Christine Blasey Ford trivializes rape; the Left’s Orwellian doublespeak

I listened to NPR this Sunday morning. (I make myself do it every day or nearly so.) The commentators sounded as if they believe that but for a small sliver of testimony lacking, it would have been definitely proven that Justice Kavanaugh was a rapist at seventeen. There was no hint of recognition that Ms Ford is a proven public liar. (I distinguish carefully between hazy, confused, or artificial memory on the one hand, and lies, which are deliberate conscious constructions, on the other.) Ms Ford lied about being claustrophobic and she lied about her fear of flying.

She should not have been believed at all because a person who tells untruths about yesterday cannot be treated seriously about what she said happened thirty-five years ago. These lies are treated by the media as insignificant inaccuracies and Justice’s Kavanaugh’s six previous FBI investigations as unimportant. We should have been spared the whole undignified circus except for the mendacity, the bad faith of the Dems, beginning with Sen. Feinstein. By the way, Feinstein used to be my model of an honest elected liberal. Finished; I don’t have such a model anymore.

We will soon know if I am wrong. As I have said before, if Ms Ford is telling the truth, she won’t let the outrage of Kavanaugh’s confirmation go unpunished. She will use the million-dollar war chest she was gifted, her notoriety, and her good team of lying attorneys to sue Mr Kavanaugh. I am told there is no statute of limitation for attempted rape where the imaginary event took place. If she does not sue, what are we supposed to think, that the rape wasn’t that bad after all?

I don’t rejoice much in the ultimate victory. Much damage has been done, including a degree of legitimation of the idea that the presumption of innocence is not actually central to civilization. And the rage of the fascist hordes we saw displayed in the Capitol is not going to dissipate. Those people are going away sincerely convinced that not only did a rapist get away with it (as usual!), but that he is going to be the deciding vote on the elimination of women “reproductive rights.” In fact, Roe and Wade is nowhere high on the Republican agenda. In fact, the Supreme Court does not reach out for cases; a relevant case would have to come up. In fact, in the unlikely case Roe and Wade were reversed, the issue would go back to the individual states where it belongs, constitutionally speaking.

It’s hard to tell whether those people are genuine imbeciles, or fooling themselves, or simply lying. Incidentally, note the Orwellian language we have come to accept: “Reproductive Rights” refers to the right to terminate a pregnancy surgically, like my driver’s license gives me the right to not drive! (In case you are wondering, I am for keeping abortion legal by virtue of the ethical principle that we must accept big evils to avoid even bigger evils.)

Of course, predictably, I will be accused of making light of gang rape. No, Ms, YOU are trivializing the violent crime of rape. Even if we took Ms Ford’s words for granted, at 15, after “one beer,” a 17-year old boy groped her through her clothes but fortunately she happened to be wearing a one piece bathing suit! In the meantime, thousands of women suffer real rape in war zones and American feminists keep shamefully silent. The probable idea here is that if you are a woman violently raped by soldiers who are black or brown skinned, it does not really count as rape.

I hope the next partial elections, a month away, turns from a referendum on Mr Trump to one on the Democratic Party’s new fascism.

Please, think of sharing this.

28 thoughts on “Christine Blasey Ford trivializes rape; the Left’s Orwellian doublespeak

  1. “Please, think of sharing this.” No. Not only would I not share this travesty, I wouldn’t piss on it if it were on fire.

  2. Did Kavanaugh attempt to rape Ford? I have no idea. But your comments about proven public liars apply at least as much to Kavanaugh, who lied his ass off regarding his drinking history, etc., as to Ford. And she wasn’t up for lifetime appointment to a high-profile job for which honesty and at least a modicum of sobriety are seemingly important atrributes.

      • I don’t find the National Review piece very convincing. Yes, he managed to line up some people to pretend that the Devil’s Triangle and “boof” don’t mean what they mean, but that’s pretty much just an indicator of how desperate he was to avoid admitting even stuff that would have been fairly trivial had he not been, as I mentioned, pursuing a strategy of lying his ass off and hoping the Republicans would be too embarrassed to admit that they should never have seriously considered confirming him in the first place.

        There is no “seeming suggestion” that it doesn’t matter whether or not Ford was honest. Of course it matters. But the stakes for each were different. That’s just a fact. If Ford lied and got away with it, the worst America got out of it was that maybe we missed out on a Supreme Court nominee who was not quite as hideously evil as he appeared to be even before she showed up. Kavanaugh lied and got away with it, and we didn’t miss out on that.

    • Thoma Knapp. I don’t used the word “fascist” lightly. I don’t apply it simply to those I don’t like. The Democratic Party has many good, respectable people whose wishes I dislike because they are under-informed. They seem to have gone limp as their party was being publicly represented by the cleverly named SA troops of “”Antifa.” The attempt to interrupt the confirmation vote Sunday was another example – however feeble – of attempted mob rule. The effective lightening of the burden of proof in many young minds was aggravated by the confirmation events. Censorship is all over the Internet, and not at the behest of conservatives. I was subjected to one recently myself by a branch of Amazon. No First Amendment complaint of course since the censors are not parts of government – yet.

  3. And what are YOU doing to combat rape, sexual assault, genocide and other horrific crimes (predominantly perpetrated by men)? Sneer and smear the victims? Bravo.

    • Who is sneering and smearing the victims? I was expecting the powerful, rich and influential American feminist movement to take the lead in combating real, mass atrocities against women. Oops, my mistake, old men like me should take the lead, perhaps on our Facebooks!

      • Eleanor Roosevelt wrote a book “It’s Up to the Women,” but I don’t agree. Why should it be? It should be up to Everyone. You think women can stop men from being predators while the men who aren’t just sit and do nothing? How would that work exactly? You seem to have some effective strategy in mind, right?

      • Of course, male predators should be stopped. The current MeToo# movement does not sound like the right way to do it because it trivializes violence. Off-color comments are treated as pretty close to forcible rape. That’s crazy! Beside, I am puzzled by what I take to be its continuing lack of tangible effect. Even Harvey has still not been convicted of anything. Isn’t he the repeat offender, who, among other things, exposed himself to young women who had gone up to his hotel room to discuss serious business? This is not tragic; it’s grotesque. American women who seek justice against this kind of horrid behavior have their priorities all mixed up, as I say in my essay. They are hard to take seriously. Incidentally, my wife of forty years is much more angry at this superficial phenomenon than I am.

      • Harvey has been convicted, because he hasn’t has his day in court (justice her moves very slow), but there are certainly credible reports that he was a serial sexual assaulter and/or rapist. Look how long the Cosby case took. I do not see the #MeToo movement as some sort of hysteria. Women for too long have been told to put up and shut up. Yeah, some people get overly sensitive, but that doesn’t negate the very serious allegations being made. Each one needs to be taken at face value and not be dismissed because of a bad apple or two in the bushel. Try not to paint all women with such a broad brush. There has been serious suffering going on.

      • Eileen: I am not trying ” to paint all women.” Why would you make up stuff like this? I was not clear in my reference to Weinstein: Here is the dream case for MeToo# . The guy does appear to be a pig with a long record of piggishness. Yet, to my knowledge, he still has not been convicted of anything. (If I am wrong on this, I will take the correction graciously.) Are you telling me that the wheels of Justice are actually turning in his case? If they are, I did not notice it because the man has dropped off the news in spite of a media I take to be friendly to the particular cause. My media intuition is all roused up: Is there something wrong with the case, I wonder?

        There is something else more drastically wrong with the movement but it cannot be dealt with briefly. I will have to write an essay on this topic, or recycle an existing essay. Here is a summary, nonetheless: I am married to a woman; I have two sisters; I have an adult daughter; I was born of a woman; I was a single adult for fifteen years ( and really, really attractive, not to insist on it); this means that I have known horizontally a fair number of women ( some of whom dumped me). I am making the point here that women are not strange, unfamiliar creatures to me. Yet, the picture of the relationships between heterosexual women and men that the current feminist movement is propagating seems completely unfamiliar. I feel like the first white man who heard about the Inuits. I sure will not take it for granted.

        One more thing: The women I have known, the women I know, don’t “put up and shut up.” I must be living on other planet. Perhaps I am; I grew up in France ; I have lived in California most of my adult life!

  4. [ad hominems are not good for dialogue. Please keep it civil, even when discussing politics!] -BC

      • Thomas Knapp: Where are my ad hominen? I called Ms Ford a liar because of her false statement (under oath) about claustrophobia and because she allowed a false belief about her alleged fear of flying to be used by her attorneys. (She still has not said a thing about either.) The charge of lying speaks directly to the main substantive issue. I thought it was clear that I was saying that the whole sorry spectacle should never have taken place or that it should have been stopped quickly because she is a proven liar. Attacks on a person’s veracity are completely legitimate when testimony is at stake. No part of government should take testimony from liars. That’s elementary prudence.

        Wait, wait, what else did I say? I expressed a brand new dislike for Sen. Diane Feinstein. That’s because she used Ms Ford ‘s voluntary testimony deviously to hold off the confirmation when she had the choice to bring it up weeks earlier. Nothing ad hominen here either. I passed judgment on specific, well documented behavior that finishes her off for me. Maybe I am (honestly) imagining too much and Sen. Feinstein held off the Ford charges for some other reason, unconnected with the political wish to delay the hearings, that she has not yet divulged but will soon explain. (I wish she would hurry; she getting long in the tooth.)

        I don’t see anything else in my FB piece that looks like ad hominen. I request that you help me figure the error of my ways or that you just take back your imprudent statement.

        For what it’s worth, as an item of tiny historical interest: When I heard Ms Ford’s testimony I did not think she was lying and I wrote that on my FB page immediately. I thought she was one of the many troubled people who find refuge in academia. She was simply too agitated, too fragile-sounding for a senior person of her announced achievements. I still think it’s possible that she remembers something unpleasant and even traumatic happening to her when she was young but I don’t think she was the victim of an attempted rape when she was 15 (or 16).

      • “I request that you help me figure the error of my ways or that you just take back your imprudent statement.”

        Request denied. Have a nice evening.

    • No. It’s your blog so if you tell me to leave I will but you will have to censor me I won’t do it to myself.

  5. Ps Thomas Knapp: I wish you could read what I wrote in French on the same subject. Truly horrible! I am not going to translate it into English though; too difficult, too subtle.

Please keep it civil

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s