|
On September 21 2018 03:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 02:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2018 02:12 ChristianS wrote:On September 21 2018 00:49 xDaunt wrote:The Ford / Kavanaugh attempted rape allegations may about to become hilarious. Apparently someone found Ford's yearbook from high school and published it. Let's just say that you can't make this shit up: Source. EDIT: I bet GH is going to have a field day with this one. I skimmed the blog you linked about the yearbook. Am I missing something? Is this supposed to disprove her claims somehow? It seemed to confirm that the girls there partied with the boys from Kavanaugh's school, and depicted exactly the kind of party culture where events like the ones she describes could plausibly occur, but otherwise very little seemed to even concern Ford directly. She was pictured attending a party where the caption suggested people played drinking games and passed out, which is neither here nor there. Then it went off for a while on how the kids/faculty were racist, which is probably true but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. Did I miss something? Honest question, I was skimming pretty quickly. Because otherwise dragging out old yearbooks and highlighting the references to drinking and promiscuity looks a lot like an attempt at saying "look what an alcoholic slut she was, she must be lying." Which is a horrific yet predictable response to a woman claiming she was sexually assaulted. The yearbook shows that the school that Ford went to was notorious for the girls engaging in drunken (as in black out drunk) sex parties and other shenanigans. Combine this fact with what we know about Ford's story (and the gaps therein), and it suddenly becomes quite likely that the reason Ford can't remember anything is that she was drunk at the time, which necessarily calls into question the accuracy and credibility of everything that she has said about what happened. Sure enough, we're going with "She was an alcoholic slut, therefore she must be lying." And our evidence is: 1) lots of people at her school seemed to drink and have sex, according to the yearbook, so she probably did too. 2) there's a picture of her at a party where people were drinking. I'm torn, because on the one hand I wanna point out what shoddy evidence that is and how fucked up it is that (alleged) sexual assault victims consistently have to put up with this shit whenever they speak out. But I worry that in doing so, I'd be implicitly ceding the point that if she drank and had sex in high school, that'd mean the allegations aren't worth considering, which is also bullshit. But like I said, horrific yet predictable. As for her lack of recollection about the date, the obvious explanation is "it was almost 40 years ago," but it's also worth noting she might have some idea, but doesn't want to give her best guess in case she's proven wrong on some detail and people use that to try to discredit her whole claim. It's similar to why people give so many "I do not recall"'s in legal testimony. Also worth noting that she might have experienced something really traumatic that she's tried to forget, but I think that degree of empathizing with victims might be a bit advanced for the current discussion.
Exactly the point i wanted to make, but i wasn't able to put it nice and concise, and i didn't want to get drawn into an annoying debate. Thank you.
|
On September 21 2018 03:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 03:28 ChristianS wrote:On September 21 2018 02:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2018 02:12 ChristianS wrote:On September 21 2018 00:49 xDaunt wrote:The Ford / Kavanaugh attempted rape allegations may about to become hilarious. Apparently someone found Ford's yearbook from high school and published it. Let's just say that you can't make this shit up: Source. EDIT: I bet GH is going to have a field day with this one. I skimmed the blog you linked about the yearbook. Am I missing something? Is this supposed to disprove her claims somehow? It seemed to confirm that the girls there partied with the boys from Kavanaugh's school, and depicted exactly the kind of party culture where events like the ones she describes could plausibly occur, but otherwise very little seemed to even concern Ford directly. She was pictured attending a party where the caption suggested people played drinking games and passed out, which is neither here nor there. Then it went off for a while on how the kids/faculty were racist, which is probably true but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. Did I miss something? Honest question, I was skimming pretty quickly. Because otherwise dragging out old yearbooks and highlighting the references to drinking and promiscuity looks a lot like an attempt at saying "look what an alcoholic slut she was, she must be lying." Which is a horrific yet predictable response to a woman claiming she was sexually assaulted. The yearbook shows that the school that Ford went to was notorious for the girls engaging in drunken (as in black out drunk) sex parties and other shenanigans. Combine this fact with what we know about Ford's story (and the gaps therein), and it suddenly becomes quite likely that the reason Ford can't remember anything is that she was drunk at the time, which necessarily calls into question the accuracy and credibility of everything that she has said about what happened. Sure enough, we're going with "She was an alcoholic slut, therefore she must be lying." And our evidence is: 1) lots of people at her school seemed to drink and have sex, according to the yearbook, so she probably did too. 2) there's a picture of her at a party where people were drinking. I'm torn, because on the one hand I wanna point out what shoddy evidence that is and how fucked up it is that (alleged) sexual assault victims consistently have to put up with this shit whenever they speak out. But I worry that in doing so, I'd be implicitly ceding the point that if she drank and had sex in high school, that'd mean the allegations aren't worth considering, which is also bullshit. But like I said, horrific yet predictable. As for her lack of recollection about the date, the obvious explanation is "it was almost 40 years ago," but it's also worth noting she might have some idea, but doesn't want to give her best guess in case she's proven wrong on some detail and people use that to try to discredit her whole claim. It's similar to why people give so many "I do not recall"'s in legal testimony. Also worth noting that she might have experienced something really traumatic that she's tried to forget, but I think that degree of empathizing with victims might be a bit advanced for the current discussion. Exactly the point i wanted to make, but i wasn't able to put it nice and concise, and i didn't want to get drawn into an annoying debate. Thank you.
It's exhausting.
|
The fundamental point that you have missed, once again, is that the reason for her poor memory really doesn't matter. That we now have a plausible explanation for why she doesn't remember only makes her allegations look all the more frivolous.
|
We didn't need to drag out her yearbook to know that there was a decent chance that she also drank at that party. But there's no basis at present for alleging years of consistent blackout drinking on her part, and more importantly, alcohol (or even blackout drinking) doesn't provide an explanation for why she would remember Brett Kavanaugh pinning her to a bed, trying to rape her, and covering her mouth when she screamed. I've drank before and never woken up with that memory. Millions of Americans share that experience every year. If false memories of almost being raped by Brett Kavanaugh is a symptom of alcohol use or abuse, it must be a pretty fucking rare one.
|
On September 21 2018 03:49 xDaunt wrote:
The fundamental point that you have missed, once again, is that the reason for her poor memory really doesn't matter. That we now have a plausible explanation for why she doesn't remember only makes her allegations look all the more frivolous.
A basic understanding of traumas’s effects on memory is sufficient to explain why she remembers the even, but not the surrounding facts. Soldiers who suffer from PTSD can sometimes recall the events of combat without being able to remember the specific details of how they got to and from the combat zone. The memories around the triggering event are suppressed. It is difficult to believe you are in aware of this, so I will assume your question was rhetorical.
Also, her recall of the event is not necessary to establish if it took place. There are other named parties who can attest or deny the events. Anyone truly interested in determining if these events took place wouldn’t rely on her account alone. Nor some kangaroo court run by the senate Judiciary Committee.
|
On September 21 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 03:49 xDaunt wrote:
The fundamental point that you have missed, once again, is that the reason for her poor memory really doesn't matter. That we now have a plausible explanation for why she doesn't remember only makes her allegations look all the more frivolous. A basic understanding of traumas’s effects on memory is sufficient to explain why she remembers the even, but not the surrounding facts. Soldiers who suffer from PTSD can sometimes recall the events of combat without being able to remember the specific details of how they got to and from the combat zone. The memories around the triggering event are suppressed. It is difficult to believe you are in aware of this, so I will assume your question was rhetorical. Also, her recall of the event is not necessary to establish if it took place. There are other named parties who can attest or deny the events. Anyone truly interested in determining if these events took place wouldn’t rely on her account alone. Nor some kangaroo court run by the senate Judiciary Committee.
I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to ChristianS:
Where do you start an investigation in which 1) the accuser won't testify, 2) the accuser does not know when and where the incident took place, 3) the only two other people alleged to have been involved categorically deny that the incident occurred, and 4) no one else is known to have any specific information about the incident?
It's a dead end.
And don't even bother going down the repressed memory path. Research shows that memories of traumatic events are notoriously unreliable. Again, this is why corroborative evidence is so important, and why the complete lack of it here is a complete nonstarter for Ford's story.
|
On September 21 2018 06:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2018 03:49 xDaunt wrote:
The fundamental point that you have missed, once again, is that the reason for her poor memory really doesn't matter. That we now have a plausible explanation for why she doesn't remember only makes her allegations look all the more frivolous. A basic understanding of traumas’s effects on memory is sufficient to explain why she remembers the even, but not the surrounding facts. Soldiers who suffer from PTSD can sometimes recall the events of combat without being able to remember the specific details of how they got to and from the combat zone. The memories around the triggering event are suppressed. It is difficult to believe you are in aware of this, so I will assume your question was rhetorical. Also, her recall of the event is not necessary to establish if it took place. There are other named parties who can attest or deny the events. Anyone truly interested in determining if these events took place wouldn’t rely on her account alone. Nor some kangaroo court run by the senate Judiciary Committee. I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to ChristianS: Where do you start an investigation in which 1) the accuser won't testify, 2) the accuser does not know when and where the incident took place, 3) the only two other people alleged to have been involved categorically deny that the incident occurred, and 4) no one else is known to have any specific information about the incident? It's a dead end. And don't even bother going down the repressed memory path. Research shows that memories of traumatic events are notoriously unreliable. Again, this is why corroborative evidence is so important, and why the complete lack of it here is a complete nonstarter for Ford's story.
The accuser agreed to testify before the senate, with conditions her attorney will discuss with the senate.
Second: the accuser is smart enough to only state what she can testify to under oath. I’m sure she could tell investigators where she believed the event took place through other people’s accounts.
Third: if they deny it, they can do it to the FBI or other law enforcement, who can find other witnesses to the party itself. Just like what happened with Clarance Thomas.
And Ford has requested an investigation. That means she is willing to testify. Just not to the senate Judiciary Committee, which is not a branch of law enforcement. Politicians are not supposed to be part of investigations into criminal wrong doing. It taints the process.
|
On September 21 2018 06:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 06:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2018 03:49 xDaunt wrote:
The fundamental point that you have missed, once again, is that the reason for her poor memory really doesn't matter. That we now have a plausible explanation for why she doesn't remember only makes her allegations look all the more frivolous. A basic understanding of traumas’s effects on memory is sufficient to explain why she remembers the even, but not the surrounding facts. Soldiers who suffer from PTSD can sometimes recall the events of combat without being able to remember the specific details of how they got to and from the combat zone. The memories around the triggering event are suppressed. It is difficult to believe you are in aware of this, so I will assume your question was rhetorical. Also, her recall of the event is not necessary to establish if it took place. There are other named parties who can attest or deny the events. Anyone truly interested in determining if these events took place wouldn’t rely on her account alone. Nor some kangaroo court run by the senate Judiciary Committee. I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to ChristianS: Where do you start an investigation in which 1) the accuser won't testify, 2) the accuser does not know when and where the incident took place, 3) the only two other people alleged to have been involved categorically deny that the incident occurred, and 4) no one else is known to have any specific information about the incident? It's a dead end. And don't even bother going down the repressed memory path. Research shows that memories of traumatic events are notoriously unreliable. Again, this is why corroborative evidence is so important, and why the complete lack of it here is a complete nonstarter for Ford's story. The accuser agreed to testify before the senate, with conditions her attorney will discuss with the senate.
This remains to be seen. The fact that she's making all sorts of demands looks very bad.
Second: the accuser is smart enough to only state what she can testify to under oath. I’m sure she could tell investigators where she believed the event took place through other people’s accounts.
Yes, I would expect her to not be dumb enough to commit perjury by overstating what she knows. However, the rub is in the phrase "other people's accounts." Again, who are these other people? Kavanaugh and Judge categorically deny it happened, so they're out. Is there some other witness that I don't know about?
Third: if they deny it, they can do it to the FBI or other law enforcement, who can find other witnesses to the party itself. Just like what happened with Clarance Thomas.
The FBI has already stated that it's not getting involved because this matter is out of its jurisdiction and because there's nothing to investigate (see my prior comments on this). In the Justice Thomas matter, there were things to go look at because there were actual details provided by the accuser that could be followed up on. None of that is present here.
And Ford has requested an investigation. That means she is willing to testify. Just not to the senate Judiciary Committee, which is not a branch of law enforcement. Politicians are not supposed to be part of investigations into criminal wrong doing. It taints the process.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is the only body with the authority to go investigate this. Law enforcement will never get involved because the statute of limitations has passed (not to mention the other problems). Ford's only avenue to have an investigation is to testify to the committee, which she has been given ample opportunity to do in a variety of different ways to accommodate her. Frankly, I think that testifying before the committee is a very bad idea for her simply because she's going to get ripped apart up there for all of the reasons previously discussed, and it's all ultimately going to be for naught.
|
Last time I checked, the FBI can get involved at the request of the president and congress. They have in the past and can now.
And Ford has made the correct assessment that the senate needs her testimony more than she needs the senate. Grassleys attempts to set a short time frame are evident of that. There is no reason for her to agree to testify without reaching terms on how the process will be handled.
This is not a court of law, it is political theater. Grassley and others would love to move this process forward, he doesn’t have the votes now. And Ford and her attorney are not dumb enough to take part inwhatever kangaroo court Grassley had planned. You can’t blame them for having a good plan.
Edit: if the senate Judiciary Committee is the only body that can investigate this, they should employ the only investigators available to them, the FBI.
|
So again, what would the FBI investigate? You're dodging the most important question.
EDIT: And I disagree with the proposition that Grassley needs her testimony. The moderate republicans have all been falling into line since he offered her the opportunity to testify.
|
On September 21 2018 07:21 xDaunt wrote:
So again, what would the FBI investigate? You're dodging the most important question.
EDIT: And I disagree with the proposition that Grassley needs her testimony. The moderate republicans have all been falling into line since he offered her the opportunity to testify.
IIRC I answered this question but you were worried it would be a "fishing expedition." But in case you forgot, have them interview relevant people. Talk to classmates, see if they can figure out if the 3 boys she mentioned actually did tend to party together. Try to learn what you can about their party habits, figure out who they were getting alcohol from, etc. Ya know, basic fact-checking shit. And hey, maybe the way maybe you'll find out it was incredibly unlikely they'd be at the same party at any point, or that Kavanaugh broke the heart of Ford's friend and she always held a grudge against him, or any number of other discoveries that might help clear his name.
|
So random interviews of an indeterminate number of classmates seeing if they know anything about what happened, and hoping to find one who knows something. There's nothing targeted about that process at all. It would take forever to do it, and the probability of finding anything (given that everyone appears to have been drunk at these parties) is remote. Like I said, that's a fishing expedition.
|
On September 21 2018 07:21 xDaunt wrote:
So again, what would the FBI investigate? You're dodging the most important question.
EDIT: And I disagree with the proposition that Grassley needs her testimony. The moderate republicans have all been falling into line since he offered her the opportunity to testify.
Flake isn’t that moderate, but he isn’t completely feckless.
As for the FBI: they could investigate if the party took place and if Ford or Kavanaugh were there. Or interview Ford at the least and find out what information she is willing state on the record. She says she can’t recall in her public statements, but likely can provide more details to law enforcement on the record. Kavanaugh says he wasn’t at the party, so simply confirming who of the two is lying would be a good starting point.
|
I'm pretty disinterested in the kabuki around Kavanaugh, just hoping they can get it over with soon. If by some chance the people protesting in DC manage to scare congress into not confirming Kavanaugh (still doubt that's happening) they'll just be a another judge without allegations of sexual impropriety floating around to take his place.
If Democrats won't work to oust their supporters of Trump they have to be pretty high on their own supply to think Republicans would oust someone for it.
|
Wages Are Low and Workers Are Scarce. Wait, What?
Across the country, there are more jobs available than there are workers looking for them, as the unemployment rate has dropped to a nearly two-decade low. Businesses are complaining of worker shortages, arguing they could do more and sell more and build more if they could just find the labor. Yet wages remain strikingly flat, with much of the raises that workers are making getting eaten up by inflation. Employees still somehow lack the power to cajole businesses into paying them more, nearly a decade into the recovery.
The central paradox of the Trump economy is that widespread concerns about labor shortages coexist with widespread complaints about low wages. But economists do not see it as much of a paradox—instead seeing it as a sign of dimming business dynamism and diminished worker power.
Are stock buybacks starving the economy?
Whatever its causes, the change is striking. The last time that the unemployment rate was this low, during the late Clinton presidency, year-on-year wage growth was roughly 5 percent. It is now just above 3 percent. Moreover, wage growth has not picked up much for the past three years, even as the jobless rate has dropped down to historically low levels.
This may reflect the inherent limitations of the unemployment rate as an economic indicator. During and after the Great Recession, millions of Americans dropped out of the labor force, unable to find a good job or any job at all. They went to school. They retired. They became unpaid caretakers. If they had a disability, they applied for insurance coverage. The share of prime-age adults with a job dropped from 80 percent to 75 percent. Now, even with the unemployment rate in the low single digits, it has not recovered to where it was before this recession or the prior one. There is still slack in the labor market, with hundreds of thousands of workers sitting on the sidelines.
Increasing market concentration is another sweeping factor. In a huge number of business sectors, from manufacturing to retail trade to finance, the top four firms have a bigger share of revenue now than they did in the late 1990s. Measures of aggregate business concentration have increased too. Walmart dominates bricks-and-mortar retail; Google dominates web search; Amazon dominates e-commerce; Uber and Lyft dominate rideshare. Growing monopoly power is present everywhere from hospital systems to rental car companies. This raises profits, slows economic growth, increases inequality, and, yes, suppresses wages. Workers, in effect, have fewer employers to choose from. Employers have more power to set workers’ wages at a low level.
www.theatlantic.com
I know we talked a bit about why wages are low, and xdaunt suggested more workers would help, I think this article describes why that's simply not accurate.
|
On September 21 2018 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm pretty disinterested in the kabuki around Kavanaugh, just hoping they can get it over with soon. If by some chance the people protesting in DC manage to scare congress into not confirming Kavanaugh (still doubt that's happening) they'll just be a another judge without allegations of sexual impropriety floating around to take his place.
If Democrats won't work to oust their supporters of Trump they have to be pretty high on their own supply to think Republicans would oust someone for it.
Yes, it is kabuki theater. Too bad neither Feinstein, nor the democrats, nor Ford's attorney advised Ford that all that she's going to get out of this is a lifetime of being screwed by little green frogs in memes.
|
On September 21 2018 08:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm pretty disinterested in the kabuki around Kavanaugh, just hoping they can get it over with soon. If by some chance the people protesting in DC manage to scare congress into not confirming Kavanaugh (still doubt that's happening) they'll just be a another judge without allegations of sexual impropriety floating around to take his place.
If Democrats won't work to oust their supporters of Trump they have to be pretty high on their own supply to think Republicans would oust someone for it.
Yes, it is kabuki theater. Too bad neither Feinstein, nor the democrats, nor Ford's attorney advised Ford that all that she's going to get out of this is a lifetime of being screwed by little green frogs in memes.
Pretty shitty deal for her all around, not sure I'd want to be associated with the people doing that to her though. That goes for the Senator, Dems, her attorney, and the frogs.
I'm a bit coarse sometimes, but my main point is that I can understand why either side can see even their worst representatives as "less bad" than the other but there should be an overwhelming sentiment that they are all unacceptably bad rather than the crouching in partisan corners it seems we have now.
I don't know what, if anything can realistically change that though.
|
I don’t see Trump as just “less bad.” If he rolls the FBI and other federal institutions like I think he is going to, he could be truly great. Already he is leaps and bounds better than any other national figure that the GOP has offered up in more than a generation.
|
On September 21 2018 13:44 xDaunt wrote:
I don’t see Trump as just “less bad.” If he rolls the FBI and other federal institutions like I think he is going to, he could be truly great. Already he is leaps and bounds better than any other national figure that the GOP has offered up in more than a generation.
I can see Trump as "better than other GOP..." from your perspective, but I feel like "[Trump] could be truly great" is either an extra finger in the glass, or some combination of reaching/stretching the term "truly great".
There's a lot of angles to take on this, but lets just start with the habitual lying and transferring money directly from the federal government to his for-profit private businesses (referring to things like charging secret service to protect him [golf carts, trump tower, etc...])
I have to presume you're referencing strictly his presidency as well. His personal life isn't exactly something most people would want to see replicated, save his abstinence from substance abuse (afaik) and the amassing of wealth neglecting the shitty products, stiffing contractors, hiring laborers illegally, draft dodging, multiple divorces and infidelities and so on.
|
If Trump can pull off some reforms, even if it's only from Congress being so shocked at how the FBI, Justice Department, and Intelligence Agencies behaved that they're forced to pass legislation, the faults will pale by comparison.
The way the FBI was used in the tail end of the Obama administration was a disgrace. The federal government does not have the right to wiretap its citizens, but obviously the protocols were evaded and post-hoc justified. Furthermore, the fact that this happened in the context of a Democratic Presidential campaign coordinating with a Democratic Presidential Administration through Steele/Ohr to nail a Republican campaign and presidency is just insult to injury. That's all without getting into the radical deviancy of figures like Comey and McCabe and Strzok. If Trump manages to get to the bottom of this and correct the record, he's practically a Byronic hero. He breaks stifling regs, finally has sane Israeli-American and Palestinian-American relations, good UN ambassador, tax cuts, judicial appointees, and that will all just be gravy.
It doesn't make him any less deserving of the denunciations that frequently are accurate. I see a lot of people like GH who list out the angles in the hopes of arriving at "How could he ever be anything but 'utterly unacceptable.' The national government's in kind of a bad state, and it's not because of golf games and tweeting. The unelected half is up in arms against the elected half, and will not cede power for their own protection and a perverse perception of the good of the country. We can afford to put all that junk on the back burner (and thankfully an electoral majority made a similarly right decision back in 2016, a fact for which I am forever grateful).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
