There is also the critical backdrop of subverting the power and authority of our democratic system of government. An undermining of norms, procedures, and the rule of law in the service of an undemocratic, if not authoritarian, system so as to hedge the inevitable loss of power owing to changes occurring and contemplated in demographics and, resulting politics.

Kavanaugh had the competitive edge over other qualified, very conservative candidates because he converted to a position of expanded executive power.  A position that fits in well with a president and his family under investigation. The Republican senate has aided and abetted the subversion with a corrupt confirmation process--one that held back documents, permitted no follow-ups on disingenuous testimony,and blocked FBI or other investigations, including credible allegations of a crime, attempted rape.

 An unfit nominee steadfastly defended--one who if confirmed will contribute to the de-legitimization of an institution that relies on trust and honesty for its credibility. A justice who has revealed his secrets to his Trump confirmation handlers making him, potentially, vulnerable to leveraging of his independence.

Getting rid of Rosenstein, and, hence, Mueller (by the all too clever process of limiting his authority) subverts the criminal justice system by putting into place pliable, if not corrupt, replacements.

Every time they left their houses, young women who lived in the town were subjected to far more attention than a similar demographic anywhere else. I found that I could not speak to any of them, tried my best to ignore them when I saw them, because I refused to be identified with the rude soldiers vying for their attention in various impolite ways.

By contrast, in situations where the sexes were more equally represented, I had no problem relating to women.

In response to recent political events, I see men now asking what the "rules" are for polite engagement with women, as though there is a manual on such behavior. Is a compliment sexist? Is it offensive to admire a woman's wardrobe? How much touching is "inappropriate?"

I have never been accused of forcing my attention on a woman. I have never needed "rules" to deal appropriately with women. I have found that empathy works better than any formal framework.  Putting myself in the shoes of the young women badgered by lonely soldiers kept me from adding to their burden.

President Trump has threatened to release classified documents, which he assures us he has not read, related to the Russia investigation. While the move is couched as a finger in the eye of the Democratic Party, an undignified presidential response at best, it is hard to see this as anything other than a generous gift to Vladimir Putin and the Russian intelligence services. Can anyone imagine the outcry from the right if Barack Obama had provided classified intel documents to Russia without even reading them himself?

There are plenty of woman I know who agree that this is absurd.  Will this whole thing hurt Republicans in Nov - hard to tell.  It could help as it has really energized the right. A far far bigger weight among the woman I know is Trump.  If you're a Democrat, he is the gift that keeps on giving.

Here's how I think it's going to shake out:

The hearing on Thursday will go on as planned.    The Republicans will ignore Deborah Ramirez and  Julie Swetnick (Avenatti's client) though I'm sure the Democrats won't  They are viewed by the right as trying to drag things out and everybody on both sides is well aware of the upcoming election.  Both have credibility issues.  There is a perception that this will never end.

The New Yorker Article says Ramirez was very drunk.  Then she says After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney (i.e. Democratic Staff and attorney) she felt confident enough of her allegations...  That's not a confidence inspiring statement.   The New York Times reported that "Ms. Ramirez initially told friends she had memory gaps and was not certain that Judge Kavanaugh was the person who exposed himself" - another statement that doesn't inspire confidence.

Ramirez's attorney isn't doing her any favors.  ALL Senators have egos.  At this point the Republicans on the committee are done listening to the demands of witnesses trying to tell them what to do.  Ramirez wants to talk to them and give a statement, fine.  But she wants to list preconditions they need to meet before she cooperates.  That's fine too.  They'll just move on without her.  Flake's statement about the vote made that pretty clear.

I think Avenatti's client's claims are 100% BS.  Her allegations are incredible. Like Jeralyn, I never saw or heard of anything like this in high school or college.  None of my college friends ever had any stories like this from their many high schools either.  I think most Americans will find Swetnick's claims hard to believe.  In any case, they involve lots of parties and lots of people.   Every reporter in the western world has been calling everyone who knew Kavanaugh back then over the last few weeks.  If what she alledges was remotely true, there would be collobration from many other than Avenatti (whom I'm sure will soon dredge up someone).  Their isn't any independent verification.   All Avenatti has done is make it easier to ignore Ramirez and move forward.  If you want to look credible, he's not your guy.

They'll be a vote.  It will depend on how what Flake, Collins and Murkowski think of how things go on Thursday.  All have bucked their party in the past.  But all are Republicans and all are aware how most on the right think this is a coordinated Democratic plan to smear Kavanaugh. They probably have some of those thoughts too.   It's hard not to see that with the democratic attorneys involved and their efforts to tell the committee what to do.   I'm sure they all think Feinstein handled this poorly - even the San Francisco Chronicle blasted her.  Feinstein's handling of this makes it easy to not do all of the investigation the left wants. She forfeited that by her political timing.  All are also aware of the political ramifications of all this.

I think all of this pre-Thursday posturing will be forgotten quickly as the news will be dominated by what happens Thursday.  Anybody who can predict how Thursday will go is deluding themselves.  It will be quite the show.

If he does this I can imagine republican leadership chatting with Rosenstein about that 25th amendment thingie he was talking about.

The guy, who made the first and best movie, is a genius at dragging your psyche out of its comfort zone.

For example, one new element in the series is a cult.  Their thing is to dress up in their robes a stick some flowers in their hair and offer them selves up to the blood thirsty crowds on PURGE NIGHT so they can be the vehicle for the poor angry people to yada, yada...

"According to an anonymous complaint sent to Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Kavanaugh physically assaulted a woman he socialized with in the Washington, D.C. area in 1998 while he was inebriated."

Accordingly to Grassley the man was able to provide a lot more details than Ford did in her story.

Justice DY Chandrachud wrote in his opinion:

Members of the LGBT community are entitled, as all other citizens, to the full range of constitutional rights including the liberties protected by the Constitution. Members of the LGBT community are entitled to the benefit of an equal citizenship, without discrimination, and to the equal protection of law.

the president also declared his love for the brutal North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

"I like him, he likes me!" Trump declared, adding that "We were going back and forth, and then we fell in love. No really! He wrote me beautiful letters. And they are great letters. We fell in love."

"Question 1," a.k.a. the Universal Home Care proposal, represents a radical overhaul of how a state might pay for senior care and is a new front in the battle over health care for all. The activists behind the initiative, bolstered by a streak of successes, are betting that it will, at least in Maine, transform home care into a desirable career. The idea is to fund the creation of a new workforce and eliminate the ragtag safety net that leaves families in the lurch. UHC would tax wealthy Mainers to cover home care for any senior who needs it. It would also raise wages by requiring that at least 77 percent of the funds the program pays to home care agencies goes toward compensating the workers. (Relatives caring for family members could receive a stipend.) It's a Bernie-esque approach to a heretofore intractable problem

Really good. I never heard of this and kind off an across it on the web.

Seems to be 4 feature length episodes.  All are on YouTube