The Kavanaugh Fiasco
Excellent Last Battle reference. I often wonder if we’re seeing our culture turn like Ginger the cat did. Pretending to be dumber than he was, and therefore made dumber than he was. Either way, I’m sure that’s Jules I hear clearing his throat, about to address the good people at the NICE.
Right. Blotcher bulldoo.
Great article. I differ on one point, however. I believe if Kavanaugh is not confirmed, Republicans will come out to the polls in force in a way that would not have happened otherwise. We’re looking at a confirmed Kavanaugh or a Red Wave. Satisfying, at least, that the party of Evil is screwed in both situations.
Rachel, I agree that there is massive anger in the country over this. The issue is where the anger will land. On the Democrats for being so iniquitous, or on the Republicans for being so feckless.
Intergalactic Freak Show. Love it! Doug, I have been following your blogs for about 6 months and am loving them. Thanks so much for putting down your ideas in such a powerful, engaging fashion. Loved the last section. I feel exactly the same way. I am standing beside you, swinging the sword right with you. Attack!
Robert, and then attack some more.
Thank you for your ebook The Affliction of Job. I have been blogging through the book of Job, and it has been very helpful to have another rendering. Blog traffic has been light, but I view it as a type of discipline. This past weekend I changed things up and wrote a short article on Kavanaugh (a modern-day Job?). Traffic spiked over 100-fold, which surprised me, since I only said what every believer should have known from childhood, and left folks to their own conclusions. Please keep writing and encouraging other believers to write (ala Wordsmithy).
Laura, yes. This topic certainly has everyone’s attention. It remains to be seen what we all do about it.
Re: An Intergalactic Freak Show – Its striking that justice is being so eroded and perverted while we all shout “Social Justice.” Tossing out due process while debating a judge for our highest court . . . such a clear picture of what is happening and yet completely invisible to so, so many. I guess it is like a parable. While seeing we do not see and while hearing we do not hear. I appreciate the article.
Nathan, right. We parade our injustice in our selection of justices.
The Kav Freak Show A. Please refrain from degrading Pinky & the Brain. It’s a tremendous animated comedy and apropos to the wishes of the Deep State: “Gee Deep State, What do you want to do tonight?” Booker ain’t got nuthin on Pinky & the Brain! B. Can’t agree with you more regarding property rights. Particularly as it relates to self-defense and the effort to keep people from owning certain types of property based on some arbitrary idiocy of the past, there is widespread injustice. Not to mention perpetual property taxes that can never be quenched . . . C. This whole circus is meant to draw Trump voters and non-logic impaired voters alike to Kav’s defense. Remembering that it was a “conservative” SCOTUS that gave the nation Roe, when Kav betrays the nation as Roberts did on Obamacare, there will be constant justification that he’s not as bad as Kennedy was (OBTW, a GOP nominee and Bork’s replacement). How wedded are we to Kav already as a WWE Hall of Famer has set us up for this story line FROM THE TOP TURNBUCKLE! Got what we deserved, indeed.
Ron, this was part of my point on how we get what we deserve. Democratic nominees are entirely unacceptable. Half the Republican nominees are unacceptable. It does not follow that there is no difference, but it does follow that the rot is far advanced.
So……………, Are bipartisan measures “Evil stupid”? Or “Stupid evil?” ; – )
Jason, either can work. But sometimes it is also evil evil, and other times it is stupid stupid.
I agree that what is being done to Brett Kavanaugh is unspeakable, but after Merrick Garland, what were you expecting, group hugs? The Kavanaugh hearings are precisely what is to be expected when people follow your advice and try to nuke their opposition rather than find common ground, and your real objection is that the Democrats are following the advice you’re giving Republicans. Your philosophy works when one party or the other really does have a lock on power, but that’s not going to happen in this country any time soon. So, if the Democrats re-take the Senate, they will simply refuse to confirm any Trump judges for the next two years. At this point, there will only be judges when the president and the Senate are of the same party. Maybe there’s an argument for that being a good thing but it’s escaping me what it would be.
Mike, the Garland nomination was hard ball, but it wasn’t dirty ball. The Senate has the right to say no to a nominee. They don’t have the right to assassinate the character of a nominee.
The further society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it—Orson Wells
Dennis, thanks. Very true.
Their Blood Sacrament: “that we are missing a v” (10th paragraph) What does this mean?
Susan, I was playing off the fact that when lives is missing a v, it turns into lies.
Doug, could you please explain your position on Sam Allberry? You recently called him “a great guy” and some time ago you claimed to “have the utmost respect” for him. I know you’ve invited him out to Idaho and I know these statements don’t mean you agree with everything he says, but still, isn’t this misleading language for a man who embraces SSA and gay Christianity? Tim Bayly would never use this kind of vocabulary for Sam. I had previously thought you and Tim locked shields on this issue.
Paul, my position on SSA is the same as Tim’s position on it. When Sam was out here, it either was not clear to us what his position was, or his position has been shifting since then. My guess is that it is the latter.
I have a simple question. Is same sex attraction on par with opposite sex attraction? Opposite sex attraction has biblical foundation. I do not see same sex attraction as valid in scripture.
Tony, no, they are not the same thing. One is a creational design and the other is a perversion of a creational design. A young man who is “interested in girls” is normal, and has to learn how to navigate that interest without lusting and sinning. A young man who is “interested in guys” has to mortify that desire in its every manifestation.
Their Blood Sacrament Very good. Thank you. The god being worshiped by abortion isn’t just self, it is also (and more centrally) demonic. The insanity that drives the opposition to Kavanaugh is demonic. The intensity, the blood lust, the wicked slander and hypocrisy is all demonic. Even normally apolitical people are looking at the railroading of Kavanaugh and wondering “what the heck?” Applying logic (never popular with screaming meemies), one could say that if Roe is overturned, abortion advocates don’t lose anything, constitutionally speaking. The political ball would be right back where it should be—in the congressional and senate courts. This is where law should be made—not by 9 un-elected bottle-necks of power.
New hashtag: #BelievePotipharsWife
R, now that’s an idea.
Or struck down by giving over, such that we simply wither away, like some former “great powers.” Are you thinking in terms of judgment that leaves America diminished, but still standing, or of a more dramatic crash-and-burn-you’re-done type judgment? America may deserve what you say, but America is hardly alone in deserving that, so why should we think she would be singled out for the fury of wrath? I’m not a defensive American, just thinking it through. As for Kavanaugh, certainly there are worse prospects, but are you as sure of him as the secularists are?
John, if I had to guess, I would say “diminished, but still around.” Like the Hapsburg Empire.
Re: Their Blood Sacrifice: In this digital world we live in, for several years now have kept the habit of “cutting and pasting” quotes that I find either clever or profound into a file on my computer. This post of yours, Pastor Wilson, leaves me in a bit of a quandary. The 7 pages (so far) in that file already contain considerably more than a fair share of Doug Wilson quotes, and yet as I read each “short observation” here, I have to fight the urge to add them. What is a guy to do?
Lee, just give in to every urge. I think it is the right thing to do.
Re: Blood Sacrament Yes and amen. The Kavanaugh hearings are not about sexual assault; they are about abortion. Period. If it was a pro-choice judge who had been nominated, not one of the journalists or politicians or activists currently calling for FBI investigations into what don’t even seem to be crimes (not, if it happened, good behavior, mind you, but it’s unclear what crime he could have been charged with if she had gone to the authorities at the time and hard to believe that even today he’d be charged with a crime, much less back in the early 80s) that took place at high school parties in 1984 and scouring things people wrote in Jesuit school yearbooks when I was 6 years old would be doing so. They would not care. They would not only not care, but they’d be yelling “fascist” and “Puritan” at anybody who dare bring these things up. “Why would they lie?” people keep asking. Well, aside from the fact that people—including women—lie for all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which that our heart is deceitful above all things, they would lie to block the nomination of somebody they believe will vote to outlaw abortion. These are people who gleefully encourage women to organize parties, complete with cocktail recipes for things like “Gin & Toxic Masculinity,” to write fake reviews of crisis pregnancy centers, in order to slander the work those organizations, largely run and staffed by women, are doing. If they are willing to publicly, unabashedly lie to bring down non-political centers that are performing ultrasounds and giving out diapers, do we not think they’d be willing to lie (or accept a lie, or accept a potential lie, or pretend that women never lie) to take down a pro-life justice?
Lori, exactly right.
Amen and amen. And all of this can be said of the pending battles that shall be waged from sea to shining sea in just over a month.
Erik, right. It seems to be coming down to the point.
Powerful, powerful, desperately-needed preaching in this article. Evil has rarely been put in such stark relief as by what we are now witnessing. And too many Christians are just “tired of all the fussin’.” Isaiah 30:9: “For this is a rebellious people, false sons, sons who refuse to listen to the instruction of the LORD; Who say to the seers, ‘You must not see visions’; and to the prophets, ‘You must not prophesy to us what is right, speak to us pleasant words, prophesy illusions.’”
Jim, yes. We insist on seers who cannot see.
I am not sure if you would have seen this, but the Trump administration has ended a government contract to purchase aborted fetal parts for research. Happy day.
Joe, thanks, and thank the Lord.
I realized the other day how rediculous one of Doug’s points against revoice is. Saying that it is possible that two people will get together after meeting at the conference. Does this mean we must stop all strait coed conferences in the church too?
There’s a difference between a gathering of sinners who all have the same sort of temptation, at a conference not committed to absolutely mortifying those temptations, and a gathering of various sinners for a typical Christian conference.
It is just as naive to think that strait people won’t cheat as to think that gay people won’t. Those who are going to will regardless of a conference or none.
I agree with you that a conference held for the purpose of enabling unmarried heterosexuals to celebrate their sexuality and sexual urges would be just as likely to run the risk of the participants jumping into bed together. But I’m not aware of any church that organizes that kind of conference.
Hey Jilly! Hope you and all of our friends and acquaintances here are well! ; – )
Hope you and your dear son are also well. My daughter has flown the coop and gone to school in the UK. I expect that, before long, I will have either a foster child or a whole new passel of cats!
Things are on the up trend here. Jonah is good, and the dog just got out the the dog hospital, in pretty good shape! ; – )
Cats or kids would do well by you!
When you see a Christian conference where the theme is that fornication and adultery are just great desires to have as long as you don’t engage in specific physical acts, call me, and I’ll start worrying about the effects of bringing people together for Christian conferences as more than an incidental occasion of sin that could have happened anywhere else. Also, bringing an unmarried couple with healthy sexual desires together is not in any way a negative thing. How else do people get married? In the case of same sex attracted people, however, there is nowhere good for it to… Read more »
1) Revoice is the equivalent of a co-ed “Heterosexual Men and Women Tempted by Hook Up Culture” conference, not a co-ed “The Importance of the Trinity” seminar. What’s more, some attendees admitted they weren’t celibate and Tweeted very questionable “couple photos” at the event. Most of them were removed after they were posted on other sites. https://pulpitandpen.org/2018/07/28/revoice-a-story-in-pictures/ 2) Gay men are much more promiscuous than straight men. There are plenty of stats to back this up and it’s pretty obvious if you think about it…two guys with normal male sex drives? http://josephsciambra.com/surviving-gaybarely/ Getting a bunch of guys (and girls) who… Read more »
That Joseph Sciambra link was heartbreaking. “In our overwhelming desire to understand the world and ourselves, we were willing to go against Nature and God Himself. We disregarded the fundamentals of physiology and for that violation we paid dearly on an unbelievably devastating collective and individual basis. In the process, we threw our bodies and the surrounding culture into chaos; in a feeble attempt to right ourselves we demanded that society recognize our rebellion. But a law instituted by men hasn’t changed our physical structure.” Homosexuality is not a minor sin and it is not a victimless crime. It is… Read more »
It would have had to be gay pride parades in the early days. Now that the mayor, the governor, the police chief (and in the case of Canada, the prime minister) all participate, the ones I have seen have become much tamer events. Something that gets very little media attention is the problem of domestic violence. The incidence of domestic abuse among lesbian women is very high–significantly higher than for women living with men. There are now so many reputable studies conducted by people who have no moral issue with gays that it would be unreasonable to dismiss their findings.… Read more »
Domestic violence is not a public health issue, it’s a private health issue. But more pertinently, it’s a crime.
Have you been to a gay pride parade?
I am from tame lil ole Dayton, Ohio and even their promotional website has some pretty shocking pictures.
They also advertise for a Pride Stripperfest.
If this is what they show in the media, I can’t imagine what happens live. Mayor or no mayor, the drag queens, strippers, and simulated sex acts would shock any soft pastor into questioning their soft stance on homosexuality.
Revoice leader Nate Collins encourages Christians to attend pride parades:
““If your conscience permits you, attend a gay pride event this month. Not many straight conservative folks know that gay pride events commemorate the Stonewall riots that took place on June 28, 1969, and are an occasion for LGBT people to remember the violence against their humanity that that event represents. In my opinion, a conservative Christian can attend a gay pride event in solidarity with the shared humanity we all have as image-bearers of God”
I love that part of that link is “LGBT agenda.”. Our agenda is literally like to have coffee and go to the store, like the scary gay agenda is such a weird concept. Gay people are probably the least sinister people in the world. I promise we don’t recruit lol.
Also I love pride, but even if you think being gay is wrong you can totally go. Like my church thinks being gay is wrong and so to them it’s like the perfect place for out reach.
You don’t like the point of view displayed by the creator of the URL, therefore you can dismiss everything in the link?
It’s good to know the level of good faith with which you intend to engage, at any rate.
I’m not discussing any of it, I didn’t actually open it, but the whole idea of a gay agenda is funny.
Unless you know all of the LGBTQ celebrities, millionaires, politicians, media personalities, etc., (AKA “the gay mafia”), I wouldn’t speak so confidently about there being no agenda. This is about as agenda-driven as it gets:
The gay mafia, lmao. The deep state and the gay mafia are taking over murica.
Yeah, there’s no such thing. Obergefell, Bakery-Gate (multiple cases), the government’s war on reparative therapy ministries, etc., all happened because a bunch of agenda-free, coffee drinking homosexuals sit around and do nothing.
Yeah, the courts ruled in favor of the bakeries, or did you peace out on keeping up with that. And reparative therapy (I assume you mean conversation therapy) is horrible. The agenda is to be left alone and live our lives. Not have bakers discriminating against is or being “converted”. (Side not I’m actually on the bakery’s side, legally they should be allowed to do what they did, and I feel relatively strongly that way, however I do think they are horrible for doing it.)
Kong, SCOTUS hasn’t actually ruled that bakeries, in general, must provide cakes to gay weddings. It ruled that the Colorado Human Right Commission had shown an impermissible level of hostility to Jack Phillips’ religious beliefs, and that the ruling applies only to him. Even the question placed before the court was very narrow and applied only to wedding vendors whose work can be seen as “artistic”. The court also suggested that had Phillips been treated differently, the outcome might not have been the same. So nobody has “peaced out” (whatever that means) on keeping up with the news. Reparative therapy… Read more »
Also the mafia idea is still stupid. At most it’s a policial elite group. They aren’t a dark secret organization of rainbow wearing ninjas.
Right. You dismissed it without reading it based on the URL. Point made.
Kong, liberal as I am, I have trouble swallowing that one. Gays are completely free in most parts of the US to have coffee and go to the store without encountering even a dirty look. Certainly, in the cities, gays are free to get married and live their lives in peace without facing any threat to their ability to earn a living. Where I live, gay tolerance is taught from kindergarten through twelfth grade. You can march in gay parades and the police will go after anyone who tries to stop you. If you lived near me, I could direct… Read more »
No, Jill he cannot, and the reason he cannot not is that he really does know there is something wrong. Guilt, like misery, loves company.
This is what I’m saying, literally living life is the very not sinister “agenda” of most gay people. My agenda is class tomorrow, there isn’t some sinister agenda as it is always talked about. Also unfortunately where I live being harassed for being gay is common, but most of the country isn’t like that anymore.
Drag Queens make your list of shock?
May I say without intentional harshness that you are being a little bit childish? I live in Los Angeles and it takes a lot to shock me. But it doesn’t take much to bore me, and I think that drag queens outside entertainment venues are very tiresome indeed. Keep it indoors where it doesn’t frighten the horses.
Yes, the very purpose of dressing in drag is to shock.
Why would that change their opinion?
Also we treat each other better than the church treats us. So why should we leave our space and come to church?
Of all my issues with the church tats my biggest and if that doesn’t challenge people in the church there is a problem. Why are people who are according to you some of the most sinful and evil people outdoing the church in love.
” Why are people who are according to you some of the most sinful and evil people outdoing the church in love.”
So the LGBTQ community has outdone the church in building hospitals, schools for underprivileged kids, medical missions, disaster relief, vocational training in 3rd world countries, feeding the hungry, etc? I see a focus on flaunting, demanding, victimhood, parading and “pride”(one of the seven deadly sins).
No ofc the church is much better in that area, and of course it is amazing work and I would be stupid to question it, not to mention completely unworthy. I’m simply taking about interpersonal relations.
Kong, the Anglicans and the United Methodists would welcome you with open arms with no pesky demands about celibacy. You are asking people to do something that they can’t do without violating their sincere religious beliefs. You are free to think those beliefs are mistaken, outdated, and deliberately nasty. But you’re not free to demand that they change for your benefit, any more than they are free to demand that the Anglicans stop ordaining gays. If you sincerely think your church is wrong in its treatment of LBGT people, why not do what other people do–find a church that is… Read more »
No like people can think it’s wrong, ofc. Ofc people can think whatever they want, believe whatever they want and who am I to question it. I’m just saying that the church has consistently chased young gay people out with pitchforks, right into the waiting arms of the LGBT community. People I know have been kicked out of their houses at very young ages (less than 15), for being gay, not practicing, not having a significant other, just for (to use your words, not mine) having the temptation. This is what I have the issue with. And again the church… Read more »
So you are saying that it is routine, in your church, for a young person who confides homosexual feelings to a pastor to be expelled with metaphorical pitchforks? I am sure there are such churches (I am aware of only one, and it is run by a lunatic), but I find it very hard to believe that a normal church would react that way. I have never heard of a church expelling someone for merely having sinful temptations. I agree that a church that did that is acting unwisely. I think it is far more usual for people to bend… Read more »
Not in my church, in churches here, yeah. Unfortunately the Midwest hasn’t caught up to LA in acceptance yet. I haven’t even seen any same sex couples in public here.
And I’m specifically talking about young kids, not having really any idea of what’s going on, often still trying to pray away the gay being left homeless or (better but bad) being sent to conversion therapy, yelled at, ridiculed etc.
St Louis isn’t it? I used to live in the metro area. I do know what it is and isn’t like. Even if I’m mistaken about that, I have lived most of my life in the Midwest and still do, I know the region. Here, homosexuals, if less broadly approved than in some places, are no more persecuted than anywhere else in the country, and no more in hiding nowadays. Most of what you’re talking about sounds more like what families might do than anything a church would do, or could make happen. Can you name which churches have thrown… Read more »
“Also we treat each other better than the church treats us. So why should we leave our space and come to church?” Because the function of the church is not to make you feel good about yourselves, so how “well” (read as “pleasantly”) it treats you isn’t a relevant metric. Really though, in order for anyone to really respond to you here, you would have to explain what you idea of “good treatment” is. Nobody can examine how one group of people treats others in comparison to another without some standardized metric. I live in the Seattle area. I’ve run… Read more »
Love = not making anyone feel bad about their life choices, especially the sexual ones. (Surely it’s only a matter of time until we’re expected to treat adulterers that way.) Not love = suggesting that scripture has anything valid or useful to say about our sex lives. I am personally very prone to “loving” people in the first sense. Often it is because I don’t care enough about them to take the trouble. Not a comfortable piece of self-analysis!
” I am personally very prone to “loving” people in the first sense. Often it is because I don’t care enough about them to take the trouble. ”
But isn’t it fascinating how interachangable “loving” and “not giving a crap about” someone is virtually interchangeable in the modern vernacular? Indeed, it seems the Church is very unloving. It cares about virtually everyone.
“Love = not making anyone feel bad about their life choices, especially the sexual ones. ”
Very true. Many adulterers and fornicators have complained about the “hateful, judgmental church” because their lifestyles weren’t approved either.
No, that’s not the job of the church at all. But again, it’s a society full of humans, and if the humans decide to all treat of of the other humans poorly that’s an issue, and one that happens a lot. I’m not saying not to tell them what they are doing is wrong. But that’s doesn’t mean bully them out of the church, those are different things.
Kong, we’re not going to get anywhere discussing personal experiences–unless you want to name specific churches and people (including yourself). And a blog ISN’T the right place to do that. Readers here may believe all, some or none of what you claim. This is the internet and anyone can anonymously claim anything. I’ve been in conservative denominations in very conservative parts of the U.S., and have never seen the things you describe. I’ve seen open homosexuals attend church (but not take the Lord’s Supper) and be treated kindly. I’ve seen churches and counselors work with extreme love and care with… Read more »
Since someone brought up acting in good faith, I don’t think it’s “rediculous” to notice this:
Kong, you said:
Next time, you might consider reading the OP, especially Doug’s response to Tony, before posting dopey questions.
And for the love of all that is good and holy, learn to spell.
The (mis)spelling is awfully familiar. See my comment just above yours. “Rediculous” is also in Kong’s first comment on this post.
I can’t help but feel like I answered this exact comment last week.
With friends like this…
who needs enemies?
This is long-winded, but seems to present a plausible theory that Ford constructed her narrative around Mark Judges’ book: https://www.bitchute.com/video/B7iklDM-23I/ The argument is that Ford’s story is vague, or missing details, precisely where Judges’ book is also missing details. The video even makes a passing reference to Calvinism, although not sure why. Another point is made at the end that the FBI would be violating Kavanaugh’s rights if it was investigating a rape charge (without jurisdiction, and after the statute of limitations). Rather the FBI is investigating whether any parties have perjured themselves. That’s an important distinction that I hadn’t… Read more »
Hmm. Hypothetically the FBI could report either Kavanaugh or Ford to have committed perjury? I don’t what the likelihood is or what would happen next, but I know if it the FBI concluded Ford perjured herself AND said so I’d want to be standing upwind of the Democrat fan.
There wouldn’t be enough fans in all of DC.
That’s a discussion I believe the Republicans are having right now, to what degree the FBI’s conclusions will be publicly reported. One can assume that in today’s climate they’ll be leaked regardless of whether they are officially reported, though the accuracy of the leaks will be up for debate.
Lots of questions. Not all of these may not be pertinent, but some are
A similar list of issues with Kavanaugh: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/02/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies-distortions-and-absurdities/?noredirect=on
I don’t agree with how every single one is characterized, but the majority demonstrate someone who is not committed to a firm relationships with the truth.
You may argue that Ford is lying too. I’m not sure that she is, if she is lying then her lies are not as easy to demonstrate as Kavanaugh’s. The more important difference, of course, being that only one of these two people is being considered for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
Actually, there’s a second difference too. At least 2/3 of the distortions on the Kavanaugh list are actual lies/distortions that don’t have a plausible alternative explanation and are directly pertinent to his qualifications as Supreme Court Justice. On the other hand, most of the “questions” on the Medium list aren’t even meaningful questions. #1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 25 are either the result of misreadings of the testimony, are easily explained, or just completely irrelevant. Only 2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 18, 21, and 22 are meaningful questions… Read more »
Meanwhile, back at the Democrat ranch, someone slips through a domestic abuse probe like he’s covered in butter. As Robert Gagnon said on Facebook: “Apparently the standard is: ‘Believe the woman unless the man being charged is a Democrat.’ The accused, Keith Ellison, is U.S. Representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district since 2007 and titular Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee. “Also unsurprised by the outcome was Ms. Monahan, who said she ‘didn’t expect to be heard, believed or validated,’ even though she released 2017 medical records, therapy notes, text messages and statements from four other people confirming that… Read more »
“I agree that what is being done to Brett Kavanaugh is unspeakable, but after Merrick Garland, what were you expecting, group hugs?” Mike. So dude, what was “done” to Merrick Garland? Answer: precisely “nothing”, as in “Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland’s nomination, holding “no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever” on the nomination.” So Mike, “no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever” does not, in any way, come close to equaling the illegitimate, slanderous, cheap, unsupported and knowing false witness being spoken against Judge Kavanaugh, as we speak. Psalm 140 Lord, save me… Read more »
Don’t forget that the Democratic delay-via-slander strategy is also abusing the last little remaining civic goodwill that exists in the country. At the height of the #MeToo movement Democrats are treating the seriousness of sexual assault as nothing more than a political tool. That is seriously bad juju.
I do agree that the processes are different in type. However, it is still clear that the Kavenaugh process is a rather natural outgrowth of three things. The Republican refusal to fulfill their constitutional duty and consider the Garland nomination, the Republican use of the nuclear option to prevent the traditional way for the Democrats to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination, and the nomination of an openly partisan candidate like Kavanaugh to a post that is supposed to be non-partisan in the extreme. When you say, “Kavanaugh is being personally slandered by bald faced lying kooky liberals”, which particular liberals are… Read more »
“the nomination of an openly partisan candidate like Kavanaugh to a post that is supposed to be non-partisan in the extreme.”
More partisan than Garland, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor? Hardly. Not unless you consider the Clintons and Washington Post as some sort of via media. Pre-hearing, his views were no more partisan than the pro-abortion, anti-market, anti-2nd Amendment zealots Obama nominated. And if Garland & co. had similar accusations hurled at them, who knows how they’d react.
Kavanaugh wrote the Starr report and worked as a lawyer for the Bush White House planning how to combat the Democratic agenda, even using documents illegally stolen from Democratic congressmen while doing so. What positions did Garland, Kagan, or Sotomayor hold that were even close to as nakedly partisan as that? And that’s before we get into his actions during this nomination, which even some of his previous friends and supporters have said disqualifies him from the nomination. “I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial… Read more »
What on earth does “conspiratorial partisanship” even mean? It’s not even a coherent phrase! It’s just a manipulative word-salad of negative connotations. Nor, for the matter of that, is it “partisan” to defend yourself. It isn’t as though K was fighting against high marginal tax rates. He was pushing back against a character assassination. That his would-be assassins were all Democrats was their choice, not his.
I read the article, and I don’t buy this guy as any kind of friend. If that word means anything, it means “not writing articles like this”.
“Conspiratorial partisanship” is the use of conspiracy theories based on partisan politics to play to your base. If you know what partisanship is and you know what conspiratorial is, it’s nothing more than those two things being done together – there’s nothing incoherent or “word salad” about that. And Wittes is a member at Hoover and a senior fellow at Brookings, he’s a known public quantity with a long-standing, positive relationship with Kavanaugh who can’t be dismissed lightly. He’s not the only one. Michael Proctor and Mark Osler, former law school classmates of Kavanaugh and current law school professors who… Read more »
Okay, I’ll grant that with imagination one can contrive a definition of the phrase, but it doesn’t have anything to do with Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh did not advance a partisan agenda – he just defended himself. And he didn’t advance a conspiracy theory – he was obviously conspired against. Nor does Kavanaugh even have “a base” to play to – he’s a judge, not an elected politician. The charge is nonsense. It’s mere negative-sounding bafflegab.
Your claims that Kavanaugh could only defend himself in partisan and conspiratorial tones fly in the face of what we saw from several of the committee Republicans, who were able to question Mrs. Ford and consider her testimony, yet still defend Kavanaugh, without devolving into partisan and conspiratorial terms. (Not all the Senate Republicans managed this, but some did and did it well.) Your claims that his partisan bias and poor temperament during the hearing are obviously not disqualifying fly in the face of prominent, qualified, former supporters of Kavanaugh who are on the record as having supported his nomination… Read more »
“Your claims that Kavanaugh could only defend himself in partisan and conspiratorial tones…” I’ll stop you right there. That isn’t what I said. I said the opposite. I said he was not partisan, not that he had to be. This remains the case: nothing he said was related to the platform of any political party. He defended himself and his own reputation. I repeat, again, in case you missed it the first three times: the charge of partisanship is poppycock. It is bafflegab. It is, to put the thing in briefest terms, so nonsensical, that to exceed its null-quotient of… Read more »
And yet even the very conservative Senator Flake said that the remarks were partisan.
You can insult me however you want and get away with it here, but your entire insult is immediately disproven by Senator Flake’s assertions. Senator Flake knows full well that he is going to vote for Kavenaugh’s confirmation, and still characterized his remarks in that way and found issue with it. And he was not alone in that regard. You’re going to need to reach for a better argument.
The fact that someone somewhere said a different thing does not “disprove” anything. If I am right, it would merely show that he, like you, is using the term “partisan” asb an all-purpose slur because saying “full of righteous anger” would require too much empathy. I notice, by the way, that you don’t offer any actual argument in refuting the claim I made; namely that there is no sensible definition of partisan that applies to Kavanaugh’s behavior in the hearings. That would actually be a disproof, at least potentially.
I actually think it is a pretty good phrase because it gave me an immediate mental image of toga-clad, sandal-wearing Romans urging Brutus to sharpen his knife. But it needs to be applied equally to anyone, on either side, who thinks that when you aren’t going to win on the merits, you should scheme with your fellows to win through trickery and deceit. Self-defense, and the defense your friends make for you, is clearly not partisanship. But I wish we could discuss an issue here that, because of Kavanaugh’s denials, hasn’t really come up. Does anyone normal really think that… Read more »
Of course it shouldn’t be. Sensible people know this, and are generally willing to maintain that standard when it applies to themselves…
Darkness does love to accuse all of us on the same basis Jilly.
That’s why legitimate conviction of sin. All ways comes from the Holy Spirit, even if due rebuke comes from those who love us.
Jilly, I would say that even murder would not be disqualifying if followed by acceptance of blame and repentance and a sufficient display of reformed life to follow. With Kavanaugh specifically, if the allegations had been limited to the most credible ones (physically molesting a girl against her will in high school, exposing himself in college, getting in a bar fight in law school, and generally being kind of a nasty drunk in his teens and twenties), then I could imagine scenarios in which clear repentance and reformed life could allow forgiveness that would allow a role in the Supreme… Read more »
“Kavanaugh wrote the Starr report and worked as a lawyer for the Bush White House planning how to combat the Democratic agenda, even using documents illegally stolen from Democratic congressmen while doing so. What positions did Garland, Kagan, or Sotomayor hold that were even close to as nakedly partisan as that?” How is that partisan….. at all? The only basis upon which to conclude that working to combat “the Democratic agenda” is partisan is if the only reason he did so was *because* it was Democratic, rather than because he disagreed with the principles involved. You provide no establishing facts… Read more »
“Why should I care about the subjective opinion of someone I’ve never met, who’s personal relationship with Kavanaugh I don’t know the details involved? Why don’t you actually give an example of his behavior and we can discuss that, rather than taking a random third party’s description of his undefined behavior as being evidence somehow. Honestly, the construction of this argument is so poor, it gives the impression that the only one here being naked partisan is you Jonathan” Those two paragraphs are at odds with each other. You claim that my argument alone suggests I am “naked partisan”, yet… Read more »
“Those two paragraphs are at odds with each other. You claim that my argument alone suggests I am “naked partisan”, yet you dismiss specific examples of people arguing my position who are not “naked partisan.”” Hearsay is not evidence. I cannot submit Katecho’s opinion of your character as objective evidence of your sins. It’s just his opinion. If I want to know if Donald Trump has committed treason by conspiring with Russia, I can not simply ask someone who knows him what kind of person he is. Anything they tell me is subject to whatever lenses of bias they may… Read more »
Justin, I thought of those lost family relationships when I found myself, for the first time, having really serious disagreements with my friends about this candidate. Three of my friends have experienced past sexual abuse of a very serious nature, and none was successful in obtaining justice. I think my friends, who are ordinarily intelligent and rational, probably represent a large number of women out there. What they seem to be saying is that because justice was denied them, if there is a chance that Kavanaugh did this, then he must pay. This is a purely emotional reaction, and while… Read more »
Whoops! Sorry J, you are wrong on all three counts. 1. The conservatives did not consent to Obama’s nomination of Garland, therefore, they did not advise on it. Very Constitutional. 2. The “nuclear option” was a liberal creation, therefore, liberals have no cause to complain that they are “hoist on their own petard”. ???? 3. Kavanaugh is less partisan than either of Obama’s nominies. The Senate is a court of government, and what is said in that court is on government record. By comparison the slander Anthony Wiener made against Breitbart was quite “public”, but not “official”, in the Governmental… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: … way for the Democrats to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination, and the nomination of an openly partisan candidate like Kavanaugh to a post that is supposed to be non-partisan in the extreme. “Non-partisan in the extreme”? Jonathan is now advocating extremism from the bench? Jonathan still seems to be carrying water for that dying myth of neutrality, or else he is conflating non-neutrality with partisanship, and hoping we won’t notice. I’m certainly not interested in any allegedly neutral nominee to the Supreme Court. First, because such a nominee doesn’t exist, and Jonathan would be naive to pretend it… Read more »
You should be non-neutral in regards to the truth, you should be neutral in regards to political affiliation. Kavanaugh appears far too partisan in terms of the Democrat/Republican divide, not the truth/falsehood divide. Instead of trying to taint my reputation, work on Senator Jeff Flake’s instead. Because Jeff Flake is as committed a conservative as you will find, and he also denounced Kavanaugh’s words as partisan and inappropriate for the court. Senator Murkowski refused to vote him for the court. Like I said, I believe that Justice John Roberts is a fine example of the kind of justice I wish… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Sotomayor belonged for a period to NCLR, the slogan you quoted was from a 50-year-old MEChA document. Is Jonathan suggesting that Democrats are permitted to go back 35 years to dig up dirt on Kavanaugh, but we are beyond the pale to reference back 50 years when discussing Sotomayor? Nice double-standard Jonathan has going there. In any case, the 50-year-old MEChA document Jonathan and I refer to happens to be the very founding manifesto of that particular group. The summary sentence of the opening preamble translates as: “For the Race, everything; outside the Race, nothing.” But notice that… Read more »
At what point will you realize that your insistence on doubling-down on the joint funding of a single local Thanksgiving event for kids at some college campus 15 years ago is in itself evidence for how weak your case is? Is Jonathan suggesting that Democrats are permitted to go back 35 years to dig up dirt on Kavanaugh, but we are beyond the pale to reference back 50 years when discussing Sotomayor? Nice double-standard Jonathan has going there. No, I’m suggesting that Sotomayor has nothing to do with a 50-year-old document for an organization she has never belonged to. But… Read more »
And I will completely agree with your argument that the NCLR’s attempt to soften and reinterpret José Vasconcelos’s original 1925 use of the term was a bridge too far and somewhat ridiculous. Vasconcelos was very much a product of the early 20th century and the Mexican Revolution, like many Mexicans at the time he felt degraded by the scientific racism of his day which attempted to build on Darwin to prove White superiority, and was attempting to create a combative narrative that would unite Mexicans around a different racial theory. But his new theory itself was disturbing (and Vasconcelos himself… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: How does that compare to the millions of dollars that the Bush White House gave directly to La Raza – is the Bush White House a MEChA affiliate now too? Newsflash for Jonathan: that same G. W. Bush White House also approved $2.2 billion directly to Planned Parenthood. Does Jonathan somehow conclude from this fact that Planned Parenthood, therefore, cannot be a partisan, blood-guilty, and evil organization? If not, then why does he employ such pathetic reasoning in his attempt to rehabilitate La Raza? Far from persuading me, it just highlights the logical fallacies at play in Jonathan’s… Read more »
Very noteworthy to point out that you have now written over 1500 words worth of comments focused on the fact that you don’t like La Raza’s name and think that you can draw some sort of tenuous affiliation between them and MEChA. And you admit the MEChA claims are peripheral….so we’re left with the entire centerpiece of your argument against them being…their name. Newsflash for Jonathan: that same G. W. Bush White House also approved $2.2 billion directly to Planned Parenthood. Does Jonathan somehow conclude from this fact that Planned Parenthood, therefore, cannot be a partisan, blood-guilty, and evil organization?… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Very noteworthy to point out that you have now written over 1500 words worth of comments focused on the fact that you don’t like La Raza’s name and think that you can draw some sort of tenuous affiliation between them and MEChA. The consequence of La Raza’s name, origin, and affiliation has nothing to do with my personal preferences. Jonathan’s ad hominem misdirection aside, I made passing reference to an affiliation of theirs, Jonathan has tried to deny that it was an affiliation, but everything I actually said about the affiliation (which wasn’t much, because it was tangential)… Read more »
Katecho, I do hope at some point in my time on this board you and I have cause to disagree. I would very much enjoy the exercise.
If we ever have to disagree, I hope we can show how to do it well (i.e. not the way Jonathan does it).
Jonathan wrote: At what point will you realize that your insistence on doubling-down on the joint funding of a single local Thanksgiving event for kids at some college campus 15 years ago is in itself evidence for how weak your case is? My case never depended on MEChA though, which is why their slogan was only referenced parenthetically by me. However, Jonathan is the one who seems to think it is essential to distance La Raza from MEChA. He took a parenthetical comment of mine and used it to completely deflect from the fact that La Raza (“The Race”) is… Read more »
Yes, your case apparently depended on not liking their name, and quoting as “their affiliate slogan” a line pulled from a 50-year-old document by some other organization who you didn’t even refer to was just a little red herring to beef up a case that otherwise relies almost entirely on…you don’t like their name.
Jonathan wrote: Yes, your case apparently depended on not liking their name, and quoting as “their affiliate slogan” a line pulled from a 50-year-old document by some other organization who you didn’t even refer to was just a little red herring to beef up a case that otherwise relies almost entirely on…you don’t like their name. So if Kavanaugh had been a member of a group of ethnic whites called “The Race”, and the origin of that alleged term of art was a publication by a white racist scholar and eugenicist, Jonathan would be just fine with it? We’ve seen… Read more »
Again, you appear to be trying to pretend that translation and context are meaningless when using words, and that it’s okay to “Bork” a Supreme Court Justice simply because you don’t like the name of an organization she once belonged to even though your entire argument for not liking that name has absolutely nothing to do with the actual organization or Sotomayor herself, but how the word was used by someone else nearly 100 years ago and what it would look like if it were translated into a different word and applied to an entirely different context. “La Raza” is… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Again, you appear to be trying to pretend that translation and context are meaningless when using words… Just the reverse, I’m the one who quoted directly from the La Raza FAQ concerning the very question of the meaning of the term. They explicitly reference the philosophies and terminology of Vasconcelos, and his writing, to establish the meaning of the term. Of course they try to whitewash the overt racism contained in Vasconcelos’ philosophy, but I cannot be accused of ignoring the context that they themselves point us to for the answer in their own FAQ. On the other… Read more »
I do care slightly about the meaning and context of the term “La Raza” when Sotomayor joined an organization called “La Raza”, as that is the only context that matters. I have explicitly said so, and when you claim I have not you are lying. I am personally aware of what it meant during that time period to people of both Hispanic and non-Hispanic origin, I have verified that personal experience with encyclopedia citations, and you have not provided the slightest evidence to dispute it. I don’t actually care at all what it meant to some Mexican philosopher some 100… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: I do care slightly about the meaning and context of the term “La Raza” when Sotomayor joined an organization called “La Raza”, as that is the only context that matters. If Jonathan is only interested in trying to whitewash over the partisanship of a particular organization, then I can see why he is not at all interested in the racist philosophies of the man to whom the organization itself attributes the meaning of the term “La Raza”. However, I consider it logically worthless for Jonathan to offer us Diognetus as a plausible context when La Raza already gave… Read more »
At any rate, Jonathan is the one who seems to be disputing the origin and meaning of the term “La Raza” that was on their own website FAQ That’s untrue, you are the one doing that. You are the one who is claiming that their meaning of the term as they describe in the website is wrong, and that only documents from the 1920s tell you the true meaning. Just like in your example of the Confederates that you made the mistake of bringing up. If a Southerner in 2018 tells you that his flying of the Confederate Flag has… Read more »
And on the “ink blot type thing”, isn’t that exactly how you view Confederate Flag symbolism? Isn’t it true that people ascribe their own meanings to why they fly the Confederate Flag, and it is useless and false to ascribe to them meanings which were held by other people decades ago, but not by them? I’m interested to know whether you believe the League of the South is a racist organization. They are certainly affiliated with racist organizations, far more closely that La Raza and MEChA are associated. And Pastor Wilson is certainly affiliated with the League of the South… Read more »
Hey Katecho! I think you won “the Race”! ; – )
Or, am I being partisan and ignoring context?
Jonathan misrepresented the regional MEChA conference as a “local Thanksgiving event for kids”, and when corrected did not acknowledge the correction. Now he is just repeating his talking points that I’ve already addressed, and previously refuted, as necessary. I’ll let what I’ve already said stand.
I’m still persuaded that La Raza and MEChA are affiliated under the general ethnic and partisan agenda, but it was tangential to the original point concerning Jonathan’s double-standards of partisanship. In spite of Jonathan’s prodigious effort, I remain persuaded that Sotomayor exceeds Kavanaugh in terms of partisanship.
I just responded point-by-point to every claim you had made in the previous comment, and you respond by ignoring all my points and repeating your old talking points about MEChA, an issue neither of us had mentioned anywhere in the previous four comments. In fact, the last time you referred to MEChA, it was to say “My case never depended on MEChA though, which is why their slogan was only referenced parenthetically by me.” But apparently MEChA, an organization that Sotomayor never belonged to or was affiliated with in any way, becomes important to your case again when your other… Read more »
This is a strong article on actual reasons to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination, rather than to turn absolutely everything into red versus blue wars or just openly demonizing the other side and calling them evil in order to justify any sort of bad behavior by one’s own side.
One doesn’t need to turn everything into red vs. blue wars, the red vs. blue wars are already upon us. I’m not sure circumstances will allow a real examination of Kavanaugh. The strategic cost is too high.
I can think of numerous analogous situations from Jesus’s own period (zealots vs. non-zealots, Sadducees vs. Pharisees, Jews vs. Samaritans, Jews vs. Gentiles) where people insisted that the battle lines were already drawn and loyalty to a side was more important than integrity. He countered those every time. The degree to which many Christians have been willing to throw any other public witness aside in favor of naked partisanship has been one of numerous distressing developments of this era. There is no strategic political cost worth discarding even the smallest portion of the Church body’s integrity for. The public damage… Read more »
“The public damage that has been done to the Christian witness in recent years has been extreme.”
This is especially true of those holding positions that guarantee pro-abortion, pro-sodomy candidates and nominees will be in office:
And stop with all of the non-partisan stuff. You spit out Democrat talking points like a bad Moveon.org article. Just admit it: social “justice,” identity politics and the latest fads (e.g., #metoo) are more important to you than saving the lives of the unborn or maintaining anything resembling Biblical sexual morality
I will not admit that because it is not more important to me, and that has never been my position, and I don’t spit out “Democrat talking points.” I’m not going to waste more time on logical fallacies or lies. If you have an actual argument that can be made on the topic at hand without delving into ad hominem attacks or straight falsehoods, then make it. I supported Justice Roberts’ candidacy for many of the same reasons I oppose Kavanaugh’s – because I felt that Justice Roberts would be a strong, honest judge who would fulfill his duties and… Read more »
Have you ever considered political office? In my opinion, you would be admirably suited for it in the current social climate. If you do, please be certain to run as a Democrat, because that is where you fit, like it or not.
Hey Rick, did you see from Memi that “A cry for justice” went bat bleep, and Jeff Crippen and Rachel Miller disavowed Barb? ; – )
Couldn’t have happened to a more apostate bunch!
There’s a disconnect between the claim that Democrats refuse to accept pro-life candidates (as Mr. Wilson stated just days ago) and the claim that I would be “admirably suited” to run as a Democrat and fit there. One or both of you are obviously wrong. Or one or both of you doesn’t even believe what you are saying and just uses what works for the purposes of poisoning the well in the current argument. I would not be well-suited for public office, in fact would probably find it just about impossible to run, as my views on money, power, and… Read more »
OKR, I think Jonathan’s ethical stances would disqualify him from representing any political party we currently have. Democrats refuse to run pro-life candidates, and a platform of refusal to use lethal force against an invader is a complete non-starter. Our current political set-up means that a lot of people, including myself, can’t find a home in any of the major parties.
‘Guess we’ll ju
Guess we’ll just have to muddle through with birthday parties! ????????☀
” where people insisted that the battle lines were already drawn and loyalty to a side was more important than integrity. He countered those every time.” Good thing that’s not what I suggested. “The degree to which many Christians have been willing to throw any other public witness aside in favor of naked partisanship has been one of numerous distressing developments of this era” Agreed. I wasn’t suggesting decision making based on partisanship. I was suggesting decision making based on the actual current circumstances. Kavanaugh shouldn’t be blindly supported because he’s a Republican and he’s being attacked by Democrats. He… Read more »
“I doubt you’re very familiar with game or systems design” Why would you throw in a ridiculous statement like that? I think that using game theory to determine strategy in something so important can lead far too easily to an overvaluing of ends over the means. The number of times I can imagine someone using game theory to oppose any number of directives from Jesus are numerous. We are to practice obedience even when our limited knowledge makes us scared of the consequences, not shy from the right decision just because we think that doing the right thing puts us… Read more »
“Why would you throw in a ridiculous statement like that?” Because most people aren’t. I make references on the topic to very educated people regularly and have to explain them every time. It was meant as no sleight to you. If I started making an allegory to episodes of Star Trek, I would similarly run the assumption that the person I’m speaking to has no idea what I’m talking about, even though Star Trek is a very popular franchise. “The number of times I can imagine someone using game theory to oppose any number of directives from Jesus are numerous.… Read more »
You are actually supporting the argument that Kavanaugh’s outrage at being falsely accused disqualifies him? That’s… really horrible. These hyenas in human flesh attacked his good name, his family, his children – in a manner blatantly political, designed to do as much damage to his reputation and family as possible –
and you want to sit back and natter about *his* tone? Disgraceful!
As disgraceful as Kavanaugh’s own classmates and friends who had previously signed off their support of his nomination? “In our view that testimony was partisan, and not judicious, and inconsistent with what we expect from a Justice of the Supreme Court, particularly dealing with a co-equal branch of government.” “I have a long relationship with Kavanaugh, and I have always liked him. I have admired his career on the D.C. Circuit. I have spoken warmly of him, I have published him. I have vouched publicly for his character — more than once — and taken a fair bit of heat… Read more »
J’, once kav’ was the target of disingenuous partisan liberal slander attacks, any defense he offered would naturally be ” partisan”.
Libs are not neutral in this process. The obscene partisan nature of these false accusations is a current day liberal core “value”.
Rancor is one thing, slander is quite another.
The liberal are dealing in slander here.
Don’t defend them.
Your charge against K has three elements: 1) you charge him with insufficient deference toward a lynch mob, 2) you feel that he is a “partisan”, a term which in your use seems to include “not being sufficiently deferential toward lynch mobs.”
3) You accuse him of dishonesty by linking to a page full of lies and tendentious half-truths.
Sorry, not buying it.
No, those were not my charges.
However, it is still clear that the Kavenaugh process is a rather natural outgrowth of three things.
1. The Republican refusal to fulfill their constitutional duty and consider the Garland nomination,
2. the Republican use of the nuclear option to prevent the traditional way for the Democrats to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination,
3. and the nomination of an openly partisan candidate like Kavanaugh to a post that is supposed to be non-partisan in the extreme.
If you allow that lynch mobs can be composed of Senators, yeah, they pretty much were.
Yeah, but come on! Answer questions… what questions? Leading, loaded, dishonest questions from people who were obviously out to get him? To pretend that the hearing was an honest inquiry into the truth of anything would have manifested, not judicial temperment, but disqualifying naivete. The response you want from Kavanaugh is to meekly accept being bullied. I grant that there are moments when we should absorb slander and ill-treatment and count it all joy. But that is not always the case. It is not the universal response of Christ and his apostles. Sometimes, it is perfectly righteous to speak out… Read more »
He didn’t attack anyone else? “The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at my hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment, but at least it was a good old-fashioned attempt at Borking. Those efforts didn’t work. When I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready.” “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election.… Read more »
Kavanaugh spoke the truth – it is, transparent as the very air, a politically-based character assassination. The only excuse for not seeing it is little wit or willful blindness. You, I think, display the latter – you don’t think it matters that people were grilling K about the inside jokes in his high school yearbook. You think that is fine and dandy. You don’t think it matters that they turned his life upside down, threatened his marriage and family, with a public circus of unfalsifiable accusations, when the opportunities for doing otherwise were legion. No, the only thing you care… Read more »
I would think that grilling Kavanaugh about his actual behavior and comments, however long ago, would be vastly more relevant than disqualifying Sotomayor based on how some 1920s intellectual defined a term or because some 50-year-old words from an organization she never belonged to were repugnant. But no, I don’t think that anyone who I would ever defend turned Kavanaugh’s life “upside down” or “threatened his marriage and family”. A few weeks ago he was a powerful appeals court judge and now he’s an even more powerful Supreme Court justice for life, and I seriously doubt that his marriage or… Read more »
” and then lied about his knowledge of the origin of those documents when testifying in his appeals court nomination in 2006 and again in his testimony last month. ” You have no basis for this statement other than wild speculation. You’re in no position to complain about people disqualifying Ford’s statements based on their lack of corroboration while you’re disqualifying Kavanaugh’s statements based on their lack of corroboration. Are you familiar with the kind of work he was doing with the kind of documents he was handling? Upon what basis of expertise do you assert that which he should… Read more »
I’m not disqualifying Kavanaugh’s statements about the memos based on their “lack of corroboration.” I’m dismissing them based on Kavanaugh’s own emails and the clear content of the documents, which is now public. Even reading the emails it’s obvious that claiming he didn’t know the documents had to have been stolen from the Democrats defies credulity. When someone receives stolen property from a friend, the police don’t need to get your confession to charge you with receipt of stolen property, if the context makes it obvious that what you were receiving was only available through underhanded means. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaughs-unlikely-story-about-democrats-stolen-documents/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8b68b4285060 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html Which… Read more »
You claim that you aren’t concluding the way you are based on speculation, but then immediately link multiple sources that come to their conclusions through pure speculation. I really wish you would hold your rhetoric to at least some kind of standard of decent behavior. “Yet their accounts regarding the yearbook are corroborated by the very public knowledge of what terms mean. Just use Google. All of these terms have publicly accessible meanings, which are not the meanings Kavanaugh gives. ” But the common meanings are not at question when determining a lie. Kavanaugh’s intent when he used them is.… Read more »
The idea that Kavanaugh just assumed the Democrats were freely sharing their most confidential strategy deliberations and confidential documents goes beyond any reasonable deniability. The emails that the thief sent to Kavanaugh with the Democratic strategy points in them had subject lines like “Highly Confidential” and “Not for Distribution”. Why would the Democrats’ strategy points be “highly confidential” and then be distributed to the very people planning the counter-strategy, literally the #1 WORST people in the world to have those documents? One of the emails was literally titled “Spying”, as if you couldn’t get more obvious. email from Miranda to… Read more »
But this is the worst right here. Forget about Kavanaugh hypothetically receiving all that inside information with all innocence. Imagine now that in the midst of this process, this happens: In response to the fact that Democratic Senators’ confidential staff files were obviously improperly accessed for the Wall Street Journal’s editorials attacking the Democrats, the Capitol Police were called to seize the Senate Judiciary Committee’s computer servers, and the United States Senate Sergeant at Arms commenced a forensic investigation into what became known as “Memogate.” Miranda resigned in disgrace from Senator Frist’s staff, and the politically independent Sergeant at Arms… Read more »
“…..at least it was a good old fashioned attempt at borking…….” ??????????
J’, let me simplify here.
Raise your standards to a minimally godly standard.
There is nothing good or old fashioned about borking.
There Never was, there never will be.
The libs are dealing in deliberate slander here.
That is an evil thing, and they are evil to do so,
Regardless of any fake excuses they may offer.
adad0, I think you misunderstand. It is Kavanaugh, not Jonathan, that said “…..at least it was a good old fashioned attempt at borking….”. It is, nonetheless, still far less damning than many of the statements from those opposed to his nomination. Although I think Kavanaugh would be a good Justice, I wish Trump had selected someone else. Unfortunately, given the state and the timing of the nomination, I think it would be better if he was confirmed, rather than allowing the liberals and progressives to presume their behavior was the cause and thus encourage them to continue or even increase… Read more »
I don’t have strong opinions with regard to Kavanaugh, personally. Recent nominees have had mixed records. As we have found, it’s hard to predict whether a Supreme Court justice will honor God once they get confirmed. So I agree with OKRickety that there could have been a better choice. However, I don’t see that adad0 attributed the word “borking” to Jonathan. It seems that adad0’s point was simply to refuse Jonathan’s attempt to own the dictionary. I can imagine a little old widow being cheated out of her home and inheritance by unscrupulous bankers. She finally gets the courage to… Read more »
There is nothing wrong with the little old widow saying, “That person who swindled me is a swindler and a crook.” However, if the little old widow said in this current social context, “Those Jews who swindled me are swindlers and crooks that are going to use my money to fund the International Zionist Conspiracy!” then yeah, I’d consider that partisan even if she really felt that the bankers had swindled her. There’s a difference between calling out specific actions by individuals and labeling those actions with partisan terms and then attributing them to partisan conspiracies. The attempt at a… Read more »
OKR, can you tell me why Kavanaugh wouldn’t be your first choice? I had never heard of him until he was nominated, and I have very little sense of what he stands for.
adad, in misreading who made the borking comment and doubling down on how bad borking is, you support my position that it was one (of several) insults made by Kananaugh towards the committee. Senator Murkowski has decided that Kavanaugh is not appropriate for the bench. She is a Republican, in an extreme solid Republican state, which suggests that her decision is one of personal principles and has nothing to do with political maneuvering. Yet another data point showing that there are principled reasons to oppose the nomination. I don’t believe that Murkowski or Flake are offering “fake excuses” when they… Read more »
J’, you and Rick misunderstood me. You re saying borking is an insult by Kav. Kav was speaking the truth. The libs did try and Bork him, by evil slander. You defend the libs and you are wrong to do so. The borking actions of libs are evil.
Kav’s defence of himself is not evil.
Outing the libs for borking is not evil.
Kav spoke truth to cowards.
Again, raise your standards.
Stop defending the evil actions of libs.
I don’t remember the Bork hearings very well, but wasn’t the essence of Borking trying to unfairly paint him as more extremist in his views than he actually was? I don’t remember attacks on his sexual morality. I think the sad residual of Borking in the original case was the lengths to which SCOTUS candidates now have to go to conceal their true opinions until they’re on the bench. This has happened with both liberal and conservative candidates.
Yes, Borking was definitely more about misrepresenting his views and their implications than personal behavior. But ADad has a point in equating it to “evil slander.” There’s more than one kind of slander, and claiming you want segregated lunch counters and government control of speech when you don’t want those things, is pretty evil slander.
Judge Kavanaugh CONFIRMED!!!!
“Bork” go the weasels! (Slanderous liberal Democrats.)
I’ll be praying to God that Judge Kavanaugh takes to heart the injustice done to him, by evil lying people, so that Judge Kavanaugh will always consider personal, God required Justice in every future ruling that he makes.
I’ll pray for J’ too.
That J’ would finally understand the difference between common rancor, and evil slander.
If I understand correctly, Bork really did oppose the Civil Rights Amendment, argue that it was unconstitutional, and was instrumental in getting Goldwater to vote against it, right? He fully believed that racial segregation was the right of the business owner? His arguments indeed had been picked up on and used by segregationists? And he first made a public statement suggesting he had changed his mind about 10 years afterwards? That’s what I read It is also true that Bork was personally anti-segregation even when he opposed the Civil Rights Act. But he felt that segregation in private business should… Read more »
J’, let’s take Bork at his word re: the Ted Kennedy smear: “Bork responded, “There was not a line in that speech that was accurate.” In an obituary of Kennedy, The Economist remarked that Bork may well have been correct, “but it worked.” Bork also contended in his best-selling book, The Tempting of America, that the brief prepared for Sen. Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, “so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility.”” Besides, Ted Kennedy was never in any position to lecture anyone else about morality… Read more »
No, adad, I don’t think Bork simply saying “that’s not accurate” is enough. As far as I can tell, this is undisputed as the series of events. 1. Bork opposed the Civil Rights Act, opposed any law that would force private businesses to stop segregating their lunch counters, and wrote an extensive document supporting that position which convinced Goldwater to vote against the Civil Rights Act and was used by segregationists to support their position. He was not a segregationist himself, he abhorred the idea of segregation but he abhorred the government enforcing integration of private business even more. 2.… Read more »
J’, you skipped the part where The Economist agreed with Bork, in ted Kennedy’s obituary. But anyway, to illustrate the principle, take our host here for instance. Lots of “mini Kennedys” say that Doug Wilson is pro American style slavery. That statement is not true. Wilson’s position is that there is a scriptural case for slavery, which does in turn, preserve the good reputations of people like George Washington, had slaves at a time when it was legal, and of course scripturally supported. The detractors who insist that our host is pro slavery are “Borking” Wilson, and slandering Wilson. The… Read more »
If borking has to be happen, it is infinitely preferable to do it on the basis of a candidate’s written judgments, public speeches, and articles for law reviews. I haven’t read anywhere near enough to know how fairly or unfairly he was treated. But at least the battle was fought on the basis of interpreting evidence available to everyone, and the candidate was responding to specific questions about whether certain writings accurately reflected his beliefs. It may still be dirty pool but the candidate has a better chance to defend himself.
In an anonymous obituary, a center-right publication voiced agreement with Bork as an aside, without making any case for why Bork was right. I don’t think that does any meaningful work as a citation, other than suggest that supporting Bork can be a mainstream position. I myself had already thought that Pastor Wilson’s defense of the scriptural case for Southern Slavery was a perfect analogy for Bork’s defenses of the constitutional case for segregation. Sometimes we do think alike! I agree that claiming Pastor Wilson wants slavery in the modern day would be wrong. I’m not sure that claiming, “In… Read more »
Gosh J’, I do find your love of rabbit holes strangely fascinating! Anyway, in Wilson’s “controversy library”, in the links, he does apologise for any unintended hurt caused by his positions.
But back to “borking”, it does seem like we agree that over extrapolation is a feature if it. And as usual, we are not in agreement on when “over” is achieved is such extrapolation.
Are we done?
Yes. Kennedy overextrapolated Bork’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act in his initial statement, then almost immediately accepted Bork’s word when Bork told him that he had eventually changed his position. That was the terrible “Borking” we speak of. Compare that to what Katecho is doing right now in his quest to prove that Sotomayor was a racist partisan who should have been disqualified from the bench because she once belonged to an organization that had a name that was originally used by a relatively obscure philosopher in the 1920s to mean something no longer politically correct. Claiming that Bork’s… Read more »
Perhaps only Jonathan is capable of missing the racist and partisan nature of a group that is actually called “The Race”. One wonders why the group changed their name, if not to get away from the partisan and racist origins and context of it, or why Sotomayor dropped her membership if they were such a wholesome, non-partisan group. Her membership is just the obvious, big ‘E’ signal of partisan and racial bias. But of course she can also be quoted in her own words from a lecture published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal: … Our gender and national… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: And Pastor Wilson has also said that it was evil to oppose slavery or segregation by force, but can be righteous to oppose excessive taxation by force. The idea that South African freedom fighters or American abolitionists are “bad men” or “evil” because they used violence in trying to free Black people from slavery or apartheid, but Patriots or hypothetical future anti-tax advocates could be righteous in using violence because their tax rates were too high, has always sat very poorly with me. Citation needed. Jonathan has a history of grossly misrepresenting Wilson on this topic. Let’s have… Read more »
Katecho (by the way, nice to talk to you again), I am finding all this a total head-scratcher. I don’t recall statements in which Wilson said the use of force against segregation would be evil, or that force against tax collectors is justified. But I do remember several times Wilson has denounced as evil the use of lethal force against abortionists. Could the takeaway be that Wilson–rightly or wrongly–does not support the use of force in the abolition of social and political evils?
Greetings to Jill Smith. This is why we need a citation from Jonathan for his claim about Wilson. Are we talking about lethal force, or passive resistance, or civil disobedience, or government coercion through taxation, etc? Are we talking about action that is always a moral evil, or action that is just strategically unwise given the conditions, or action that misses an opportunity to assume the center? If Jonathan is going to toss out such remarks, he needs to have his citations ready. He has shown himself to be untrustworthy in his accusations and characterizations about Wilson too many times.… Read more »
Overly broad declarations?
Wouldn’t that be something like “borking”?
; – ) !!
I apologize Katecho for interchanging “violence” and “force” too casually. As I made clear elsewhere in the comment that I was referring to violence, as in “because they used violence in trying to free Black people from slavery or apartheid” and “Patriots or hypothetical future anti-tax advocates could be righteous in using violence”, I thought that it was clear that I was referring to violent force. We’ve had very explicit discussions in the past where I’ve made clear that my definition of violent force is force with lethality or done with disregard to the welfare of the victim. Again, sorry… Read more »
Now, do you actually think for the slightest moment that Pastor Wilson has ever approved of violent lethal force to end American slavery or American segregation or South African segregation, in the same manner that he has approved of violent lethal force in the American Revolution and among the Confederates? This reminds me of the kind of word games you tried to play when you claimed that Pastor Wilson didn’t really believe the Bible referred to unicorns, even though he had explicitly quoted it referring to unicorns and berated translators who would render it otherwise. If you can come up… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Now, do you actually think for the slightest moment that Pastor Wilson has ever approved of violent lethal force to end American slavery or American segregation or South African segregation, in the same manner that he has approved of violent lethal force in the American Revolution and among the Confederates? It’s a bit late for Jonathan to start asking about Wilson’s views when Jonathan has already imputed a view to Wilson that he couldn’t substantiate. Jonathan wrote: If you can come up with any evidence at all that Pastor Wilson has ever approved of violent lethal force to… Read more »
Jonathan insists that I need to cite Wilson opposing the practice, or else Wilson is presumed guilty. What a complete violation of Christ’s standard of charity. Instead I would invite Jonathan to apologize to Wilson. How is it “guilty” for someone to believe what they believe? How does it violate Christ’s standard of charity to make the most reasonable understanding of a person’s beliefs based on their own comments about them? You have to presuppose that those beliefs are wrong before you declare them “guilty” of something. Of all the things that I have cited Pastor Wilson as believing, which… Read more »
Jonathan, you know I like you! But I am seriously puzzled here because it seems you are arguing contrary to your own positions. It sounds as if your issue with Wilson is that he favored the use of violence to get independence from the British and to stop the North from interfering with southern slavery, while opposing the use of force to overturn African apartheid (admitted), free American slaves (admitted), and to abolish segregation (citation needed). But you personally have authorized the use of violent force to overturn apartheid, end segregation, and free the slaves? From my knowledge of your… Read more »
Jonathan, you know I like you! Thank you! It sounds as if your issue with Wilson is that he favored the use of violence to get independence from the British and to stop the North from interfering with southern slavery, while opposing the use of force to overturn African apartheid (admitted), free American slaves (admitted), and to abolish segregation (citation needed). To clarify briefly, apartheid is segregation, they are just different terms for the same thing. We called it apartheid when it was happening in South Africa and segregation when it was happening in the USA. But you personally have… Read more »
“If “cost analysis” were the issue, how would that make Nelson Mandela a bad man and a murderous thug”
Well, I mean, he did believe and fight for a fundamentally evil worldview, so I don’t think you need to establish a difference in physical actions to call him a bad man or a murderous thug. Though I recognize that this isn’t directly relevant to what you’re stating, so don’t feel obligated to rebut this. I just felt the need to point out that Mandela was a pretty lousy person either way.
Justin, would you hold the same view of Mandela if he hadn’t given up his early nonviolence? In other words, do you take issue with his goal of undoing apartheid if he had stuck to nonviolent resistance? If he had not been a communist, would that make a difference?
Jonathan wrote: This reminds me of the kind of word games you tried to play when you claimed that Pastor Wilson didn’t really believe the Bible referred to unicorns, even though he had explicitly quoted it referring to unicorns and berated translators who would render it otherwise. As usual, Jonathan’s recollection and characterization is faulty. Of course I never “claimed that Pastor Wilson didn’t really believe the Bible referred to unicorns”. Jonathan will be unable to quote me making any such claim. As I said at the time, I also believe it very likely that the Bible makes reference to… Read more »
You said: Is Jonathan claiming to be an expert on period KJV english, and whether “unicorn” was simply the translators’ intent to reference rhinoceros unicornis following the example of the Vulgate? Notice that Wilson’s argument was not that “unicorn” was specifically a horned horse, but that it was not a mere “wild ox”. So maybe Jonathan should cool his jets about pseudoscience, and stop heckling Wilson. Pastor Wilson never mentioned King James English, he was writing in modern English when he made the reference to a unicorn (within his own sentence, not within a quote). Neither Pastor Wilson nor I… Read more »
Jonathan, I would much rather discuss unicorns than Kavanaugh, but for those of us who are one the sidelines, it’s not very clear what is up for debate. Is the issue whether the nine biblical unicorns are rhinos, auroxes, or ibexes? Or is it whether Doug thinks the biblical unicorn was actually a unicorn–an equine creature with one long horn who can be tamed only by laying his head in a virgin’s lap? If so, I began to wonder what Doug makes of satyrs. So I looked it up in the archives and found this: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 BY… Read more »
Thank you Jill! Those are excellent receipts, and I hope they’ll finally lead Katecho to drop the lost cause. The original issue was that Pastor Wilson made a post attacking secular science, and one of his points in that attack was to insist that Job 39 refers to unicorns and to use rather disparaging language to reject the idea that the correct translation is a form of ox. He believed that translating it as ox results in a stupid verse and that this shows how feckless translators are when they succumb to science. I said in a comment that the… Read more »
Wilson’s essay “Photogenic Lies”, written immediately after Nelson Mandela’s death, calls the most famous opponent of South African segregation a “thug”, a “terrorist”, and a “bad man” because he violently opposed segregation. He says that Apartheid rule involved injustice by Reformed Christians but that it was far better than what Mandela did – in fact Wilson claims that the worst part about Apartheid rule was that its sins were a “wind” that led to the current “whirlwind” of evil government under majority Black South African democratic rule. To support this point, Wilson links to a John Crawford essay that calls… Read more »
(I should note what followed Mandela’s arrest. From 1963 to 1976, violent activity by the ANC almost completely ceased as its main proponents were now imprisoned. But in 1976, an effort by the South African government to force Afrikaans-language instruction in township schools led to large-scale student protests, which the South African government put down violently. Estimates for the number of student protesters killed range from 179 to over 700. In response the ANC began carrying out violent operations again, in many cases more violent than anything Mandela had done. Overall about 130 people were killed by such actions between… Read more »
Jonathan was supposed to give us a citation in support of his assertion that, “Pastor Wilson has also said that it was evil to oppose slavery or segregation by force”. Instead Jonathan cites one case example of Wilson rebuking the thuggery of Mandela’s specific use of vigilante, lethal force. Wilson has also rebuked Paul Hill’s vigilantism and violence, but we are not free to conclude from this that Wilson thinks every forceful opposition to abortion is evil. Jonathan clearly understands the difference between lethal and non-lethal means of force, and between vigilante and judicial due-process force, so unless Jonathan has… Read more »
I replied with a segregation example under Jill’s comment. For slavery, which one would think is even worse than segregation and can even more obviously be opposed by force under Pastor Wilson’s rubric, Pastor Wilson has made clear that opposing slavery with violence was evil in his view. In “Getting the Whole Thing Arsy Varsy”, Pastor Wilson states that “In reality, abolitionist violence is only a good thing after 100 years of textbook lies have sanitized it.” In “Time for a Little Q & A”, Pastor Wilson says that God gave instructions for abolishing slavery in the Bible and that… Read more »
“Pastor Wilson has made clear that opposing slavery with violence was evil in his view.”
I’m going to have to stop you right there. Saying that the specific action of opposing slavery with violence in one particular historical context is not the same as what you presented, that he claims opposing slavery with violence in general is evil.
Everything you say afterward is rendered irrelevant because you’re changing the claim it is you’re trying to substantiate.
As a similar example, I can oppose FR’s use of insults against you. That does not mean I universally oppose the use of insults.
I’m going to have to stop you right there. Saying that the specific action of opposing slavery with violence in one particular historical context is not the same as what you presented, that he claims opposing slavery with violence in general is evil. Actually, your claim does the exact opposite work, as it is Pastor Wilson who took a specific action from one particular historical context and made it a principle in general. In “How Koinonia Conquers”, Pastor Wilson claimed that Paul’s letter to Philemon teaches us that attacking slavery specifically and social evils in general by “revolutionary means” is… Read more »
“Actually, your claim does the exact opposite work, as it is Pastor Wilson who took a specific action from one particular historical context and made it a principle in general.” This is completely incomprehensible. I didn’t speak about Wilson’s writings *at all*. My claim is about what you said Jonathan. Whether or not Wilson somewhere did the same thing is completely irrelevant. You then reference Wilson analyzing Scripture for meaning…….and compare it directly across as though the Bible is not fundamentally different in that it’s a book that is both infallible and explicitly designed to teach broad lessons. That doesn’t… Read more »
Anyone who has known me for some time on this board knows that I am a strong and complete advocate of nonviolence. And a couple people on this board are aware that I have practiced that principle in contexts where it is tested more than 90% of Americans will ever face. So far as the incredible lengths you wish for me to go in order to defend a best-fit interpretation of someone’s position, I think you’re simply arguing for something beyond any reasonable expectation. If Pastor Wilson thinks I have misrepresented him, I encourage him to point out explicitly where… Read more »
“So far as the incredible lengths you wish for me to go in order to defend a best-fit interpretation of someone’s position, I think you’re simply arguing for something beyond any reasonable expectation. ” It’s the Biblical standard. If you’re casting sinful aspersions onto someone, particularly another Christian, you need to be able to show it. That’s precisely why I didn’t ascribe moral impetus to my criticisms of your rhetoric. ” If someone else thinks I have misrepresented Pastor Wilson, I encourage them to offer their evidence for a more accurate interpretation.” That’s not how that works. I can’t declare… Read more »
It’s the Biblical standard. If you’re casting sinful aspersions onto someone, particularly another Christian, you need to be able to show it. That’s precisely why I didn’t ascribe moral impetus to my criticisms of your rhetoric. Which of Pastor Wilson’s beliefs, as I have interpreted them, are you declaring sinful? Do you believe that if he holds one of the beliefs that I have ascribed to him, it is actual sin? That’s not how that works. I can’t declare that Hillary Clinton likes to hurt small puppies, cite some quotes that kinda sorta maybe say something like that if you… Read more »
By the way, when reading that I found Pastor Wilson to have made a comment that just defied reason:
“More men died in one battle, at the battle of Antitem, than in the entire Vietnam war.”
What? That’s just incredibly, staggeringly wrong.
Perhaps Wilson blew a citation there. Worst Civil War Battles Antietam was the bloodiest one-day battle of the Civil War. But there were other battles, lasting more than one day, in which more men fell. The numbers below are total casualties for both sides. 51,000 Gettysburg (3 day battle.) (Vietnam was 50,000+ ?) 22,717 Antitem (1 day battle.) Note: Because of the catastrophic nature of the Battle of Antietam, exact numbers of casualties were virtually impossible to compile. The sources for these figures are The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion and the Antietam Battlefield Board. Casualty Does… Read more »
Rabbit hole noted, but irresistible. Yes, that 51,000 casualties at Gettysburg does include all categories, likewise the numbers for Antietam. Battle deaths were many, but many less than those numbers. I don’t know where Jonathan found the citation, but absent any context to explain it I don’t know why Wilson would have said that, as it is indeed way off. And irrelevant to……uh, what was the topic again?
However you could the casualties at Antitem, the dead in Vietnam were in the millions! Not even all the men who died in the entire four years of the Civil War can come close to matching the number who died in Vietnam.
Sorry, “however you count.”
Wilson doesn’t appear to be the originator of the statistic concerning Antietam casualties. He may have come across it in “Social Stratification and Power in America: A View from Below”, by Lynda Ann Ewen:
It’s still incorrect and hopefully Wilson can correct the post.
If that was the origin, then he has eliminated the words “American” from it, which change the meaning entirely and moves the statement from “quite wrong” to “obscenely wrong.”
I would much prefer that Wilson be obscenely wrong on a side issue like this, than be obscenely wrong in the core of his reasoning and central argument.
So far as “La Raza” goes, I don’t know a huge amount about them but from what I do know I consider them a basically harmless organization that intends well but which I would not personally affirm. The few people in my life who were in some way associated with La Raza, both Latino and non-Latino White, were fine well-intentioned followers of Christ. So far as Malkin’s list goes, it’s a typical hit piece. Her #1 point is that it is formed around Hispanic ethnic identity….so? Does Malkin also decry people who belong to the Ancient Order of Hibernians, Russian… Read more »
Sure, and Black Lives Matter is just a group that thinks Black lives matter. It’s important to realize that La Raza has transformed its image over the years, perhaps in part as a response to Sotomayor’s prior association with them being made public. They have had to distance themselves from former affiliate groups, and they have even changed their name to drop the once-deliberate racially-based title. They are now called UnidosUS. What was wrong with the old name? Before the name change, the NCLR website faq tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to soften the meaning of “La Raza”: The term “La Raza”… Read more »
Not to mention that there may be a synchronicity between “borking” and “borging”! ????
Jonathan wrote: Now, compare that “Borking”, where Kennedy is uncharitable with Bork’s actual judicial decision, to Katecho’s comment above where he connects Sotomayor to the claim “For the Race everything, outside the Race nothing”, which is not onto something that Sotomayor NEVER said, but which is actually is a motto found in a 50-year-old document for an organization that she NEVER belonged to. Speaking of uncharitable. Notice that I did not attribute the racist slogan to Sotomayor herself, or even to La Raza. Jonathan is just deflecting in his usual erroneous way. I simply pointed out, parenthetically, that an affiliate… Read more »
Because there are no “ramifications.” What you call “radical views” of La Raza are views that are supported by prominent people on both sides of the political aisle, including two of the most recent Republican presidential candidates, and are in no way conflicting with any Supreme Court precedent, so I don’t see how they would be disqualifying. And you were the one who said that the most significant factor was La Raza’s name and claimed that that showed that she was a “partisan” and was affiliated with racists and thus disqualified from consideration for the court. And you still seem… Read more »
And just minutes ago Katecho attacked me for assuming certain views of Pastor Wilson based on his own past statements, going so far as to demand an apology even though Pastor Wilson has never said that my framing of his views on the matter are incorrect. Yet here Katecho has no problem assuming certain views of mine and declaring a “double-standard” regarding what I would do if Kavanaugh were a member of an organization that doesn’t even exist and which I have obviously never spoken on. What can be assumed apparently depends on who is doing the assuming. This is… Read more »
Jonathan, the last time you were here making a bunch of stupid, baseless, lying comments in one thread, you were trying to smear Roy Moore with accusations from when dinosaurs ruled the earth. Once Moore was defeated, his accusers went back into the woodwork, never to be heard from again. You went relatively silent, with a few comments scattered here and there, but nothing to write home about. Then Kavanaugh came along, and the Democrats decided they were going to bust out the same playbook, with the exact same type of ancient accusations from the same type of sleazy people.… Read more »
fp, if you can point to a single lie of mine in here, do so. Any commenter on here is going to be familiar enough with your issues with me to know that your vague and generalized attacks on me carry no weight, so it would help you to get specific. Also, if you can point to a single point in which I have failed to appropriately hold the “presumption of innocence” with Kavanaugh in whatever manner that presumption pertains to message board comments, please do so. I have commented on here many, many times since the Moore issue a… Read more »
Actually, Pastor Wilson’s turning off of the commenting may have been longer ago than I recalled. I have commented on here several times since then, probably not “many many times” as Pastor Wilson doesn’t allow commenting on most of the interesting essays anymore and he hasn’t published any of my letters as far as I know.
Jonathan, Lie #1: Linking approvingly to the WaPo story documenting Kavanaugh’s “lies”. Many of those “lies” are in fact the reporter speculating (or the reporter himself flat out lying, as indicated in bullet point #4, unless he idiotically believes that Kavanaugh didn’t start high school until he was 17). None of these “lies” are remotely relevant, as they concern events that may or may not have happened 36 years ago. His career and professional conduct — both of which are a matter of public record — are of far more importance. On that count, he is emininently qualified. Lie #2:… Read more »
So you called me a “lying sack of sh**”, claimed I made “a bunch of stupid, baseless, lying comments in one thread”, and repeatedly insinuated that I’m being paid (by who??? why here???) based solely on the fact that you didn’t like the WaPo link I posted, you didn’t think I considered the fullness of Kavanaugh’s career, because Ford’s testimony had inconsistencies (which I never disputed), and because I said “only one of these two people is being considered for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land”. That was your entire list of my supposed “bunch of… Read more »
Tut tut, Jonathan; you’re not being very civil. Your testimony’s sounding rather partisan, not judicious, and inconsistent with a professional temperament. Your behavior and statements during this process have already disqualified you. Therefore, I cannot condone your partisanship — which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial — as it’s from someone who asks for public faith as a self-described dispassionate and impartial commenter, i.e., someone who says he is neither Democrat nor Republican. Your performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a self-described impartial member of the commenteriat. Besides, it’s over. Kavanaugh’s been confirmed. So suck… Read more »
Thank you for saying that exactly the way you said it. The first half-dozen times, your mean-spirited language towards me was hurtful. At this point I am grateful for it as it makes what I already know to be true clear to everyone else.
And yet, I got two upvotes when I documented your lies. Go figure.
I believe you’re correct here in your defense Jonathan. At least, technically correct (“the best kind of correct” – Futurama joke). I don’t think you’ve lied in this thread at all. You’ve just used a long string of fundamentally deceptive, duplicitous, and generally cowardly rhetorical strategies. You never make a definite statement on any issue you could possibly actually be contested on. You either reference someone who knows Kavanaugh to say it on your behalf, or ambiguously allude to something Jesus might have thought, or try a slip a subjective belief into evidence without cause or citation. Your name gets… Read more »
Justin, you’re nicer than I am. In all fairness, I’ve dealt with Jonathan longer than you have, and it is with good reason I’ve stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt. Remember, the serpent was “technically correct” when he told Eve, “For God knows that when you eat from it [the fruit] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Indeed, God Himself acknowledged, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the… Read more »
I simply mean that he’s “technically correct” in the sense that the things you can prove he’s doing aren’t directly “lies”, they’re merely dishonest. The moral equivalent of lies, but enough wiggle room in the actual definition of the word that he can defend himself of the accusation. I have a family member who speaks with a similar tongue, and my wife will testify that I get a little too clever with words myself if I don’t watch it. That’s really the only basis upon which I’m giving benefit of the doubt. Plank in my own eye, and all that.… Read more »
I’m more than happy to let this entire conversation stand, your words have been more indicting on their own than anything I could say. Though since you insist on bringing up old conversations without context: My personal favorite is when Jonathan claimed on another thread that illegal aliens commit less crimes than citizens. That is a favorite of mine as well. Anyone who was not there should hear that the context was a fellow poster who claimed that millions and millions of illegal aliens had cast illegal ballots in California, and when challenged on this ridiculous assertion he claimed as… Read more »
I’m more than happy to let this entire conversation stand, your words have been more indicting on their own than anything I could say. Though since you insist on bringing up old conversations without context: My personal favorite is when Jonathan claimed on another thread that illegal aliens commit less crimes than citizens. That is a favorite of mine as well. Anyone who was not there should hear that the context was a fellow poster who claimed that millions and millions of illegal aliens had cast illegal ballots in California, and when challenged on this ridiculous assertion he claimed as… Read more »
Jonathan, you’re pathetic and quite possibly delusional. You made a statement that was absurd on its face (which you often do), and, rather than own up to your blunder, you once again attempt to rationalize away your stupidity. Seems you have nothing better to do but get lost in the weeds, seeing as Kavanaugh has been sworn in and is now a justice of the Supreme Court, and Ford and her ilk have been all but shown to be liars.
How long did it take you to type up that unhinged rant? Are there more where that came from?
Thank you again for speaking as you do and making the lines clear.
You keep deflecting as though FP’s words somehow make you correct. Even if he called you every vile name imaginable, it wouldn’t show him to be any less correct or you any more correct. That’s called ad hominem reasoning. It was pretty conclusively disproven a few thousand years ago.
I posted an extended, detailed rebuttal of FP’s point, and when he replied with nothing but ad hominems, I simply thanked him for making the lines clear….and you accuse me of the one basing my argument on ad hominem? Comments 219837/219838 are a detailed rebuttal of FP’s red herring attack with numerous citations. FP responded by calling me “pathetic”, “delusional”, “absurd”, “stupidity”, “lost in the weeds”, and “unhinged.” Exactly which one of those claims was I supposed to be able to form any sort of coherent argument against? Do you have any rational defense as to why you keep attacking… Read more »
I wasn’t criticizing your substantive defense. I was criticizing your ad hominem defense. You employed both. More than once you cited FP’s behavior as a basis of showcasing your correctness. “Do you have any rational defense as to why you keep attacking me for my mode of arguing, and not FP?” That’s an interesting perspective. Do you think I am at a moral obligation to voice every objection I have? Such a moral objection that I need a “rational defense” for not doing so? I don’t care for his use of language. I’m also not his mother, nor am I… Read more »
I didn’t ask for your moral obligation, I asked for your rational reasoning. You do not “need” to do anything on this board, of course. And you provided it! So thank you. So far as why I point out FP’s behavior towards me, there is an unfortunate mob attitude that can reign on message boards, where the psychological pull is typically going to be to side with the majority and against the outlier, as the well is almost continuously poisoned against the outlier. I will always offer a rational defense for my positions, but I am well aware that few… Read more »
“And to say that there can be an automatic pull towards the majority is not to indict the denizens of this board in any particular way. I find it to be the norm on pretty much all boards. For some years I posted on a secular board that leaned liberal” I can definitely appreciate your position here. I am way, spectacularly far to the right for the Seattle area, but growing up at any conservative church I was the “bad kid” who watched secular movies and played “evil” games like Magic the Gathering. And yes you’re right, the inclination is… Read more »
Jonathan, I think two things are at play here. One is the extreme polarization of the political spectrum in the last two years. More than ever, we want to be able to assign people as R or D and have less patience with the holders of nuanced positions in the middle. The other is–I think–that your well known views abjuring the use of lethal violence regardless of circumstances, and your views on a Christian attitude toward money, put you out of the mainstream. Because a significant number of Christians here–Catholic and Protestant alike–dispute the soundness of some of your core… Read more »
Says the guy who wrote Comments 219837/219838 (you do realize there’s an edit button, right Jonathan?), which are nothing more than a giant red herring.
Oh, my sides.
If you are referring to the double-comment, the issue was that the comment was placed into moderation for including links and thus didn’t post. The fact that it was in moderation as well as the massive formating error led me to post a readable version, without the links, rather than wait for the moderation to go through at which point the comment would no longer have been possible to edit anyway.
You’re welcome, Jonathan. It’s better to be clear and direct rather than coy, evasive, and dishonest.
Murkowski went “full Obama” on the Kav nomination, and voted “present”.
Still, she might get a “profile in courage”………..from a Kennedy! ; – )
That might even be a “swimming” endorsement! ; – )
Either way J’, pray for Justice.
It has been known to come, even from an unjust judge at times!
“Either way J’, pray for Justice.
It has been known to come, even from an unjust judge at times!”
Amen to that.
Yes, indeed, as well as mercy and charity. Time to remind myself once again of what Scalia said about his close friendship with RBG: “Very good people can have very bad ideas.”
Does it follow that bad people can have good ideas? The question is not merely academic to me at present.
Hi John, Yes, I think bad people can have good ideas, but I need to define some terms. I’m defining bad person as clever/ingenious man or woman who knowingly violates the moral code when that will be useful to his or her agenda. I am defining good idea as a practical plan for human betterment, or crisis resolution, that will result in actual good for other people–whether or not it also benefits the bad one. I think Napoleon is a good example. As Roberts, his biographer notes in his 2014 biography, Napoleon the Great: “The ideas that underpin our modern… Read more »
Heartily agree with you, Farinata. The accusations against Kavanaugh have been handled without the slightest regard for truth or justice. Based on publicly available information, no one more clearly deserves condemnation than Sen. Feinstein. To delay bringing this matter forward until after the hearings were complete is inexcusable. It manifests an utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the accusation.
I would put the matter stronger still: the delay manifests complete conviction that, the accusation being facially absurd (“someplace sometime in the 1980s”), it will still serve as a useful stick to beat him with.
Ron, I appreciated your shout-out to Pinky and the Brain, one of the best cartoons in the history of television. I realized that my life’s dilemma has been wanting to be Brain while looking and sounding like Pinky. No more. Time to let my Pinky flag fly. “I think so, Brain, but if they called them Sad Meals, then kids wouldn’t buy them.”
My kids, 4, 2, and 6 months, are going as Yakko, Wakko, and Dot for Halloween. It is pretty astoundingly adorable.
I wish I could see them! I learned all my states and presidents as a grownup by listening to the Animaniacs. Also the parts of the brain to the tune of Campdown Races!
Since I kind of promised it earlier, I’ll make that Star Trek reference now to round out the Kavanaugh talks. “I am deeply concerned by what is happening here. It began when we apprehended a spy, a man who admitted his guilt and who will answer for his crime. But the hunt didn’t end there. Another man, Mister Simon Tarses, was brought to trial and it was a trial, no matter what others choose to call it. A trial based on insinuation and innuendo. Nothing substantive offered against Mister Tarses, much less proven. Mister Tarses’ grandfather is Romulan, and for… Read more »
As a Catholic who is graciously tolerated on a Reformed board, I hold my peace about all the references to gollums and gorbags and grimbolds. I have wondered why a writer whom Catholics don’t view with unmixed delight is so beloved by evangelical Christians. But, as one who plans to go to her maker without ever reading Tolkien, I will never know. But must I believe that Star Trek also has deep spiritual meanings that I am doomed never to appreciate? Justin, say it isn’t so.
Yes, unfortunately it is so. If it makes you feel better, the spiritually and philosophically interesting stuff is about 5% of the series, surrounded on all sides by hundreds upon hundreds of hours of silliness and what was written before the series’ creators’ death contains rampant marxism.
Both of these quotes come from the episode “The Drumhead” of The Next Generation and the whole show is carried by classically trained shakespearean actor Patrick Stewart, so it definitely earns its place.
I don’t understand how this aspect of Kavanaugh’s testimony was ignored by his supporters. Each time I wrote about it or referred to it below, it was met with deflection or simply ignored. In 2002/2003 Manuel Miranda and Jason Lundell stole around 4,670 computer documents from Democratic Senate staff. He shared the files with Kavanaugh, who was working as an assistant to White House Counsel, and others who were formulating White House strategy at the time. It was all working out quite well for them until Miranda got caught. Miranda was forced to resign in disgrace, the Sergeant at Arms… Read more »
That message was too short! ; – )