This is an excerpt from a longer article fact-checking Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying. Should a man who lies be elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court?
Excessive Drinking
Judge Kavanaugh portrayed himself in his testimony as enjoying a beer or two as a high school and college student, but not as someone who often drank to excess during those years. “I drank beer with my friends,” he said. “Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out,” he said.
This is disputed.
His statements are at odds with how some of his classmates remembered him. In interviews before his testimony, nearly a dozen college classmates of Judge Kavanaugh’s said they recalled him indulging in heavy drinking, some saying it went beyond normal consumption. (To be sure, a smaller number of classmates said his drinking was unexceptional.)
Reached after the hearing, Lynne Brookes, an undergraduate classmate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Yale University, said she believed he had “grossly misrepresented and mischaracterized his drinking.”
“He frequently drank to excess,” she said. “I know because I frequently drank to excess with him.”
Ms. Brookes was roommates with Deborah Ramirez, who told The New Yorker that Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a drinking game while they were students.
Like Judge Kavanaugh, Ms. Brookes, a Republican, was an athlete who went to a prestigious graduate school after Yale. She disputed the implication in his testimony that he could not have overindulged because he was too busy studying and competing in athletics. “It is completely possible to do both,” she said.
Another Yale classmate, Elizabeth Swisher, now a Seattle physician, said: “I drank a lot. Brett drank more.”
“I definitely saw him on multiple occasions stumbling drunk where he could not have rational control over his actions or clear recollection of them,” said Daniel Lavan, who lived in Mr. Kavanaugh’s dorm freshman year. “His depiction of himself is inaccurate.”
Judge Kavanaugh disputed such accounts, saying they did not point to specific instances. But his own recollections have offered clues about his drinking. His high school yearbook, for example, refers to him as the treasurer of the Keg City Club, noting “100 Kegs or Bust.” Multiple high school classmates, in interviews, described Judge Kavanaugh as a heavy and frequent drinker.
As an undergrad, he was affiliated with two organizations known for hard partying, including the fraternity Delta Kappa Epsilon.
He also recounted his own drinking exploits in speeches. In a 2014 address to Yale Law students, he recalled a night of “group chugs” in Boston that ended with his group “falling out of the bus onto the front steps of Yale Law School at about 4:45 a.m.”
A Display of Affection
A substantial portion of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony was devoted to discussing his 1983 senior yearbook. In one entry, he described himself as a “Renate Alumnius,” referring to Renate Schroeder, now Renate Dolphin, who attended a nearby Catholic school. A number of his football teammates had similar entries. Judge Kavanagh said: “That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.”
This is disputed.
Four of Judge Kavanaugh’s former schoolmates, including Sean Hagan, said the notion that the phrase was meant affectionately did not ring true. They said that Judge Kavanaugh and his friends often made disrespectful sexual comments about Ms. Dolphin, and that the understanding at the time was that the many yearbook references to her were boasts about sexual conquests.
On Monday, Judge Kavanaugh’s lawyer told The Times that the “Renate Alumnius” note referred to a school event that he and Ms. Dolphin attended, after which they “shared a brief kiss good night.” Ms. Dolphin responded that they had never kissed.
On Thursday, Judge Kavanaugh steered away from the idea that the yearbook reference had any sexual connotations. “We never had any sexual interaction,” he said.
After his testimony ended, Mr. Hagan wrote on Facebook: “So angry. So disgusted. So sad. Integrity? Character? Honesty?”
Yearbook Lingo
Judge Kavanaugh’s yearbook page included the entries “Judge — Have You Boofed Yet?” and “Devil’s Triangle.” On Thursday, he said that “boofed” meant “flatulence” and that “Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game in which three glasses were arranged in a triangle.
This is disputed.
“Boofed” in the 1980s was a term that often referred to anal sex, and that is how Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates said they interpreted his comment. They said they had never heard it used to refer to flatulence.
Similarly, they said that they had never heard of a drinking game called Devil’s Triangle, but that the phrase was regularly used to describe sex between two men and a woman. “The explanation of Devil’s Triangle does not hold water for me,” said William Fishburne, who managed the football team during Judge Kavanaugh’s senior year.
“Our senior yearbook pages were a place to have a little bit of fun with commemorating inside jokes,” said Bill Barbot, who overlapped with Judge Kavanaugh at Georgetown Prep, an all-boys Catholic school. “However, the spin that Brett was putting on it was a complete overstatement of the innocence with which they were intended.”
His Social Circle
Asked about the intersection of his and Ms. Blasey’s friend groups, Judge Kavanaugh said: “When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually with friends from nearby Catholic all-girls high schools — Stone Ridge, Holy Child, Visitation, Immaculata, Holy Cross. Dr. Blasey did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton-Arms, and she was a year behind me.”
This is disputed.
Judge Kavanaugh’s implication is that students at Holton-Arms, an all-girls school, didn’t mingle much those who attended Georgetown Prep. Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s former schoolmates said on Friday that this was not true and that Holton-Arms students were routinely present at parties with Georgetown Prep boys.
“Holton-Arms was definitely part of our social scene,” Mr. Barbot said. Another Georgetown Prep alumnus who was in Judge Kavanaugh’s class said, “Holton was as much a sister school as the others.”
How much damage has his brain had? Maybe that damage explains his outraged rant during the Senate hearing.
“Alcoholics can develop a neurological disorder called Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, which can result in a loss of neurons in some parts of the brain. This syndrome also causes memory problems, confusion, paralysis of the eyes, lack of muscle coordination and amnesia. It can lead to death. However, the disorder isn’t caused by the alcohol itself. It’s the result of a deficiency of thiamine, an essential B vitamin. Not only are severe alcoholics often malnourished, extreme alcohol consumption can interfere with the body’s absorption of thiamine.
“So while alcohol doesn’t actually kill brain cells, it can still damage your brain if you drink in mass quantities.”
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/10-brain-myths9.htm
If K is still having a love affair with beer, then the damage has probably not been reversed.
Thanks, Lloyd.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/08/24/alcohol-death-disease-study-beer-wine/1082443002/
That’s one of my concerns. What is his current relationship with beer? He acted as if he had chugged a few before the hearing.
I found him rude, demanding, and oblivious to the truth. While before my differences with him were ideological, I now feel he is totally unqualified due to his character. There has to be someone better. (And I’m not even considering the fact that there are numerous women out there with a complaint about his inappropriate, drunken actions towards them).
I just finished listening to John Oliver talk about BK, and there were scenes showing BK talking. BK’s speech was slurred like someone that just drank enough to bring on a warm buzz. I wonder what he drank before he showed up. If he didn’t drink anything that day, maybe the night before, and his speech is slurred like that all the time, then he drinks too much every day after or before work. I think he is an alcoholic who will deny it because he doesn’t see himself as a alcoholic. This “thing” called a human should not be a sitting judge in any court except maybe a TV judge on a show called “Drunken Court”.
Maybe that’s why his face is so red.
The more the public learns about the involvement of the Federalist Society in Kavanaugn’s road to SCOTUS, the more likely, his withdrawal.
I wouldn’t count on it, but I hope you’re right. This is about power. Your faith in public pressure assumes Republicans have senses of decency and shame.
I have no faith in the Republicans to do the right thing and reject Kavanaugh. Even if he was not a sexual predator and a drunk, his temper tantrum at the hearing should disqualify him. He is incapable of being a fair judge.
The public can’t shame people who know no shame.
Leonard Leo’s organization has links to powerful people. The possible legal scrutiny resulting from Whelan’s activities could touch a number of people.
The Leo, Whelan, Hatch and Kavanaugh connections may prove the adage about a cat once out of the bag. Damage control carries with it the possibility of Brett’s withdrawal.
Colbert on Kavanaugh
Commander .Ogg
Published on Sep 28, 2018
Stephen Colbert on the Late show SEP 27 2018.
Thanks for the link, Carol.
Do we always have to get our accurate observations from comics? In modern times, satire seems to pale by comparison to actual reality.
Roy, unfortunately the media is now run by corporations and billionaires. It still hasn’t reached the point of being ‘fake’ but many topics aren’t covered in depth. Some of that has to do with the firing of investigative journalists. The media is too focused on making profits. I know that many newspapers are barely surviving. How many people take the time to read and understand issues? Trump got elected largely due to the media telling about his antics, not what he stands for, which is mostly nothing.
It is fun to find out the news from comedians. They pinpoint exactly what is happening. Shouldn’t be this way.
The British owned Guardian is the premier source for investigative reporting about U.S. political influence which proves the point.
This week, 1,600 men signed their name in a full-page ad in The Times. “We Believe Anita Hill. We Also Believe Christine Blasey Ford,” it said.
Donnelly [D-IN] is backing down. He has already stated that he would vote “No” for Kavanaugh’s confirmation. He is running against Rep. Braun who has stated that he is a strong Trump supporter and that he endorses Kavanaugh. Todd Young [R-IN] follows the GOP line on everything.
…
UPDATE: Sen. Donnelly tells The Times he supports, awaits FBI investigation on Kavanaugh
MUNSTER — U.S. Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., said he will await an FBI investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh before deciding whether to raise him to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Donnelly spoke Friday afternoon before The Times Editorial Board…
“I remain convinced that Judge Kavanaugh is a man of integrity who will be an excellent addition to the Supreme Court. I will be voting to confirm him,” Senator Todd Young said.
Former state Rep. Mike Braun, the Republican challenging Donnelly in the Nov. 6 general election, also has endorsed Kavanaugh’s appointment.
Braun accused Donnelly of bowing to partisan forces by coming out against Trump’s Supreme Court selection.
“This entire process has been an embarrassment to our democracy as Hoosiers watched firsthand how Sen. Donnelly’s liberal colleagues used uncorroborated allegations to create a media circus designed to smear and destroy Judge Kavanaugh’s reputation,” Braun said…
https://www.nwitimes.com/news/national/government-and-politics/update-sen-donnelly-tells-the-times-he-supports-awaits-fbi/article_ba293055-764f-56e3-881b-70a39908b5ed.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share
And more winning and resistance from the Democrats. What has Manchin said?
You have to wonder if the republicans saw the same hearing we did. When they make those ludicrous statements, I want to ask “Do you actually believe that?”.
The lies are also part of a functioning alcoholic mantra. They turn the facts slightly to what they ‘believe’ happened only because their brain has been in a fog for a long time. The anger that BK showed is the defense that functioning alcoholics go through.
This explains why some in BK’s circle say he is an upstanding gentleman. They saw him, worked with him, conversed with him when he was at the pleasant period of the day or the happy drunk phase. As the person continues to drink alcohol (“I drink beer because it is the only thing that quenches my thirst”) he/she there comes a point that the happy drunk becomes an angry drunk.
They get angry when he/she is accused of something they don’t remember because they fall asleep, never black out. They create stories that accuse others of bad behavior but they were innocent and never did anything wrong.
I know because I lived with one for 23 years. I left when I feared for my own life during the angry drunk phase and a hammer was raised at me. I just stared at him, not saying one word as he continued to yell “shut up before I…..”
It starts innocently, just a few drinks a day and slowly progressed to an angry drunk at the end of the day. He denied raising a hammer but that scene is forever etched in my mind.
K testified that when he drank “beer,” he didn’t “black out,” he fell asleep. Is there a difference? Either way, you lose consciousness.
A must read on the topic of “blackouts”
Very interesting article
To an alcoholic in denial, they never black out. There is a difference. When you pass out or black out, you don’t go through the normal get ready for bed. You might end up in your bed but you have no memory of getting there.
Even if he was blacked out, I don’t believe he has no memory at all. He may not remember it personally, but one of the “fun” things about blackouts for most guys like that is finding out the next day what you did. It allows the “adventure” to continue. I witnessed that several times in college – the guys would have as much fun telling each other about what they did as they had while doing it.
Two drunks in a room with a 15-year-old girl.
Door locked.
Loud music.
Laughter.
Who has the strongest, clearest memory of the event?
K certainly remembers what being a member of the Renate Alumnius club meant. And if he actually believes he told the truth when he swore under oath it was the type of honoring of his female “friend” that he prayed every night his own daughters could experience, then his brain cells have obviously been so destroyed by his drinking that he should not be on the Supreme Court. It’s really simple and there is no need to have an investigation since Kavanaugh clearly demonstrated either his willingness to perjure himself or his brain atrophy.
Georgetown alumnus, Michael Walsh, also listed himself on his personal yearbook page as a “Renate Alumnus.” His page includes the following short poem: “You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.”
Let hope he, like Charles Amberson Minafer, gets his comeuppance. Sooner rather than later.
George, not Charles. Apologies to Orson Welles and Tim Holt.
How does this guy get on the same list with names like Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren, Brennan, O’Connor, Stevens…?
He testified that politics / political party should and would not influence a justice’s review and decisions. Leaving the entire alledged high school issue to the side; his meltdown included whining that this was a Democrat coordinated attack and whining that this was payback for the president.
So politics and political party – and this disgusting pig of a president – WILL affect his reviews and decision making.
When teachers interview, they present a “model” lesson.
When administrators interview, they present a professional development session or role play situations.
When Supreme Court justices “interview,” they usually do not have to present themselves “in action.”
This one did and validated why most job interviews include showing you can do the job.
“…his meltdown included whining that this was a Democrat coordinated attack and whining that this was payback for the president.”
Even if the FBI cannot come up with anything, this angry outburst straight from the playbook of Trump and friends and Fox news tells me that Kavanaugh is a political animal in adition to everthing else that is not pretty or for the good of the country.
When Kavanaugh told the world that his daughter said, “shouldn’t we pray for the woman,” he disrespected the privacy of his child to advance his agenda. It is common for the politicized religious right to condemn those they disagree with a blasphemous rendering of, “I’ll pray for you”, which means to them a condemnation and a warning that God may exact his punishment on the person. While we don’t know the prayer’s intent by Kavanaugh’s daughter, we know in the context and in his telling, that Brett’s intent matched his condescending, holier than thou rants.
Part of his larger strategy of playing the victim, here as father with religious convictions and above reproach.
In his testimony, Kavanaugh enacted a strategy called DARVO, which stands for: Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender. It’s a term coined by Dr. Jennifer Freyd at the University of Oregon.
Excellent.
Thanks, Laura.
https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html
If you cannot destroy the message, destroy the messenger.
It bothered me when his daughter asked if they should pray for “the woman.” I understand them wanting to shield their daughters from the accusations of “the woman,” but I found it telling that K chose to refer to Dr. Blasey that way when telling the story.
If a person wants to shield the vulnerable, he doesn’t put a target on them by quoting them by name in a public hearing.
First, Kavanaugh used his family to help him secure the job. The rest of us when we interview for jobs don’t have our kids in tow.
Dr. Blazey didn’t tell us that her children’s prayers were for her attacker because she has character, unlike Kavanaugh.
“he disrespected the privacy of his child”
It was worse than that. He used his child as a prop to make himself look sympathetic.
It’s worse than that. Perjury is on the table. It opens up the door to compelling the child to answer questions about her authorship of Kavanaugh’s quote. What kind of b——d, does that to a kid? Dr Blazey, a lawyer like Kavanaugh, didn’t put her kids in jeopardy.
Dr. Blasey is a psychologist not a lawyer. She has a Ph.D. in psychology.
Thanks for the correction. In error, I inferred from a report that she had both degrees.
Sorry Linda, missed this response. You are right of course, but legal considerations aside, it strikes me as a breach of very basic parenting rules. You just. don’t. involve your kid in adult issues. Period. They have no control there.
It also bothers me no end that he uses his faith within his family to manipulate his kids’ attitudes– praying for Blasey-Ford? If I were he I’d be doing my damnedest to shield my children from viewing any of the testimony, providing just a brief & neutral synopsis.
Perhaps even taking those measures, his daughter might have come up w/this poignant request. The very last thing I’d do is brag about it before TV millions. It’s a terrible violation.
He didn’t watch Blasey Ford’s testimony. I doubt his children did either. He is a liar.
“Boof” and “devil’s triangle” are now immortalized in federal public record. Let that sink in.
Everyone should copy and share the link below to the complete article with all their friends on all their social media channels:
He is a liar
Unfit to be on the Court
Adolescent boozing is bad.
Adult lying is worse
Totally agree. My stomach is turning with every passing day.
Right now, America is owned by Putin…make no mistake about this. Dump is handing over this country to foreign interests. Dump is “banking on” a HUGE bonus from Putin. Then he’ll be set and so will his gangsters.
The context of his lies provide an insight into his entitlement, blind ambition, and misogyny. If I was a parent of one of the teenage girls who he coaches, I’d be looking for new basketball league immediately.
If he is so respectful of woman, was was he so rude to the female senator? His apology did not seem sincere.
I bet if his wife was allowed to speak the truth (remember she hasn’t said a word), she’d give us an earful and his parents can’t be ignorant about his adolescent behaviors since I’m sure they had to put a drunken teen to bed on more than one occasion.
My question is “Why didn’t the FBI uncover these drinking patterns prior to now?”.
“If he is so respectful of woman, was was he so rude to the female senator? His apology did not seem sincere.”
He was extraordinarily rude to Senator Whitehouse, too. I don’t see the argument that his rudeness to Sen. Klobucher was sexist.
Except she had confided that her father was an alcoholic, and his attack on her was even more belligerent than it was on her male counterpart. He was rude to both.
He snapped at Sen Klobuchar twice, demanding to know if she fell down drunk.
Only once at Sen Whitehouse.
A hateful Arrogant man.
I will pray for his wife and children.
Not sure what scorecard you’re looking at, but he snapped at Senator Whitehouse several times.
I think BK’s wife and children are all victims of Stockholm Syndrome.
What every teacher knows: Grassley ought to have called out Kavanaugh the first time he was disrespectful to Whitehouse. There would have been no insolence to Klobuchar later. (I think – perhaps K is that arrogant.)
But Grassley behaved as if butter wouldn’t melt in K’s mouth. Curious, no?
Here’s another account of Kavanaugh’s lies.
“Kavanaugh’s choice to lie about things that are easily disproved speaks to a kind of hubris, or entitlement, that befits someone of his pedigree.”
Yes, and the most stomach turning thing is watching Trump’s newest minion Lindsay Graham saying “K’s perjury is perfectly fine” after he impeached Bill Clinton for perjury that was far less blatant.
Here’s the simple logic if the PACs would just wake up and sell it
IF
Senate and Rep Candidates = The President (100% support no matter what he says)
The President = disgraceful comments about victims
THEN
Candidates = disgraceful comments about victims – women, disabled…
How can these white men get their votes in red states?
https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/sens-collins-king-and-reps-pingree-poliquin-announce-contract-award-build-four-destroyers
Who gets what for a vote.
We live in a “PAY to PLAY” as well as a “Jim Crow” country.
A man who lies was elected to the presidency. Why shouldn’t a man who lies sit on the supreme court?
I voted for Bernie.
…..
Let me begin by saying something that should be clear to everyone:
What Dr. Christine Blasey Ford did earlier this week — coming forward as a survivor of sexual assault and sharing her story with the entire nation, knowing full well her character would be under attack and her family’s safety threatened — demonstrated a kind of courage and patriotism that is quite rare.
And then to agree to re-live that trauma once again by participating in an FBI investigation and the continued national spotlight that will come with it is nothing short of heroic.
Let me be clear: Brett Kavanaugh would push this Supreme Court even further to an extreme right wing that desperately wants to gut a woman’s right to choose, further erode voting rights, and make it easier and easier for Wall Street and the billionaire class to buy our elections. Kavanaugh has been dangerous from the beginning, and I have opposed him right from the start.
Dr. Blasey Ford’s experience cannot and must not be ignored, and she deserves a full, serious FBI investigation. It should not be limited to one week. The FBI should have a reasonable time to do its job well.
We are talking about a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. There is no reason to rush this investigation. None. And let me say something else that I believe many of my colleagues in the Senate agree with, but few would say aloud:
It is very likely that Brett Kavanaugh lied to the Senate repeatedly and under oath during these confirmation hearings and in previous ones as well.
He likely lied about whether or not he used stolen materials while working in the White House to help advance nominees made by President George W. Bush. And anyone watching this last week can tell he was likely lying, repeatedly, about his time in high school and college.
The FBI should have the time to investigate that, as well. The American people deserve no less.
Now I know a few of my friends on both sides of the aisle may say that they are torn or conflicted about this nomination. Maybe they are a bit worried about what will happen in an election or among their party’s base if they vote no or call for a longer investigation.
But I know their fear must be nothing compared to the fear Dr. Ford felt as she raised her right hand and stared at a panel of some of the most powerful men in the nation who worked overtime in the days before to cast doubt on her story.
And what I would ask of them is to summon just a fraction of the courage Dr. Ford showed this week.
They should do what’s right for the nation and push for a full examination of Brett Kavanaugh’s repeated lies to the Senate.
Who were you quoting here?
carolmalaysia is writing what Bernie Sanders said (it was sent on an e-mail requesting that we sign a petition for a full F.B.I. investigation from Bernie).
His trademark phrase–“Let me be clear…”
Gee wiz for a guy that had such a sensitive stomach, poor thing, he sure didn’t do anything to exacerbate his nausea like drinking to excess or anything like that.
Let us hope that the FBI will confirm his misstatements. He then will have purgered himself. If ONLY Bernie had been given a chance to win by the Democrats. This mess would never have happened. Jeff Fl;ake was right when he said this country is tearing itself apart, EXACTLY what Bin Laden and Putin were aiming for. Mark Shields touched on this on the PBS Newshour. Both Bob Woodward and Marvin Kalb’s books speak eloquently to the danger of losing our democracy with Trumpism.
If the FBI can’t confirm that Kavanaugh was lying about his characterization of everything he wrote in his yearbook, then whichever agent did the investigation should be fired. Another boy’s yearbook entry wrote the poem that was sung about Renate, and it was not meant to honor her. Kavanaugh committed perjury.
Unless Mark Judge regains his memory, it will be impossible to prove with 100% certainty that Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault Dr. Ford. But it is 100% certain that Kavanaugh committed perjury and if the FBI overlooks the crime that can be proven with 100% certainty that Kavanaugh committed and pretends it is irrelevant, while claiming that the fact that they can’t prove that he committed another crime with 100% certainty, then the fix is in.
And the Democrats should walk out if a perjurer is confirmed to a lifetime position.
And if he is, the Democrats should impeach him as soon as they control the House.
Impeachment requires 67 votes in the Senate. No one will be impeached.
The Democrats should hold hearings in which they have testimony of how much K lied under oath and thus committed perjury. Every false statement should be magnified in those hearings. The Republicans should be forced to go on record that they support judges who commit crimes.
Kavanaugh can be impeached by just a simple majority of the House but it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict. Impeachment is a two stage process. The first step is similar to an indictment in criminal law.
Let’s hope the FBI will be able to flip Mark Judge the way they flipped some of Trump’s cronies like Michael Cohen.
Sometimes a non native-born American has a perspective worth viewing:
Diane, it’s clear that you read the New York Times daily. I do too. Most Americans do not and cannot. It is as difficult for them as it is for me to read Le Monde with my shaky French. There are too many unfamiliar words. Our schools are not preparing kids to read the Times –and thereby participate fully in the public sphere –because they subscribe to the bogus theory of literacy development that emanates from our ed schools –that literacy is a bundle of skills like the skill of finding the main idea. It is not. It is a function of world knowledge. Until our teachers start heeding the words of E.D. Hirsch and systematically teach world knowledge, large swaths of the electorate will remain mired in ignorance and be incapable of participating competently in the public sphere. I meet these people every week as I do volunteer campaigning for a Democrat. The bankruptcy of our literacy theories is the central problem in American education today. It is undermining our democracy.
I would not blame the teachers. Many districts give a specific curriculum to follow with no extra time to fill in the extras.
Rather, look at the homes. Do they get a newspaper to read? It use to be a time when you got the Sunday paper on Saturday. Now you are hard pressed to find a place that sells daily newspapers – at least in my neighborhood.
Are the people watching the news? Are they getting just the local news or the nation as well? Some people just don’t bother because “It doesn’t concern me and it doesn’t affect me”.
Teachers need to press for a better curriculum instead of cheerleading for Common Core, which I call the Ignorance Curriculum. Or they should practice civil disobedience (discretely) and give kids the facts they need in spite of the official mandates. Facts like “poll”, “Congress”, “military budget”, “dictatorship”, “gulag”…
This also exposes an essential truth about the current “leave it out of the textbook” game happening in places where those who decide to eliminate things like Jim Crow and Hillary Clinton from school texts argue that “teachers can add in what they choose.” Teachers are then punitively stuck with pre-scripted programs and canned curricula, facing punishments for moving in any creative direction at all.
Like FBI investigations which are limited in their ability in who or what they can actually investigate.
Ponderosa,
May I quote you? Good one. AGREE.
If anyone doubts Ponderosa, just ask any teenager you know a few basic knowledge questions – facts and ideas that you’d expect a kid to know about the world they live in. You will find that the Common Core standards have promoted ignorance; that the push for so-called 21st century skills in place of knowledge and content vocabulary has left this generation of students with neither. The Common Core Generation has been lulled into a near catatonic state, an academic limbo that has left them devoid of basic knowledge and vocabulary and even worse without a shred of curiosity – the very driver of knowledge gain.
I agree. It seems to me that skills arise out of knowledge of facts and concepts and the ability to organize them in a logical way. Doctors don’t simply cruise into the operating room and use their “skills” without having knowledge and factual information about how the body works. Lawyers don’t breeze into court and present their case without knowing facts of law and their cases. Electricians don’t just come in to your house and start wiring without knowing facts about electricity (hopefully). I’ve also noticed over the years that kids don’t seem to be able to apply what they’ve learned (or remember) in one subject to another subject. I teach French grammar but when it comes to learning about grammar in English they can’t seem to apply what they know or see a similarity. You can’t imagine how many kids there are out there that don’t know and can’t figure out that on their quiz 18 out of 20 points is 90%. I think there are three problems here. First, kids are so distracted by their phones that they are no longer able to take time to process information. Can you imagine kids sitting for hours reading? I don’t think it happens a lot anymore. Second, students are not, in general, taught the context in which literature or history happens so it is difficult for them to get the big picture of events. Although there are some private schools that combine history and English, for example. Third. In a way, it is too much to ask of kids to see the big picture. They are just not developed enough intellectually to do it. Anyway, skills don’t just arise out of nothingness. Our emphasis on skills and not mastery of basic information is doing a disservice to students.
Completely agree that phone addiction has exacerbated the problem. Attention spans can now be measured in nanoseconds. Kids on a long family drive no longer look out the window; scenery, signage, weather, wildlife, and travel conversations are all ignored in favor of snapchats and insta-grams.
Sadly, phones may be doing a better job of educating kids than our schools. YouTube, TV and Hollywood expose kids to content that teaches them about the world, something our K-8 schools do only incidentally as they attempt to teach content-free skills. Of course the phones are a font of inappropriate content, alongside some good stuff, and texting friends teaches about friends and not much else. But what real value added are our schools giving these days? I’m hard pressed to say.
If we’re truly serious about turning our kids into informed and active citizens, we need to identify the knowledge that good citizens like Diane have in their heads, and then “backward plan” to map out a curriculum that will inculcate that same knowledge in the heads of our kids. This major effort isn’t even being contemplated by most teachers because their minds are so in thrall to the skills delusion that our ed schools have impressed upon them.
I do not agree with Ponderosa’s constantly blaming of teachers and the public schools for the problems in this country. The school reformers do enough of that already.
the better to stick a future worker into a computer cubicle to spend eight hours a day plugging away at those “high tech” data manipulation jobs…
Joe,
Schools neglect everything but reading and math…and yet kids are still bad at reading and math! When are teachers going to realize we’re doing something wrong?
I’m curious: in terms of curriculum, what do you think we’re doing right?
“yet kids are still bad at reading and math!”
Really, how many kids are “bad” at reading and math?
If a “kid” doesn’t read books, magazines and newspapers on their own, they they will continue to be a poor reader. Studies have determined that to become an avid, on grade level reader, children must read outside of school hours and outside of school assignments. The more they read, the better reader they become. In addition, studies show that children born into a family living in poverty often live in homes with parents/guardians who do not read. There are no books, newspapers and magazines in those homes. Those children start behind in kindergarten and stay behind and fall even further behind as the years go by because they go home to the Death Valley of reading, a house empty of books and they never see their parent read anything worth reading.
If “kid” doesn’t pay attention in class or do the math homework, than that kid will be poor in math.
Teachers can teach kids but that doesn’t mean the kids will do what is necessary to learn.
And if “kids” are still bad at reading and math, please explain why the publishing industry estimated that there re 60 million avid readers in the US that read 10 or more books annually?
Lloyd, of course some of us learn to read well. My point is that the formula schools are using to make bad readers into good readers isn’t working. We put Johnny into reading intervention class when he’s in 3rd grade. He still reads badly in 11th grade, despite years of treatment. Good readers are good despite the formula, not because of it.
Is “kids” a bad word?
I don’t know if “kids” is a bad word. I suppose it might bother someone. I don’t think it is a bad word.
For sure the most common methods used to deal with “kids” behind in reading doesn’t work. Tracking them doesn’t work. What works? Coming up with methods that turn reading into fun. That’s why I emphasized with my students that they only read books they like for the books I required they read and write a book report for each month. I said, “If you find you are reading a book that you think is boring or the book doesn’t interest you, turn it in the same day and find one you enjoy reading.”
I don’t know about future generations, but you are selling the current group of teens way short. There are more adults in their lives than just teachers. Many of our teens are not just aware, but active in social justice issues. Their problem is making themselves heard by the adults in the room who pat them on the head and ignore their cries against crimes against humanity.
Even my 16 year old grand daughter, who doesn’t usually pay attention to politics, has an opinion on this matter.
Flos56 –I’m encouraged by the political awareness of some young people too. We should give some of the credit for this to the many good teachers out there –especially in high school where transmitting content is still a priority. But you’re right: society has many teachers that are not school teachers. John Oliver is one. Alex Jones is another.
Yes, Ponderosa. Yes indeed. Thank you for returning, again and again, to this essential topic.
Knowledge, btw, includes both declarative knowledge (knowing what) and procedural knowledge (knowing how). And it includes known knowledge (of which we are consciously aware) and unknown knowledge (that which was acquired without our being aware of it and is not usually accessible to awareness). It would be very valuable, I think, for us to couch our discussions of “skills” in terms of procedural knowledge because this would rescue us from a lot of vagueness. And it’s valuable for us to recognize that some skills can only be refined to a high level by doing. One has to samba to learn samba, to plane would to learn how to plane wood.
To add to your thought. Not only is “knowing how to do something” important but actually doing that something is, I believe, even more important as your last sentence shows.
At the same time we should caution against assigning “skills” to a person unless they actually perform. And then the description of that event can only be ascribed to the event and not the person.
We need to recognize, I think, that there are lots of types of tests, and they have distinct and very limited use. The moron ed deformers have made them into the be-all and end-all. This is a hair on the tail wagging the dog.
“hair on the tail”–That’s a good one, Bob!
Duane, Bob, Ponderosa: thanks for this line of thought. Knowledge is certainly the basis for understanding. Some of that knowledge is experience-based. No one who,has ever experienced the enervating heat of the hot southern might will ever forget the famous line from UB Phillips: “Let us talk about the weather”. Phillips uses the line to emphasize the factor of geographic determinism in the development of Chattel slavery in the Old South.
Other references to historical events and famous literature inform our conversations. It is far easier to call someone the “soup Nazi” than it is to string it out as an explanation.
yes . yes. yes. What a lovely post, Roy! Thank you.
Language comprehension is always knowledge-dependent. Here’s an example that makes that abundantly clear:
There’s an ancient Welsh poem, “The Battle of the Trees,” that says, “The birch is the last to arm.” What on Earth does that mean?
Well, if you know that birches grow thick bark later than other trees do, the meaning becomes obvious.
Very, very often, reading instructors think that the comprehension problem that a kid is encountering is lack of some vague “reading skill,” when in fact it’s lack of key knowledge that the author took for granted but that the kid either doesn’t have or isn’t calling upon because he or she isn’t attending to the text due to lack of motivation to do so.
Bob
Here is a sample CC test item from grade 8 ELA (Spring 2018 NYS)
What does *paragraph 9 mainly reveal about he narrator?
A) She thinks of nature as calming
B) She is attached to familiar things and is close to her family
C) She love language and has a vivid imagination
D) She pays attention to yearly patterns
*Paragraph 9 (Excerpt from: Winter Wheat by Mildred Walker)
“One heavy dark Northern Spring . . . fifty two. The words came so fast they seemed to roll downhill. Nobody ever calls it all that; just spring wheat, but I like the words. They heap up and make a picture of a spring that’s slow to come, when the ground stays frozen late into March and the air is raw, and the skies are sulky and dark. The “Northern” makes me feel how close we are to the Rockies, and how high up on the map, almost to Canada.”
Six of the 7 items released pertaining to the full 21 paragraph excerpt of Winter Wheat used the terms “best”, “most”, and “mainly” in the stems. This is a common example of the subjective nature of what should be purely objective MC test items on CC assessments.
Rager,
There are no “purely objective MC” questions. Never have been and never will. Even with math as someone has to decide what question and answers to use, or someone has to program the algorithm to do so.
Which word is the verb in the sentence below?
The old man walked slowly down the stairs.
A) old
B) man
C) walked
D) slowly
Yes the choices are not objective but the test item above has only one correct answer and three incorrect distractors.
That makes it an objective MC item.
Superb examples, RAtT. BTW, rage is certainly called for! A couple years ago, I wrote a long letter to the principal of my high school, who was very worried about state test scores, analyzing all the sample released items from one of our state ELA tests. Every item was deeply problematic. In many cases, the stem was so poorly written that the answer meant to be correct actually wasn’t. In many, several of the answers were arguably correct. In some, none of the answers, given what the stem actually said (as opposed to what was intended by the test creators), none of the answers was, arguably, correct. All this stems from the test makers deciding, for ease in efficiency in grading, to press so called multiple-choice objective items of various kinds into a sort of service for which they are not suited. The test makers now always give ELA item writers instructions to make the incorrect plausible, so that answering the question correctly will require “higher-order thinking,” discernment. Well, what does “plausible” mean? It means “arguably true.” As a result, the tests as they are now are a hot mess. They are invalid and unreliable. They don’t measure what they purport to measure, and they couldn’t, given the vagueness of the puerile “standards” on which they are based.
Well, Rager, what you are saying is that by definition a multiple guess question is objective. To which I say horse manure. There are subjective decisions throughout the making of that question. It is not objective in the sense of “scientific objectivity” nor in the sense of not having any human bias or influence. What you are attempting to justify is a very truncated version of “objective”, one that doesn’t hold water. That false objectivity is just one of the many invalidities involved in standardized testing.
The writing of the questions on multiple choice tests is subjective. The decision about the right answer is subjective.
Exactly!
Concerning the test question: what is very subjective about is test question is how it is to be used. If it is put with other such questions, it can be made to describe a human being with a number, or it can be used to alert a teacher to the fact that a student potentially does not know what a verb is. This second usage is legitimate, because the teacher can then remedy the situation given time and materials to do so. The first usage is not legitimate because it serves only to attack a student’s character by attaching an arbitrary number to that student’s identity.
Well said, Roy. There is also subjectivity in the assigning of knowing how to do this to kids in general, with no attention to matters like particular kids’ backgrounds. Telling a kid who has just arrived her from Belarus and has studied no English that he or she needs to be able to do this now is, ofc, ridiculous.
Yvonne –of course!
I, for one, am concerned about Kavanaughs ability to “interperate”. If he does it the way he is trying to now by distorting the past to make himsef look less guilty, I am concerned about how he will interperate the Constitiution. Another elitist man/boy mot getting his way.,His mantrum totally turned me off. And we want THIS guiding our Justice system for decades? Why arent there more WOMEN on the court?
To this interesting discussion, I would add that K and the Republican members of the senate entered this testimony with the obvious intent of arousing its voting base to get out in November. They thought “the woman” would look stupid so they directed K to look aggressive and combative, appealing to those who drink beer and are aggressive. They are hoping that this performance brings some of these people to the polls who might normally have stayed away.
Thus K is a justice who is willing to engage in partisan politics on a national stage. Whatever else he is, he is not what John Locke said we needed in the Social Contract, impartial justice.
I fear Sen. Collins’ strategy is related to what you describe. She plans to vote for Kavanaugh then, tell her Trump constituents that their votes are essential to vindicate her vote.
The limited FBI investigation provides cover for the fence sitters to vote for Kavanaugh. Conscience is an old fashioned notion. Flake could have voted no in committee, which he did not. Kavanaugh’s unprofessional rant alone should disqualify him from sitting on the Supreme Court. My kindergarteners were not permitted these types of outbursts. When they occurred, parents were immediately called in for a conference. One of Kavanaugh’s most easily proven falsehoods was that he worked his butt off to get into Yale when in actuality he was a legacy student. His grandfather attended Yale. This confirmation process is exhausting. We have not come very far since Anita Hill’s testimony.
Seven yers ago, a major newspaper reported that Harvard owned up to 30% legacy rate and Yale, 20-25%. Since high rates make them look bad, I speculate that the real numbers are, at least, about twice that.
The recent incident at Smith showed us the demographic concentration of the elite schools.
Legacy admission colleges should be prevented from receiving all federal and state funds.
I think it’s working, Roy. Yesterday while registering voters I encountered a few extremely fired up Republicans who wanted to give me an earful about how Blasey Ford is a liar.
Pondersosa: I just got the following comments on another site. How does on fight this ignorance?
………………………..
And he is saving the USA from totalitarian rule. Thank you Donald Trump our POTUS extraordinaire. MAGA.
Obama could be quite articulate, when reading from a teleprompter.
Stuttering, drugged Obama without a teleprompter was incoherent and quite boring during his last appearance. If Trump is unintelligible and suffering from cognitive decline he has an amazing facility for engaging and holding audiences in his sway.
Carol –I may be naive, but I can’t help but think that a solid foundation in basic world knowledge would help inoculate young minds against the Crazy. Knowledge, for example, about how medieval Europe was not some idyll just because it was all white –on the contrary, whites found myriad reasons to abuse, hate and kill each other. Background knowledge gives us a stronger grasp of reality, and the ability to sniff out falsehoods. Lots of reading about totalitarian regimes, including reading Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being and similar accounts of life under totalitarianism, helps me see that Obama is the antithesis of a totalitarian dictator wannabe. We must give such knowledge to our fledgling citizens, don’t you think? But our schools don’t make a point of giving background knowledge.
Somewhat off-topic, but for those of you in the Chicago area, I highly recommend the play that Steppenwolf is running right now: Downstate. It was purely coincidental as far as the timing with the Kavanaugh hearing, but very serendipitous. The play is about four convicted but now released sex offenders on the registry living in a group home in downstate Illinois. It opens with a middle-aged man coming to confront the oldest man in the home about the abuse he inflicted thirty years ago in an effort to obtain some kind of closure. The dynamics among the victim, all of the offenders, their parole officer and others weave throughout the play.
According to the playbill, the purpose of the play was to explore the idea of who is irredeemable and it was intended to give some perspective and perhaps compassion to people trapped in a hell of their own making. I think it did that in some respects, but for me the play (extremely well written and acted) just emphasized the denial and evasiveness of offenders – some of them show more or less socially acceptable regret or guilt, but none of them comes anywhere close to truly admitting and owning what they’ve done and the impact it’s had.
In the audience discussion afterward a lot of people found the victim character “unsympathetic” and believed that the men in the group home were also “victims”. I thought it was an interesting perspective on how easy it is to blame the victim and sympathize with the perpetrators. In any case, I highly recommend the play. This is apparently the opening of what is supposed to be a national run, so I hope everyone will get a chance to see it.
Thanks for the tip, Dienne; I will definitely be going.
Saturday Night Live is back!!!
……….
Kavanaugh Hearing Cold Open – SNL
Saturday Night Live
Published on Sep 29, 2018
Judge Brett Kavanaugh (Matt Damon) takes questions from Senators Chuck Grassley (Alex Moffat), Diane Feinstein (Cecily Strong), Amy Klobuchar (Rachel Dratch), Thom Tillis (Mikey Day), Cory Booker (Chris Redd), John Kennedy (Kyle Mooney), Sheldon Whitehouse (Pete Davidson), Lindsey Graham (Kate McKinnon) and prosecutor Rachel Mitchell (Aidy Bryant).
The first 5 minutes of the news was just as good (as was the RBG bit after this):
Kavanaugh should have been asked the following question, “Would you want your daughter at a high school party with your friend, Mark Judge?”
Better yet: “Would you trust your daughter with your high school self at a party?”
Apparently this is what the WH is doing. Can’t have an investigation that finds much.
…..
According to reports by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, the investigation into K’s background ordered by the White House on Friday will be limited in scope solely to the accusations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez. The accusations of Julie Swetnick, who says she was drugged and gang raped at a party where K was present, will reportedly not be investigated.
The probe will also exclude former classmates who have disputed K’s testimony about his drinking habits as a student, according to The New York Times. While K testified that his drinking was limited to sometimes having “too many beers,” though never drinking “to the point of blacking out,” at least two former classmates have come forward to claim those statements are inaccurate. Lynne Brookes, who attended Yale with K, said he had “grossly misrepresented and mischaracterized his drinking.” Another former Yale classmate, Liz Swisher, told CNN that K’s testimony on his former drinking habits was not “credible” and that he was a “sloppy drunk.”
The White House counsel’s office reportedly gave the FBI “a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview.” Sources told NBC News that the parameters given to the FBI are a “significant constraint on the FBI investigation” that “may make it difficult to pursue additional leads” in the probe.
Great analysis of the multiple ways Kavanaugh perjured himself during his testimony. Leave the question of his sexual actions to the side for a moment and here’s sufficient reason to remove him from his current position. Lying to Congress is a felony.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
Great article. It analyses Kavanaugh’s testimony step by step. Well done!
I’m confused. How can the NYT fact check testimony that is all disseminations, non-answers and lies?
I honestly believe that Dr Ford would make a better Supreme Court Justice than Brett Kavanaugh.
Diane, what would happen if a myriad of accusations come out after (and if Kavanaugh is confirmed? Could he be impeached if credible witnesses come forward and substantiate these behaviors, especially if some of them are more current?
He can be impeached if 67 senators vote for it
Not to be fussy, because I know you know this, but it only takes a majority of the House to impeach. It would take 67 in the Senate to remove Kavanaugh. Which would never, ever — ever — happen.
FLERP,
Thanks for the clarification. Clinton was impeached by the House, but the Senate did not vote to remove him.
The Senate will not vote to remove Trump or Kavanaugh or Pence. etc.
It takes the US House voting articles of impeachment with a majority vote. A trial with the senate sitting as a jury, and a two thirds senate majority (your 67 votes) to convict and remove a sitting president, Vice President, or justice. As per Article II I believe.
I still don’t understand why anyone would support Trump or K. Who can understand 70% of Republican women? 70%!!!!!
…………
A CBS News survey conducted Sept. 28-30, after Thursday’s hearing, found that 41 percent of men said they think K should be confirmed, compared with 29 percent of women said the same. Seventy percent of Republican women said they thought that K should be confirmed.