. Those that cannot would be the exception.

In other words a job? I assume the government will pay a good living wage?

What if it is is a single mother with infant children?

 

[River]

In other words a job? I assume the government will pay a good living wage?

What if it is is a single mother with infant children?

Government welfare jobs (imho) would look something like a minimum wage job. If you want to make more, get a private sector job or a government contract job. These would be basic things that require minimal skills. For instance, we could have programs that implement day care for welfare moms so they can work. Those programs can be run by people on welfare, and that is their work until they find a real or better paying job. It's not supposed to be something you stay on forever. Welfare is supposed to supplement you while you've become in a desperate situation, or found yourself unemployed or homeless etc. This should not be a lifestyle and a handout, or in other words no free lunch or universal living wage. (of course IMHO as they vary wildly here)

 

[Minoosh]

We're obviously going to disagree here so lets let the topic resume the main talk here. As for the nickle a day thing, they can (anyone who wants the benefit) pay it themselves. I don't expect others supplement my sexual activities or birth control.

Bully for you, but this isn't about you. It's about rational public policy.

Foster care is 100 percent better than a child living in a home where the parents cannot or will not take care of them. (or there is some other reason like abuse they are removed)

There are not enough foster homes. You simply declare by fiat that there are so. It's pointless to ask you to support that statement.

You said you had 2 kids before you got health insurance. That strikes me as irresponsible parenting. But if they got sick, I wouldn't support removing them from you based solely on the fact that you don't have health insurance.

You've offered no alternative. What is a better way? Leaving them in the "bad home"? (never)

You seem to have a very black-and-white view of what child welfare services do. What do you mean by a "bad home"? If there's not enough food, food assistance might be more appropriate than yanking a kid from their home. Obviously not appropriate if the kid is danger of imminent bodily harm, but if the problem is they don't have shoes, hook them up with a clothing bank. Social service agencies deal with the gray areas all the time. There are a lot of gray areas.

The only evidence you have presented is all about the way you feel. You don't feel like you should have to help. That's not an argument.

 

[smartcooky]

Location: New Zealand.

‘K.

The reason why you think my location has anything to do with what I said escapes me

A fact is a fact, regardless of the location of the observer of the fact.

THIS

What's your location, by the way?

Probably one of the following

South Carolina
North Carolina
Mississippi
Florida
Alabama
Georgia
Louisiana
Texas
Virginia
Arkansas
Tennessee

...if none the above, then La-la-land would be my next best guess.

 

[River]

Bully for you, but this isn't about you. It's about rational public policy.

There are not enough foster homes. You simply declare by fiat that there are so. It's pointless to ask you to support that statement.

You said you had 2 kids before you got health insurance. That strikes me as irresponsible parenting. But if they got sick, I wouldn't support removing them from you based solely on the fact that you don't have health insurance.

You seem to have a very black-and-white view of what child welfare services do. What do you mean by a "bad home"? If there's not enough food, food assistance might be more appropriate than yanking a kid from their home. Obviously not appropriate if the kid is danger of imminent bodily harm, but if the problem is they don't have shoes, hook them up with a clothing bank. Social service agencies deal with the gray areas all the time. There are a lot of gray areas.

The only evidence you have presented is all about the way you feel. You don't feel like you should have to help. That's not an argument.

I paid for both kids to be born in full. There was no insurance company involved. As for my kids getting medical care, they had the best.

Children are removed from homes for good reason. If you take issue with why they are removed, thats an entirely different topic.

 

[acbytesla]

Government welfare jobs (imho) would look something like a minimum wage job. If you want to make more, get a private sector job or a government contract job. These would be basic things that require minimal skills. For instance, we could have programs that implement day care for welfare moms so they can work. Those programs can be run by people on welfare, and that is their work until they find a real or better paying job. It's not supposed to be something you stay on forever. Welfare is supposed to supplement you while you've become in a desperate situation, or found yourself unemployed or homeless etc. This should not be a lifestyle and a handout, or in other words no free lunch or universal living wage. (of course IMHO as they vary wildly here)

Here's the problem with the way you are thinking. It's ******* cruel! Are there no work houses? Are there no prisons?

Minimum wage jobs do not and cannot possibly pay for shelter, food, utilities, transportation or provide the time or skills to obtain a decent job. Not to mention the time to care for and raise children. And by the way. There already are limits on how long someone can get assistance.

I do a lot of volunteer work with the homeless... trying to get them shelter. I see families living in cars where both parents work. Just imagine sending your children to school in ratty clothes and in need of a shower or sleeping in a sedan in the winter with your kids. I see this pretty often. Your idea is to take children away from their parents if they can't afford to raise them? The same parents you wouldn't offer free contraceptives to.

Your whole concept is selfish and doesn't work or at least doesn't help to mitigate poverty. People need good jobs that require skills and education both of which are impossible to get while you're working for minimum wage and raising children. They are pretty much impossible to acquire even if you dont have children. I had that kind of job while in college. I had to take breaks..skipping quarters because I could not pay tuition. I struggled to get my degree not because I couldn't hack it academically, but because I couldn't hack it financially. And it would be far harder today in Seattle with the sky high rents.

.

 

[Meadmaker]

An angry response is an indicator of deception according to this which is really not worth watching; it's a TED-type talk. It's a pretty boring video but the woman giving the talk had some credentials. More specifically, she was talking about looking for evasion, including non-denial denials. He answered "have you ever had blackouts" (paraphrasing) with, "Have you?" That's evasion. IMO, he didn't immediately answer "Never" either because knew he had, or because he was afraid credible evidence might turn up to contradict him.

Evasiveness is, I believe, indicative. Evasiveness isn't an emotion.

Yeah, Brett Kavanaugh was extremely evasive on the subject of just how drunk he got in his youth, and that leads me to believe that he got pretty darned drunk.

What is your point supposed to be? I'm not trying to be snarky; I just don't know what you mean with your "a thousand times no" comment. Isn't that what the Senate hearing was for? Which people are you talking about and what is sad about it?

What I mean is that in the absence of evidence, we can't reach any conclusion at all. We shouldn't decide which one is telling the truth based on whether or not we like the cut of their jib.


As for who did that, there were lots of media stories that made it quite explicit, but, really, that was the entire narrative after the hearings. "She sounded credible." "She was 100% certain." "She was sincere." "He was angry." "He was disrespectful". All those things appeared true, but what does it tell us? Nothing. Of course, both sides played that game. Senator Kennedy actually asked Kavanaugh to swear to God. Well, he must be telling the truth, then, because lightning would have struck the hearing room if he had been lying, right? But I think they missed a big opportunity to weigh each witness to see if they weighed the same as a duck. That would have had more probative value than judging their sincerity or likability.


Judge the evidence. That includes their testimony, but only in the sense that we can compare what they say happened with evidence from other sources to see if there's consistency. Their apparent sincerity is utterly insignificant, but it was what was reported above all else.

 

[River]

Here's the problem with the way you are thinking. It's ******* cruel! Are there no work houses? Are there no prisons?

Minimum wage jobs do not and cannot possibly pay for shelter, food, utilities, transportation or provide the time or skills to obtain a decent job. Not to mention the time to care for and raise children. And by the way. There already are limits on how long someone can get assistance.

I do a lot of volunteer work with the homeless... trying to get them shelter. I see families living in cars where both parents work. Just imagine sending your children to school in ratty clothes and in need of a shower or sleeping in a sedan in the winter with your kids. I see this pretty often. Your idea is to take children away from their parents if they can't afford to raise them? The same parents you wouldn't offer free contraceptives to.

Your whole concept is selfish and doesn't work or at least doesn't help to mitigate poverty. People need good jobs that require skills and education both of which are impossible to get while you're working for minimum wage and raising children. They are pretty much impossible to acquire even if you dont have children. I had that kind of job while in college. I had to take breaks..skipping quarters because I could not pay tuition. I struggled to get my degree not because I couldn't hack it academically, but because I couldn't hack it financially. And it would be far harder today in Seattle with the sky high rents.

.

People being responsible for themselves is not cruel. It's how you should live your life. Of course your opinion is going to be different.

There are consequences for each action you take in life. Perhaps people should give up the idea of "gimme mah free stuff" and purchase the goods and services they require. Capitalism. It's not for the lazy.

People that are able to work, should. No exceptions.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ummm…..guys...….Kavanaugh?

 

[Minoosh]

In other words a job? I assume the government will pay a good living wage?

What if it is is a single mother with infant children?

It's simple: You hire someone to take care of her kids for minimum wage so that she can go get a job that pays minimum wage.

In defense of libertarians, I think they sincerely believe that if there was no such thing as government assistance, people would just have to be better people. Children might suffer in the short term but sooner or later people would become better people. It's only a problem in practice; in theory it works beautifully.

ETA: I saw someone on this board identify a fallacy he called "argument from competence": "I did it; therefore everyone can do it." It just doesn't follow.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And to satisfy the urges of entitled, white, drunken frat-boys.

And then carry those rape babies to term.

 

[River]

Ummm…..guys...….Kavanaugh?

Agreed.

Congratulations to the new SCOTUS. May he serve this country well.