Mormon Women for Ethical Government

[Kenngo1969]

17 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Alan Dershowitz  "Michael Avenatti may now have an ethical oblication to withdraw Swetnick's affidavit, since she contradicted material portions of it in a tv interview. https://twitter.com/AlanDersh

And can a tenable argument be made that, in obtaining the affidavit from Ms. Swetnick, Mr. Avenatti suborned perjury?  Does Mr. Avenatti have an obligation to do what a reasonable lawyer would do in the same or similar circumstances to verify the factual basis of allegations contained in an affidavit such as Ms. Swetnick's?  I believe he does have an obligation to do so, and, while I am unsure if a failure to meet such an obligation constitutes suborning perjury, the prospect that it does constitute suborning perjury is not so ridiculous on its face that anyone bringing such a charge would be laughed out of court immediately.  If someone with sufficient knowledge of the situation were to report Mr. Avenatti's conduct to the Bar associations of jurisdictions where he is licensed, I believe that a reasonable attorney in Mr. Avenatti's position would have reason to worry.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Ideology colors everything. 

This is true. How do you fight it? I read a lot of left leaning articles. Even this doesn't help that much. Do you read National Review and the Daily Caller and Breitbart. I really try to at least be informed about different points of view and where they are coming from so I understand them. I had already read about all the claims in your post. There is a huge news divide in our country. I often search all the news sources and compare headlines. It is illuminating. 

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I'm a democrat on grounds they that show much more concern and care for the poor.

I think the Trump economy has shown the most care and concern for the poor by helping people find jobs and secure higher wages. I don't think the policies of Venezuela help the poor. There are always two sides of everything and we could argue this point forever. In my circle (bubble) most cannot imagine how anyone could ever, ever be a Democrat but I know in yours, Trump supporters seem sub-human. It's hard to bridge that divide right now and the Kavanaugh hearings have split this country even more. In your world, it is "mocking Ford" and in mine it is "defending Kavanaugh." 

I'm scared to share any opinions with my democrat friends because of the name calling and vitriol I see online. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by bsjkki

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

One thing that causes me some doubts is the sheer unreliability of eye-witness testimony.  There have been cases where a woman is convinced that someone was her rapist, and then DNA evidence proves that nope, it wasn't him.  Our brains are superstars at creating connections and memories that never actually existed in real life.  It's kind of scary how easily our memories are falsified by our brains.

The most famous case is well known.  Here are some excerpts-

"In 1984 I was a 22-year-old college student with a grade point average of 4.0, and I really wanted to do something with my life. One night someone broke into my apartment, put a knife to my throat and raped me.

During my ordeal, some of my determination took an urgent new direction. I studied every single detail on the rapist's face. I looked at his hairline; I looked for scars, for tattoos, for anything that would help me identify him. When and if I survived the attack, I was going to make sure that he was put in prison and he was going to rot.

When I went to the police department later that day, I worked on a composite sketch to the very best of my ability. I looked through hundreds of noses and eyes and eyebrows and hairlines and nostrils and lips. Several days later, looking at a series of police photos, I identified my attacker. I knew this was the man. I was completely confident. I was sure.

I picked the same man in a lineup. Again, I was sure. I knew it. I had picked the right guy, and he was going to go to jail. If there was the possibility of a death sentence, I wanted him to die. I wanted to flip the switch.

When the case went to trial in 1986, I stood up on the stand, put my hand on the Bible and swore to tell the truth. Based on my testimony, Ronald Junior Cotton was sentenced to prison for life. It was the happiest day of my life because I could begin to put it all behind me.

In 1987, the case was retried because an appellate court had overturned Ronald Cotton's conviction. During a pretrial hearing, I learned that another man had supposedly claimed to be my attacker and was bragging about it in the same prison wing where Ronald Cotton was being held. This man, Bobby Poole, was brought into court, and I was asked, ''Ms. Thompson, have you ever seen this man?''

I answered: ''I have never seen him in my life. I have no idea who he is.''

In 1995, 11 years after I had first identified Ronald Cotton, I was asked to provide a blood sample so that DNA tests could be run on evidence from the rape. I agreed because I knew that Ronald Cotton had raped me and DNA was only going to confirm that. The test would allow me to move on once and for all.

I will never forget the day I learned about the DNA results. I was standing in my kitchen when the detective and the district attorney visited. They were good and decent people who were trying to do their jobs -- as I had done mine, as anyone would try to do the right thing. They told me: ''Ronald Cotton didn't rape you. It was Bobby Poole.

The man I was so sure I had never seen in my life was the man who was inches from my throat, who raped me, who hurt me, who took my spirit away, who robbed me of my soul. And the man I had identified so emphatically on so many occasions was absolutely innocent."

Here's the entire article.

 

The one difference between this story and ford’s, is that the person was raped by a stranger. Ford's alleged attacker was an acquaintance as were the other people she named, which makes it less likely that she’d mistake the person as she’s not having to try and create a visual memory of the person’s look, just the nominal memory of someone she knew. Its the difference of asking who did you spen the most time talkig with at church and what was that person wearing. One is likely easier to recall than the latter.

 

with luv,

BD 

Edited October 3, 2018 by BlueDreams

[longview]

31 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

The one difference between this story and ford’s, is that the person was raped by a stranger. Ford was an acquaintance as were the other people she named, which makes it less likely that she’d mistake the person as she’s not having to try and create a visual memory of the person’s look, just the nominal memory of someone she knew. Its the difference of asking who did you spen the most time talkig with at church and what was that person wearing. One is likely easier to recall than the latter.

with luv,

BD

No.  Kavanaugh never knew Ford.  But Ford was already a vigorous opponent to both Trump and Kavanaugh.  She was photographed participating at the ****** Hat protest event in Washington D.C. recently.  Which makes her an extremist leftist idealogue willing to engage in the "Politics of Personal Destruction" against a VERY decent and faithful husband, father and big time contributor to the community and nation.

None of Ford's supposed witnesses were willing to back up her fake party account.  She is unwilling to document many important elements of her story such as how she got to the "house", where the "house" is/was, why did she need to go upstairs for the bathroom (wasn't there a bathroom on the main level?), how often did she go to parties during her high school days, was she in the habit of excessive drinking?, why did she leave the only other female at the house without telling her about the supposed "danger"?, how did she get home, why did she not share her story with her parents?, why not notify the local police?   So many questions that the hack senators are refusing the other side to raise to make it an open and honest inquiry.   The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

This is a VERY serious moral issue that the nation MUST come to grips with!

Edited October 3, 2018 by longview

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

The one difference between this story and ford’s, is that the person was raped by a stranger. Ford was an acquaintance as were the other people she named, which makes it less likely that she’d mistake the person as she’s not having to try and create a visual memory of the person’s look, just the nominal memory of someone she knew. Its the difference of asking who did you spen the most time talkig with at church and what was that person wearing. One is likely easier to recall than the latter.

 

with luv,

BD 

I could see that.  But when I take into consideration our brain's ability to rewrite memories, I still find it a concern.  It's very possible for our brains to rewrite someone into a memory who didn't participate, even if we knew that person beforehand.   That's especially true for traumatic events.

People’s memories for traumatic events are – like their memories for more mundane events – easily distorted. Importantly, memory distortion for traumatic events appears to follow a particular pattern: people tend to remember more trauma than they experienced, a phenomenon referred to as “memory amplification.” Unfortunately, memory amplification carries real consequences: the more amplification people demonstrate, the more likely they are to report the “re-experiencing” symptoms associated with PTSD, such as intrusive thoughts and images [e.g., (1, 2)]. Our research program focuses on the mechanism by which memory amplification occurs. Specifically, we suspect people confuse the information generated after a traumatic event – both intentionally, for example, via conversation with others, and unintentionally, for example, via intrusive imagery – with what really occurred during the event. Put another way, we suspect the mechanism underlying memory amplification is a failure in people’s source monitoring that ultimately results in memory distortion (3, 4). In this review, we provide an overview of the source monitoring framework [SMF; (3, 4)], the evidence for traumatic memory distortion, and the role that we propose source monitoring errors, particularly imagery-based errors, play in promoting traumatic memory distortion.

Even so called 'flash bulb memories' like the one you described about 9-11 can't be trusted.

Half a century of research on flashbulb memories shows us that they don’t remain consistent from one retelling to the next. Just like any other memory, these seemingly vivid recollections shift their shape over time. We forget or misremember details and incorporate information we've only learned afterward into our memory of the original event. All of this occurs despite the fact that our confidence in the accuracy of the memory remains high.

I'm not saying it's a given in this case, only that the possibility of it, and the lack of other evidence of the crime, is concerning to me.

Edited October 3, 2018 by bluebell

[Calm]

Quote

o for example, she may have gotten her fear of flying under control only to have it flare up or become unbearable as she was working to deal with reliving her trauma, death threats and home displacement, and having her story questioned again and again in public spaces.

I agree with this.  People making a huge thing of her being able to fly at times and not at others don't understand how severe anxieties can work, flare up or be controlled.

I am more concerned with the inconsistencies of more recent events (not saying they are lies, just that they don't provide a more solid ground to anchor the for me expected to be vague and inconsistent older memories); the ones from long ago are consistent imo with how memory works and leave me at possible, but not definite.

It would be helpful to have an analysis of everything Kavanaugh has said.  That yearbook comment....odd enough to be a red flag to me in terms of making me cautious about him.  At the very least, it shows a weird view of women/girls...that they would in general be happy to associated with a group of boys in a way that implies promiscuity.  At the worst, it is something very cruel.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Calm

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

This is true. How do you fight it? I read a lot of left leaning articles. Even this doesn't help that much. Do you read National Review and the Daily Caller and Breitbart. I really try to at least be informed about different points of view and where they are coming from so I understand them. I had already read about all the claims in your post. There is a huge news divide in our country. I often search all the news sources and compare headlines. It is illuminating.

You might find this website useful (if you don't know about it already): https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I'm scared to share any opinions with my democrat friends because of the name calling and vitriol I see online.

I quiet enjoyed and highly recommend this book: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

 

 

[Kevin Christensen]

32 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is true. How do you fight it? I read a lot of left leaning articles. Even this doesn't help that much. Do you read National Review and the Daily Caller and Breitbart. I really try to at least be informed about different points of view and where they are coming from so I understand them. I had already read about all the claims in your post. There is a huge news divide in our country. I often search all the news sources and compare headlines. It is illuminating. 

I think the Trump economy has shown the most care and concern for the poor by helping people find jobs and secure higher wages. I don't think the policies of Venezuela help the poor. There are always two sides of everything and we could argue this point forever. In my circle (bubble) most cannot imagine how anyone could ever, ever be a Democrat but I know in yours, Trump supporters seem sub-human. It's hard to bridge that divide right now and the Kavanaugh hearings have split this country even more. In your world, it is "mocking Ford" and in mine it is "defending Kavanaugh." 

I'm scared to share any opinions with my democrat friends because of the name calling and vitriol I see online. 

It's not just the sources we read, but the paradigms, the stories we select as exemplary (for instance, Paul Ryan's referring to "makers and takers" and drawing on Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, or Trump's famously launching his candidacy by claiming that immigrants were rapists and criminals being flushed out of jails by Mexico, or later coming from "s---hole countries") that provide the frameworks for how we subsequently order and interpret experience.  Are those ideologically framing metaphors and exemplary stories generally applicable?  Or are they drawn from exceptional events, distortions, prejudice, or in Ryan's case, Rand's ideological fiction?  It requires a close look at the beams in one's own eye first.  There is no escape from ideology, no objectively neutral approach, but self-awareness of one's tendencies and limits does make for a degree of humility and tolerance and openness to discussion and compromise.  An ideologue is one who claims that they live in a "No spin zone" and that ideology only happens to other people.  Joseph Campbell points out that the stories we choose to tell as paradigmatic support a particular social order.  "Fine people on both sides" and "s___hole countries" supports what social order exactly?

Regarding Trump and care and concern for the poor though.  The US economy was doing very well when he showed up, had been doing so for years, and that trend is continuing for now, despite him and his dubious "Trade wars are easy to win."  We were not comparable to Venezuala when he campaigned. So why bring them up?  No famine, or hyperinflation, or populations starving and leaving by the thousands.  He has removed the loan protections put in place in the aftermath of the 2008 crash, tried to kill health care with no alternative in place ("Who knew it could be so complicated?), pushed through a partisan tax cut (all Republican in a nation founded on "No taxation without representation") that primarily benefits the rich and increases the national deficit as part of a known long term strategy to force a financial crisis that will lubricate the dismantling of social security and medicare (to the detriment of who?), and has also dismantled cost effective environmental protections that benefited the poorest who had to work in the most unhealthy environments and jobs.   Reagan spoke of "trickle down" economics.   Well, that hasn't worked out, but it is popular with the Superpacs.

His tossing a few paper towels in Puerto Rico and his insulting the mayor of San Juan who we saw up to her waist in flood waters while personally trying to help the directly affected is one of my paradigmatic images.  The question is, should I hold those striking images (among all too many others) as paradigmatic for my ideology, or not?  Are they exceptional, or distortions, or lies, or are they general and typical and accurate and apt?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What's your real name (along with a few other IRL details I'm sure you won't mind providing)?  I'd like to go pawing through whatever record I can find about you, to determine how truthful you are.  (But don't worry, I don't have any kind of an agenda or an axe to grind.)  I know, I know, your immediate rejoinder will be, "But, Ken, I'm not being considered for a vacancy on the Supreme Court."  But it's amazing how willing some people are to subject others to standards they don't wish to have applied to themselves.  I think far too many people are far too willing to make Brett Kavanaugh an offender for a word (see Isaiah 29:21; see also Matthew 7:2-5).

I've never lied under oath. Have you? "Bart" Kavanaugh did it over and over and over again. He lied about specifically things that would tend to bolster Ford's testimony. He lied about his past ethical lapses in the legal profession. Not someone you'd want on the supreme court - or any court for that matter.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

This is true. How do you fight it? I read a lot of left leaning articles. Even this doesn't help that much. Do you read National Review and the Daily Caller and Breitbart. I really try to at least be informed about different points of view and where they are coming from so I understand them. I had already read about all the claims in your post. There is a huge news divide in our country. I often search all the news sources and compare headlines. It is illuminating. 

I don't have too much time to answer the other response right now. I have an emergency session I have to go to soon. But I wanted to answer this a little.

I personally go for substance and things that work to maintain less blatant bias....and if they do, that it's well researched out and places few qualifying adjectives to experiences. So I have read one or two things from the national review. But I prefer NPR, NYT's, WaPo, and similar news sources. The bulk of my daily news comes from the PBS news hours which purposely works to show several, well thought out and respectful positions in their pieces.

 

Quote

 

I think the Trump economy has shown the most care and concern for the poor by helping people find jobs and secure higher wages. I don't think the policies of Venezuela help the poor. There are always two sides of everything and we could argue this point forever. In my circle (bubble) most cannot imagine how anyone could ever, ever be a Democrat but I know in yours, Trump supporters seem sub-human. It's hard to bridge that divide right now and the Kavanaugh hearings have split this country even more. In your world, it is "mocking Ford" and in mine it is "defending Kavanaugh." 

I'm scared to share any opinions with my democrat friends because of the name calling and vitriol I see online. 

 

 I can't speak for Kevin on this, but this doesn't represent my circle entirely. My mom's side are all very very conservative (though most, from what I gather, didn't vote/happily vote for trump). My Mom and Step-dad both voted for trump. Trump supporters can't be sub-human, they're my family. But having close contact with them for years does make me aware of some of the major blindspots and biases that allow for Trump support to be maintained or bolstered. My mom's 

But I understand your hesitation to talk about it. The conversations have become hostile. To say I hate Trump is an understatement. A "trump economy" hasn't been worth the cost...even if I fully agreed with your assessment of it. As a minority woman I haven't felt more invisible or unsafe than I have with him in office. The divide was there before Trump, of course. But from what I've seen it's definitely been exacerbated with him and taken a more extreme bend. 

At the same time, your democrat friends may be the best place to start. Talking to people who already like and care about you and have a face is so much better and important. We're getting to a point that our circles are becoming echo chambers of our own thoughts. If that continues, we will never be able to get back to a better place.  

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited October 3, 2018 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

31 minutes ago, longview said:

No.  Kavanaugh never knew Ford. 

See my correction. You quoted me before I had a minute to correct my grammar. The rest of your post is a great exhibit of the problem when we fall into extreme partisan camps, IMHO. 

With luv, 

BD

 

[bsjkki]

 

10 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

But I prefer NPR, NYT's, WaPo, and similar news sources. The bulk of my daily news comes from the PBS news hours which purposely works to show two, well thought out and respectful positions in their pieces.

I would encourage you to branch out. 

[bsjkki]

22 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It's not just the sources we read, but the paradigms, the stories we select as exemplary (for instance, Paul Ryan's referring to "makers and takers" and drawing on Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, or Trump's famously launching his candidacy by claiming that immigrants were rapists and criminals being flushed out of jails by Mexico, or later coming from "s---hole countries") that provide the frameworks for how we subsequently order and interpret experience.  Are those ideologically framing metaphors and exemplary stories generally applicable?  Or are they drawn from exceptional events, distortions, prejudice, or in Ryan's case, Rand's ideological fiction?  It requires a close look at the beams in one's own eye first.  There is no escape from ideology, no objectively neutral approach, but self-awareness of one's tendencies and limits does make for a degree of humility and tolerance and openness to discussion and compromise.  An ideologue is one who claims that they live in a "No spin zone" and that ideology only happens to other people.  Joseph Campbell points out that the stories we choose to tell as paradigmatic support a particular social order.  "Fine people on both sides" and "s___hole countries" supports what social order exactly?

Regarding Trump and care and concern for the poor though.  The US economy was doing very well when he showed up, had been doing so for years, and that trend is continuing for now, despite him and his dubious "Trade wars are easy to win."  We were not comparable to Venezuala when he campaigned. So why bring them up?  No famine, or hyperinflation, or populations starving and leaving by the thousands.  He has removed the loan protections put in place in the aftermath of the 2008 crash, tried to kill health care with no alternative in place ("Who knew it could be so complicated?), pushed through a partisan tax cut (all Republican in a nation founded on "No taxation without representation") that primarily benefits the rich and increases the national deficit as part of a known long term strategy to force a financial crisis that will lubricate the dismantling of social security and medicare (to the detriment of who?), and has also dismantled cost effective environmental protections that benefited the poorest who had to work in the most unhealthy environments and jobs.   Reagan spoke of "trickle down" economics.   Well, that hasn't worked out, but it is popular with the Superpacs.

His tossing a few paper towels in Puerto Rico and his insulting the mayor of San Juan who we saw up to her waist in flood waters while personally trying to help the directly affected is one of my paradigmatic images.  The question is, should I hold those striking images (among all too many others) as paradigmatic for my ideology, or not?  Are they exceptional, or distortions, or lies, or are they general and typical and accurate and apt?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Yeah, this is why I stay silent and just vote.

[longview]

31 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

See my correction. You quoted me before I had a minute to correct my grammar. The rest of your post is a great exhibit of the problem when we fall into extreme partisan camps, IMHO. 

With luv, 

BD

 

I suppose you have NO problem with Feinstein sitting on the Ford letter for two months.  When demonizing K's stated positions did not do the trick, she leaked the letter at the eleventh hour.  Is this fair play?  There is nothing extreme about Kavanaugh or his defenders.  Your reliance on PBS is worrisome.

[Walden]

50 minutes ago, longview said:

I suppose you have NO problem with Feinstein sitting on the Ford letter for two months.  When demonizing K's stated positions did not do the trick, she leaked the letter at the eleventh hour.  Is this fair play?  There is nothing extreme about Kavanaugh or his defenders.  Your reliance on PBS is worrisome.

Extreme is likely a matter of perspective...the biggest concern regarding Kavenaugh is not so much the he said/she said back and forth between he and Kavenaugh, but more critically, his penchant for being less than truthful while under oath, which is not a matter of perspective, which has been proven and which I assume everyone would be concerned about with regard to a Supreme Court Justice

[longview]

You said:  "his penchant for being less than truthful while under oath". . .this is awfully self serving.  How about specific examples that are provable?  Leave out tea leaves decipherments of high school year books.

Burning question:  why did Ford talk in that phony squeaky little girls voice the whole time?  She is a professional psychologist for crying out loud!