Tuesday 9 October 2018

Judge Kavanaugh vs Taylor Swift

Many C@W readers will have ample perspectives of their own on the politics of the USA, so feel free (as you always do) to pile in.  But here's my idiosyncratic observation on the imminent mid-term elections.

The main show seems to have been the Kavanaugh confirmation - which I assumed probably wouldn't happen.  Why?  Because the great bargain that Trump has struck with the truly conservative Right in America is to nominate congenial appointees onto the Supreme Court (which has an effect lasting many years) in return for their votes.  The conservatives delivered for him; and with two nominees they greatly favour, Trump has played his part in return.  Gorsuch was already home and dry, last year.  In the run-up to the midterm elections, it seemed to me any anti-Trump sentiment whatever in the Senate (and there's plenty) would translate into a thwarting of Kavanaugh, to weaken conservative enthusiam for voting.

Well, what did I know.  Kavanaugh is confirmed by a hairsbreadth; the conservatives are delighted (at the bottom-line outcome, at least) and presumably will show their gratitude both now and in 2 years time.  They really have got something they wanted - badly wanted.  Maybe Senators feared a mighty backlash if they acted otherwise.

Somehow, as these techtonic plates grind, Taylor Swift's, errr, intervention - though doubtless welcome to the Democrats - looks somewhat less than a knockout blow.  Am I wrong about that also?



Anonymous said...

Ms Swift, five years ago one of the most utterly gorgeous things on the planet, is nearly 29 and has started to put on weight.

Like Trump, I fancy her about 25% less with the incipient thunderthighs.


Kylie was the TS of her day but ended up childless and 50. Still good looking but it rather misses the evolutionary point of being gorgeous.

(Looking at Clarence Thomas' obvious delight, having been there himself with Anita Hill, while next to him Ruth Bader Ginsburg slumped in her seat, I wonder if there may be more Trump SC nominations to come)

Anonymous said...

I think (or maybe I hope) the Dems overplayed their hand - having found an accuser, they held her back until the last minute, fed her some nonsense to spout about fear of flying while a team of Clinton lawyers coached her - then her dynamite evidence was designed to be irrefutable - she was assaulted somewhere she couldn't remember, on a date she couldn't remember, she got home by some means she couodn't remember - all she could remember was that IT WAS KAVANAUGH!

She couldn't find any friends to testify either that the assault occurred or that she told them it had, until she apparently told her therapist in 2012 (but the therapist's notes were never submitted in evidence). Her husband and his family came out in support (as a chap should do) but the people whp knew her best, her family, have kept exceedingly quiet.

No one would ever be convicted in a court on such flimsy 'evidence'. Not only would it would have been a travesty had he not been confirmed, if the GOP senators had caved, it would have been an invitation for every nominee to be confronted with unverifiable (by design?) accusations.

I presume the win-win theory for the Dems was that either they stymied Kav and depressed GOP morale, or they fired up the female vote against The Evil Patriarchy - forgetting that a lot of women have husbands and sons.

As it is, it seems to be the Republican base that's been fired up the most for the mid-term elections. Worst decision since that lady lawyer decided to pack the OJ jury with black women on the grounds that they'd be in sisterly solidarity with the beautiful blonde victim.

david morris said...

TS is a bloke

Just sayin'

Lord Blagger said...

Here's an alternative angle.

Consent. In particular informed explicit consent.

So lets look at it.

1. Can 5 vote to screw 1? Doesn't the 1 person get a right to decide what's in their interest, and the right to say no without fear of retaliation?

2. What about information? If you withhold information, but consent and end up damaged, is that consent?

3. Explicit consent. Can you presume consent?

4. Consent means the right to say no, and the right to say yes.

I hope everyone agrees.

Now read it again. Have I mentioned sex, or was I talking about the individual versus the state?

1. For the many not the few is the rapist's argument. They decide what's good, and the victim doesn't come into it.

2. HIV+, and withhold the information so someone consents, is just like saying vote for me and withhold the true debt numbers because you need the cash.

3. Presumed consent? Really, in this day and age. Won't work in front of the jury.

4. Can I say no? If you do we will use violence, steal your goods and get what we want anyway. Your only option is that you leave town. Do you think that's a valid defense for rape? ie. She was told, didn't leave so we presumed she consented.

So the left's problem is when people pick on that consent is for more than sex, it should be at the heart of the relationship of people with the state.

How can they argue otherwise when it comes across as being a predator, sexual or otherwise.

The right should jump on the MeToo campaign and demand that it applies citizen with the state. Add it as a human right.

Anonymous said...

david morris - it's true she's never had much in the way of hips, but her weight increase this year may be about to fix that, and not in a good way. People are noticing.


Bill Quango MP said...

I caught the 'trial' by accident. It was on the radio. And it was utterly compelling. Reminded me of everyone glued to the TV over the OJ trial.
{Kato Kaelin, remember him? No? Well..the lawyer mentioned above, Marcia Clark, had him declared a hostile witness. Even though he was her own witness for the prosecution The OJ trial is a great analogy for what occurred with Brett. Good spot Anon. }

As usual, what i heard and what i thought was not what the media heard and thought.
I thought Kavanaugh came across well with his 'I like beer.' I thought it was convincing. And honest sounding. And probably resonated with me as a man. The 5 live live team were flabbergasted anyone might believe a word of what he said.

At the same time I thought, even as she was telling it, that her story had more holes than a shower head.

So like the OJ, black / white, I think this was definitely a male / female.
But the relentless, over the top, vilifying of the Judge, I'm fairly sure, will have turned a good many women away from the democrats for the moment.

They have turned a great opportunity to hurt Trump, into just a good one in the midterms.

dearieme said...

Who's Taylor Swift?

Elby said...

Trump's on a winning run till the Democrat's come out of their post-election psychosis. None of the substantiations against Kavanaugh (including the truly appalling allegation that as a young man he "threw ice in a bar") were shown to have any substance, and over 500 days after the inauguration, nor is there a shred of evidence of Russian tampering. Mass evidence of Dem corruption, on the other hand.

Have to say, I am hugely enjoying how Trump is utterly discombobulating the Dems. What would cap it would be for Hillary to be prosecuted.

Elby said...

Not to mention Bill Clinton's record...


" While Clinton's sexual misconduct involving Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones was investigated back in the 1990s, Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Clinton raped her back when he was serving as attorney general of Arkansas has never been closely examined."

Clearly, different standards apply in the USA for such allegations, depending on the party of the person accused. (Not to mention the post-earthquake looting and plundering of Haiti by the Clinton Foundation, on behalf of themselves and their buddies. It does seem at times as if the Clintons are above the law.

Electro-Kevin said...

Taylor Swift was forced into it. Luvvie Land would not allow her to be neutral. Go easy on the gal.

The Left cannot have it when a Conservative gets in office. The BBC says "The conservatives have the nation polarised/divided." (they say that for any nation, including the USA.)

"Mrs Thatcher was a *divisive* PM" We all heard it.

This is a Left wing device. So when a left winger is in office the country is united and at peace.

No it is not.

The fact is that when conservatives lose elections they accept the result and behave like adults. When the Right win elections the Left immediately take to the streets and start shouting and squealing.

So (despite all BBC claims about Trump) it is the Left who divide America right now and they will even ditch the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty to get their way and what a dangerous precedent for every aspirant male had Kavanaugh not been appointed.

You can imagine the male vs female job application "Don't appoint my competitor - he felt me up at University."

I was disgusted to hear a feminist journalist on LBC yesterday. She said "The problem I have with Kavanaugh is not the sex allegation but his politics. He's voted against abortion and against gun control."

Well there we have it. This is political, not criminal. And then,

"OK. Clinton had his sex problems too but he's OK because I like his politics" and the presenter went on to say "It's great that we agree and to hear you say something sensible."

WTF ??? An echo chamber inside a bubble !

This is only going to get much worse. The jazz handing University brains are going to be setting our policies and agendas very soon.

Trump/Brexit is a last hurrah.

Don't get me on Graham Norton.


On Swift. She's not nice. She's a calculating queen. I was beguiled into thinking her an innocent country girl. Then Tom Hiddlestone (remember him ?) fell foul of the Court of Swift. Well. that was his career over. Plus the fact that he took the piss out of that great wit and raconteur De Niro on the Graham Norton show. (Actually the true offence was to outshine the leaden, second rate De Niro, not insult him.)

Trump's greatest legacy will be archive proof that De Niro is dim witted, utterly lost without a script and swears a lot when agitated. No class.

Nick Drew said...

Kev - @ when a left winger is in office the country is united and at peace. No it is not

Indeed ...


Electro-Kevin said...

I will read that, Nick.

I'm listening to James O'Brien now and he thinks that exclusion by smear is OK for right wing people.

We conservatives (small c) are called the silent majority for a reason.

Bill Quango MP said...

James O'Brien is worthy of a post on his own. He has BDS and TDS and its causing him great pain.

Electro-Kevin said...

Read it now.

My point is that Brexit/Trump/Thatcher has led to a lot of bitching and squealing from the left.

The broadcast media inference is that it is unacceptable.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

If the left didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

Anonymous said...

I think when Michael AvaWanki came out with the gang rape allegations is the moment Kavanaugh's confirmation was going to happen

Jan said...

I agree and I'm female. The court of public opinion should not be allowed to sway decisions and the "evidence" was non-existent but you have to keep such opinions to yourself or you risk a brick through your window. The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

John miller said...

I’ve read a few articles about a Swift and the ramifications of her becoming a Democrat.

None seem to take into account that most Democrats would saw off their right leg rather than admit they have ever heard any Country music. It’s a bit like the concept of Jezza being overjoyed at Nigel Farage calling him a nice bloke.

Once Slebs reach a certain popularity they think they have been deified.

They should imagine what would happen to Mohammed if he came back to earth munching a bacon sarnie...

James Higham said...

Theatre. But good theatre.

Nick Drew said...

anon @ 10:25 - that Twitter thread is a snowflake gem!

More: it's a veritable psychiatric case study ... (where does Generation Wuss get the time?!)

Lord Blagger said...

Here's an observation that doesn't often come up with the left.

They rant and rail about Trump and Brexit being bad. They may be right, but so far they have been proved wrong.

What question aren't they asking?

It's this. Just what have you done to the population that the population think Trump or Brexit is better?

They can't answer that. The reason is most are those who have benefit from other people's suffering.

ie. They get their cheap servants, others pay the bill

The question needs flipping round.

For the media, the problem is the net has cut them out of the loop. Their ability to generalize delete and distort information, to be the gate keeper has gone. Trump just goes direct.

That's why they are now on the fake news band wagon. They want the legal power to control the information, so they can use that to their own ends.

Take the BBC. State debts are 1.6 trillion. So where's the civil service pensions? Ah yes, not a debt. ... etc.

Tell a civil servant you intend canceling their pensions are they aren't owed it.

Anonymous said...

ND - I'm just hoping none of the people in that Twitter thread are old enough to vote. A scary thought.

While on scary thoughts, this is safe for work but it's TS as of spring 2018. Reminds me of when Fran Cotton was in his prime.


Nick Drew said...

Anon - excellent spot!

Or perhaps Jeff Probyn. TS would clearly be welcome in the front row - but maybe at no.2 ... (actually I am prob not allowed a little joke like that).

Anonymous said...

You're in trouble now Mr D.

Raedwald said...

It's not the premature appearance of Mz Swift's Bingo Wings that's relevant, but the dominance of the emotional / creative hemisphere of her brain that's important.

Luvvies are very good at entertaining us, evoking our empathy, rekindling all those bittersweet love moments, making us laugh and cry. That's what they do. It doesn't mean they know squat all about neo-endogenous growth theory, how the economy works or even the fundamentals of a free and fair democracy.

So why are Luvvies such as Mz Swift, Patrick Stewart, Bob Gelgof et al accorded so much airtime on politics? It's like having Mark Carney, Alan Sked and Lord Green on the panel of the X-factor.