OneSeventeen

As someone who's been to therapy and who also knows people in the profession, it's my understanding that it would be considered an ethical violation for a therapist to in anyway force a patient of a traumatic experience to heal from it regardless of whether "coming to grips with it" would benefit them. I personally don't believe healing from trauma by experiencing more trauma is the best way to go. Yes, Dr. Blasey-Ford is a well educated psychologist. I can see how someone in that position should be able to understand the importance of going to therapy to help themselves process and heal from trauma. But from my understanding of trauma, it makes you irrational and afraid. Who are we to judge how a victim heals or doesn't heal? Again, from my understanding, healing from trauma is something that is done at each individual's chosen pace. To your point about "30 years" and "6 years," maybe 6 years ago all she was ready to do was tell her husband and therapist. If I were in her position I would be extremely reluctant to tell the world and invite a potentially violent circus into my life. I'm not an expert on trauma or sexual violence but from my basic understanding those who experience it feel stuck, they feel shame, they feel self-blame. They do not know how to speak about it (especially considering this happened when she was a 15 year old girl in the 80s and sex let alone sexual violence was understood or talked about in society.) So I think a person can be as educated on an issue as possible, but when something traumatic happens to them. That education can largely go out the window. In someways, I feel like it's asking an oncologist why they can't cure their own cancer. Also, as someone who studies cognitive science, granted at the undergrad level, I know with a small degree of expertise how complicated and irrational the human mind is regardless of our desire to be rational. There is so much about how the human mind functions that is hidden from us.

Some words to live by from the same article, “It is the truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges.”

I just want to say a big kudos to the poster who commented about how members of African American community have long since been disregarded when the speak out about their experiences with police brutality. The ubiquity of smartphones has really shed light on this issue. Perhaps if sometime in the near future our eyes function as video cameras and our brains function as hard drives we will be able to believe and empathize with those who come forward about their experiences with sexual violence.

Completely agree. The work that he did to impeach Bill Clinton and his insistence that Clinton be asked graphically explicit questions is further discrediting evidence that he acts based on politics. Kavanaugh's hypocrisy was evident in his answer to Senator Harris' question about whether he had taken a polygraph test as it relates to Dr. Blasey-Ford's allegations. Note: that Dr. Blasey-Ford passed a polygraph near the time of her grandmother's funeral. In the hearings Senator Harris asked Kavanaugh if he had taken a polygraph test. Kavanaugh responded, "No... Of course, those are not admissible in federal court. They're not admissible in federal court because they're not reliable." A ruling that Kavanaugh wrote on the Court of Appeals reads, "As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraph tests to determine the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to 'screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.' [and] The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes." He's either got memory loss or he's a hypocrite. Either trait is disqualifying.

They say they have no recollection of this event. Not that they remember for sure that it did not happen. Maybe that's semantics to some people, but for me it's perfectly reasonable for adults not to remember parties or gatherings they went to as teenagers. For anyone to use this as definitive evidence that nothing happen isn't being serious or fair. So many women (and especially men) who have experienced sexual assault feel so much anguish over what happened. It's tremendously difficult for them to come forward. This is why I choose to believe or at the very least withhold my judgement when survivors come forward until a credible case can be made against them. I don't want to compound the pain they are experiencing. Maybe this is being unfair to the person who could possibly have been falsely accused. But sexual assault is one of the most under reported crimes throughout the world, societies of different cultures all have a hard time dealing with this. That's why I think being compassionate enough to treat those who come forward with allegations of sexual assault with dignity and not derision is important.

If I had to speculate in a gun to my head or betting my life savings scenario, I think the following happened: Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk. Their drunken minds combined with their stereotypical teenage, ignorant, selfish, white, jock, upper-class prep school boy personalities thought it would be funny to pull a girl into a room and grope her to the point of using her as some kind sex object in a what they viewed at the time to be a joke. They might have drank more that night so they don't remember. Or they may have behaved in similar around other girls who maybe consented and enjoyed the attention she was getting from popular rich boys. So doing something similar to Dr. Blasey-Ford wasn't something to be taken seriously or remembered. Senator Leahy read Dr. Blasey-Ford's words today, "Indelible in the hippocamus is the laughter. The uproarious laughter." Based on his testimony, I do believe that he believes that this never happened. But I still also believe Dr. Blasey-Ford. Did Brett Kavanaugh Really Lie to Congress? - evidence of the email in his first hearing is pretty devastating to his credibility. From my perspective, Kavanaugh's defense against being painted as a drunkard is that it's impossible because he came first in his class in high school, played a lot of sports, got into Yale and did well in school there. I just found that reasoning really weak. Particularly because I go to a pretty good school myself and am on track to at least graduate cum laude (like Kavanaugh) or better. Just because you don't drink every night doesn't mean that you don't go all out when you do drink.

I found Kavanaugh's interaction with Senator Klobuchar really distasteful and immature. He apologized after the recess. I can't help but wonder if that genuinely came from him or if someone pulled him aside and told him that he came off really poorly. “You’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before or part of what happened?” Klobuchar asked. Kavanaugh would not answer the question and instead asked the senator if she had blacked out after drinking, “If you’re asking about blackout. I don’t know, have you?” he asked. “Could you answer the question, judge?” Klobuchar replied. “So, that’s not what happened, is that your answer?” “Yeah, and I’m curious if you have.” Kavanaugh asked the senator. Klobuchar told him: “I have no drinking problem, judge.” Kavanaugh replied, “Nor do I.”

Oh cool that you're a Canucks fan! I'm just an undergrad student double majoring in law and cognitive science, so if anyone has any corrections to add to the following please do so. Here's my answer to your question: I know Trudeau gets a lot of hate here (and deservedly so these days) but his overhaul of the Canadian judicial appointment process was democratic, smart and necessary. He has made the nominating process more transparent and non-partisan by having an advisory board create the shortlist from which he selects. The board chair is former PM Kim Campbell but the other chairs are from the Canadian Judicial Council, the Canadian Bar Association, the Federation of Law Societies and the Council of Canadian Law Deans, The other three chairs are outside the legal community. The candidates that the board considers must also have been part of a provincial law society for 10 years or served as a judge. The candidate is chosen by the PM and is then questioned by members of appropriate committees in the House of Commons and the Senate. In a nutshell, Canada has qualified people choosing from a pool of experienced jurists and practicing lawyers. In contrast to the US where the President chooses from a shortlist made by insiders or basically whoever he wants, there really isn't a formal process as to who gets nominated.

Comparing America’s Absurd Supreme Court Process To Canada’s A really interesting video from a fellow Canadian here. I completely agree with what you said. But at the same time, I think the American system of selecting a Supreme Court Justice really does a disservice to the concept and quest for justice. While the Canadian system has faults, I think it certainly has more mechanisms in place to ensure that justice is served over politics. At the same time, the court of public opinion still has its functions. We too serve as gatekeepers of justice by letting our government know what we believe is important in terms of its legislative and legal agenda. Our voices and our participation matters.

I'm very curious what investigation parameters both sides would agree to. From my perspective it makes complete sense to do the following: 1. Interview Mark Judge 2. Interview Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick 4. Interview Mark Judge's ex-girlfriend who said that he confessed to sexual assault Perhaps it's just the political animal in me but I would also like these people to be questioned by the Senate Judiciary committee.

So did I. I wonder if those women who confronted him in the elevator did anything to sway him. He's retiring from the senate in this election cycle so I don't see why he would need to score any political points anytime soon. Cheers to those women and cheers to Jeff Flake for bring some modicum of sanity to his party's reaction to this whole thing. Also, I emailed a professor last night on some material to understand this whole debacle. He referred me to this text Zombies in Western Culture: A Twenty-First Century Crisis. I haven't read the book yet but the youtube video is at the very least fascinating really worth watching to add a different but very relevant dimension to this debate.

I understand and support what you're saying, innocent people should not have to face the consequences or any sort of scorn for being wrongfully accused. I think that's a noble and idealistic principal. But I don't think it can be applied in this case because we cannot conclude guilt or innocence based on yesterday's proceedings. Even if an FBI investigation were to happen, Mark Judge, his ex-girlfriend, Debbie Ramirez, Julie Stewnick and who ever else were to testify. I don't think we can get to the full truth of what happened. I think it would certainly shed more light into Kavanaugh's character but I don't think we can definitively arrive at the truth. That's sort of the crux of my argument as to why he should withdraw or should be withdrawn. His nomination and if confirmed, his career as a Justice on the Supreme Court will forever be tainted by politics, scandal and mistrust. How can the public trust, respect and uphold the rulings of one of their most important legal institutions, a third of their federal government, if someone they ultimately do not trust is confirmed to a lifetime position of power? Brett Kavanaugh is not the only person qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. If it were me I would withdraw from the nomination myself because I believe it is important for a democratic society to trust it's institutions. I don't think my ego or my pain in being wrongfully accused is worth dividing our country and damaging the integrity of its highest court. Personally withdrawing IMO would be the patriotic thing to do. I'm still trying to process what this moment means. All I can say for now is that 11 male senators, men of significant privilege and power, did not know how to compassionately treat a woman who was brave enough to face them and share the most tragic experience of her life so they hid behind Rachel Mitchell. I'm watching the judiciary committee live right now and I'm just sickened and heartbroken. Voting against Kavanaugh's nomination isn't the same as saying he's guilty of sexual assault.

Hi guys, I watched the Kavanaugh hearings from beginning to end. I just wanted to share my thoughts and feelings, and of course read to all of yours. First, the politics and political tactics on both sides has done Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford, Brett Kavanaugh and their families a great disservice. Second, the Republicans showed such political cowardice by deferring their questioning of Dr. Blasey-Ford to Rachel Mitchell. It’s disgraceful that they then chose to ask Kavanaugh questions themselves. I found Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford to be credible. The emotion in her voice during her testimony was evident. I cannot imagine why a well-educated professional woman would come forward and subject her life and that of her family to the extreme vitriol and violent threats that comes with stepping forward into the ring of American politics. I found the following to be the most compelling pieces of evidence and parts of her testimony: She first revealed her experience of sexual assault years prior to Trump winning the presidency and Kavanaugh being nominated to the Supreme Court to her husband, marriage counselor and personal therapist. This precipitated because her husband could not understand why she wanted a second front door installed when they were remodeling their home. Dr. Blasey-Ford contacted her House representative when she saw that Kavanaugh’s name was on Trump’s shortlist as a nominee not after Kavanaugh’s name was announced as the official nominee. She freely admits that she cannot recall certain details about that night and welcomes and FBI investigation in order to gain a clearer understanding of it. The most emotionally devastating part for me was when she recounted how Kavanaugh and Judge laughed, and how she felt like she might be killed that night. Dr. Blasey-Ford would have had to have been some sort of master political Svengali in order to have set this whole thing up years ago. If she were, what is her motive and what is she looking to gain? Would such a gain even be worth all that she has lost? (Moving out of her home, hiring private security, threats to her and her family’s life). I want to be fair to Brett Kavanaugh. I feel like the emotion he showed today was genuine. I believe that he believes that he did not sexually assault Dr. Blasey-Ford. He’s in a difficult position because he really has no choice but to deny the allegations. I think his high school year book makes it pretty clear that he’s wasn’t the best guy back then to say the least. I do not believe him when he said that boofing was a term used for flatulence. I do not believe him when he said that the term Renate Alumnus was used by him and his friends in an unsexual way to show friendly appreciation for one of their good friends. But at the same time, I do not think his high school year book is enough to credible say that he sexually assaulted someone. I can confidently say that believe Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court should be withdrawn. Regardless of whether Kavanaugh committed sexual assault or not, there are other equally qualified people who can serve on the Court that are not tainted by scandalous allegations to their credibility and character. The integrity of the Supreme Court must be maintained. If I were in Kavanaugh’s position I would withdraw my nomination and cite patriotism and the importance of a democratic society having a justice system it can trust. Finally, I want to say how much extra pride and comfort I take in being Canadian today. Our country has deep faults. The Harper and Trudeau governments have been lacking in so many areas. But I truly believe that our society and our government institutions are not devoid of decency and humanity. I don’t think this is an automatic or default setting in our country. I believe our commitment to affordable healthcare and education and other social services makes this a reality because it gives people the opportunity to be their best selves.

http://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/canucks-top-prospects-no-2-olli-juolevi Salo said. “I was happy for him. He did have some struggles.” Salo was referencing the stretch of games following the World Junior Championship. Juolevi skidded through a rough patch, which included multiple games when he was a healthy scratch for his Finnish club.

I've been holding off on commenting on Joulevi until he's played a full season in the NHL, but I just wanted to say I think he's been unfairly scrutinized and criticized here lately. Some of us are disappointed that Dubois didn't fall to us as expected. Some of us are green with envy after seeing what McAvoy and Sergachev have done as rookies. Some of us believe that the team needs Tkachuk's combination of attitude and offence. Then there's the extra pressure of being the first defenseman this organization has taken in the first round since Bourdon and the first taken in his draft year. On top of being this organization's only defensive prospect that's pretty much a shoe in to make the NHL. There's a substantial part of this team's future riding on Joulevi to be an impact player. Some of the pressure that's being put on him is justified but some of it is not. For what it's worth, I'm optimistic on Joulevi. Yes he struggled this season in Finland. But he had a pretty great playoffs. So he didn't make Finland's world championship team. The goal is for him to make the Canucks. I'm a bit pessimistic on Joulevi's chances at having the same kind of success that McAvoy and Sergachev mainly because the Canucks don't have the depth that Boston and Tampa has so Joulevi's opportunities will likely be limited. But I'm optimistic on him in the long term. He has elite hockey sense and a lot of physical tools to succeed. And I know this comparison sounds bad but I don't think Joulevi will disappoint us in the same way Virtanen has disappointed us when compared to Nylander and Ehlers.

I really find Hutton's quote unfortunate. Maybe I'm understanding it the wrong way but to me it shows that he doesn't know what to do to earn his spot back. I hope he's given an opportunity to put this season behind and figure things out in the summer. Unless the Canucks are able to acquire a Cal Foote type prospect, and even then, I really don't see the point in trading Hutton at the deadline or this year's draft. Joulevi, Brisebois and Chatfield are the most promising prospects below Hutton. Not deep and certainly not confidence inspiring.

Does anyone have an update on this guy? How has he been for Utica?