The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
It's kind of funny seeing a Trump voter use the phrase "sucker born every minute".
But then self-awareness is not really their thing either.
mtierney said:
interesting link. Doesn’t change my sense that the Go Fund Me approach is a misuse of the concept. GFM should not be politicized.
Mtierney,
There are a lot of things in life where it might but be your thing but it is not really your place or mine to tell others what to do. A women's right to choose, for example. Or GoFundMe as a less consequential example. In any case, if there exist parallels in your mind between Dr. Ford's use of GoFundMe and the fraud committed by the couple and the homeless guy, then you really have no capacity for reason.
your first sentence is absolutely correct.
The site, GoFundMe, is meant, to my knowledge, to be a source for people helping other people in need and, as such, it is a good concept. Good ideas, however, are often abused. It is you who drew parallels, not I.
Surely Dr. Ford and her husband recognized beforehand the risks involved in presenting a 36 year old, uncorroborated, recollection as proof that Justice Kavanaugh was unfit to be on the Supreme Court.
ml1 said:
mtierney said:do you not believe that the Fords needed to hire security guards?
recently a go fund me appeal was found to be fraudulent. Not surprising, since “there is a sucker born every day,” but it is shameful that legitimate calls for support by families gets a bit tarnished when scams by grifters are exposed.
But, since it was first announced, I have wondered whether the fund set up by Dr. Ford and her husband to cover the expenses incurred in the Kavanaugh expose, was not tawdry and tasteless. What proof of need is required to set up a fund? Did the Fords present first class flight tickets, legal bills, hotel bills, etc etc? Did they have to prove they could not afford to pay these expenses? Or is this yet another way social media is out of control?
Surely there is book deal on the horizon.
I don't think whether CBF needed to hire security was mtierney's point. I think that mtierney was trying to point out that CBF is NOT required to provide proof of expenses nor supervision of funds in order to start or continue a GFM campaign. The question is NOT whether CBF needed to spend money on security. Rather, should GFM proceeds be subject to supervision or accounting in the case of CBF only, for everybody who benefits from GFM or only in special GFM cases. This wild-west approach to helping those in need is likely a contributing factor to the NJ trio who were grifting through GFM. See http://gothamist.com/2018/11/15/nj_gofundme_homeless_scam.php
It appears that most GFM donations are treated as personal gifts to the recipient and therefore are generally not subject to income tax by the recipient (and not treated as a charitable donation by the donor). Apparently, the IRS has sent bills out to some GFM recipients despite the donations being personal gifts and/or funds to be used for payment of medical bills. See https://www.dontmesswithtaxes.com/2015/04/cancer-survivor-gets-19000-tax-bill-for-gofundme-donations.html
We have had some documented cases where the recipients/donees have abused the GFM concept. IMHO, a few outliers do not make the case for legislation. I think we should keep an eye on GFM and see whether the NJ trio spur copycats. Additionally, where the GFM is NOT being used for medical purposes/bills or to receover from a severe casualty loss such as fire. earthquake, hurricane, then perhaps a windfall tax of say 15% should be applied to the proceeds and withheld by GFM (and remitted to the Treasury).
mtierney said:
how did my question “demonize” her? I wondered why the Fords had to appeal to the public to pay their expenses in the Kavanaugh allegations. I guess the taxpayers will pay the bills from the Washington hearings — which should be humongous!
Let's just say it was neither sympathetic nor complimentary. As in:
mtierney said:
But, since it was first announced, I have wondered whether the fund set up by Dr. Ford and her husband to cover the expenses incurred in the Kavanaugh expose, was not tawdry and tasteless.
mtierney said:
Surely Dr. Ford and her husband recognized beforehand the risks involved in presenting a 36 year old, uncorroborated, recollection as proof that Justice Kavanaugh was unfit to be on the Supreme Court.
That's not what happened. Your memory is faulty. Dr. Ford saw Kavanaugh's name on a list of potential nominees and called her Congresswoman. She asked for confidentiality. However her story was leaked to the press.
She was dragged into the process.
If you saw the name of a person on a short list of candidates for an important position who you remembered as committing a criminal or otherwise horrendous act a long-long time ago what would you do?
Meanwhile, Betsy DeVos, like Kavanaugh and Tierney a proud member of the religious right, is proposing new sexual assault reporting rules for our campuses, because she thinks the current system is not fair enough to the rapists. In fact, if you rape someone on a campus and your victim reports you, it could actually hurt your reputation. Just like it did for Kavanaugh and for Judge Roy Moore, another respectable member of society (although maybe that is not a fair comparison, because Roy's victims were more middle-school age):
you asked me a direct question, so here is my direct answer:
Had I noted this person’s name on a list of potential nominees and had an instant flashback of a sexual encounter 36 years earlier, I would do my best (a trained memory retrieval psychologist) to make absolutely I was on solid ground. I would then have contacted Kavanaugh to tell him I would come forward with my allegations unless he withdrew his name from consideration.
If he refused to step aside, denying all knowledge of any such incident, I would follow through and send a letter to Sen. Feinstein — as Dr Ford did do. After sitting on the letter for weeks (did Feinstein find the allegations weak?), what happened next was pure politics.
Some 20+ years later, Justice Thomas remains under a dark cloud for repeating smutty jokes in the office. Justice Kavanaugh might very well be labeled going forward as a teenage assaulter. Is this the sort of judge/jury/executioner world we want in the future?
mtierney said:
Had I noted this person’s name on a list of potential nominees and had an instant flashback of a sexual encounter 36 years earlier, I would do my best (a trained memory retrieval psychologist) to make absolutely I was on solid ground. I would then have contacted Kavanaugh to tell him I would come forward with my allegations unless he withdrew his name from consideration.
Dr. Blasey Ford may not have wanted to engage in blackmail, with the attendant legal consequences.
mtierney said:
Some 20+ years later, Justice Thomas remains under a dark cloud for repeating smutty jokes in the office.
You're repeating the version that's used to defend him, the same way sexual harrassers are defended to this day.
nohero said:
mtierney said:Dr. Blasey Ford may not have wanted to engage in blackmail, with the attendant legal consequences.
Had I noted this person’s name on a list of potential nominees and had an instant flashback of a sexual encounter 36 years earlier, I would do my best (a trained memory retrieval psychologist) to make absolutely I was on solid ground. I would then have contacted Kavanaugh to tell him I would come forward with my allegations unless he withdrew his name from consideration.
mtierney said:You're repeating the version that's used to defend him, the same way sexual harrassers are defended to this day.
Some 20+ years later, Justice Thomas remains under a dark cloud for repeating smutty jokes in the office.
Mtierney reduces the Thomas controversy down to one of saying dirty words, just like she reduces Trump's pussy grabbing comment. Interesting tell. Consistent, yet so effed up. All trees, no forest.
mtierney said:
After sitting on the letter for weeks (did Feinstein find the allegations weak?), what happened next was pure politics.
You ask this parenthetical question as if Feinstein hadn’t repeatedly said she sat on it because Dr. Blasey had requested anonymity.
And if you want to reply that it was Feinstein who released the letter anyway, please bear in mind that there were opportunities for any number of people to leak it.
"I would do my best (a trained memory retrieval psychologist) to make absolutely I was on solid ground"
There's ample research that working in this way also reinforces false memories. So, not the 100% reliable 'proof' you're actually seeking. (In fact, you've actually mentioned this aspect yourself when we've discussed sexual abuse of children and recovered memories in adults, in other threads)
I appreciate that RFA has tried to distill one aspect of the ethical objections to crowdfunding in this discussion, but there are still several latent and perennial assumptions that refuse to go away. No matter how many times they're brought to light.
Meanwhile there are many more, more interesting 'Rose Garden' topics that could be discussed.
joanne said:
"I would do my best (a trained memory retrieval psychologist) to make absolutely I was on solid ground"
There's ample research that working in this way also reinforces false memories. So, not the 100% reliable 'proof' you're actually seeking. (In fact, you've actually mentioned this aspect yourself when we've discussed sexual abuse of children and recovered memories in adults, in other threads)
I appreciate that RFA has tried to distill one aspect of the ethical objections to crowdfunding in this discussion, but there are still several latent and perennial assumptions that refuse to go away. No matter how many times they're brought to light.
Meanwhile there are many more, more interesting 'Rose Garden' topics that could be discussed.
It's important to point out that Ms. Ford's case is not one of "recovered memories". That's just another right wing trope meant to discredit her.
And what the hell is a "trained memory retrieval psychologist" anyway? Is there such a thing?
mtierney said:
you asked me a direct question, so here is my direct answer:
Had I noted this person’s name on a list of potential nominees and had an instant flashback of a sexual encounter 36 years earlier, I would do my best (a trained memory retrieval psychologist) to make absolutely I was on solid ground. I would then have contacted Kavanaugh to tell him I would come forward with my allegations unless he withdrew his name from consideration.
If he refused to step aside, denying all knowledge of any such incident, I would follow through and send a letter to Sen. Feinstein — as Dr Ford did do. After sitting on the letter for weeks (did Feinstein find the allegations weak?), what happened next was pure politics.
Thank you for answering. Others have responded but since I was the one who asked the question and to whom you were responding I feel I should reply.
Dr. Ford did not just have an instant flashback. She had thought about the incident for years, discussed with her husband and a therapist. She is a trained psychologist and did not need a "memory retrieval" expert because she had a clear memory of the incident. My hypothetical did not have to be about sexual assault. It could have been that a person running for office or on a list of potential appointees to a high position had cheated or defrauded you a long time ago and your memory was absolutely clear.
Someone else used the term "blackmail" but suppose the person who you confronted not only denied your allegation but warned you that if you persisted in your "lie" he would use all legal means at his disposal to destroy you. Would you still send your letter?
If you did then the same thing that happened in the Ford-Kavanaugh case would have happened anyway. It would be your word against his and his supporters would have criticized you or mocked you or vilified you. Some might even have threatened violence.
yes, such experts do exist and are specially qualified in their work. I'm not sure of their relative quals in USA, let alone anywhere else, but it's important that if you're trying to recover important very old memories, you work with someone who has proper training.
Minimises the risk of false memories, but still some people convince themselves. (I don't think that happened in this case, it's dangerous to suggest it)
Edited to add: dwelling on any issue, over years, can change your recollection of your impressions and actions; there's now quite a body of research on how memories are formed, stored and recalled. Memory is not immutable and forever fixed, unchanging, across time; in fact, memory changes somewhat every time it's accessed depending who it's shared with and how it's accessed. It's really worth NOT making judgements about someone else's performance under stress, without the legal and scientific tools. (FWIW the New Scientist devoted an issue about three weeks ago to memory and brain science)
So Blasey-Ford would have gone to one of these "experts" and Kavanaugh would have gone to a different one and we would have had a battle of experts, like in a Medical Malpractice or Product Liability Law Suit.
Or more likely Dr. Ford's "expert" would have been attacked more viciously than she was attacked.
LOST said:
mtierney said:Thank you for answering. Someone else has already mentioned "blackmail". I'll get back to that.
you asked me a direct question, so here is my direct answer:
Had I noted this person’s name on a list of potential nominees and had an instant flashback of a sexual encounter 36 years earlier, I would do my best (a trained memory retrieval psychologist) to make absolutely I was on solid ground. I would then have contacted Kavanaugh to tell him I would come forward with my allegations unless he withdrew his name from consideration.
If he refused to step aside, denying all knowledge of any such incident, I would follow through and send a letter to Sen. Feinstein — as Dr Ford did do. After sitting on the letter for weeks (did Feinstein find the allegations weak?), what happened next was pure politics.
Some 20+ years later, Justice Thomas remains under a dark cloud for repeating smutty jokes in the office. Justice Kavanaugh might very well be labeled going forward as a teenage assaulter. Is this the sort of judge/jury/executioner world we want in the future?
Dr. Ford did not just have an instant flashback. She had thought about the incident for years, discussed with her husband and a therapist. She is a trained psychologist and did not need a "memory retrieval" expert because she had a clear memory of the incident.
Back to "blackmail". Suppose the person who you confronted not only denied that such an incident had occurred but warned you that if you persisted in your "lie" he would use all legal means at his disposal to destroy you. Would you still send your letter?
If you did then the same thing that happened in the Ford-Kavanaugh case would have happened anyway.
I don't believe that any of us know how much CBF remembered before discussing with her husband and therapist. Thus, we do not know whether CBF's memory can be categorized as a repressed/recovered memory. Additionally, we are unaware of the quality of her therapist. Suggestive questioning can cause "false memories" to be created or found. See http://www.fmsfonline.org/?about=EarlyHistory
I need to know a lot more before a 36 year old memory of a then teen (which may be a recovered memory) is taken for granted especially without any knowledge of the quality of CBF's therapist. As an aside, Maplewood is the home of the Wee Care Nursery where Kelly Michaels was prosecuted for sexual abuse. Upon appeal, Kelly Michaels' convictions were dismissed due to improper interview techniques which lead to false memories or memory errors (please note, Wee Care children were significantly younger than CBF at the time of the alleged incident). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wee_Care_Nursery_School_abuse_trial
Food for thought.
Blackmail is different. One has information, proof, etc, that another person has been unfaithful to his wife and demands money to keep the liaison secret.
What I suggested was a warning or heads up to someone re sexual misbehavior allegations 36 years earlier. This person says if you don’t withdraw your name, I will tell the world my allegations. A public duty, not a bribe.
Dr Ford confessed to memory lapses throughout her testimony. Certainly, in later years, she might have cleared up some confusion in the time frame, location, or remembered other partygoers, as well as how she managed to get 8 miles back home after the event. She had no answers to questions she had to know would be asked at the hearing.
mtierney said:
This person says if you don’t withdraw your name, I will tell the world my allegations. A public duty, not a bribe.
so that would be extortion.
mtierney said:
Blackmail is different. One has information, proof, etc, that another person has been unfaithful to his wife and demands money to keep the liaison secret.
What I suggested was a warning or heads up to someone re sexual misbehavior allegations 36 years earlier. This person says if you don’t withdraw your name, I will tell the world my allegations. A public duty, not a bribe.
Dr Ford confessed to memory lapses throughout her testimony. Certainly, in later years, she might have cleared up some confusion in the time frame, location, or remembered other partygoers, as well as how she managed to get 8 miles back home after the event. She had no answers to questions she had to know would be asked at the hearing.
I believe the quid-pro-quo element of your hypothetical is the problem. It appears that your hypothetical runs afoul of NJSA 2C:20-5(b) and (c) (at a minimum). See statute set forth below.
However, NJ statute defines extortion in terms of perp obtaining property from victim. It is unclear to me what the definition of property would be in this instance (and, thus, the applicability of the statute).
=========================================
2C:20-5. Theft by extortion
A person is guilty of theft by extortion if he purposely and unlawfully obtains property of another by extortion. A person extorts if he purposely threatens to:
a. Inflict bodily injury on or physically confine or restrain anyone or commit any other criminal offense;
b. Accuse anyone of an offense or cause charges of an offense to be instituted against any person;
c. Expose or publicize any secret or any asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute;
d. Take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action;
e. Bring about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action, if the property is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;
f. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to anothers legal claim or defense; or
g. Inflict any other harm which would not substantially benefit the actor but which is calculated to materially harm another person.
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution based on paragraphs b, c, d or f that the property obtained was honestly claimed as restitution or indemnification for harm done in the circumstances or as lawful compensation for property or services.
L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:20-5, eff. Sept. 1, 1979. Amended by L.1979, c. 178, s. 34, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.
mtierney says: "Dr Ford confessed to memory lapses throughout her testimony. Certainly, in later years, she might have cleared up some confusion...."
Hi mtierney, i'm going back to my "former 15 yo girl" persona here again, although i was probably more like 17 or 18 at the time of the incident i'll cite, which took place 50+ years ago.
I've recently been in conversation with someone i dated in high school and shortly after. We are amused to find that we have differing (or missing) memories regarding his first experience of "real" sex. What year? - neither of us knows. What car, his or mine? - one says A, one says B. Where had we been earlier, and for that matter, where were we at the time? - neither one remembers. Yet we both have perfectly continuous, consistent, and confident memories of the central transaction (which was completely voluntary, unlike Dr. Ford's, which imo would have been even more memorable for being so frightening).
So Dr. Ford still seems perfectly credible to me, all the more so since she has been so open about the circumstances she doesn't remember, as well as what she does.
You might be interested in this article, which was linked by someone else on MOL a while ago. The author MAY push some of his points a little, but the general picture seems perfectly clear: she answered questions directly, whether with facts or "I don't know"; he was off point and/or combative time after time. You had teenagers, as you've mentioned before. Read the article and think which testimony you would have been more likely to believe if your kid brought it to you (not that yours would have misbehaved or been disobedient, right? 
).
cheers - mjc
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
Look, any female who can defend a man who ridicules women, who makes a public mockery of a woman who was sexually assaulted, has no credibility. Just regurgitating the right wing nuts rhetoric is nauseating at this point. If you were ever sexually assaulted do you think you will forget who assaulted you? Enough with this crap.
As Axelrod says, we need the democratic primaries now more than ever, because we need to understand which candidate has the best chance of being elected prez.
mtierney said:
Blackmail is different. One has information, proof, etc, that another person has been unfaithful to his wife and demands money to keep the liaison secret.
What I suggested was a warning or heads up to someone re sexual misbehavior allegations 36 years earlier. This person says if you don’t withdraw your name, I will tell the world my allegations. A public duty, not a bribe.
Dr Ford confessed to memory lapses throughout her testimony. Certainly, in later years, she might have cleared up some confusion in the time frame, location, or remembered other partygoers, as well as how she managed to get 8 miles back home after the event. She had no answers to questions she had to know would be asked at the hearing.
There seems to be no limit to the number of topics about which you know nothing yet feel qualified to speak like an expert with specific internal knowledge.
I don't always agree with this journalist, but as she writes in today's Guardian:
"Well, I have two boys, both American citizens, and it’s true that Jewish mothers have high expectations for their sons. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect my sons to know they can’t assault women, or support a political infrastructure that benefits only them, or be compulsive horndogs like Bill Clinton. I’m good with them growing up knowing that if they are sexually or physically aggressive they will pay for it, and that voting only for their own rights drags everyone backwards.
Boys may well be boys, but one day they will be men. And being a man is not an excuse – it’s a responsibility."
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/nov/17/infuriating-women-back-trump-men-free-pass
The nearest thing in my experience to what Ms. Ford has experienced is being bullied for a few months in high school.
I remember 2 specific incidents quite clearly. But I can't tell you what year they occurred, much less a time and date. One time there was more than one person involved, but I have no idea who they were. I remember very clearly living in fear for several months - not knowing when I would cross paths with my accoster. Another time I was attacked while sitting in a car full of people. I can only guess who might have been in that car, though I remember clearly it was in a McDonald's parking lot. And I remember as clear as day the moment my accoster hit his hand on the car window, as he attempted to punch me through a partially closed window
There is not a single doubt in my mind of the things I remember clearly, but even though it was one of the more traumatic events of my youth, there are very many details which I can't remember.
Ms. Ford's account is exactly what one would expect for a single memory decades old, and that's why I believe her totally. She was honest about what she could not remember, and absolutely sure of those things she did remember.
mtierney said:
Dr Ford confessed to memory lapses throughout her testimony. Certainly, in later years, she might have cleared up some confusion in the time frame, location, or remembered other partygoers, as well as how she managed to get 8 miles back home after the event. She had no answers to questions she had to know would be asked at the hearing.
You miss an essential point. She did not know there would even be a hearing!
She saw Kavanaugh on a list of 5 or six potential nominees. She did not know anything about the others on the list. She contacted her own Member of Congress and asked for confidentiality. Apparently she hoped that somehow this would influence the choice among the potential nominees and that someone else would be chosen. If that had happened, whether because of her communication or for any reason no one would have ever heard of her!
It appears to me that Dr. Ford is not someone who follows politics. She certainly has never before testified before a Congressional Committee. We are all looking at this in hindsight.
I am done with re-litigating this. Mtierney decided to relate the story about some fraud artists to Dr. Ford's efforts to raise funds to help her through the hardship she has suffered. And as usual I got sucked in.
As the saying now goes
MY BAD.
LOST said:
I am done with re-litigating this. Mtierney decided to relate the story about some fraud artists to Dr. Ford's efforts to raise funds to help her through the hardship she has suffered. And as usual I got sucked in.
As the saying now goes
MY BAD.
Tierney, like Trump, want to create distractions for us so we don't focus, because if we focus we will kick them out of power for a long while. Next thing you know we"ll see a post about Hillary again, or how the Democrats have no real message, or how we should get rid of Pelosi, or how Obama failed, etc. All just designed to distract and demotivate. But we actually are in much better shape than they want us to believe. First of all, we are on the right side of history. Secondly, they (angry older white folks) are a dying breed. Literally.
Rentals
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Garage Sales
-
Huge Garage Sale Sale Date: May 4, 2024
More info
Free Items
Advertisement
I believe the saying is "there's a sucker born every minute"
Everything else you posted was also wrong.