"You've got to take the wave and you might wipe out. You might get crushed and held under by three waves or you might get a great wave."
If you’re even lightly adjacent to US politics you’ll remember the fallout in 2018 when Donald Trump nominated the right of centre Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
It all went to hell shortly after when Christine Blasey Ford, a Santa Cruz surfer and professor of psychology at Palo Alto University, said Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party in 1982 when they were both in high school. Kavanaugh, seventeen, Ford fifteen.
Christine Blasey Ford claimed Kavanaugh pinned her down on a bed, felt her up and tried to get her clothes off all the while covering her mouth to prevent her from screaming.
Kavanaugh denied the allegations, vehemently y’might say, and several of his friends and classmates came forward to defend him although others spoke out against him, claiming that he was a heavy drinker in high school and had a reputation for being a shitty drunk.
Who to believe!
After a heated hearing, Kavanaugh got his Supreme Court throne, leaning it further right.
The whole episode showed the difficulty of determining right and wrong in an episode that happened almost forty years previous, as well as the fallibility of memories, the absurdity of the believe-all-women-men-are-guilty-until-proved-innocent credo.
(Had a pal who did three years on the back of that damn #MeToo hysteria.)
Now, as she tours her new book, One Way Back, Christine Blasey Ford has likened to alleged attack to a three-wave hold-down.
“You’ve got to take the wave and you might wipe out. You might get crushed and held under by three waves or you might get a great wave, you know? But you’re going to have to take it,” she told NPR’s Michel Martin.
An odd, and imperfect metaphor, I think.
You?
Tell us more about your pal, DR – no names, just facts and the all the fiction you wish.
Neighbours since we were two, went to school together, surfed together, I went into surf media, he went in acting and stand-up, got selected for NIDA, finished degree, starred in pretty much every Australian soap opera around, did a couple of movies, moved out of Sydney, hooked up with a troubled ex-biker gal, fake cans, real long nails, insanely jealous, y’know the style. Rolled up at his joint post-breakup, argument, she called the cops, said he digitally raped her. Judge disagreed with jury’s verdict but this was in the heat of #MeToo and he got three to five.Towards the end of his sentence he was in a prison farm along with lifers being prepped for freedom after thirty years. In a book he wrote about the experience, the most interesting is the chapter Living with Monsters. What it’s it like to share a bunk with someone who killed a kid, buried ’em, weeks later, dug ’em, fucked em. Or, another, who casually mentioned he beheaded his wife.
Jeeeezus that’s heavy. Got me wondering about digital rape – is that a metaverse thing or a 20th century fingerbang?
2020 Biden voter here, but the data doesn’t support him.
Unproven, unprovable, politically motivated accusations. Her body language during her testimony screamed that she was making it up. Must believe!!!!! No Hamsammish!!!!
Her accusations probably helped him with his nomination. Rednecks love sexual predators. Clearly.
They sure do, they’ll even vote for a rapist. Trump has over 20 women who have accused him of “locker room talk”
It’s so fucken stupid to blindly believe women when they accuse men of sexual assault. Obviously the men would own up if they really did it, duh!
ever notice how many political assassins go by three names?
Jared Lee Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, John Wilkes Booth, Mark David Chapman…..Christine Blasey Ford?
Interesting note!
3 wave hold down, gnarly, bet that’s indelible in her hippocampus.
I’m here for the victim blaming, let it commence!
I choose to not voice an opinion on this one since I wasn’t there to witness or defend either side…
When I was in high school… give me a break. The lefties will use all unsavory tactics to cast doubt. Didn’t work again. Gotta have a smidgen of evidence to pull that shit off.
I believe Anita Hill.
800 rounds per second…
https://x.com/atwitty2/stat…
misinformed on her part to be certain, but as you undoubtedly know, it was the Trump administration that issued the bump stock ban
Trump’s directive for the ATF to regulate the use of bump stocks led to an overbroad definition of what is a machine gun. It was a knee jerk political reaction after the Vegas shooting. Fact is, the Supreme Court will likely find that the ATF lacks authority to issue such a regulatory rule change, and decide that that’s Congress’ job.
but, knee jerk or not, Trump issued this directive. We can agree on that, no?
Yes, we can agree on that.
I think Trump learned a lesson to not always follow the recommendations of supposed “experts”. A rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a machine gun.
The directors of some bureaucratic agencies seem not to possess basic knowledge about the very things they regulate.
Watch the below video showing the current ATF Director.
https://youtu.be/vsUMM0Da4U…
When discussing limiting sales to red flag individuals with Nancy Pelosi in front of cameras he said that they could take the guns and then do the due process of investigating whether or not they were fit to own firearms.
I’ve always been a little confused about why the second amendment doesn’t just protect single shot muskets, original intent being the theme and all.
If that was their intent, they would have specifically stated “single shot muskets”. But they didn’t. “Keep and bear arms” carried the force and effect of including even the most destructive weapon at the time, cannons. The drafters understood that with time came advancements. The right is absolute, and the 2nd Amendment is not about what citizens can do, but rather what the government cannot do.
But they did say you needed to be a part of a well regulated militia. Which most people aren’t in America.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Republicans like to do the gun control thing. It was a Republican governor who banned 50cal rifles in California.
#believeallsupremecourtjustices
Hard sell, I think.
to be fair, I actually have to side with Clarence uncle Thomas on the Anita Hill thing though. That guy is so self loathing and ashamed of his heritage that there’s no way he’d look twice at a woman who isn’t white
How has he been so self loathing and ashamed of his heritage?
you’ve read his opinions though, have you not?
yes. Care to provide a quote in one of opinions to support your assertion
Here we go…I’m getting some cashews
They’re so cute when they fight https://m.youtube.com/watch…
Sure. His entire concurring opinion in Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College.
I mean, he has a particular judicial philosophy, and it’s hard to say any of his opinions are surprising in light of that philosophy. Not a philosophy I would embrace, but it is what it is.
No where in J. Thomas’ well-reasoned concurring opinion is there any basis supporting your assertions. No self-loathing. No shame of his heritage. Affirmative Action was soft bigotry. How does low expectations serve equal protection under the laws. We’ve seen how destructive that can be. The Harvard President that resigned because low expectations allowed her plagiarism to serve as the vehicle by which she attained a leadership role shows what affirmative action can lead to. Utter incompetence at the highest levels of education.
Clarence Thomas, the best justice money can buy!
“Clarence uncle Thomas”?
fuck if that ain’t one the most racist comments I’ve ever heard.
The only thing lefties hate more than Christians is a black person they can’t control.
No, it’s because he accepts bribes from right-wing billionaires who buy supreme Court outcomes in favor of they businesses.
That’s just a ridiculous assertion.
Even Supreme Court Justices are allowed to have friends. Only one case came before the SC that involved Harlan Crow. The Court denied review and Crow had no controlling interest in one of the parties involved.
Contrast that with Justice Sotomayor and her millions received by her publisher Penguin Random House. Even Justice Breyer recused himself from those cases bc he had publishing deals with Penguin Random House. Sotomayor did not recuse herself.
https://www.dailywire.com/n…
Spewing again, Cum Torrent?
You know you like the 🔥 though
knew a state Supreme Court justice who liked to surf, would paddle out incognito at one of the more crowded spots on the east coast (usa), people dropping in on him, giving him the glare, no idea who he was. He was decent, in pretty good shape for an older guy (mid to late 50s), not much for turns but could set a line and cruise. Chatted him up a couple times, decent guy, although apparently did seem to consider himself a state level Scalia.