Sunday, October 14, 2018

Do-Gooders Protect a Rapist

Of course, you are against gang rape. You believe that gang rapists should suffer the most extreme sanctions the law can provide. Apparently, citizens of Once-Great Britain have a different attitude. They did not know what they were doing, but they recently saved a convicted gang rapist from being deported.

Passengers on a jet bound for Turkey stood up and insisted that a Somali man be taken off the plane, and not be deported. Filled with righteous virtue they assumed that since the man was Somali he was the victim of British racism. The same attitude allowed the constabulary in Rotherham to turn a blind eye to Muslim grooming gangs, sex trafficking and gang rapes.

It turns out that the innocent Somali man was a convicted for participating in a gang rape. Good job, Brits.

The Daily Mail has the story:

A Somalian whose deportation from Britain was dramatically halted after airline passengers staged a mutiny demanding his release can be exposed today as a convicted gang rapist who was being kicked out of the country because of his sickening crime.

Officials escorting Yaqub Ahmed on a flight from Heathrow to Turkey were forced to abandon his deportation when around a dozen holidaymakers who felt sorry for him angrily intervened shortly before take-off.

At one stage during the astonishing episode, filmed on mobile phones, one traveller complained: ‘They’re separating him from his family’, while others chanted ‘take him off the plane’.

Of no, they were separating him from his family. Doesn’t that sound familiar? How many Americans have fallen for the same ruse? How many sanctuary cities are protecting criminals in order to feel virtuous? And, how many girls will be sacrificed for political correctness?

Idiots all, one must say:

When harassed security guards caved in and walked 29-year-old Ahmed off the Turkish Airlines flight, he was seen thanking those on board for their support as they cheered and applauded.

One person was heard declaring: ‘You’re free, man!’

But the passengers who thought they were doing a good deed were unaware that the man they were defending had been sentenced to nine years in jail for his part in a vicious gang rape of a teenage girl – and that another member of his gang later fought for Islamic State in Syria.

Today The Mail on Sunday can reveal how Ahmed and three other youths preyed on a 16-year-old stranger after she became separated from her friends during a night out in London’s Leicester Square, in August 2007.

He raped a sixteen year old girl. How do these virtue mongers feel now.? I imagine that they still feel that they did the right thing.

Some British citizens thought otherwise:

But when video of the protest was published by MailOnline, hundreds of readers expressed their outrage.

One wrote: ‘The police should have been called and all the passengers who were interfering should have been arrested and removed from the plane.’

Another user said: ‘Looked like a plane full of snowflakes.’ And a third pointed out: ‘Now it will cost a lot more to fly the man back on a private charter! Well done silly interfering, self-seeking, do-gooding idiots!’

Ahmed is now believed to be in an immigration detention centre while officials try to place him on another flight out of the UK, but this process could take months particularly if his lawyers use his temporary reprieve as an opportunity to appeal against his deportation.

Now, the British government must provide this rapist all of his rights. This will delay his deportation.

The #MeToo War on Men

Strangely enough, the #MeToo movement began as an attack on men in the media and entertainment industry. Movement leaders pronounced themselves to be outraged over the sexual predations of Donald Trump, but, in truth, those facts, such as they were, were cancelled out by the fact that his opponent on the presidential ballot was the nation’s leading enabler of sexual harassment. Hillary Clinton's presence immunized Trump from attack.

In Hillary’s name, in a grand historical irony, women have taken out after men who are progressives and even leftists. Among the more flagrant attacks on men was what was called the Shitty Media Men list, in which men in the media were anonymously accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Some of the charges seemed to be manifestly true. Some were disputed by those named. Now, however, one man, Stephen Elliott is attacking Moira Donegan and the other unnamed contributors to the list. Having been accused of rape, Elliott is suing Donegan et al. for defamation.

Bari Weiss reports on the case for the New York Times. She opens with an interesting question.

What do you do if you are accused of sexual misconduct and believe yourself to be innocent?

But if you’re a progressive man who sees himself as a feminist ally, the politically acceptable strategy is to keep quiet and lay low. If you do anything at all, put out a statement saying you support the #MeToo movement, that it’s an overdue and necessary corrective, and that you are taking some time for self-reflection.

How about, what if you are innocent? Doesn't that happen? Or else, what if you behaved boorishly toward women but never raped one? Amazingly, some of the men who were accused of crimes but thought they were innocent, chose not to dispute the charges. They believe in the #MeToo movement and are willing to accept infamy to advance their cause. They call it taking one for the team, but really they are martyring themselves for a cause. Which is not the same thing.

Five of the men on the Media Men list on Thursday spoke to The Cut on the condition of anonymity to condemn Mr. Elliott’s lawsuit. What’s fascinating is that even as they expressed anger toward Mr. Elliott, most insisted that they, too, are not guilty of what they are accused of. But the collective sense is that Mr. Elliott should do what they’re doing: “taking one for the team,” as one of them put it.

A year ago, that’s where Mr. Elliott was. “Multiple people asked me at first if I was O.K. just taking a bullet for the movement,” he told me. “Because of their politics and, frankly, because of mine.”

Until recently, Elliott had accepted martyrdom to advance the feminist cause.

Stephen Elliott, the founder of the left-wing website The Rumpus, followed that script. A year ago this month, his name appeared along with some 70 others on an anonymously sourced Google spreadsheet. It was called the Shitty Media Men list and the accusations ranged in severity from “weird lunch dates” to “rape.”

Rape is what Stephen Elliott was accused of. His entry, along with more than a dozen others on the list, was highlighted in red to denote physical violence. It read: “Rape accusations, sexual harassment, coercion, unsolicited invitations to his apartment, a dude who snuck into Binders” (a women-only Facebook group).

Note the range of crimes, from “weird lunch dates” to “rape.” Why are these all being conflated under the category of sex crimes. Does it diminish the horror of rape to have it included on a list that calls men out for weird lunch dates?

In the past Elliott has been accused of bad behavior:

And the Shitty Media Men list was not the first time Mr. Elliott was publicly accused of bad behavior. In a 2015 essay in Tin House, the novelist Claire Vaye Watkins portrayed Mr. Elliott as a tone-deaf misogynist — and made the case that his “professional sexism” exists on a continuum with sexual violence.

In the wake of his Quillette essay, two more women came forward with complaints.

Lyz Lenz, who is now the managing editor of The Rumpus, tweeted about an instance where Mr. Elliott “invited me up to your room to watch a movie” and didn’t “take no for an answer.” Ms. Lenz says that he “hounded” her and she “hid under a table.” And Marisa Siegel, who is now the editor of The Rumpus, wrote in an essay about how she was “shaken” after Mr. Elliott “barged” into her hotel room during a conference and stayed for at least 30 minutes.

The problem is the continuum… What these women consider sexist behaviors, which can run the gamut from an inappropriate look or remark to a rape, have now become all of a piece.

Thus, a man who has cast an inappropriate look at a woman or who spoke to her in terms that are considered sexist has now committed a felony. And thus, is deserving of the most harsh punishment. Even if he didn't do it, he's a man, suffused with toxic masculinity, so he is guilty until proved innocent.

Of course, the continuum concept would be laughed out of court, but among feminists, male and female, it is enough to destroy a man’s career, his life, his reputation and his family.

Given that this has now become a war, the notion that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime has disappeared from radical feminist discourse. As has the notion the the accused should be allowed due process of law.

Since two women complaining about Elliott have now taken over his job, one might imagine that they were self-interested. And that they were affecting a palace coup.

A court will apparently decide whether Donegan had a malicious intent in creating the list, whether she wanted it to go public. One might say that if she imagined, after passing it around to her closest friends, that it would not go public, she was hopelessly naive. Besides, what purpose would it have served if it had remained private.

This account of maliciousness does not at all square with how Ms. Donegan has described her aim in creating the list.

She wrote in New York Magazine that the list was “meant to be private” — a written version of a whisper network — and that, unlike an HR department or the police, “the value of the spreadsheet was that it had no enforcement mechanisms: Without legal authority or professional power, it offered an impartial, rather than adversarial, tool to those who used it. It was intended specifically not to inflict consequences, not to be a weapon — and yet, once it became public, many people immediately saw it as exactly that.”

As for Donegan’s intention, she clearly was trying to destroy men. Her tweets tell the story:

He [Elliott] is planning to provide documents to the court that he thinks prove Ms. Donegan’s intent was malicious. Chief among them are since-deleted tweets, like:

On Oct. 26, 2017, she tweeted: “I like the witch hunt but I love that it happened in October.” The next day she wrote: “Small, practical step to limit sex harassment: Don’t employ any men.”

On Nov. 15, she wrote about the Paris Review Editor whose name was on the list: “As if both of those things weren’t obvious already, I’m interested in Lorin Stein and my DMs are open.” Then, when The New York Times published an article about the resignation of Mr. Stein, who apologized for inappropriate behavior, she tweeted the article with an invitation: “champagne anyone.”

Whatever noble intentions it had at first, #MeToo seems to have become a way to destroy men, to remove them from positions of authority and to replace them with women:

Over the past year, as #MeToo has morphed into a verb, I’ve been involved in heated discussions about any number of men who have been MeTooed. About Al Franken. About Leon Wieseltier. About Louis C.K. About Brett Kavanaugh.

In all of those cases, it is possible to ask: What is the appropriate punishment for behavior that is wrong but perhaps wouldn’t stand up as a crime in a court of law?

It's a bad idea to declare war when you are... outmanned. Rest assured, this is not going to end well. Especially for women.

Saturday, October 13, 2018

Liberals and Leftists Supporting Trump

Fortunately for him, President Donald Trump has attracted the support of many liberals, progressives and radical leftists. No, they are not out marching for Trump. They are displaying a level of unadulterated madness that has caused many Americans to decide that perhaps it’s not such a good idea to give them political power. Consumed by a rage to destroy, America’s increasingly radicalized left  has shown itself to be inept, incompetent and completely out of its mind.

Deranged is not strong enough to describe what is happening. Gerard Baker opens his Times of London column with a famous adage: whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. No one seems to agree about who said it first, but clearly our purveyors of multicultural pagan idolatry are reaping what they sowed. They have allowed Donald Trump to make them into raving maniacs.

Where are Enlightenment cults to Reason when we need them?

Republican poll numbers are rising and Democratic wrath has seemingly served precisely the purpose it was not intended to serve. It’s what happens when you take leave of even the pretense of being rational and allow your emotions to take over. For your edification, I would note that it’s what the therapy culture prescribes.

Baker lists some of the more egregious public statements made by non-politicians.

First we have a Google executive, a man who seems to be as articulate and well-informed as the average high school dropout, that is... Hollywood celebrity:

A very senior but hitherto invisible executive at Google, Dave Hogue, tweeted: “You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. F***. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL.” He followed that with: “I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames.” I should remind you that Google’s founding motto, the leitmotif of the internet giant’s very existence, is: “Don’t be evil.”

We are happy to point out that Google executives are now living in the world of Biblical prophecy. So much for facts and reality.

What does it tell us about Google? Baker continues:

Some sceptics have sneered at what they see as the hypocritical moralising of a company that, among other things, avoids paying taxes in jurisdictions where it makes profits, imposes illegal restrictions on mobile phone makers to cement the dominance of its own operating software and connived with the authorities in China to produce a censored search engine that would block phrases like “human rights”. But I think that’s unfair. Thanks to Mr Hogue’s animadversions on an entire political party, we now have a much more clearly defined sense of what passes for evil in Google’s moral universe. Don’t be evil = don’t be a Republican.

I trust you also noted the profound remarks offered by one Christine Fair, a professor of diplomacy. She must have read some Shakespeare because, upon reading her remarks one is reminded of the bard, who has the witches in Macbeth intone: Fair is foul and foul is fair.

Not to be unfair, Baker quotes Fair’s barely articulate expression of full-throated outrage:

Then there was Christine Fair, an associate professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, widely considered the nation’s top institution for the study of diplomacy — yes diplomacy — who delivered her own verdict on the Kavanaugh decision: “All of them (white, male Republicans) deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and donate them to swine? Yes.”

When called out for her madness, Fair responded that she was just repeating what others have been writing on her blog. Huh. Were they really writing that they wanted to castrate her corpse? Huh. You see what happens when a noted empathy monger believes that you will not be healed until you feel her pain... or until you get a full measure of her stupidity.

And then there is the highly moral and sensitive Ariel Dumas, who writes for Stephen Colbert. One hopes that she is not a descendant of noted French author, Alexandre Dumas. What did Dumas say?

And here comes Ariel Dumas, a “writer” on the Stephen Colbert comedy show on CBS. “Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life”, she tweeted. Mr Colbert has neither pledged to avoid evil, nor does he rank in anyone’s lists of institutions of learning. But he has often claimed a strong moral purpose to his work so we must assume it’s this that is animating his staff.

Baker explains the significance of his selection:

But what’s significant about these deranged howls is where they come from: influential voices from the tech sector that controls so much of our online activity; from an educational establishment that decides so much of what our children learn; and from the media sector that determines the bulk of the entertainment and information we consume. A kind of Devil’s triangle, if you will, that encloses the tight hold that the left has over so much of cultural and commercial lives.

They do not come from internet trolls. They come from America’s leading high tech firm, from one of its greatest educational establishments and from the world of CBS entertainment… formerly headed by the saintly Les Moonves.

With enemies like these, Donald Trump must be saying, you don’t need friends.

For the first time since he swaggered onto the political stage and crashed the Republican Party, he has succeeded in uniting it behind him. The lingering doubts among Republicans about his probity, competence, conservative credentials and the risks he poses to the norms of liberal democracy and public discourse have been eclipsed by what they see as the exigencies of the fight against an opponent whose anger and loathing rises by the day.

Happily enough, Bret Stephens presents the same argument in his New York Times column today. He hones in on the outrageous ,ignorant and divisive statements made by politicians, of all people. Many are familiar, but...

His theme is tongue-piercing, by which he means making oneself marginal and unattractive. Stephens says that liberals have pierced their tongues, but, again, I do not think that they are really liberals. They have gone over to the dark side and have become radicalized. We will not opine further on the matter of tongue piercing.

Speaking of “liberals” Stephens writes:

It pierced its tongue on CNN this week, when Hillary Clinton told Christiane Amanpour that “you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.” And when former Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday, “When they go low, we kick ’em.”

It pierced its tongue last week when New York’s Representative Jerrold Nadler pledged to use a Democratic House majority to open an investigation into Kavanaugh’s alleged perjury and the “whitewash” investigation by the F.B.I. A party that can’t change its mind and won’t change the subject meets the classic definition of a fanatic.

A political party become home for fanatics. Sounds about right to me. Stephens continues:

It pierced its tongue last month when Cory Booker and Kamala Harris turned Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing into audition tapes for their presidential bids, complete with “I am Spartacus” histrionics and bald misrepresentations about Kavanaugh’s views on racial profiling and contraception.

It pierced its tongue when Minority Leader Chuck Schumer chose to make Kavanaugh’s confirmation the year’s decisive political test, rather than run a broad referendum on Trump’s inglorious tenure.

You know it well, but when politicians tell their supporters to harass their political opponents, something has clearly gone off the rails.

Maxine Waters urging protesters to hound Republicans out of restaurants and pursue them at department stores and gas stations. A #MeToo movement that moved all-too swiftly from righteous indignation against undoubted predators like Harvey Weinstein to a vendetta culture based on rumors and whisper networks based on self-censorship. Twitter mobs getting people fired and speakers canceled.

And then there is the media, having long since abandoned its charge to maintain a strict division between news and commentary. Today’s American media has become propaganda wing of the Resistance:

It pierced its tongue when The New Yorker violated normal journalistic standards by reporting Deborah Ramirez’s uncorroborated allegation against Kavanaugh, and much of the rest of the media gave credence Julie Swetnick’s lurid one. The pile-on wound up doing more to stiffen Republican spines against an apparent witch hunt than it did to weaken their resolve in the face of Blasey’s powerful accusation.

Naturally, the radical left keeps claiming that Trump brought incivility to American politics. After all, Barack Obama told his followers to get in the face of Republicans. And he told them to punish their Republican enemies. And he told them to bring a gun to a knife fight. Put it all together, and Trump becomes the problem. Right?

Stephens concludes:

Much of this also merely echoes the uncivil politics that have been practiced by Trump and his followers from the moment he started campaigning for the presidency. But if the most liberals can say for their political tactics is that they aren’t as bad as Trump’s, they are indicting themselves twice — for imitating the wrong model, and for doing it worse.

Friday, October 12, 2018

Did Christine Blasey Ford Prevaricate?

No one really questioned whether Christine Blasey Ford was telling the truth about what she said happened on that day thirty-six years. I have said that I and many others found her testimony credible. Thus, that she was suffering from false memory and had mistaken the identity of her rapist. It was far easier to grant her some credence, as a rhetorical strategy, than to accuse her of lying. If anyone had brought forth such accusations, the hue and cry would have drowned out all rational deliberation. Women around the nation would have risen up to claim that they were being accused of lying about their own assaults.

So far, so good.

Now, Dawn Perlmutter argues in Front Page magazine, that Ford was an hysteric and a liar. My research tells me that Perlmutter is not a mental health professional, and, for my part I find her diagnosis of hysteria to be off the mark. After all, the illness, such as it was, seems to have been a psychological contagion during the Victorian era. By all accounts it disappeared, even from France, in the 1920s. American psychiatrists discarded it in the 1950s… and more recently replaced it with histrionic disorders.

As it happened, Ford might have been lying. She was not acting like a classical hysteric. The first is far more consequential than the last. Hysterics are histrionic, but they are not liars. And they are not acting.

Nevertheless, Perlmutter raises an important point, briefly alluded to on this blog: Ford did not recount her experience as something she had lived, but as a physician observing from the outside… which is not the same thing:

During her testimony, Ford frequently responded not as a victim but as a physician. When asked by Senator Feinstein about the impact the events had on her, Ford responded:

Well, I think that the sequelae of sexual assault varies by person, so for me personally, anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms are the types of things that I’ve been coping with. So, more specifically, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing.
We recall, again, that Ford is not a licensed psychologist. Her doctoral degree is in Educational Psychology. It was granted by a School of Education, not by a Psychology program.
Perlmutter continues:
When Senator Feinstein asked her how she was sure it was Judge Kavanaugh that assaulted her, Ford responded:

It’s — just basic memory functions. And also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that, sort of, as you know, encodes — that neurotransmitter encodes memories into the hippocampus. And so, the trauma-related experience, then, is kind of locked there, whereas other details kind of drift.

The press praised her unusual responses by characterizing her as a research psychologist who appeared as her own expert witness. The reason expert witnesses do not testify on their own behalf is that a court and jury rely on expert witnesses to be disinterested parties, who are not biased and have no motive to fabricate an issue. It never occurred to the media to question Ford's self-diagnosis as the result of a trained political operative or the manifestation of a mental disorder. In fact, people who suffer from factitious disorders often research and study symptoms and diseases, so they can better fake them. Ford has made a career out of studying mental illness, writing prolifically about the long-term impacts of trauma, including trauma related to sexual abuse. She would know exactly how to lie about the symptoms and trauma associated with sexual assault.

What if Ford had been coached on how to present her testimony? She would, by virtue of her professional experience, to know how to lie about sexual assault and its symptoms. For the record, nothing about such a performance suggests hysteria.

Perlmutter suggests:

There is a significant difference between studying trauma and authentically experiencing it. The genuineness of Christine Ford’s choice of language, affectation and disclosures were questionable. Throughout her entire testimony there was no other person, event, detail, or evidence that corroborated her testimony. Her demeanor and body language appeared rehearsed and coached. The most obvious pretense was her speech pattern. During most of her testimony she used a deliberate and calculated childish voice to project vulnerability and helplessness. When responding to specific questions about her trauma, she spoke in the third person in the guise of an esteemed physician. Survivors of sexual assault do not describe their trauma in the third person nor do they have to read from a written script to remember the details.

Notably, Ford was not speaking as someone who had undergone a trauma. She was speaking as a clinician reporting on someone else’s case. I am not going to suggests that survivors “never” speak of their trauma in the third person, but Perlmutter’s argument is persuasive. It is worth noting because no one else had the temerity to do so.

The University of Michigan Stands Against Bigotry

It doesn’t happen very often, so it needs to be noted when it does. The University of Michigan administration has stood up to the faculty bullies who refused to write letters of recommendations for students who wanted to spend time abroad in… Israel.

The two teachers proclaimed themselves to be proponents of the BDS movement, an anti-Israeli movement that has found many followers in the academic world. Some of the imbeciles who are currently teaching in major universities are happy to get in touch with their inner anti-Semitism.

The University of Michigan this week promised “serious consequences” for instructors whose “personal views” cause them to withhold letters of recommendation, responding to mounting concern that protest against the Israeli state is harming students on the Ann Arbor, Mich., campus.

The announcement follows two separate cases this fall in which a professor and a teaching assistant reneged on their commitments to provide references for undergraduates after learning that the students were applying to study abroad in Israel. The actions have turned the university into a site of contest over the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, known as BDS.

“Withholding letters of recommendation based on personal views does not meet our university’s expectations for supporting the academic aspirations of our students,” Michigan’s president, Mark S. Schlissel, and the provost, Martin A. Philbert, wrote in a letter to the university community, published online Tuesday. “Conduct that violates this expectation and harms students will not be tolerated and will be addressed with serious consequences. Such actions interfere with our students’ opportunities, violate their academic freedom and betray our university’s educational mission.”

One is frankly shocked to see an American university stand up to professorial bullies. Examine the penalty visited on John Cheney-Lippold, the first teacher who tried punish a student for wanting to study in Israel:

But an Oct. 3 letter obtained by the Michigan Daily spells out punitive measures directed against the professor, John Cheney-Lippold, who last month agreed to support a student’s application for a study-abroad program — until he learned that she was headed to Tel Aviv University.

A dean for Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts told Cheney-Lippold, an associate professor of internet and cultural studies, that he would not qualify for a salary increase for the 2018-’19 academic year, according to the campus newspaper, and that his eligibility for sabbatical leave would be frozen for two years. Further conduct of this nature, the dean wrote, would be subject to additional discipline, “up to and including initiation of dismissal proceedings.”

“Faculty are not required to write letters for every student who requests them, and have discretion to decline for legitimate reasons such a lack of time, information about the student, and academic assessment,” the dean, Elizabeth Cole, wrote. That discretion, though, “does not extend to withholding a letter because of your personal views regarding the student’s place of study,” she added, “and then using the student’s request as a political platform to gain an audience for your own opinions, both in the media and in the classroom.”

We do not yet know what consequences a teaching assistant, Lucy Peterson, will suffer for refusing to write a recommendation for a student who wanted to study in Israel.

But, it’s good to see academic administrators standing up to the pervasive anti-Semitic bigotry that runs wild on their campuses.

Peggy Noonan on the Kavanaugh Confirmation

And now, for your delectation, a few words from Peggy Noonan… on the Kavanaugh confirmation process. Assuming that you want to call it a process: it was more like political histrionics.

First, on the question of senatorial decorum:

The Senate showed a decline in public standards of decorum. A significant number of senators no longer even pretend to have class or imitate fairness. The screaming from the first seconds of the first hearings, the coordinated interruptions, the insistent rudeness and accusatory tones—none of it looked like the workings of the ordered democracy that has been the envy of the world.

I know, many have called out the clownish Democratic senators. But, once more will not hurt.

Also, Noonan raises the important point… often made on this blog and elsewhere… that a woman redeemed the situation. Sen. Susan Collins exercised her rational faculties and shed some light into the darkness of unreason and irrational rants:

It was a woman who redeemed the situation, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. In her remarks announcing her vote, she showed a wholly unusual respect for the American people, and for the Senate itself, by actually explaining her thinking. Under intense pressure, her remarks were not about her emotions. She weighed the evidence, in contrast, say, to Sen. Cory Booker, who attempted to derail the hearings from the start and along the way compared himself to Spartacus. Though Spartacus was a hero, not a malignant buffoon….

Ms. Collins said she has been “alarmed and disturbed” by those who suggest that unless Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination was rejected, the Senate would somehow be condoning sexual assault: “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

The atmosphere surrounding the nomination has been “politically charged” and reached “fever pitch” even before the Ford and other charges. It has been challenging to separate fact from fiction. But a decision must be made. Judge Kavanaugh’s record has been called one of “an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father.” Her hope is he “will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored.”

Well said, by Collins and Noonan.