cold case

neutrality is not really possible here...i thought some degree of certainty was...this too has fled...i am prepared to believe that ms. ford's accusations are true...kavanaugh strikes me as being as cretinous as anything else that has crawled out of the slime of this administration and the toadying ratfucks in congress...thirty-six years ago i wasn't in the room when these events are alleged to have occurred...i was somewhere else up to my ass in my own problems...i cannot say empirically that someone is lying...the new york times said, "the two very different versions of the truth unfolding in the heated atmosphere of gender divides, metoo, and the trump presidency could not be reconciled."...the "truth" is subjective and there will always be opposing narratives of events...be empaneled on a jury some time if you want a clear-cut experience of the slippery nature of what actually happened and whose version ( and they are versions...equally believed ) of events you will choose to believe...i had thought that whatever happened in 1982 the senate would hold its nose and confirm because there are very powerful interests that want this guy on the court...this was somewhat upended by der furhair's acquiescence to an fbi investigation...did not expect that...after thinking a bit i still wonder...if i am not mistaken his time frame for a inquiry is "less than a week"...to investigate a thirty-six year old cold case that will doubtlessly produce conflicting versions and "less than a week" is not a lot of time to ferret out what may be fact...so...could be the end of brett kavavaough's supreme court bid...could be a whitewash and business as usual...i read somewhere that flake had "pulled the senate back from the brink"...bullshit...they are still the same contemptible grasping venal corrupt small town whores they always were..they are politicians...it is endemic...what he did was point out that they were in an uncomfortably public place on this and it is an election year...that may put paid to brett...the successor appointee will be no less conservative and will face a possibly marginally different senate...there are always surprises with nominees...you can't trust a jurist...they'll turn on you like cornered badgers...the system is structured to resist change with increasing force as the challenges to it become more fundamental...it does not like change from below and this is a populist issue...whomever becomes the next justice they won't be earl warren...the new deal is dead and corporate interests are ascendant..they are consquentialist...they are about now...not 1982...past behaviors stand second to ideology...to presume that confirmation is an impossibility would be foolish...the system is not especially geared towards being responsive to "the will of the people"...its creators had a very limited republic in mind...you can protest...congress is free to ignore it...we will see next week.

an apologist

i finally got around to actually reading the "anonymous" n y times editorial that is alleged ( the issue with anonymity is that responsibility and identity or both tossed out the window..it is why criminals, klansmen, and terrorists wear masks..credibility also flies the coop with it ) to have been written by a "senior white house official"...it is critical of the president which i have no particular argument with..it is, however, not critical of the administrations policies..."we want the administration to succeed and think many of its policies have made america safer and more prosperous."...prosperous for whom is a question that leaps to mind...certainly not working people who are being squeezed by the upward redistribution of wealth at least in part enshrined in "historic tax reform"...the writer bemoans the presidents lack of "first principles " and his seeming disrespect for the republican way..."although he was elected as a republican, the president shows little affinity for the ideals long espoused by conservatives ( of which the writer is clearly one ) free minds, free markets, and free people."...as long as you are of the correct linage, hold the proper ideological view, and, for a country with one of the largest prison populations in the world and the balance of the population headed int debt penury that "free people" is a howler...republican "ideals" have a bedrock base of social darwinism that says the wealth are so because they are the "fittest" and poor people are poor because they are "unfit" and so deserve their status...a cheap reinforcement of a hegemonic culture steeped in greed and exceptionalism...the writer claims the interior resistance is "not the work of the deep state. it is the work of the steady state." no..it is the work of members of the elite, rightly frightened that the blowback from the president's seeming psychosis and self-entitlement may actually engender a reform movement that would infringe on their prerogatives to make themselves wealthy at the expense of the general population...whoever this is they are not a "resister"...they are an apologist for the system that is steadily undermining the economic health of the mass of the people for the benefit of the few...i am not having any of this, thanks..the writer and the elitist n y times can pound sand.