Creme de la Creme
Is that the reaction of an innocent person? I suppose that these senators would have no problem with the federal authorities tapping their phone, searching their homes, auditing their finances, or stopping and canvasing their cars, correct? After all, they're innocent of any crimes. And why would an innocent person not want to prove their innocence?
The insistence that "no innocent person would object" to government intrusion is the hallmark of every authoritarian regime. One of the many protections baked into our system is that we do not infer guilt from silence, and that citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Virtually every lawyer in the country would caution their client not speak to law enforcement more than necessary, regardless of how innocent they are or are not.
If a Yale-educated federal judge like Brett Kavanaugh was actually out there demanding the FBI investigate him, I would honestly consider that evidence he was a terrible lawyer and unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. It's also an odd argument in these circumstances for two related reasons. Lying during either would be a felony. Likewise, at the time of the Democrats' statements, Blasey Ford herself was refusing to provide testimony on the issue to the committee, even with assurances from Senate Republicans that she could be questioned by aides from the privacy of her own home and away from cameras.
One could just as easily ask in bad faith why, if she's telling the truth, did she turn down an opportunity to tell her story? It's pretty obvious that both Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford want the allegation investigated.
What's happening now is just bickering over which federal body they'll testify to under oath and under penalty of prison if they lie. That's not a strike against either's credibility.
Jaffe details the casual misogyny of his own classmates and friends, how they terrorized their female teachers and girls from other schools, how they told homophobic jokes. Evidently we're meant to infer that because people with similar upbringings were misogynists, surely Kavanaugh is too.
So yeah, it turns out there's no evidence that Kavanaugh acted like a misogynist pig in college, but some of the members of his fraternity did! However, the Daily News insists "the casual disrespect for women seems noteworthy in light of the explosive allegation by California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her at a high school party almost 40 years ago.
It's blatantly obvious what's going on here. In lieu of concrete evidence that Kavanaugh is a rapist, the media is forced to scramble for evidence that he is a misogynist. But that doesn't exist either, so now we're forced to scrape up evidence that the culture around him as a young man was teeming with sexism. From there, we are meant to presume that Brett Kavanaugh must be a sexist, and it's plausible he's an attempted rapist.
After all, he's a rich white guy, and you know how they are. Simply imagine someone making this argument during the confirmation fight for Clarence Thomas, a respected black jurist with a modest upbringing who likewise was hit with an allegation of sexual impropriety.
Imagine journalists winking and nudging that a sharecroppers' son just sort of fits a profile of a likely rapist, that people from his neighborhood and his background often engaged in deplorable behavior. Who, in a million years , thinks that would fly? Why then are the media engaging in the same of sort of guilt-by-association prejudicial stereotyping that's rightfully deplored in other contexts?
The evidence against Brett Kavanaugh must be evidence against Brett Kavanaugh , not his frat brothers, not his regional peers. September 20, 5: Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of attempted rape. His accuser, Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford, claims that 35 years ago he held her down at a party, covered her mouth, and tried to strip her. The Supreme Court nominee says he never attended any sort of party similar to the one she ….
The Supreme Court nominee says he never attended any sort of party similar to the one she describes. Whether through an FBI investigation as Blasey Ford's lawyer has suggested or Senate hearing as Kavanaugh backers support , both those claims will inevitably come under further scrutiny. Unfortunately there isn't much in the way of actual evidence. Blasey Ford apparently made a similar accusation with minor differences in a therapist's session a decade ago, and years later she identified the man in her story as Kavanaugh.
She passed a polygraph test, but those are notoriously unreliable, only slightly better than a coin flip per some studies. Both Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford have hosts of friends and colleagues attesting to their moral character. What it boils down to is the evidence Brett Kavanaugh attempted a rape is that Blasey Ford said he did, and the evidence he did not is that he says he did not.
It's the classic "he-said, she-said" situation that frustrates those of us who like nice, clean answers to tricky questions. But to many partisans the issue has been settled: Kavanaugh is guilty, and the burden of proof lies with him to prove that he is not. The most blatantly stupid of these arguments comes courtesy of ABC's Matthew Dowd, who states that in a he-said, she-said situation, we ought to just automatically believe the woman.
Enough with the "he said, she said" storyline. She has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. For years we have believed the he in these scenarios. This got a lot of retweets from women who are happy that he is Down With The Cause, but in practice, this is a godawful idea.
Dowd is essentially saying that because women were once subject to injustice, we should knowingly engage in that same injustice, this time directed at men. When applied to Kavanaugh that would result in an outcome Dowd no doubt supports, but as a rule it would ruin thousands of innocent lives and incentivize lying as a tool of personal destruction. The correct response to the fact that women have been subject to an injustice is to say that injustice should end.
Women should not be believed by default and men should not be believed by default based solely on accidents of birth. To knowingly engage in irrationality is, well, irrational. But there seems to be enough irrationality to go around.
Take the letter written in defense of the Kavanaugh accuser by hundreds of women who attended her high school. Blasey Ford," the women write. Unlike the letters written in defense of Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford by their friends and students, this letter was open to women who didn't even necessarily know either party and attended the school as late as Why then do the women believe Blasey Ford?
Well, per the letter, "Dr. Many of us are survivors ourselves. However, I grew up hearing stories like hers, and believe her completely. The reasoning employed here is a bit terrifying; I've suffered or heard stories of women being raped, ergo, I "believe completely" that Brett Kavanaugh held down and attempted to rape a girl at a house party in It's not so much a leap in logic as it is a transatlantic flight.
There have been similar takes from professional pundits who have gone on the record saying they believe Blasey Ford because it just kinda sounds right. Happened all the time," tweeted Jennifer Palmieri. It's hard not to pick up on the subtext that Dowd made text: Therefore, in a reparative exercise in collective guilt, we must now believe the woman. The actual facts of the case and the lack of evidence or corroboration must be made secondary to the social justice concerns and presumably, the political outcomes.
Along with the insinuation that Blasey Ford is beyond reproach for being a woman is the one that Kavanaugh is automatically suspect for being a man.
It's the men in this country," said Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono. ThinkProgress denounced Kavanaugh's supporters as "a collective effort to protect another influential white man from repercussions," while Salon sneered that Kavanaugh "embodies white male privilege and affluenza… Rich, white male, right-wing Christian. Likewise, CNN and MSNBC hammered over and over and over again that the Republican Senators expected to question Blasey Ford are all men "white men" no less, as though that were relevant in a case where the presumed victim and perpetrator are both white.
When Republicans floated instead having female staffers or Kavanaugh's female counsel engage in questioning, both arrangements were denounced as sexist and " disgusting. Even basic scrutiny of Blasey Ford's claims from Republican senators is treated as victim-blaming or close enough to it. All of which leads to the question: We shouldn't accept Kavanaugh's claim to innocence at face value.
But his detractors are embracing a paradigm that would make it virtually impossible for him to be found innocent even if he were. That's a dangerous precedent that rational people of both parties should reject. September 14, Norm Macdonald says that as he explains to Drew Barrymore why he gets annoyed by people who complain about not liking jokes after they admitted they hadn't gotten the joke. Barrymore herself has not gotten several of Norm's jokes in the episode, but she says this and laughs anyway and he seems to appreciate her candor.
I find it hard to think of a better summation of Macdonald's peculiar brand of humor than "You don't get to not like it, you didn't fucking get it. Norm Macdonald Has a Show takes the idea that the setup and punchline should be the same and kind of spins it into a half-hour meta-comment on the nature of comedy and the talk show. The joke is that he has a show—a show being a particular thing, with guests and segments and breaks and bits and sign offs and theme songs—but he's not really doing it like a show, as one would do a show.
He's just doing it as Norm Macdonald talking to people. Cameras just happen to be there. Credits just happen to roll. The program is shambolic, but it's not rough-around-the-edges; the roughness is its refinement.
Needless to say, some people don't quite get it. It also seems like Macdonald might find that arrangement pretty satisfying. Sometimes his guests are allowed to tell full stories.
It's clear the author of this review didn't like Norm Macdonald Has a Show. She doesn't get to not like it. Because she doesn't fucking get it.
September 11, 4: Evidently, he told everyone that he would overturn Roe v. So sayeth ThinkProgress's Ian Millhiser or, more likely, the android who replaced him after he was sent to a secret Trump gulag. Wade last week and almost no one noticed," read the headline of his September 9th piece. In response to a question from Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz during his confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh said that "Supreme Court precedent protects certain unenumerated rights so long as the rights are, as the Supreme Court said in the Glucksberg case, rooted in history and tradition," and that "I think all roads lead to the Glucksberg test as the test that the Supreme Court has settled on as the proper test.
A year earlier, Kavanaugh said in a speech honoring the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist that "even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe v. Wade in — as well as the decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood v.
Let's be generous and grant that's true. It is still objectively false to say that "Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Milhiser and his editors know what they're doing. You may or may not click on a headline that comes across your Facebook or Twitter feed reading "Brett Kavanaugh's testimony might not bode well for Roe v. Man, I gotta click on that. When the article was posted to Facebook, it got dinged by its new fact-checking program— unsurprising, given that it's an example of precisely the false, clickbaity headlines that the social media giant is trying to do away with.
That redirects you to a fact-check both of ThinkProgress's piece and MoveOn tweet saying Kavanaugh "stated he'd overturn" Roe v. Wade,'" the piece reads. Legum of course misses the fact that it is completely unnecessary to even consider Milhiser's argument.
He said in the headline that Kavanaugh "said he would kill Roe v. Wade, and came up empty. The case for why his headline wasn't actually false is an eye-opening exercise in doublespeak. The Clinton-allied outlet went on a diatribe on how their story was accurate depending on what the meaning of "said" is. Our argument is that Kavanuagh indicated, showed, or communicated his intention to overrule Roe when he endorsed the Gluckberg test after saying that Gluckberg is inconsistent with Roe.
Allow me to suggest that when you have to go to the dictionary to back up your claim someone "said" something, you've lost the argument. To spell out the obvious, "said" can mean "communicate" or "indicate" in circumstances where the speaker rather obviously intended to convey a certain message and that intention is beyond doubt. You might say that "Kavanaugh said he loves baseball" if he went on an extended rant on how much he loves baseball without saying "I love baseball.
That Kavanaugh "said" so was a subjective judgment. If that's the new standard, so be it. Then allow me to say that this week, ThinkProgress said, loudly and clearly for the world to hear, that they don't care about the truth. I suspect that statement can actually pass a fact-check. September 8, 9: And sure, I expected dumb hatchet jobs and pointless grandstanding in reaction to something as big as an open Supreme Court seat. But this tweet from California Senator Kamala Harris really takes the cake.
Kavanaugh chooses his …. I've seen my share of deception and chicanery from politicians in my thankfully brief time on this earth. She leaves Phoenix where she has been working on a dissertation for years, to travel to L.
Lucy is forced to enter group therapy which is hilarious and tragic at the same time and is not really supposed to be dating yet at all. So of course because she has an addictive personality she immediately throws herself into the online dating pool with sometimes disastrous results.
How dare he not give a f? What a luxury, the luxury of a man. He only comes out at night when she is sitting on the rocks, looking out into the wild Pacific Ocean. I was scared of its wild ambivalence, so powerful and amorphous, like the depression itself.
It could eat me without even knowing. It is hard to adequately describe the hilarity and poignancy of Melissa Broder's writing but every single page was a delight. Lucy becomes completely entranced by gorgeous but elusive Theo: He looked like he was twenty-one, at most. If this was death then death was hot. She eventually comes to accept who he is after several passionate kisses and much conversation.
And who he really is doesn't seem so unbelievable after all. Had anything been left undiscovered, or did the Internet snatch it all up the moment it existed?
Maybe some strange and beautiful boy could still pop out of the sea and surprise you. Melissa Broder has a magical way with words. I just want to scream from the rooftops for everyone to read this book! Yes it is weird but it is wild and beautiful and life-affirming. And the description of Venice beach life and the L. I fear that I will be unliked or unloved. Men, women, I think that maybe everyone wants the same thing.
Even though there is a merman. It is about everyone's quest for love and to be loved. This is how you exist in the world, I thought. This is how you are alive. A book about fishy love is not something A book about fishy love is not something I'd ever consider but knowing how smart and witty Broder is, I wanted to give it a go. I read it all in one sitting. Yes, there are some sexy, sexy scenes with a merman this is a good thing , but this is all intertwined with the pain of addition and reckoning with the self.
The themes of Sappho and allusions to Greek mythology are perfectly placed into a modern context wihtout being heavy handed. Lucy gets annoying as hell. But the fantasy is rich and the sex is great. Mermaids and mermen are hot. Mermen are still men and, turns out, equally as disappointing. When I found out Melissa Broder wrote a fictional book, I knew the time had come for me to give fiction another try.
I may be forcing my boyfriend to try some merman role playing in the near future I was expecting a light and pleasant beach read but got a depressing novel with heavy themes and multiple descriptions of unpleasant one night stands that were far too long and detailed. The main character has very few redeaming qualities and is more than unlikable.
The depressing realism outweighs the fantastical aspects of the novel, and the ending barely makes up for the unpleasant hopelessness that saturated this book. The writing style is oversimplifed, and doesn't suit the subject matter. I have given it three stars because I can see how someone might like it, but the description is misleading and this book would be best for someone with a dark sense of humour that can relate to a character that is so lost in life that they create devastating harm.
My favorite book of so far. Erotic, dark and insightful. It's actually pretty easy to recover a Snap, take a screenshot of it and share it with others -- and by others, we mean porn sites.
No parent wants to find a photo of their teen daughter or son on sites like snapperparty or sexting forum. Keep your clothes on! The reality is, Snapchat is likely on your kid's phone. The best control you have besides taking the phone away is to just have a frank heart-to-heart about how there is no such thing as texts or photos that disappear and this is some down-and-dirty stuff that can come back to haunt them.
Unlike Snapchat, this one is for text messages only, not photos or videos. Burn Note's display system shows just one word at a time, adding a sense of secrecy to the messages. Again, by promising a complete delete, kids could feel more comfortable revealing more than what they would do otherwise.
And again, capturing a screenshot so that the message can be shared and lives forever, may be the app's Achilles' heel. Even if your kid doesn't have the app and has no interest in reading super secret messages, she could unwittingly get involved: The app sends a Burn Note alert that she has a message waiting. Curiosity can kill the cat and an app like this could encourage cyberbullying when kids feel they can get away with things because there will be no record of it. This is a real up-and-coming app, says online safety expert Lewis.
It's an all-in-one mobile hub for chatting, sharing photos and videos; free texting and video calls too. But the devil is in the details. Things can get dicey with the hidden chat feature; users can decide how long their messages can last two seconds or a week. But the biggest shock may come to your credit card: Your kid can rack up some hefty in-app charges on Line as well. While the app says that minors need their parents' permission to use it, there is no monitoring to ensure this takes place.
If your kid doesn't have a credit card number, you are controlling access to his in-app purchases. Omegle provides users with a chance to converse online with random strangers. Is there anything that strikes fear into a parent's heart faster than that sentence?