THE GUARDIANS FILE: No fish today!

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2018

We're watching the hearings instead:
Was Christine Blasey Ford a credible witness? If so, does that mean that her account is accurate?

We're inclined to think her account is accurate. Does that mean her account is true?

Today only, we're assessing these age-old questions, as considered on cable TV. For that reason, we'll have no fish today. Our reports from the guardians file will resume tomorrow.

75 comments:

  1. In what universe does "accurate" not mean "true"? Synonyms for accurate in my dictionary are: true, unerring, correct.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truth can be inaccurate. What is true today, might not be true tomorrow. It was demonstrably true at one time to claim man couldn't fly but it was indeed, in the final analysis, an inaccurate statement.

      Delete
    2. You and Bob enjoy your word games, 'K?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Memories are fungible. Seems - maybe - Bob had it backwards. Her statements were true, but were they accurate?

      Leroy

      Delete
    5. Men still cannot fly. It is the planes that fly and people hitch a ride in them, just as they hitch a ride on the surface of our planet as it flies through space.

      I take it Somerby is arguing in favor of an FBI investigation, if he is truly concerned about accuracy and truth?

      Delete
    6. No one would say something like: "I want accurate information about what happened. Oh, and it needs to be true as well as accurate." Everyone would look at you as if you were an idiot. I have no idea what Somerby is implying, about the fungibility of memories or anything else. He said nothing like that. But no one would say "well, her testimony was accurate, but untrue." For legal purposes, testimony is either true or untrue. If someone's memory is faulty, no one would say, well that person's testimony was "accurate." If the memory was faulty, then the testimony was untrue, not factual, not accurate, etc.

      Delete
    7. It's not word games, it's just part of life.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Accuracy_and_precision.svg

      The most true thing one can say about this situation is we will never know the truth of what happened. That's for sure. You know the truth of what happened between those two?

      Delete
    8. Right. We'll never know. No need to do an investigation...we'll never know. If there's no physical evidence or videotape, no one should report an assault. It just can't be determined. Checkmate, victims. Free pass, offenders.

      Delete
    9. @8:57 your Wikipedia page has to do with the accuracy of scientific measurements and the precision of instruments. Has nothing to do with the notion of an "accurate" testimony. In other words, your link is irrelevant.

      Delete
    10. We will never know the truth about this one.

      Delete
    11. You may be right, BB. Especially when no effort is made to get at the truth.

      Delete
    12. Precision is how close the measured values are to each other). That is. to say the accuracy of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of aquantity to its actual true value.

      Delete
    13. @9:42
      Accuracy in scientific measurement is how close you get to the true value. The accuracy of a measurement is determined by the precision of the measuring device. A measurement that is 100% accurate is the true value. And none of this has to do with courtroom or senate testimony.

      Delete
    14. What kind of investigation - and what are the efforts made of which you speak? The FBI investigations don't issue declarations of truth either - as you know.

      I don't understand. Do you think someone is going to arrive on scene and start handing down truths from the mountaintop? Life is a bitch. You don't get to know the truth about most everything. What would you like to see happen?

      Delete
    15. 9:54 PM of course it does. Don't be daft. Something can be 80 percent accurate and still be accurate and yet not be true. Isn't is it obvious? Do you feel there is no difference between truth and accuracy as the similarly daft original commenter?

      Delete
    16. I just got a brainwave. How about we...not investigate! Then we're sure to never go beyond "he said/she said." No reason to, oh I don't know, talk to other people who may have witnessed something, because that might shed some light...we wouldn't want that, would we? The FBI issues findings of investigations, some can be declared true, some false, some indeterminate. Why do the Republicans oppose this? What are they afraid of? After all, the chance exists that they could find Dr Ford not credible, or a liar, and yet she has called for an investigation. That's all anyone is asking for...at least try to see if some truth can be uncovered. But even that seems to rankle the GOP.

      Delete
    17. 9:45 has completely missed the point of Somerby's distinction.

      Delete
    18. 9:59 has completely missed the point of Somerby's distinction.

      Delete
    19. What was the point of his distinction?

      Delete
    20. @10:39
      Hint: It wasn't about science. Or measuring equipment. There's no degree of accuracy involved in saying: "I was assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh." That is either true or false. It is either accurate or not. It can't be accurate but untrue.

      By process of elimination, perhaps you can puzzle out what BS is trying to say.

      Delete
    21. What was the point of his distinction though? What is he trying to say?

      Delete
    22. @11:32

      Can't help you if you're just too dense to figure it out. Sometimes, ya gotta think for yourself. Can't rely on others to do yer thinkin' fer ye.

      Delete
    23. 11:09

      It occurred to me that Bob was saying the the "story" might be accurate - how can it not be - but that the story itself may not be true. I'm such a dullard that it took me two readings to figure this out. There's nothing wrong with that question.

      That being said, only a true investigation might provide accuracy re the story, but perhaps not even then.

      Leroy

      Delete
  2. Oh dear. Who cares what 40 y.o. narrative lives in this zombie-womban's mind (what's left of it)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently a lot of people, many of them women. Unfortunately for the GOP.

      Delete
    2. In your handler's dream, dembot.

      Delete
    3. How about the senate actually do an investigation to, you know, seek the truth. If her allegation is true, it is unconscionable to simply sweep it aside.

      By the way, what is a handler? You certainly seem to be familiar with the term.

      Delete
    4. Why, since it's you and your ilk who are 'deeply concerned', why don't you investigate? Hire private investigators and 'seek the truth'.

      Delete
    5. A last reply to you: the investigation/investigators need to be agreed upon by both sides, in the senate, to ensure the conclusion is non-partisan. It is in everyone's interest to do this. Even an idiot understands that.

      Delete
    6. Replying to your last reply: as the first comment you're replying to states: who cares what 40 y.o. narrative lives in this zombie-womban's mind (what's left of it)?

      And since you appear to be one of the few who do care - why don't you investigate and 'seek the truth', to your fullest satisfaction? Enjoy.

      Delete
    7. Mao -- I don't know if Ford's accusations are valid or not. My wife and I do know Helena Kraemer, a co-author of Ford, who vouches for her. Kraemer is a top-notch statistician. Her endorsement tells me that Ford is an impressive academic.

      Delete
    8. I'd imagine 'statistician' denotes a profession, rather than academic field.

      In any case, high professional achievements are often indicative of psychological problems, including sometimes severe mental fuckups. Nothing remarkable here.

      Most likely the zombie-womban is totally convinced that she's saving the world. Sad.

      Delete
    9. ...consider the obvious paranoid symptomatology as well... anticipation of martyrdom...

      All that.

      Delete
    10. Mao -- Statistics is indeed an academic field. Kraemer is an eminent Professor of Statistics. Where in the world did you get the idea that "In any case, high professional achievements are often indicative of psychological problems, including sometimes severe mental fuckups." Do you have a cite for this bizarre idea?

      IMHO failure is more often indicative of psychological achievements than is great success.

      Delete
    11. It's just my own observation. In science: Godel, Turing, hell - Newton even. Plenty of examples.

      Delete
    12. Mao, Senator Kennedy, apparently not a dembot zombie, got right to the heart of it - he asked the SCOTUS hopeful if he 'believed in God.' Kavanaugh unhesitatingly averred he did, and at Kennedy's request, looked him the eye and swore to God that he was totally innocent. What further proof could there be?

      Delete
    13. If you watch more carefully, you'll notice he didn't actually swear to God and wasn't asked to. It was fake.

      Delete
    14. Republicans are despicable = Accurate and true.

      Delete
    15. Lindsey Graham is moonlighting as Mao.

      Delete
    16. "Mao, Senator Kennedy, apparently not a dembot zombie, got right to the heart of it - he asked the SCOTUS hopeful if he 'believed in God.'"

      Get your terminology straight, dear. You're a dembot. Senator - any senator - is a slimy politician. It's not complicated.

      Delete
    17. "Dembot." Zombie-womban." The patronizing bullshit artist with the too-cute-for-words assumed name mistakes the making of bad sloganeering for actual cleverness.

      Delete
    18. Why, thanks for reading and for taking time to reply, dear dembot.

      Delete
  3. Somerby hints that he wants to believe both testifiers -- one is accurate, the other is true. He has it wrong. Ford is the victim and Kavanaugh is whining because his account has finally come due.

    Somerby consistently defends men who have abused women. Now he is repeating the Republican line -- Ford is confused.

    Somerby is no liberal. He identifies with these wrongdoers and uses "philosophy" to justify his defense of the indefensible.

    Why does Kavanaugh tear up when he mentions his 10 year old daughter? Oddness.

    Kavanaugh piles on so many irrelevant details, it seems he wants to confuse with too many facts, hoping the truth will be obscured. Not plausible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ford was extremely credible.

    Kavanaugh's meltdown is just bizarre. His defense against the allegations is not credible.

    Kavanaugh does not come close to possessing a hint of the decorum of a Supreme Court Justice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How dare he get angry about having his reputation trashed?

      Delete
    2. Or he got angry because the truth got out. Eh?

      Delete
    3. The anger was fake but the tears were real. He feels very sorry for his entitled self.

      Delete
    4. Being slandered is a big deal. Read "The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum or: How violence develops and where it can lead" by Nobel Prize winner Heinrich Boll. In that book the slandered woman commits murder.

      Delete
    5. It's the "angry white man" thing. Be thankful Kavanaugh hasn't shot anyone (yet).

      Delete
  5. Did Somerby contemplate the attempts by the Republicans to try to stage a kangaroo court, in which no additional witnesses were called, and no investigation was done, an investigation by means of which we might have gotten closer to the truth? Assuming truth was ever the result desired by the GOP.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cornyn just said lying to the committee is a crime. Kavanaugh said he had shown his opening statement to only one person. Yet, Mitchell spent time on a map showing where Ford lived which was subsequently mentioned by Kavanaugh to impeach Ford When he asked how she got to the party. That is clear coordination. So Kavanaugh lied. That lie is provable. What other lies is he telling that an investigation would reveal?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kavanaugh's attempted bullying of Amy Klobuchar reveals his true attitude and behavior toward women. Similarly, when prosecutor Mitchell started to explain the questioning process to him and he paid her no attention whatsoever, so she stopped talking, then he pulled out a handkerchief and blew his nose while she waited, then she continued. No respect there at all. He dislikes women and it is obvious. He thinks he can bully them, and that is obvious too. He doesn't realize he reveals himself when he pulls this belligerent shit but women have seen guys like him before and recognize what he is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bullied Feinstein too. Didn't anyone warn him about that? Or can't he control himself?

      Delete
    2. Bitch you don't recognize shit. Go bake a casserole.

      Delete
    3. A shit casserole? Is that really your favorite dish? No accounting for taste.

      Delete
    4. The guy hired to assure the Supreme Court makes women second class citizens hates women. Who saw that coming?

      Delete
  8. Kavanaugh has no defense so he is attempting a snow job and bluster and hope that the Republicans will rescue him. I would really like to see him go to jail, but that is too much to hope for, the lying shit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Two words: Merrick Garland.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I noticed that Kavanaugh -- after he got done talking about his love of beer -- said that when he drank too much, he would fall asleep. I think that it was a calculated attempt to contradict the charges that he was a mean drunk. It was clever the way he worked it in. His other attempts were a little clumsier, such as mentioning that he would be the first SCOTUS justice with all women clerks. He appeared pretty well rehearsed. But, in the spirit of this blog, that doesn't mean that his testimony was not accurate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is accurate is that the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are a gaggle of abject cowards.

      Another fact: Trump is a fat coward.

      Delete
    2. Those who rush to resign when attacked by lib-zombies are cowards: Sen Franken being the case in point.

      And On the contrary: Donald the Greatest and his brave comrades in the Senate have been holding their ground so far - and more power to them.

      Delete
  11. The whole mind-boggling thing is how Dr Ford and the Democrats want the FBI to investigate, Kavanaugh and the Republicans do not. The risk for Ford is obvious: the FBI might deem her not credible, or a liar. So, why again are Kavanaugh and the Republicans refusing this so vociferously? Especially since he is clearly innocent...

    ReplyDelete
  12. My God...there is an entry on Kavanaugh's calendar for July that reads: "Tobin’s House — Workout / Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/ Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi"

    Exactly the time frame and the people that Dr Ford talked about.

    But, why should we talk to those other guys? It would just take up valuable time. And after all, the calendar doesn't say "assaulted Christine", so it obviously never happened.

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-inadvertently-rebutted-defense

    ReplyDelete
  13. the state of the empire:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uny1snLLYzk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. nomoremisterniceblog:

      "If Dr. Christine Blasey Ford had been angry, self-pitying, accusatory, hostile to half her questioners, she would have been seen as having thoroughly discredited herself. She wasn't like that. She wasn't allowed to be. She was engaging and believable, though she shouldn't have had to be engaging.

      Kavanaugh has been ... well, a person I wouldn't want to sit near in a bar, much less put on the Supreme Court for the next 35 years."

      Delete
  14. I have listened to 34 minutes, and Chomsky sounded more reasonable than I expected. Then at the 34 minute mark, he mentioned "such radical right-wingers as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's right, y'know.

      Right-left is a thing of the past (20th century model), but if you map the current model onto that old spectrum, then globalists-neoliberals-neocons (represented mostly by leaders of the D 'party') certainly match the 'Right' (oppressors/enemies of the working class) much better than the sovereignists a-la Donald The Great...

      Delete
    2. Donald Trump is a standard-issue Reagan Republican.

      Delete
    3. Reporting should be done like this:
      President of the United States, and standard-issue Reagan Republican, Donald J. Trump today..."

      as should
      "Supreme Court Justice, and angry white man, Brett Kavanaugh ruled earlier today that..."

      Delete
    4. Um, David, you may have missed Chomsky's irony. Keep listening.

      Delete
  15. Hello,

    I'm Dr Ogudugu, a real and genuine spell caster/Spiritual healer with years of experience in spell casting and an expert in all spells, i specialize exclusively in LOVE SPELL/GET REUNITE WITH EX LOVER, MONEY SPELL, POWERFUL MAGIC RING, ANY COURT CASES, FRUIT OF THE WOMB, HIV CURE, CURE FOR CANCER, HERPES, DIABETE, HERPERTITIS B, PARKINSON’S HERBAL CURE, BECOMING A MERMAID, BECOMING A VAMPIRE, SAVE CHILD BIRTH. They are all %100 Guaranteed QUICK Results, it most work. If you have any problem and you need a real and genuine spell caster to solve your problems, contact me now through my personal Email Address with problem case...Note-you can also Text/Call on WhatsApp.

    Contact me -
    Email: greatogudugu@gmail.com
    WhatsApp No: +27663492930

    ReplyDelete