Not to get into your personal bidness, but I'm getting a hint that you might live in a more traditional culture than me where male/female roles and much more defined.

I think what deserves our attention and analyses is the situation when both Kavanaugh and Ford acted, played and performed as actors; yet, in comparison with theatre, they played and represented their own lives and biographies. (By the way, while playing a role, is an actor honest?) The real facts of their lives were entirely overshadowed by the quality and persuasiveness of their performances, and most commentators were talking just about who made a better impression. What is important here is not truth itself, but the condition of the whole game, which make some enunciations looking more or less truthful.

I agree with much of what you say, but disagree with your assertion, "What is important here is not truth itself". Truth is the most important thing here, even if it is not treated that way by politicians. Truth is non-partisan, and we should encourage our elected representatives to keep that in mind.

It's pretty easy to forget that someone suffered a trauma at the hands of someone else, who in all probability was the person they accused, amid the infinite recession of representations and narratives. Maybe she didn't get sexually assaulted because:

(1) it was a Democrat conspiracy
(2) her memory is shoddy of things besides the event
(3) Kavanaugh was a good boy at school
(4) Kavanaugh lifted weights
(5) Kavanugh put some events he attended on his calendar.
(6) Ford wouldn't present the polygraph results or that bit of counselling
(7) No witnesses were subpoenaed but their testimony was filed on 'on record'.
(8) she spoke to her lawyers at some point while writing her testimony
(9) it's just partisan politics at its finest
(10) won't somebody think of Kavanaugh's children

but really, come on, you can't surrender your critical agency to deal solely with optics in schism from reality. All of these things don't mean a jot, the only salient facts here are that Ford's allegations are plausible and should have triggered a criminal investigation and formal trial.

Unwiring yourself from the sea of representations, bobbing your head above water to scream truth from your vantage. That's exactly what Debord was trying to make room for; how to orient yourself towards the real when everything around you is false, even your own image colonised tongue.

He says it right at the beginning of the book:

The images detached from every aspect of life fuse in a common stream in which the unity of this life can no longer be reestablished. Reality considered partially unfolds, in its own general unity, as a pseudo-world apart, an object of mere contemplation. The specialization of images of the world is completed in the world of the autonomous image, where the liar has lied to himself. The spectacle in general, as the concrete inversion of life, is the autonomous movement of the non-living.

As a critic you're supposed to swim against the current, not drown in the representation.

"What is important here is not truth itself". Truth is the most important thing here, even if it is not treated that way by politicians. Truth is non-partisan, and we should encourage our elected representatives to keep that in mind. — Relativist

Definitely, truth plays some subordinate role. Debord: “the truth is a moment of the false”.

Unwiring yourself from the sea of representations, bobbing your head above water to scream truth from your vantage. That's exactly what Debord was trying to make room for; how to orient yourself towards the real when everything around you is false, even your own image colonised tongue.

He says it right at the beginning of the book:

The images detached from every aspect of life fuse in a common stream in which the unity of this life can no longer be reestablished. Reality considered partially unfolds, in its own general unity, as a pseudo-world apart, an object of mere contemplation. The specialization of images of the world is completed in the world of the autonomous image, where the liar has lied to himself. The spectacle in general, as the concrete inversion of life, is the autonomous movement of the non-living. — fdrake

So, why don't you try to apply all these to the Spectacle of Kavanaugh vs Ford situation?

I don't know what you mean. More words please.

Facts:

Dr. Ford accused Judge Kavanaugh
Judge Kavanaugh denies the accusation
Dr. Ford named 4 witnesses - who when questioned do not support her accusation
Judge Kavanaugh maintained a fairly detailed calendar/diary in 1982
Judge Kavanaugh drank, likely to excess in 1982 and college
Dr. Ford informed Sen Feinstein of her accusation in July
Sen Feinstein did not share this information with her committee
Someone leaked the letter to the Washington Post, against Dr. Ford's wishes
2 of the 4 undecideds need to vote against Judge Kavanaugh

My conclusions:

I do not know with any degree of confidence if the event took place as Dr Ford testified

Dr. Ford was very credible, and I believe - she believes she is telling the truth

I think Judge Kavanaugh's aggression was mostly anger at the democrats on the committee for how they handled the accusation and partly tactic to align closer to the republicans making is harder for the undecided Republicans to vote against him - and then face re-election.

I believe Sen Feinstein was derelict in her duties in not reporting this accusation to the committee
when she got it.

This delay was for the sole purpose of delaying the conformation hearing as long as possible - hopefully passed the mid terms

The requests for a FBI investigation now are disingenuous against the fact that one could have been done weeks ago - this is just another tactic to delay the conformation, hopefully passed the midterms.

High school and college beer drinking - even to occasional excess should not prevent nominations to the SCOTUS

High school and college beer drinking, even to occasional excess is not proof of anything other than high school and college beer drinking.

This allegation should have been investigated and addressed confidentially when Sen Feinstein was made aware of it

The Politics

This is the most important SCOTUS nomination in many many years. There is a great deal at stake for both parties. The democrats feel IMO rightly wronged by the delay of Merrik Garland. In the last 10 plus years a predominately liberal SCOTUS has in republican opinion has exceeded their mandate and have made social law from the bench. If confirmed in some way or another abortion is at stake. If not confirmed the mid terms will be a one issue election on abortion.

It is Roe v Wade that is on trial -

I believe Sen Feinstein was derelict in her duties in not reporting this accusation to the committee
when she got it.

This delay was for the sole purpose of delaying the conformation hearing as long as possible - hopefully passed the mid terms

The requests for a FBI investigation now are disingenuous against the fact that one could have been done weeks ago - this is just another tactic to delay the conformation, hopefully passed the midterms.

This allegation should have been investigated and addressed confidentially when Sen Feinstein was made aware of it — Rank Amateur

So because Feinstein tried to use it to her advantage Dr Ford isn't owed the investigation she's requested?

I don't think law enforcement works that way. This has nothing to do with Feinstein or the Democrats. The only things that are relevant are Ford's accusations, Kavanaugh's denials, and whatever evidence or witness testimony can corroborate either party. Let the professionals figure it out and leave the politicians (of both parties) and their agendas out of it. If the Republicans are so sure he's innocent then they can confirm him anyway, with the option to impeach after if the FBI (or state investigators) find sufficient evidence to charge him. Or they could vote against and have Trump nominate someone else.

It he's innocent then what exactly is the problem with having an investigation? Surely clearing his name is a good thing?

Edit: And let's also not forget Swetnick and Ramirez.

Yes yall should probably put an alleged attempted rapist into the high court of the land because its too inconvenient to do the due diligence, and the democrats were being a bit fiddly anyway.

What is important here is not truth itself, but the condition of the whole game — Number2018

Yes, and we are part of the game, which is why I shifted some of the focus to us.

I think that you contradict yourself. From one side, you provide a long list of supposedly real facts and motivations regarding Kavanaugh vs. Ford situation. From the other side, you bring good quotes from Debord, asserting that in Society of the Spectacle, images, and presentations -the power of the false, overshadow and substitute so-called “real.”

Still, it bothers me that Supreme Court judges are often nominated according to how the ruling party in power thinks they will rule on certain issues. — Marchesk

That's part of the checks and balances.

I think they'll probably overturn Roe in a few years. Could Democrats take the whole legislature and amend the constitution? It would be in weird circumstances.

If the Republicans are so sure he's innocent then they can confirm him anyway, with the option to impeach after if the FBI (or state investigators) find sufficient evidence to charge him. — Michael

THIS. A million times over. Can someone explain to me why this cannot be an option for either side? Why in the world is that not being suggested by anyone on the committee? The only reasoning is that once nominated his seat is secured and no future investigations could remove him. Which seems silly, but maybe that's the case. Can't really understand why this idea isn't being put out there. It is a compromise for both sides. Republicans get the seat through to prevent post midterm shenanigans, and democrats the investigation. If he's guilty then you remove him. Easy. If not then things go as they should have.

So because Feinstein tried to use it to her advantage, Dr Ford isn't owed the investigation she's requested? — Michael

I do think it was politically well played to use Dr Ford's accusation at the 11th hour to delay the nomination process. I think as a member of the US Senate, and a member of the judiciary committee , willfully withholding this very important accusation was a dereliction of her responsibility. I also think Dr. Ford had no interest in an FBI investigation of her allegations until she was scheduled to testify, and I am suspect that this position has more to do with her lawyers - recommended by Sen Feinstein - than her desires. I understood her only desire in sending the letter to Sen Feinstien was her civic duty to inform the committee of what she believes is an act by Judge Kavanaugh that would be disqualifying. It should have been investigated immediately by the committee for that purpose.

As I understand it, there is a process in the committee to investigate concerns like these, and that process could have been done, and been done confidentially, if the objective was truth - that could have been done. The objective of this is not truth - it is politics.

I don't think law enforcement works that way. This has nothing to do with Feinstein or the Democrats. — Michael

You have this incorrect - if Dr. Ford wants a law enforcement investigation all she has to do is file a complaint with the appropriate one. This has everything to do with Feinstein, the Democrats, the republicans, Garland, and the most important seat on the SCOTUS in decades. It has nothing at all to do with finding the truth.

It has nothing at all to do with finding the truth. — Rank Amateur

I was fairly certain it might have been to find the truth at some point. But to me the biggest tell was the insistence on the delay of the vote and the holding of evidence. You don't do this if you are interested in truth entirely. If you wanted truth you would suggest something like @Michael suggested above or not held off for so long to start said investigation.

Why in the world is that not being suggested by anyone on the committee? The only reasoning is that once nominated his seat is secured and no future investigations could remove him. Which seems silly, but maybe that's the case. Can't really understand why this idea isn't being put out there. It is a compromise for both sides. Republicans get the seat through to prevent post midterm shenanigans, and democrats the investigation. If he's guilty then you remove him. Easy. If not then things go as they should have. — yatagarasu

I suspect that the Republicans are against the investigation because they're worried that he might be guilty or that it will reflect badly on them in the midterms and the Democrats are against the confirmation because they believe that he's guilty.

that point should be directly related to the nature of the allegation. And if the issue is - did this or did this not happen - it should have been investigated by the process in place as soon as it was raised. But it was not. The Democrats are not standing on any moral high ground demanding an investigation now, that could have been done 45 days ago, and the republicans are not standing on any moral high ground opposing one. This has just dissolved now into partisan politics , it is no longer about truth.

I suspect that the Republicans are against the investigation because they're worried that he might be guilty or that it will cost them votes in the midterms and the Democrats are against the confirmation because they believe that he's guilty. — Michael

His guilt or innocence is completely secondary to both parties concerns. The republicans want to deliver a conservative court to their base in the midterms and 2020, which they will run on. The Democrats want to delay the nomination to the midterms and make all these elections a one issue election on Roe v Wade which they think they can win. That is all that this is about.

The only reasoning is that once nominated his seat is secured and no future investigations could remove him. Which seems silly,

It's not silly. Confirmation only requires 51 votes in the Senate. Removal from office requires 67 votes.

it should have been investigated by the process in place as soon as it was raised. But it was not. — Rank Amateur

Ah, well, guess you'll install an alleged attempted rapist then to make law for your country for the next 20-30 years. Messed up the timing. Got it.

I think THE truth is that Kavanaugh genuinely believes his past actions from his youth (as truthfully spelled out by Ford) are not seriously bad enough (or that he has sufficiently reformed) to warrant his standing down. I think astute human beings of whatever political persuasion could agree on that - his state of mind, that is.

"His guilt or innocence is completely secondary to both parties concerns"

Sad, but true - at least in the aggregate.

While I favor a thorough investigation, I question how likely it is this would produce sufficient evidence to tip the balance one way or another. On the anti-Kavanaugh side, it would only matter if multiple people could corroborate a specific incident, and I think it's unlikely since this hasn't come out so far with the press digging in.

The list does little to change the plausibility of Ford's claims, which should have triggered a criminal investigation. The items in the list were in play. It's extremely clear that the items on the list do nothing to remove the plausibility of Ford's claims, and that such plausibility should have triggered a criminal investigation (which would have included the suppressed witnesses).

So: the items on the list are bullshit. They're bullshit extremely clearly. Nevertheless they were in play in the hearing and much of the media coverage of the hearing I've seen. All they do is muddy the waters and try to embed Ford into a bunch of delegitimising or irrelevant stories; to make us doubt, forget and engender passive contemplation of a 'complicated web of interlocking issues'. They did the same thing to Ford in the hearing (as the 'female assistant'/sexual assault prosecutor highlighted with obvious frustration towards the end of Ford's account).

The 'spectacle' operating as usual is exemplified in the second paragraph. Focussing on the interplay of that 'complicated web of interlocking issues' is an intellectual paralysis engendered by the spectacle. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't think carefully about it, on the contrary, it's to say we should think extremely carefully about what the narrative around the hearing serves, what it leaves out, and how it disconnects Ford from the reality she's lived and even the plausibility of her words. To the extent we are invited to see her as an actor in a vast drama we are also invited to forget the truth she spoke.

There's more than sufficient reason for there to be a criminal investigation and trial here. At the very least congress should have had an FBI investigation and subpoenaed all the relevant witnesses. Nevertheless anyone making these points can be drawn into the 'partisan politics' narrative as it disfavours the conduct of the republican congresspeople (which I'm sure Kavanaugh knew, as he used the trope in his defence so much).

The way things are seen is not the way things are; seemings and impressions should connect to what's real, not just stories about it. I mean, here's Debord again:

One cannot abstractly contrast the spectacle to actual social activity: such a division is itself divided. The spectacle which inverts the real is in fact produced. Lived reality is materially invaded by the contemplation of the spectacle while simultaneously absorbing the spectacular order, giving it positive cohesiveness. Objective reality is present on both sides. Every notion fixed this way has no other basis than its passage into the opposite: reality rises up within the spectacle, and the spectacle is real. This reciprocal alienation is the essence and the support of the existing society.

So reality presents itself within the spectacle, it always shows itself somehow. but:

The spectacle presents itself as something enormously positive, indisputable and inaccessible. It says nothing more than “that which appears is good, that which is good appears. The attitude which it demands in principle is passive acceptance which in fact it already obtained by its manner of appearing without reply, by its monopoly of appearance.

You end up in a state of 'passive acceptance' if your analysis is solely levied on the level of optics. This is because you grant the framing devices in the spectacle the lion's share of what counts as real. Doing so then means buying a whole bunch of bullshit.

Hell, even the discussion of Society of the Spectacle in this context is largely irrelevant. I just got annoyed at the disconnection you showed from the events; retreating into criticism rather than approaching the event with open arms. Especially on the back of an analyst who hated that move so much he wrote a book about it.

...the Republicans are against the investigation because they're worried ... that it will cost them votes in the midterms — Michael

Offer up prayers, burnt offerings, your first born, whatever you've got, that "cost them votes in the midterms" turns out to be a huge understatement, and that the 2020 election turns out to be even worse for the Republicans.

I would not consider it out of order for Trump and his cabinet, and the Republican leadership of the House and Senate to perform hara-kiri on the front lawn of the White House. It would be messy but...

the Republicans are against the investigation because they're worried ... that it will cost them votes in the midterms — Michael

Uh no. They think it will cost them a seat on the Supreme Court.

do you find the converse equally abhorrent? That an un-supported allegation could prevent a nominee? Or should we always err on the side of the accused in a situation like this - and then rely on the fairness of our elected officials, of either party, not to continue to use un-supported allegations to de-rail any nominee they do not agree with.

and as an aside - there was more than ample time for the committee to address this allegation to prevent an unfit nominee - if their objective was to correctly evaluate the allegation - and his fitness. That was not their tactic - Sen Feinstein, unilaterally elected to not investigate this allegations for over a month - If her concern was the truth, why would she do that ? The allegation alone was more powerful at the 11th hour, than an investigated allegation could have been.

It's not silly. Confirmation only requires 51 votes in the Senate. Removal from office requires 67 votes. — Relativist

That's what I'm talking about. This is obviously a situation where those rules aren't meant to address. His removal or dismissal from the seat should depend on the investigation afterwards, not voting. It would be a healthy compromise for both sides and we be able to get to bottom of things. Instead of the usual stupid partisanship.

do you find the converse equally abhorrent? — Rank Amateur

The converse of installing an alleged attempted rapist to the supreme court would be not installing an alleged attempted rapist to the supreme court. Which would be nice for all parties involved, I imagine. Bar the alleged attempted rapist of course.

If the SCOTUS proceedings were adjudicated by philosophers they would be asking "would such allegations from a nominee's youthful past ,if assumed to be true, be serious enough to discount a nominee?" If it was deemed "no" then the "truth" is immaterial. Would make for a helluva discussion - would love to hear the Republican side of it.