Again. I always believe the women unless it is proved without a shadow of a doubt otherwise. Imagine how difficult it is to come forward, we must always give them the benefit of the doubt.
I understand and agree with you. However, now is just not the time........lol We have already had Trump nominate (2) Justices. Personally, I would rather take my chances on a snoozing RBG hearing my case rather than a drunken, sexual predator like Kavanaugh.
I just don't know how we can have the countries highest judicial court of 9 allow any SCJ get to a point of physically and mentally failure, but yet let them continue serving as our interpreters of the law. Justice Ginsburg has now fallen and broken 3 ribs. Most of the time she has been seen sleeping during crucial presentations and has been nudged to wake her up. Or partaking in some wine before many SOTU is just bad judgement for a judge. It isn't mandatory to be there, it's just a formality and courtesy.
I'm sorry that she has had another setback but there needs to be a point when we must say retirement is mandatory for anybody in positions to effect the many. This is not a position for a part time cognitive leader to continue this way. I'm not saying that her mind has gone. I've seen her talk in interviews and it's still sharp for short periods of time, but trying to hold a position of balance in the SC is not in the country's best interest. Yes it sucks getting old and how we all slow down at some point. I've seen it happen to my mom and in myself. It's part of the circle of life, but I don't pass judgements that affect the multitudes and I never would want that roll.
I don't think you want me with my finger in the button when i'm at 86 either. Fortnite! damn I thought I was playing a game. Opps I'm sorry
This is just one persons opinion FWIW; no rebuttal needed. Thank you and good night America.
I understand and agree with you. However, now is just not the time........lol We have already had Trump nominate (2) Justices. Personally, I would rather take my chances on a snoozing RBG hearing my case rather than a drunken, sexual predator like Kavanaugh.
Location: On the edge of tomorrow looking back at yesterday. Gender:
Posted:
Nov 8, 2018 - 9:42am
I just don't know how we can have the countries highest judicial court of 9 allow any SCJ get to a point of physically and mentally failure, but yet let them continue serving as our interpreters of the law. Justice Ginsburg has now fallen and broken 3 ribs. Most of the time she has been seen sleeping during crucial presentations and has been nudged to wake her up. Or partaking in some wine before many SOTU is just bad judgement for a judge. It isn't mandatory to be there, it's just a formality and courtesy.
I'm sorry that she has had another setback but there needs to be a point when we must say retirement is mandatory for anybody in positions to effect the many. This is not a position for a part time cognitive leader to continue this way. I'm not saying that her mind has gone. I've seen her talk in interviews and it's still sharp for short periods of time, but trying to hold a position of balance in the SC is not in the country's best interest. Yes it sucks getting old and how we all slow down at some point. I've seen it happen to my mom and in myself. It's part of the circle of life, but I don't pass judgements that affect the multitudes and I never would want that roll.
I don't think you want me with my finger in the button when i'm at 86 either. Fortnite! damn I thought I was playing a game. Opps I'm sorry
This is just one persons opinion FWIW; no rebuttal needed. Thank you and good night America.
The always insightful and informative Linda Greenhouse writes of an old Supreme Court fight over the appointment of a highly controversial man. In 1937 FDR nominated Hugo Black, an Alabama Senator and strong supporter of the New Deal, for the Court despite Black's "limited judicial experience...and an education viewed as marginal for a Supreme Court justice."
During confirmation hearings, the Senate Judiciary subcommittee dealt with rumors that Black as a young lawyer in Alabama had been a member of the KKK. Greenhouse notes that SC nominees did not appear before the subcommittee during those times. Black's supporters denied the rumors and the subcommittee "rammed the nomination through to the full committee after two hours of consideration." Apparently one Senator went into a tirade in defense of Black and nearly got into a fistfight with another Senator—of his own party. (Lindsey Graham was tame by comparison).
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Hugo Black and the Senate confirmed him by 63-16. But then, right before the start of the new Court term, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a series of articles proving that Black hadindeed been a member of the KKK.
But Black was not removed from the Court and served for 34 years. Even more amazing: "During those 34 years, Hugo Black became one of the great civil libertarians in Supreme Court history."
Can't the two of them see what's going on here? They obviously love each other.
I do miss the old Kurtster. Didn't always agree with him, but he was interesting and fun. Something happened ~ when Obama was re-elected. I think that broke a lot of people that were simply opposition in term 1. I bet we'll see a lot of the same if/when Trump gets a second term.
Blast from the past! I hope HC is well. Glad to see she got off of this forum, it was not good for her. She was prone to hyperbole, but you could tell she is a good person and wants to be kind.
I think getting out of Chicago has helped her immensely.
Blast from the past! I hope HC is well. Glad to see she got off of this forum, it was not good for her. She was prone to hyperbole, but you could tell she is a good person and wants to be kind.
I think getting out of Chicago has helped her immensely.
Blast from the past! I hope HC is well. Glad to see she got off of this forum, it was not good for her. She was prone to hyperbole, but you could tell she is a good person and wants to be kind.
From what I understand, she's doing well. The wife and her are friends on FB. Yes, she is a kind person as far as I can tell.
This has been going on for years. I'm really tired of it. But he insists on making things personal.
He's my personal stalker here, has been ever since HC left.
Blast from the past! I hope HC is well. Glad to see she got off of this forum, it was not good for her. She was prone to hyperbole, but you could tell she is a good person and wants to be kind.
No, see I only mock you when you are being stupid and wrong headed. This is a sad story, and on this I genuinely feel bad for you. Much like when you got cancer, those things suck. But I will point out the hypocrisy of you putting this out as a refutation of another victim's story. I will also point out the awkward wording at the end of your first paragraph. Yes, it is wrong for people to make sexual advances on children. It is not wrong for men to be attracted to other men. The two are not related other than they coincided in your particular event. I will also again point out how odd it is that is that you seem willing to accept the stories of Kavanaugh's drunken compatriots but find reasons they don't matter, and I'll note that no one here is questioning you on the explicit details you do remember, or questioning your credibility based on what you are wearing now.
Maybe if our world were better, you would have been able to seek help. Maybe you wouldn't have such a fear of 'others'. Who knows, maybe in this better world there wouldn't be general forgiveness for bros, and they would behave better too.
First off, it was 1967. You are looking at things based on how things are today. And California was a different planet compared to the rest of the country back then. The summer of love just finished happening and the sexual revolution as it was called was just beginning. The "pill" was brand new. The Beatles were in direct conflict with Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It To Beaver. There was a revolt when Lennon stated that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus and there were public record burnings of Beatles albums. Color TV was new. The primary source for any relevant information on anything was the encyclopedia. The views and understanding of homosexuality were primitive and vile. It was basically illegal to be homosexual. The term "gay" was still decades away along with the contemporary understandings and acceptance of it. Puberty is tough enough anytime, try going through it then when sexual relations just between men and women were being redefined and the primary source of information on sex was still the playground or Playboy. There was no help to be had. We all had to muddle through it on our own devices and understandings which were extremely limited compared to how things are today or even when you came of age.
No one can tell anyone else how to feel. You're telling me that as a 15 yo in 1967 (actually barely 15 because I was born in October), I shouldn't have been afraid that a grown man was sexually attracted to me. This is where you go wrong, telling me how to feel about my experience.
What advice do you have for women who have been sexually assaulted ? I would really, really love to hear it.
The common belief of that time was that homosexuals hunted little boys for their evil intent. If I sought out help and help was to be had, it would only tell me that I should be afraid and that I was doing something wrong and making myself attractive to those kinds of men with my long hair. I was growing my hair longer then and with that came all the shit about looking like a girl or worse. Remember, it's still 1967. It makes you question your appearance and self perception as how you are seen by others. Am I doing something wrong ? Women were pilloried by saying they were asking for it because of they way they were dressed or where they were when something untoward or worse happened to them. Tell me how you go through all of this and not have your head messed up ? Look at how tough things are today with the teen suicide rate as high as it is. And with all the help and resources we have available today, compared to back then.
That is just an abbreviated view of how things were on one very narrow slice of life just a short 50 years ago and just as importantly in a place that was only relevant to itself. That was amplified when I moved east at the end of 1968 and found things to be 10 years behind what was going on out there. We have come a long way in such a short time, but we obviously have a long way to go. One of the faults of how things that happened before are looked at today is with modern references and understandings that have absolutely no relevance to the way things were. To do so is rewriting history. While history is a review of facts, the context of these facts must also be included and considered meaningful even if they conflict with new views or understandings in a world far removed from the context of that time. The context at the time was legitimate then and must be accepted as legitimate, even though it conflicts with the understandings and what is now considered legitimate today. The context explains how and why the reactions were what they were, at that time. And that is what matters, if you want to have any kind of understanding of a past event that means something.
And lastly, maybeyou wouldn't have such a fear of 'others'. I'm beyond tired of you and others constantly accusing me of this. You must think that I am afraid of my own shadow, housebound and helpless. Just because I don't think like you do does not mean that I fear certain things. It's you who are projecting your own fears on me if anything. I have little to fear anymore, especially at this point in my life. For the majority of my life I have believed that I will always land on my feet somehow, just like a cat, until I don't. That is how I deal with change and uncertainty. When I stand on principles, its not out of fear of anything, its based upon understanding.
I've dealt with just about everything regarding Kavanaugh, except him throwing ice at someone. Really ? Go back and read.
Remember this ... I pick my own battles, not you or anyone else here. Rarely do I initiate any conversations anymore, just respond. Yes, I initiated this current little jag, but was prepared to take it wherever it led. I still have the right to choose who and what I respond to just like you or anyone else here. The premise was open ended on purpose. I had no idea how anyone would respond, if at all, or how. I went with the flow. I would not have told my story unless asked. Why bring it up out of the blue ? To do so would have been interpreted as seeking pity. That is by far the last thing I want out of this place.
Ordinarily, I would have dealt with this in the journals, but since we don't have them anymore and the threads go where they go, sticking on topic is rare, here it is. This post is the result of two days of deep thought and editing before hitting submit.
I'm done with this topic now. Enjoy what ever it is that you enjoy.
peace, out ... and back to music which all this thought has taken me away from. . obtw ... this past weekend was the 10th anniversary of my diagnosis. I now enter triple overtime.
Does being assaulted by a queer man (that's how they identified themselves back in the 60's) from Laguna Beach (which was the homosexual capital of the USA back in the 60's btw) who picked me up hitchhiking home from school when I was 15 in 1967 ?
The wife and I were talking about this very subject last week. I asked her if I ever told her about this event. She said no. It happened right around the time we first started dating. I don't recall if I've ever told anyone else before. I remember the intersection I was picked up at, Jamboree and PCH headed south to Cameo. I remember it was a white station wagon, he was in his late 20's or early 30's had black hair ... Once we got going he reached over and grabbed my crotch and started trying to do his thing. I remember him asking me if I liked it and would I go home with him. I was freaked and trying to figure out how to get out of the car and as soon as possible. The first red light was at Iris and I got out there and walked the rest of the way home. It freaked me out. I mention the landmarks because you know them. Not knowing much about sex or anything that early in my life other than I liked girls, I just knew it was wrong and really scared me that a grown man was attracted to me and that men did these things with each other. Also gave me a new perspective about the dangers of hitchhiking.
Does that qualify ?
Yeah, you never forget. The wife recalled some of the things she went through and said the same thing, you don't forget.
Prof Ford did forget.
She only recalled in a recovered memory from therapy. You are aware of that key detail, right ? And there are different versions based upon her testimony, interviews and documents by Prof Ford. I have experience with memory recovery and false memory syndrome, do you ? One of my sisters tore up our family with her's. Not saying that Ford's recovered memory is false, but that it happens way too often to be reliable when it comes down to facts and particulars. Again, to be clear, I do believe that something happened to Ford one summer night when she was 15. But with too many different accountings by herself, I cannot consider anything else beyond that something happened to her.
So I guess the question to you is : do you give a recovered memory the same credibility as a constant one, especially regarding a traumatic event ?
Oh and islander, I just can't wait to see how you find a way to twist this up and use it in some way to mock me or against me, because that is what you do.
No, see I only mock you when you are being stupid and wrong headed. This is a sad story, and on this I genuinely feel bad for you. Much like when you got cancer, those things suck. But I will point out the hypocrisy of you putting this out as a refutation of another victim's story. I will also point out the awkward wording at the end of your first paragraph. Yes, it is wrong for people to make sexual advances on children. It is not wrong for men to be attracted to other men. The two are not related other than they coincided in your particular event. I will also again point out how odd it is that is that you seem willing to accept the stories of Kavanaugh's drunken compatriots but find reasons they don't matter, and I'll note that no one here is questioning you on the explicit details you do remember, or questioning your credibility based on what you are wearing now.
Maybe if our world were better, you would have been able to seek help. Maybe you wouldn't have such a fear of 'others'. Who knows, maybe in this better world there wouldn't be general forgiveness for bros, and they would behave better too.
You just negated everything you posted below about how memory works.
I think that I wrapped up everything I had to say and why about this matter in my previous post.
No buddy, I did not. There is a general understanding behind the formation and repression of memories about traumatic events but I think it's clear that some people's memories of such events have more details and fewer gaps than the memories of other people's. Someone who went through what Ford did may have been able to remember how she got home, for instance. Some people have a much better response and resilience to stress and crises than others. I'm glad you're better able to deal with what happened to you as a kid. I had to grapple with similar self-esteem issues after my attempted assault and instances where men were unreasonably hostile to me as a teenager. I think they were upset that they were attracted to me; I was a very polite kid and did not disrespect people at all.
You may still believe that Kavanaugh did not assault Ford. But I think our experiences have helped us understand why women feel ashamed or guilty for their assaults, why they may have trouble remembering all the details of the event and why they don't report their assaults more than they do.
Kurtster: I am sorry that you and your wife got assaulted. Something similar happened to me with a friend of my family when I was a young teen.
obtw : I did not put up my story for your's or anyone else's pity, sympathy or attention.
I was flat out challenged by two women; that I know nothing about sexual assault and the effects it has on someone. One was someone I know personally and the other was someone who has my respect and a commonality that we share at some level. I respect both of them and gave them a straight answer to their direct question. I had no choice but to answer their question. I was forthright, candid and honest about the matter.
One thing is for certain. Sexual assault is and was common. Basically an everyday event when you add up all the numbers and stories. It's just that no one spoke about it much. Now we're talking about it. And its just not unique to one sex or orientation. The thoughts I've had in the short time since putting my story out and getting it out of my head has allowed me to recognize the full impact of that one event had for years after it happened. How it affected my confidence and self perception in everything for the following twenty or so years. I'm closer to peace with myself now than before and can understand why things happened and what many decisions were based upon in the past 50 years since.
damn I thought I was playing a game. Opps I'm sorry 
