LACK OF SELF-AWARENESS DEPARTMENT: Below is someone who works for the Intercept and Al Jazeera blaming anti-Semitism on *other* people promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Let me repeat, the Intercept and Al Jazeera. Meanwhile, this is as good a time as any to tell the anti-Semites who I’ve heard sometimes infest our comments section to get lost, you aren’t welcome here.

PATHOLOGIZING NORMAL MALE SEXUALITY: #Iamsexist. Are you a fifteen year old boy who occasionally “checks out” one of your female classmates? You are not only objectifying her, you are engaging in “soul murder.” Are you a man of any age who has sexual fantasies about women? You should be condemned for your “pornographic imagination.” Any serious points made by the author are overwhelmed by the parts where you think he must be engaging in satire, but he isn’t.

THIS IS NOT WHAT FASCISM LOOKS LIKE: Yale professor Jason Stanley in the New York Times: If You’re Not Scared About Fascism in the United States, You Should Be. Blustery quotes from Trump aren’t “fascism.” You know what actual fascism looks like? A judiciary controlled by the executive, militarization of civilian life, rubber-stamp legislature, no free elections, government control of industry, severe restrictions on press freedom, and cooptation of religious entities by the state. You know how many of these we have now? None. Nor is there any real threat of any of these occurring. Even if we were to accept Stanley’s claim that Trump uses fascist-style rhetoric,  fascism is not looming in America. This sort of nonsense should be beneath a serious academic, but, hey, it’s 2018, and everyone has gone crazy.

UPDATE: Stanley defended the fascistic Yale student activists who launched the infamous campaign of defamation against the Christakises over their suggestion that students not freak out over Halloween costumes. Stanley wrote, “But didn’t Erika Christakis, and most though not all of her defenders, express their views in a much more reasonable tone of voice than the students protesting? Yes. But sounding reasonable can be a luxury.” He followed up with some academic goobleygook explaining why “oppressed people” (a rather odd description of Yale students of any background) should be held to a different standard of behavior than the “privileged.” This is the state of the Ivy League, folks.

GAME, SET, AND MATCH ALREADY?: Harvard Admissions Dean Testifies as Affirmative Action Trial Begins: “Harvard University’s dean of admissions testified in federal court on Monday that in the interest of attracting a diverse student body, the school lowers its recruiting standards a bit for many students from rural regions — but not if they are Asian-American.”

The Hmong people living in the U.S. have among the worst socio-economic indicators of any American ethnic group. But not only don’t they get an admissions preference, whites from the same town get a preference over them because they are “Asian-American,” a nonsense category that includes everyone from Filipinos to Chinese to Indians, groups with wildly varying religions, cultures, and appearances. Yet Harvard maintains with a straight face that it doesn’t discriminate.

WORDS TO LIVE BY:

UNEXPECTEDLY: Me too excesses make male executives less likely to invite female colleagues on trips, to evening networking events or into their inner circles. People respond to incentives. If Me Too means that a man’s career and reputation can be ruined by an unfounded allegation of sexual harassment this creates obvious incentives for male supervisors to never be alone with female subordinates.

WE DON’T HAVE A “RADICAL RIGHT-WING SUPREME COURT,” despite lots of mewing on the left to the contrary. Here are some things that would be at the top of the list for a radical right-wing Court: (1) ban abortion nationwide as a violation of the right to life protected by the due process clause; (2) rule that publicly-provided (but not funded) education is unconstitutional because it inherently involves viewpoint discrimination by the government, or at least require vouchers for those who object to the public school curriculum; (3) overrule an 1898 precedent and completely abolish birthright citizenship; (4) Use the First Amendment as a sword to require “fairness” in the left-dominated media. Not only is the Supreme Court not about to do any of things, I don’t think any of these things would even get one vote on the current Court. Moreover, merely bringing the scope of Congress’s constitutional back to where it was, say, in 1935, which was already much broader than the original meaning of the Commerce power, probably wouldn’t get more than one or two votes. What you are looking at right now is a conservative Court that will only affect society on the margins, not a “radical right-wing” Court.

THE DEMOCRATS OVERPLAYED THEIR HAND, AS THEY HAVE BEEN DOING SINCE NOVEMBER 2016: John Podhoretz: Kavanaugh: The Surprise Ending

Ford’s testimony was powerful, and had she been able to surface a piece of evidence as insubstantial as a piece of down—but one with any substance whatsoever—Kavanaugh would not have survived it. But she didn’t. And she hasn’t. The entire planet knows who she is, knows her story, and knows her claims. Not a single piece of corroboration has emerged. It is fair to assume there isn’t any. We don’t destroy people when someone says “trust me, he’s bad.” We don’t … unless we want to destroy him anyway and are willing to use any piece of evidence to hand.

In addition to the folks who assumed Kavanaugh was guilty because he’s a “privileged white male” and presumptively anti-abortion (a non sequitur, I know), and those who didn’t care if we was guilty, there were those who really, really wanted him to be guilty because it would affirm some narrative or other. But what kind of people *want* a prominent federal appellate judge, former secretary to POTUS, to turn out to be a gang rapist?

WHY ARE FEMINISTS MINIMIZING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RAPE? Seen on Facebook: “I’m amazed at the progressives who argue that Kavanaugh should not have expressed anger that he has been accused of being a rapist, and that he shouldn’t have lashed out at such accusations even if they are entirely false. If being accused of being a rapist isn’t a big deal, then rape isn’t a big deal.”

SENATOR GRASSLEY DEMANDS THAT FORD TURN OVER THERAPY NOTES: Well, “demands” may be too strong, because presumably he could subpoena them, though he may hesitate to set a precedent that would undermine the doctor-patient privilege in other Congressional investigations. But he’s absolutely correct that Ford has no reasonable case for withholding notes that she and her supporters have relied on in support of her allegations. In related news, Grassley reveals that Ford’s ex-boyfriend states that contrary to Ford’s Senate testimony, Ford once helped a good friend prepare for a polygraph exam.

INTELLECTUAL BUBBLE-DWELLER REVEALS HE DWELLS IN A BUBBLE: The Brookings Institution’s Benjamine Wittes: “Yet few observers seem to dispute [Ford’s] credibility.”  There is Rachel Mitchell, for one, but my social media filled is filled with smart, skeptical individuals who dispute Ford’s credibility.

One problem with much of the commentary on Ford’s testimony is that people who should know better are using “credibility” as a synonym for “sincerity.” A credible accuser isn’t a “sincere accuser,” but a believable or trustworthy accuser. If Ford testified that Kavanaugh was possessed by demons, we wouldn’t find her “credible,” regardless of how “sincere” she is.  And so long as Ford refuses to produce her therapy notes, she isn’t a credible accuser.

ALL OF THESE HARVARD LAW STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE OBJECTIONS FILED WHEN THEY APPLY FOR BAR ADMISSION: Harvard Students Filed Multiple Title IX Complaints Against Brett Kavanaugh To Get Him Fired. To put it bluntly, these claims are legally absurd, and at best a publicity stunt. If these students are willing to abuse legal process for political reasons while still in law school, what can we expect of them as attorneys?

UPDATE: It’s not clear how many, if any, of the students filing the Title IX complaints are law students. It’s grossly unethical regardless.

SHORT ANSWER–YES: Is Ford’s Credibility Undermined by Her Refusal to Produce Her Therapy Records?

THIS SHOULD BE GETTING MORE ATTENTION: I had totally missed that Christine Blasey Ford was asked by the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide the notes of her therapy sessions, and refused to turn over any of them. I have explained in detail here why the credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh could not be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

Now, I totally understand why someone would not want to turn over therapist records that undoubtedly discuss intimate details of one’s life. But if you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

HERE’S A SOUND ARGUMENT: I was sexually assaulted over thirty years ago, and I never told anyone. Therefore, I can attest from personal experience that just because someone didn’t tell anyone for over thirty years about a sexual assault does not mean we should assume she is lying, exaggerating, or has a false memory.

Here’s an unsound argument: I was sexually assaulted over thirty years ago, and never told anyone. Therefore, anyone who alleges after thirty plus years that she was sexually assaulted is telling the truth. Therefore, I know that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford over thirty years ago.

Yet, I’ve seen people making the unsound argument, which really defies logic, over and over again over the last week.

THE NARRATIVE KEEPS CHANGING:

Oct. 2016: In a Time of Trump, Millennial Jews Awaken to Anti-Semitism Trump is forcing young Jews to confront anti-Semitism for the first time!

Sept. 2018: Trump embraces a dangerously broad definition of anti-Semitism Trump is trying too hard to protect young Jews from anti-Semitism!

THEY HAVE DESCENDED TO THIS LEVEL: A friend who wishes to remain anonymous, but whom I trust, informs me that a reporter from Politico called her today seeking dirt on Brett Kavanaugh based on vague rumors from Kavanaugh’s days as an attorney at Kirkland & Ellis. Then there is the request below, which rather tellingly asks for information on Kavanaugh, and not on the protagonist who actually attended Holton-Arms. The Senate needs to put an end to this farce as quickly as possible.

BAD NEWS FOR KAVANAUGH: So the Judiciary Committee is going to have Ford and Kavanaugh testify Monday. This puts Kavanaugh at a huge disadvantage, IMHO. His life history is public. In a normal litigation setting, Ford’s life history would be equally fair game, after being subject to discovery, deposition, and testimony. Indeed, when it comes to 30+ year old memories, it would be essential for an individual representing someone in Kavanaugh’s position to know whether an individual has undergone hypnosis (which can alter memories), has been diagnosed with particular psychiatric or other medical conditions that could affect memory, has suffered other traumatic events involving sex, has had a therapist who might have been suggestive, and so forth. Even if the Republicans had time to get all this information, which they don’t, in an area of “Me Too,” I doubt they would touch this stuff with a ten foot pole.

WHY PEOPLE DON’T TRUST THE MSM, PART 7 MILLION: Huffington Post (of all places): Bombshell Washington Post Story On Trump Passport Crackdown Withheld, Distorted Key Facts

THIS ISN’T HOW SERIOUS SCHOLARS RESPOND TO LEGITIMATE CRITICISM OF THEIR WORK: Narrator: Duke’s Nancy MacLean isn’t a serious scholar.

Steve Teles, by the way, is a liberal-leaning political science professor at Johns Hopkins. Geoffrey Kabaservice has a Ph.D. in History from Yale and is the author of two well-regarded books. I’m waiting to see how MacLean and her allies try to smear Stanford history professor Jennifer Burns, author of a devastating recent review of the book Teles and and Kabaservice also criticized, MacLean’s Democracy in Chains. MacLean also seems to think it’s a “conflict of interest” for anyone writing about her book to have any possible ideological priors that may color their views, which makes it odd that she never mentions her history of activism with the far-left International Socialist Organization.

COULD THIS BE WHY SENATOR FEINSTEIN DIDN’T PURSUE FORD’S ALLEGATIONS UNTIL THE BITTER END? It’s possible that it was a purely tactical decision. But now that I’ve read the letter Ford wrote to Feinstein about Kavanaugh, one line stuck out: “I have received medical treatment regarding the assault.” Reading that, I would naturally think that the writer saw some sort of medical doctor about the assault within some short time frame after the assault. If I were on Feinstein’s staff, I would have contacted her and asked if she could provide any reasonably contemporaneous medical records. The answer, “Well, I brought it up at a couples therapy session 30 years later, without mentioning Kavanaugh’s name, and I also mentioned it to a personal therapist the following year” isn’t what we normally mean by “receiving medical treatment” after an assault.

If the letter had been released, the first question from Republicans would have been about this “medical treatment.” Psychological counseling many years later, yes. Medical treatment, no. And Ford’s a psychology professor, so the difference shouldn’t be that obscure. Now, I’m not saying there aren’t plausible explanations for why she used the phrase “medical treatment” that would not undermine her credibility. But I am saying that if you allege sexual assault in the distant past against a Supreme Court nominee, and you claim in writing to have undergone medical treatment as a result of the assault, but you never saw a medical doctor, and didn’t even see a therapist for thirty-three years, a Senator might not want to stake her reputation on your claim.

REMINDER: WHILE YOU WERE CREATING A PHONY CONTROVERSY OVER ERIC TRUMP’S “SHEKELS” TWEET, the National Women’s Studies Association gave a book award to a blatantly anti-Semitic book.

A “PROGRESSIVE WAVE” OR “BLACK AND HISPANIC DEMOCRATS WON’T VOTE FOR WHITE LIBERALS RUNNING AGAINST A BLACK OR HISPANIC CANDIDATE?”: Josh Kraushaar: Identity, Not Ideology, Driving the Democratic Party. Or why did white progressive Cynthia Nixon run poorly against Andrew Cuomo, while black and Hispanic challengers to white incumbents have done so well?

THIS IS HOW THE LEFT ACTUALLY THINKS: Neoliberalism is an anti-democratic ideology. It takes decisions about the allocation of scarce resources out of the hands of public institutions and places them in the hands of private actors. Imagine the “anti-democratic” horror of letting “private actors” decide how to spend their money.

THIS MAY BE THE SINGLE DUMBEST CONTROVERSY OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: Eric Trump, a Gentile, accuses another Gentile, Bob Woodward,  of earning “extra shekels,” in a context having nothing to do with Jews or Israel. This is somehow deemed to be anti-Semitic. Yet if you Google “extra shekels,” as I did, you see the term in occasional use, and not by anti-Semites, at least not in the first 70 or so results that I perused. No matter how one feels about Trump and his family, this desperate need by some to depict them as anti-Semites based on the flimsiest of evidence is just that, desperate.

(UPDATE) RELATED: Blatantly anti-Semitic book wins Women’s Studies award.