Kurtster, your thoughts on Ford's testimony don't address statements by Deborah Ramirez, James Roche, Chad Ludington and others about Kavanaugh and the truthfulness of his testimony.
Ludington's story was backed up by a police report. I ask you all: if you went to a rock concert with friends and you all asked a guy in a bar if he were the lead singer of the band you obviously liked, would you throw beer or ice at the guy if he told you no he wasn't the singer and to stop staring at him?
You might if you were a belligerent drunk.
Then we have Kavanaugh's angry and emotional statement and behavior after Ford's testimony. I have posted a links to articles that point out Kavanaugh's misleading or inaccurate statements during his statement and testimony, and that point out that some of his responses to the Committee during that time would not have been allowed in his own Appeals Court. Several of us have pointed to the petition signed by 2400+ law school professors who believed that Kavanaugh's statement after Ford's testimony was sufficient to disqualify his nomination.
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. But there is no hard and fast rule on which details people remember and don't remember about such traumatic experiences.
So please get off your honk about Christine Blasey Ford, her glasses and her testimony.
Jim Hopper wrote an earlier piece on the effects of traumatic experiences (including firefights and sexual assault). I have highlighted in boldface what I think are the key points in the piece. Apparently that bolding doesn't always show up—I haven't seen it when I look at these forums with my phone (Something to work on Bill...like you don't have enough to do).
Here's an excerpt:
Incomplete memories of sexual assault...should be expected. They are similar to the memories of soldiers and police officers for things they’ve experienced in the line of fire. And a great deal of scientific research on memory explains why.
I’m an expert on psychological trauma, including sexual assault and traumatic memories. I’ve spent more than 25 years studying this. I’ve trained military and civilian police officers, prosecutors and other professionals, including commanders at Fort Leavenworth and the Pentagon. I teach this to psychiatrists in training at Harvard Medical School.
...
Ignorance of how memory works is a major reason why sexual assault is the easiest violent crime to get away with, across our country and around the world.
Soldiers and police know that traumatic memories often have huge gaps. They know it can be difficult or impossible to recall the order in which some things happened. They know they’ll never forget some things from that alley in Ramadi where their best friend died—even though they can’t remember many details of the battle, or which month of their third Iraq rotation it was.
That’s why soldiers and police often approach me after trainings to say, “You get it,” or “now I understand how it’s no different for people who’ve been sexually assaulted.”
In short, what I’m talking about here today are realities, not theories or hypotheses—realities known all too well by our nation’s defenders and its millions of sexual assault survivors.
....
Which brings me, finally, to memory retrieval. I only have time to say a few important things.
Yes, memories generally fade. That’s partly because what starts out as a relatively detailed memory becomes more abstract over time. We remember the gist of what happened and a few of the most central details. When we remember or tell the story, our brain is literally piecing it together on the fly.
That’s another reason why, as memory researchers love to say, memory is not like a videotape. Sometimes we get confused. Sometimes other people, or even movies we watch, supply inaccurate details that are inadvertently re-encoded into the overall memory and its abstract story.
But memories of highly stressful and traumatic experiences, at least their most central details, don’t tend to fade over time. And while people may have the superficial abstract stories they tell themselves and others about their worst traumas, that’s not because the worst details have been lost. It’s often because they don’t want to remember them, and don’t (yet) feel safe to remember them.
Yes, peripheral and less central details can get distorted more easily than many people realize. But decades of research have shown that the most central details are not easy to distort, which typically requires repeated leading questions from people in authority or a very strong internal motivation for doing so.
But without compelling evidence of such influences, there is no scientific or rational basis for assuming that such distortions have occurred, especially for those most central and horrible details the person has been both tormented by and trying to avoid, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, for years or even decades.
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.
You raise fair questions about Ford's testimony. Some Senators felt that she provided sufficient detail and honesty that they believed her accusation about Kavanaugh. Some like Susan Collins were not swayed.
However IIRC Ford provided some scientific explanation in her testimony as to why she could clearly remember some details about the alleged assault, and why she forgot others. I believe that this Sciam.com piece from a "nationally recognized expert on psychological trauma" provides further supporting detail. Jim Hopper also rebuts points of skepticism that prosecutor Rachel Mitchell (the prosecutor that Republicans on the Committee flew in to ask Ford and Kavanaugh questions) laid out after her time with Ford. Hopper's bio tag, found at the bottom of the Sciam.com piece:
"Jim Hopper, PhD, is an independent consultant, teaching associate in psychology at Harvard Medical School, nationally recognized expert on psychological trauma, and writes the Sexual Assault and the Brain blog."
TIME-DEPENDENT EFFECTS OF STRESS ON MEMORY: THE BASICS
The effects of stress on memory formation are time-dependent.
When the brain detects an attack or stress suddenly kicks in, the hippocampus, which plays central roles in encoding information into short-term memory and storing it as long-term memories, rapidly enters a super-encoding mode. In that phase of stress-induced memory functioning, central details are encoded strongly and peripheral details weakly if at all.
After about five to 20 minutes in that state, the hippocampus enters a minimal-encoding mode, in which the encoding and especially the storage of details—even central ones—are severely limited or not happening at all.
Knowledge of the time-dependent effects of stress on memory, especially the existence of that minimal-encoding phase of hippocampal functioning, is essential for evaluating the memories and credibility of people who have experienced trauma—including military personnel, police officers, and sexual assault survivors like Ford.
Unfortunately, that knowledge is still not widely known, and it certainly didn’t inform (prosecutor Rachel) Mitchell’s “analysis” of Ford’s memories of that fateful night.
...
WHY THIS KNOWLEDGE CAN BE HELPFUL
There are several related reasons why it’s helpful to know that the effects of stress on memory formation are time-dependent.
It’s helpful because knowing how stress affects memory over time—including by inevitably leading to large gaps—helps us to understand and support people who’ve been sexually assaulted.
...
The hippocampus immediately enters a super-encoding mode. As it does, central and even some peripheral details already in the buffer of short-term memory (of around 30 seconds) are selected for burning into long-term memory. As that super-encoding state continues (for around five to 20 minutes) the encoding and storage of central details, but not peripheral ones, are greatly strengthened. (To what extent depends on a variety of factors, including genetics and ovarian hormones.)
But once that initial super-encoding phase ends, stress impairs memory encoding and storage.
That’s because the hippocampus then enters a minimal-encoding mode. Depending on how long a sexual assault lasts, this phase of impairment and minimal encoding may arrive before or after the assault has ended.
Remarkably, during that minimal-encoding phase even central details are not reliably being encoded or stored—and more complex information, like how things were sequenced in time, is unlikely to get stored at all. (See reviews by Diamond and colleagues,Zoladz and colleagues and Schwabe.)
WHY DOES THE BRAIN GO INTO MINIMAL-ENCODING MODE?
I imagine you’re curious about why the hippocampus goes into that minimal-encoding mode. I can provide the scientificexplanation without making it too complex.
First, it’s about brain cells and the mineral calcium. To enter and remain in the super-encoding mode, cells in the hippocampus must absorb much higher than normal amounts of calcium from the fluid surrounding them. But that same calcium, if it stays too long inside the cells, could kill them.
Basically, the super-encoding phase isn’t safely sustainable, so evolution has selected brains that end it before permanent cell damage occurs.
...
With this knowledge, we can see that getting home from the party was not a detail but rather a series of events with many details, all of which happened while stress was having time-dependent effects on Ford’s hippocampus and its abilities to encode and store information.
Also, it’s likely that soon after she escaped the house her hippocampus entered that minimal-encoding mode that both protects its cells from destruction and prevents those same cells from storing the details of events. It’s a state of the hippocampus similar to the blackout state that is caused by a sudden spike in the blood-alcohol level, which Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge may have entered before or soon after arriving at the gathering.
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.
Perhaps the investigation should have included talking to or at least analyzing the therapy sessions? I don't believe she forgot who he was or what he did. I do believe that is what you were pointing out at the beginning of this thread. I'm sorry for what happened to you. No young child should have to endure any sexual trauma. It happens more so than we admit to or care to talk about, unfortunately.
yeah here's something......have you ever been sexually abused? If not then I can understand your ignorance. Believe me when I say, that no matter how much time has passed you cannot forget their face, their voice and things they said at the time. I cannot tell you what day or where I was when I was 5 but you can BET I know who it was. Let us NOT forget she is 100% sure who it was and what occurred in vivid detail.
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.
Her accounting is from a recovered memory in psychotherapy. By her own admission she cannot recall when it happened, where it happened or how she even got to the party and returned home. None of her accounting has been corroborated by anyone. The only consensus that I am aware of is that everyone agrees that something happened to her, but after that, nothing else is clear as to who was involved, when it happened and where it happened. That and her story has changed several times.
Maybe you believe it was the only party she ever attended and the only time she ever had a drink of alcohol. I suspect that is not the case. But to each their own.
I still maintain that the country was turned upside down and inside out by a bunch of spoiled, enabled, drunk rich kids based upon foggy memories and Senator Feinstein ...
Anything else ?
yeah here's something......have you ever been sexually abused? If not then I can understand your ignorance. Believe me when I say, that no matter how much time has passed you cannot forget their face, their voice and things they said at the time. I cannot tell you what day or where I was when I was 5 but you can BET I know who it was. Let us NOT forget she is 100% sure who it was and what occurred in vivid detail.
So, just to be clear, you believe his drunken associates from 30 years ago, but feel like too much time has passed to do anything about it. But Blasey Ford isn't credible because of her glasses.
Everybody was drinking including Prof Ford.
Her accounting is from a recovered memory in psychotherapy. By her own admission she cannot recall when it happened, where it happened or how she even got to the party and returned home. None of her accounting has been corroborated by anyone. The only consensus that I am aware of is that everyone agrees that something happened to her, but after that, nothing else is clear as to who was involved, when it happened and where it happened. That and her story has changed several times.
Maybe you believe it was the only party she ever attended and the only time she ever had a drink of alcohol. I suspect that is not the case. But to each their own.
I still maintain that the country was turned upside down and inside out by a bunch of spoiled, enabled, drunk rich kids based upon foggy memories and Senator Feinstein ...
So, just to be clear, you believe his drunken associates from 30 years ago, but feel like too much time has passed to do anything about it. But Blasey Ford isn't credible because of her glasses.
So I just listened to Aqualung while thinking about this ...
This is the perfect example of the Butterfly Effect. Just think how things might have gone if this event was reported to the police. This for sure would show up in any kind of background check, especially an FBI background check. But a drinking group took the law into their own hands instead. They covered up an act of property damage and tried to resolve it amongst themselves, keeping it off the public record. While nothing at lower levels of authority, as one assumes more power and authority, this would be grounds for preventing someone from moving up the ladder. Not disqualifying for serving a function on the staff at the White House, but enough to keep him off of the bench, keep him off the Appellate Court and never even to be considered as a SCOTUS candidate in the first place.
For Kavanaugh's fellow drunk club member to bring this up now, and only since the brew ha ha over his high school daze was already at its climax, not when his name was brought up in the beginning, is too late to the party, too bad, so sad. It's over already. He had his chance back when it happened and he missed the window of opportunity the second time around.
The whole country has been turned upside down by a bunch of drunk rich kids who have been enabled their entire lives. They avoided consequences that might have changed their behaviour and career paths. First their parents enabled them and then they enabled each other. Now when it comes time to undo some of the things they did, they are still a bunch of drunken idiots who would likely be late for their own funerals as the saying goes. All the players were drunks whose memories were certainly affected by their drinking. Timing is everything and they all blew it. And we as a country suffer.
Makes me proud to be stoner and not a drinker.
So, just to be clear, you believe his drunken associates from 30 years ago, but feel like too much time has passed to do anything about it. But Blasey Ford isn't credible because of her glasses.
So, part of the 1-week "investigation" was a tip line, where a guy reported that an incoherently drunk BK broke into his pickup/cargo box. A mutual friend corroborates hearing at the time from the pickup's owner that Kavanaugh had done this and refused to pay for the damage. Whoops! Time's up! End of investigation, I guess.
Was there an investigation? I believe that Flake orchestrated a sham. He was backed into a corner, searched for a way out and bullshited his way to the inevitable yes vote that he had every intention on casting in the first place. I hope Trump grabs his pussy. Sorry but I am not convinced and pretty pissed off about this entire charade.
So, part of the 1-week "investigation" was a tip line, where a guy reported that an incoherently drunk BK broke into his pickup/cargo box. A mutual friend corroborates hearing at the time from the pickup's owner that Kavanaugh had done this and refused to pay for the damage. Whoops! Time's up! End of investigation, I guess.
So I just listened to Aqualung while thinking about this ...
This is the perfect example of the Butterfly Effect. Just think how things might have gone if this event was reported to the police. This for sure would show up in any kind of background check, especially an FBI background check. But a drinking group took the law into their own hands instead. They covered up an act of property damage and tried to resolve it amongst themselves, keeping it off the public record. While nothing at lower levels of authority, as one assumes more power and authority, this would be grounds for preventing someone from moving up the ladder. Not disqualifying for serving a function on the staff at the White House, but enough to keep him off of the bench, keep him off the Appellate Court and never even to be considered as a SCOTUS candidate in the first place.
For Kavanaugh's fellow drunk club member to bring this up now, and only since the brew ha ha over his high school daze was already at its climax, not when his name was brought up in the beginning, is too late to the party, too bad, so sad. It's over already. He had his chance back when it happened and he missed the window of opportunity the second time around.
The whole country has been turned upside down by a bunch of drunk rich kids who have been enabled their entire lives. They avoided consequences that might have changed their behaviour and career paths. First their parents enabled them and then they enabled each other. Now when it comes time to undo some of the things they did, they are still a bunch of drunken idiots who would likely be late for their own funerals as the saying goes. All the players were drunks whose memories were certainly affected by their drinking. Timing is everything and they all blew it. And we as a country suffer.
This showed up on my FB feed today. The writer is a local friend; I've known her since high school. Her post is public but I'm not linking to it in case she decides to change that.
{posted with a grade-school photo} I like how all of the experts of sexual abuse know what we can and can’t remember. Wow! And how we behave when we are telling the truth and lying. Even a ten year old can tell. Wow! I am so impressed with all of the expertise and insight to a hell never lived and how ignorant, people sound to those of us who have. I spent 5 years being sexually abused but all of you ‘experts’ already knew that, didn’t you? Did you also know we don’t come forward because it’s like throwing our wounded selves to a pack of wolves? Do you know what your role is in this ongoing climate of sexual abuse? Have you ever considered that your reaction is part of the problem that keeps us quiet? I was a year into the abuse when this picture was taken and I promised myself I would speak up when I was an adult. That was 43 years ago and I still have no courage. The truth is, I never came forward as a child, nor an adult because I feared you. I feared your reaction more than I feared my abuser. Think about that. I’m not asking for your sympathy nor your advice. I sought understanding, forgave, healed, and figured out how to take care of myself. But I am asking on behalf of the thousands of women and children like me, who fear going home tonight, that you think about your words and the messages you are sending out. Sexual abuse does no go down economic or political lines. It’s everywhere and if you truly understood that, I don’t believe you would be saying the hurtful things you’re saying and making a mockery out of this trial. What they said and did was a testimony their character. How you react is a testimony to yours. If we truly want to make America great again, it starts with us and the words we speak. I will stand up for those who can’t stand up for themselves, every time, because if I received any gift from my experience, it was compassion for the suffering. Please. Enough. Let’s grow up and start acting like adults before we totally self-destruct, which is the path I fear we’re heading.
This showed up on my FB feed today. The writer is a local friend; I've known her since high school. Her post is public but I'm not linking to it in case she decides to change that.
{posted with a grade-school photo} I like how all of the experts of sexual abuse know what we can and canât remember. Wow! And how we behave when we are telling the truth and lying. Even a ten year old can tell. Wow! I am so impressed with all of the expertise and insight to a hell never lived and how ignorant, people sound to those of us who have. I spent 5 years being sexually abused but all of you âexpertsâ already knew that, didnât you? Did you also know we donât come forward because itâs like throwing our wounded selves to a pack of wolves? Do you know what your role is in this ongoing climate of sexual abuse? Have you ever considered that your reaction is part of the problem that keeps us quiet? I was a year into the abuse when this picture was taken and I promised myself I would speak up when I was an adult. That was 43 years ago and I still have no courage. The truth is, I never came forward as a child, nor an adult because I feared you. I feared your reaction more than I feared my abuser. Think about that. Iâm not asking for your sympathy nor your advice. I sought understanding, forgave, healed, and figured out how to take care of myself. But I am asking on behalf of the thousands of women and children like me, who fear going home tonight, that you think about your words and the messages you are sending out. Sexual abuse does no go down economic or political lines. Itâs everywhere and if you truly understood that, I donât believe you would be saying the hurtful things youâre saying and making a mockery out of this trial. What they said and did was a testimony their character. How you react is a testimony to yours. If we truly want to make America great again, it starts with us and the words we speak. I will stand up for those who canât stand up for themselves, every time, because if I received any gift from my experience, it was compassion for the suffering. Please. Enough. Letâs grow up and start acting like adults before we totally self-destruct, which is the path I fear weâre heading.
So, part of the 1-week "investigation" was a tip line, where a guy reported that an incoherently drunk BK broke into his pickup/cargo box. A mutual friend corroborates hearing at the time from the pickup's owner that Kavanaugh had done this and refused to pay for the damage. Whoops! Time's up! End of investigation, I guess.
It was much more a cover up than an investigation.
So, part of the 1-week "investigation" was a tip line, where a guy reported that an incoherently drunk BK broke into his pickup/cargo box. A mutual friend corroborates hearing at the time from the pickup's owner that Kavanaugh had done this and refused to pay for the damage. Whoops! Time's up! End of investigation, I guess.
I've been selling glasses to mostly women in a high end boutique setting for well over 20 years. I am the only male on the staff as of late. The other ladies there were mostly horrified that any woman would be wearing glasses like the good professor was wearing, especially in the setting of a Congressional hearing being watched around the world in essence. I am the token conservative there btw. My politics are known, but we generally don't discuss politics.
My job is two fold. One, to do my best to make you see properly. Two, to improve your appearance, not make it worse. And that is the case with anyone. Man, woman, child, rich or poor. I walk up to total strangers everyday and initiate conversations that center around appearance and fashion. If I don't know you, I will ask what you do professionally and is there any kind of restrictions as a result of occupation. Bankers, conservative. Lawyers, do you actually go to court and work trials or do you mostly work in a corporate setting. For trial lawyers, I will do my best to make them look professional, serious and confident. Doctors, try and keep them approachable and friendly looking. Artists and designers. They are my favorite because for the most part they are more open and adventurous. Women, do you wear contacts and are these just going to be for when you get home or do you want to be able to wear them out in public ? And then just ordinary working women who only have one pair of glasses and want to be able to wear them with as many things possible in their wardrobe, to be neutral, yet feminine. And then women who own multiple pairs and recognize that they are an accessory to further enhance what they are wearing for what occasion. What colors do you like, not like ? A persons glasses are a huge part of making a first impression and also to a large extent, establishing your personal brand(ing). And vanity. All levels of vanity and self esteem or lack thereof. In groups with friends or alone. Women of all shapes, sizes, age and means. All done up dressed to kill, sweaty and straight from the gym and everything in between. If I only thought of the stereo typical woman as Barbie, I would be an utter and total failure at what I do. I like women. I get along well with women. I enjoy the company of women. I respect women. I think that I understand women rather well, or know when I clearly don't or shouldn't and just get out of the way. I do not have a stereo typical idea of a woman. I do not say the women's frames are over there, let me know when you have made a selection. I work in a place where our customers are stopped on the street around the world and asked where did you get your glasses ? There are customers who wonder in from my home zone of Newport Beach (I'm in Cleveland, Ohio) now and then. People from here who have migrated or just have a second or third home there and here. I'll surprise them and say Corona del Mar Class of 70 and try and interact on that level with them. Often I end up being dismissed as an unwashed townie, but, eh, I at least give it a shot.
You only get one chance to make a first impression. And this is the case with Prof. Ford. When I watch TV, I cannot help but look at the glasses people are wearing. This is the case with most opticians as I am aware of. I can tell you what kind of glasses Steve Forbes wears, the foreign minister of Russia, Whoopi Goldberg and Karl Rove to name a few. What do Colin Powell, the late senator Howard Metzenbaum and Sarah Palin have in common ? The all wore Kawasaki rimless frames which started the whole rimless craze to be reborn. Senator Metzenbaum got his glasses from us. He was an old family friend of the owner. Sarah Palin has her sharp rectangular lens shape named after her. I know a Tom Ford a mile away. A Versace, a Prada, a Cazal, a Lindberg, a 2.5 in the case of Whoopi and the Russian foreign minister, and IIRC, the main mullah of Iran, a Theo which I wear. The lady researcher, IT whiz on Criminal Minds wears LA Eyeworks. I cannot help it. It is what I do for a living. I look at faces for a living.
Prof. Ford could have done a whole lot more to help herself make a good first impression. This is a case of the messenger getting in the way of the message. I could go on and offer up a profile on her based upon her glasses coupled with her demeanor during her testimony that would be much more right than wrong, imho. But it is not what is needed at this point in time. We are visual creatures and we unconsciously try to adjust what we see and make the images balanced and symmetrical. We all do this whether we are aware of it or not. When that process gets overwhelmed, the messages that we receive get muddled up in the process and is less effectively communicated.
There is no way on this green earth I would have let the good professor out the door wearing those glasses. Whoever sold her those glasses did a grave injustice to her. I recently met a lady who is an organizer, headhunter for the local arm of the DNC and sold her glasses. I wanted her to look her best regardless of politics. Yes, I asked her what she does professionally. I cannot say much more than generalize because of privacy concerns. But I have met and sold glasses to people that you would know of or recognize on TV.
One of the sayings we have around here when we hear people say, but my friends don't like my glasses, we say tongue in cheek, get new friends.
Pardon the long winded thread jack, but I could not let your accusation of me regarding women stand.
Now back to what ever it is that is being discussed.
Then why on Earth didn't you explain that in the first place? What I took from your first comment was nothing short of an attack on a woman that showed amazing courage, patriotism and is nothing short of a hero in spite of what happened. You managed as usual to come shooting your mouth off at the hip and after a long sought out, need for attention, sat back and posted some long winded explanation as to what you REALLY meant in the first place. Congrats on once again getting the attention you need here and shame on me for reacting to your menial, obvious ploy once more. Have a great day in the eyeglass shop and try to word your thoughts and opinions in a way that doesn't appear so misogynistic next time. Unless of course that is/was your goal.
My little excursion into the ins and outs of eyewear was dealing with an image that really bothered me and I expanded on it. Like you mentioned earlier it was best left alone. But I was accused of having little regard for women and was stereo typing a woman. My stereo typical vision of a woman is Barbie. Quite the dog whistle for sexist / misogynist. Being a Trump supporter, it's only consistent and must be true ... So I proceeded to address that and defend myself.
I mentioned how people brand themselves with their glasses. That is what Kennedy is doing with her's. Sally Jessy Raphael did the same with her red glasses. And architect I M Pei ... So enough about glasses and on to your last thought.
No I have not been rooting for Kavanaugh. I've been rooting for two of the foundations of our society, due process and the presumption of innocence. Nearly everyone here has said that the presumption of innocence only applies to those being tried for criminal offenses. I strongly disagree and say that it applies to our social fabric and culture, not just in court. It is unconditional and without it, we as a society become nothing more than an angry mob with a rope looking for the closest tree.
Who here believes that Kavanaugh is not a serial sexual predator or a gang rapist ? And look at the evidence y'all have used to come to this conclusion. Nothing has been corroborated, nothing. Not even a preponderance of evidence, the lowest standard. The burden of proof still falls upon the accuser. Give me something that meets even the lowest standard, then I will agree. Until then, innocence must be assumed. It's not perfect, but it is the only thing keeping us from throwing ropes over tree limbs in moments of emotion. And the SCOTUS is the place where this applies more than anywhere else.
Mostly, all the emotion driving this has absolutely nothing to do with Kavanaugh. It's 100% politically motivated. As Senator Susan Collins said in her speech on the floor regarding her vote, opposition to this nomination by what ever means possible was declared by democrats before his name was even announced.
"But I was accused of having little regard for women and was stereo typing a woman. My stereo typical vision of a woman is Barbie. "
Here's what I took away from your initial posts on Ford's glasses: you were not thinking about her testimony or the possibility that she was telling the truth. You were bothered by her choice in eyewear. That raised "red flags for you", as you put it; you've said "she has issues." That came across to me as an attempt to diminish Ford's mental stability or reliability, an attempt to describe her as confused or hysterical. My suspicion about your low regard for Ford also came from your complaints about Ford's negotiations with the Committee—she was absolutely demanding to speak after Kavanaugh or she wouldn't testify (wrong), why didn't she want to fly, what was taking so long, etc. You also believed that she was hoodwinked by lawyers working on those negotiations.
I can understand why you'd focus on her glasses, given your line of work. I am disappointed that you didn't seem to take much more from Dr. Ford's willingness to speak out and endure all sorts of harassment for it. IIRC Ford wrote her warning about Brett Kavanaugh to Senator Feinstein before he was nominated. She did not want to be in the public eye. After her name and story was leaked, she felt that she had to tell her story. Ford still went forward even though she received death threats and other forms of hounding until she had to move out of her home. She had nothing to gain from testifying but she did anyway, even though she was terrified (and said so in front of the committee. I can't recall reading any comments from you that reflected your thoughts on her experience.
You have posted often about Kavanaugh has gone through, implying that he was being screwed over by these complaints about him. You keep missing these big points about these kind of Senate Committee hearings and votes: there is no formalized procedure or order for hearing testimony or gathering evidence. Senators make their decisions about a nominee based on evidence and their subjective opinions. I have provided excerpts from experts comments on these points in this thread.
That means that even if full investigations found no evidence to back up accusations against Kavanaugh, Senators would still be able to vote against Kavanaugh if they believed Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick. If you don't like that idea, I can't help you. A Senate Committee hearing is not a court of law. Gut feelings about a nominee are valid and sufficient to determine a Senator's vote AFAICT. I just read through Senator Collins' speech explaining views on presumption of innocence and her support for Kavanaugh and it's compelling. AFAICT tell, however, other Senators could have heard Ford's testimony and rightfully believed that her testimony was sufficient evidence to vote against Kavanaugh.
"As Senator Susan Collins said in her speech on the floor regarding her vote, opposition to this nomination by what ever means possible was declared by democrats before his name was even announced."
Here's a transcript of that speech. Again, I just read it—skimmed it, admittedly. I think you distort her remarks, especially if you claim that Collins was saying the Democratic party had a "by any means necessary" approach. The third and fourth paragraphs seem most relevant.
"No I have not been rooting for Kavanaugh."
You definitely left that impression with me and I believe the majority of people posting here on this subject.
"Who here believes that Kavanaugh is not a serial sexual predator or a gang rapist ?"
I don't. You'd have to ask others here to speak up but I'd be surprised if they regard him as either.
I think that Kavanaugh has been deliberately misleading about how heavily he drank and how drunk he got while in high school and college. I think that Ford and Swetnick and Ramirez's claims merited full investigations, which they did not get. Presumption of innocence is a bedrock concept of our society but full and free investigations into accusations of misconduct are as well, especially when those accusations are directed at those sworn to uphold the law and pass judgements based on evidence, laws and our Constitution. Especially when the accused are in line for lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land. You and I are biased. Let's admit it. When a woman says she was sexually assaulted, my inclination is to believe her. Perhaps that's your inclination as well, I don't know. However, I didn't believe Paula Jones' accusation against Bill Clinton and I still don't. If I had to guess your opinion, I'd say that you believed her. I don't think we'll ever know the full story about Ford's accusations regarding Kavanaugh.
However, as I posted here Kavanaugh was misleading or evasive on a number of issues during his testimony. See here which I have posted before. There are also concerns about his earlier statements about receiving improperly obtained Democratic files and whether Kavanaugh was completely forthcoming about that.
Then you have his statement before the Committee that came after Ford's testimony. That alone caused 2400+ law school professors to formally state their belief that Kavanaugh showed a lack of temperament and restraint and impartiality towards certain groups. Those professors stated that they didn't think Kavanaugh should be confirmed.
Ford's testimony and the statements of Ramirez and Swetnick were hardly the only factors in the opposition to Kavanaugh's appointment.
"Mostly, all the emotion driving this has absolutely nothing to do with Kavanaugh. It's 100% politically motivated. "
As others here have asked you: did Gorsuch have such opposition and controversy surrounding his nomination? And by the way: do you think that Anita Hill's accusation about Clarence Thomas were entirely politically motivated? Because there is post-confirmation evidence that Thomas lied under oath to get onto the SC.
Oh, this is making the rounds in the office this morning!!!