Kavanaugh Commentary

Vincent J. Curtis

5 Oct 2018

RE: This isn’t about Kavanaugh (Hamilton Spectator of this date)

Michael Coren missed an opportunity to talk sensibly about something important.  He is right that “it isn’t about Kavanaugh, it’s about the entire world.” But from there, he goes off the rails.

After recounting a sad family story, he goes on to expatiate about the evils and prevalence of “male entitlement.”  The Kavanaugh affair is not about that at all.  It is about protecting Roe v. Wade from a potential vote to reverse on the U.S. Supreme Court – for which anything fair or foul will be employed – and it is about basic standards of justice and logic.

Ford says Kavanaugh tried to rape her, and he denies any such thing happened.  Both cannot be true, so how do you decide which is?  You judge on the basis of evidence.  The evidence in this case is entirely on the side of Kavanaugh, for even Ford’s alleged witnesses say no such thing occurred.  With his calendar he came as close to proving a negative as you can get.  Those who are using Ford for their own purposes are trying to destroy logical procedure in order to win this one, to say nothing of the mobs they have screaming at U.S. Senators on Capitol Hill.

When the dust settles, it will be found that Christine Blasey Ford’s “memory” of the episode was “recovered” via the hypnotherapy she received in 2013.  That’s why she sincerely believes what she says, because a “memory” was implanted into her subconscious.  And that’s why Ford’s Democrat lawyers won’t turn over her therapist’s notes, because they would undermine Ford’s credibility.  A confused implanted memory is why she can’t recall any of the surrounding details that a real traumatic event would implant, such as time and place, and how she got home.

The Kavanaugh affair is not about male entitlement.  It is about the moral relativism of win at any cost.

-30-

Vincent J. Curtis

5 Oct 2018

RE: Judging Brett Kavanaugh (Hamilton Spectator of this date)

The article in question is an example of fake scholarship from a fake discipline.  The author pretends to diagnose unfitness to be a judge from some cursory reports and some short observations from television of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  This is deemed unethical in psychiatry.

The author holds that a couple of written tests and an interview by a “forensic social worker” would discover an unfitness that twelve years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, 307 written opinions, and close observation by scores of people at the highest levels of the U.S. government, of the legal community, and most successful media personalities didn’t find.

The reason Brett Kavanaugh is fiercely opposed isn’t because he is morally unfit but because of the fear of his high moral fitness: fitness enough to overturn Roe v. Wade, that famous decision that legalized abortion in America.

What the article throws into high relief is just how these new fake disciplines with fake scholarship and supported by fake philosophies can be turned to support some political or ideological orthodoxy.  The easy tell of a fake philosophy at work is the author’s use of the word, “presents,” as in “he presents as if stuck…” and “he presents as barely advanced from…”  What about, he presents as if angry?  Does that mean he really is angry, or that he is faking anger?  The pseudo-technical jargon “presents” is borrowed from gender-studies – another fake discipline.

The article offers nothing insightful about Brett Kavanaugh, but it does offer insight into how much fake scholarship there is in academia these days.

-30-