In re: Kavanaugh
EVIDENCE HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT
In a court of law, evidence refers to the testimony of persons with knowledge of whatever insult or injury is being considered. Circumstantial evidence counts for much less, unless it was collected and processed by an expert witness who uses it to refresh his personal recollection. What was interesting in the matter of Brett Kavanaugh was that the circumstantial evidence (his calendar) he provided apparently did not serve to refresh his memory and so it was discounted, even though it corroborated his accuser’s story. It was a clever strategy to bring forward evidence that could not be used against him, unless he voluntarily admitted his error. Clever of him to hide the evidence in plain sight. Ultimately, his demeanor in the Senate hearing is disqualifying, which is why there are numerous ethics complaints.
What do the Cons want to conserve?
The seven deadlies without consequence.
Now, I will grant that, from the perspective of a first responder such a fireman or EMT, proper equipment can mitigate the effects of the hazards posed by fire and flood and ice to a particular person. However, once underway, the hazards themselves can not be mitigated. Ordering people to get into cars and flee along the avenues of death is not mitigation. The only way the effects can be modified is by setting up no-go or safety zones ahead of time.
We already know that insurance requirements did not prevent people from inhabiting unsuitable areas. It is also the case that the federal government cannot dictate where structures are to be prohibited. All they can count on is that, when the hazards are known by the public, local people will call a halt.
Until now, under the rubric of private property rights, the profit motive has ruled. But, profit is essentially immoral, an effort to exact tribute for no contribution. So, while “socialism” has been falsely accused of restricting individual choice, predatory exploitation has slipped through the cracks. Profit is short for predate.
The culture of obedience is coercive and rape is its basic expression. Rape is the violation of one body by another. The gender, nor even the species of the violated, does not seem to matter. (I still have not fully comprehended the significance of the relationship between the boy and his sheep in the autobiographical film “Padre Padrone”).
It is complicated, but I think I have figured it out. People, who have been made to feel inferior or incompetent, either by kith or kin, need to compensate psychologically and they do that in two ways— by looking down on someone else (to get a whiff of superiority) and by identifying with a person of excellence (glitter) and basking in his success.
Brett Kavanaugh is the quintessential hollow man, an avatar for the Reversocrats.
Democrats v. Reversocrats
Generous v. Stingy
Inclusive v. Exclusive
Social v. Solitary
Open v. Hiden
Converse v. Contest
Is it perverse or an accident of nature?
Illogic is not necessarily accidental or evidence of stupidity. It can be an intentional distraction from the real issues at hand. Witness Brett Kavanaugh’s disquisition on the CYO basketball team.
Both are recognized words which have been in use for a long time. Personification is rather common and refers to the assignment of human characteristics or behaviors to objects. Personifixation seems to have been used in the eighteenth century in connection with fanciful language.
That’s not what I am contemplating. What I am looking for is a word that describes that fixation some people have with persons qua person. It strikes me as rather primitive in that an individual’s attention is seemingly oblivious of another’s behavior, attitude, creativity or talent. Rather, interest is prompted by the perception of another person’s essence — similar perhaps to dog pee announcing another dog in the vicinity of a hydrant. I thought perhaps the word “personous” would do, but it’s not quite right in that the attention on persons qua persons verges on the irrational. Perhaps personifixation wooks. At least, unlike “deprivator,” it can be found in a dictionary.
Perhaps most pervasive is the reliance on the present tense, as if a person existed in an ineffable present. References to past and future occur, but the use of these tenses seems either random or pro forma. e.g. “gone fishin'” might be considered to represent a prior or past action, but is also a statement of a current situation.
When the focus/fixation is on a person, rather than performance, gossip is inevitable. Is jockeying for status equally inevitable?
What makes people think they can make others hate or like them?
Personous people. They create the illusion that they care about others, but the other is merely a foil or standard for self-significance.