Someone systematically 'downvoted' all my posts in the thread and who knows what else. It's not rational behavior.

There is a lot to be said about and for the jazz and popular music of the 1920s and 30s and the ragtime era that preceded it, but it's beyond the topic of this thread.

Just got back here. Don't know who down voted your post here and wish whomever did so would have the decency to say why. I bumped it up one. Thanks for the leads. I enjoy music from the 20's and 30's including Scott Joplin. I'll check out those publications. Thanks.

What many see as craziness, I find to be rational and vice-versa. When I was a kid from the age of 5 until I was 14 I thought I was crazy. Then@ 14 I read "The Fountainhead and began to realize it wasn't me that was crazy.

Brennan was appointed by Obama and approved by the Republicans because the American sense of life is losing a battle against the explicitly collectivist establishment intellectuals.

As for the piano, read Peter Gammond's Scott Joplin and the Ragtime Era and Rudi Blesh and Harriet Janis' They All Played Ragtime for interesting history and inspiration. This was the original American music that led to the kind of popular music that Ayn Rand liked.

Most craziness is excusable but not the kind that ruins people's lives. Especially accomplished people.

I saw the CIA conspiracy thread and opted not to participate as the cited article was rather flimsy and I didn't have time for further research (I'm an old guy taking piano lessons for the first time and fooling around on the Internet cuts into the practice time, which I enjoy - not to mention there are many other things in life I do as well). Your discussion about Histrionic disorder was the most interesting section of that thread. Throw in a good measure of cognitive dissonance and you have a soup. As you point out, the mix in Fords head or even supposed connections to the CIA are irrelevant regarding lack of evidence to hang Kavanaugh.

If someone wants to contemplate a CIA conspiracy story, then ask how a communist like Brennan can get to be in charge of the whole thing. I don't have the time to sort that out, either.

Edited a grammatical slip.

We don't need an explanation of her behavior to know logically and legally that the accusations were made without evidence, but simple curiosity leads to wanting to know what she is doing in this circus. Both her emotional problems and her politics are mixed together in driving it -- with her politics, philosophical sense of life, and emotional problems themselves all mixed together in her mind.

But her problems and her accusations are mixed in the political reality of how she is publicly accepted because logic is not exactly a strong point in today's politics and many people emotionally require an explanation of her actions before they are willing to reject her accusations as legally and politically irrelevant. They don't understand the principles of 'burden of proof' and 'innocent until proven guilty' in either thinking in general or the legal process. This is true of the left, the murky political emotionalists assessing "credibility", and the conservatives trying to defend Kavanaugh through appeals to bizarre CIA conspiracy theories about Ford, which are circulating everywhere including on this forum https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Nicely expressed, ewv. However, although the accusations against Kavanaugh and Ford's mental problems can be handled as separate issues (the former legal and the latter a personal psychological issue), I see them as intertwined in this case because the [false] accusations are resulting from the problems. As you say "she is not innocent in this".

I looked at the Aug 7 hand-handwritten statement again and found that it did mention Kavanaugh once, by his first name only. Her one page statement was handwritten and less than fully grammatical, with words crossed out and others inserted between the lines. She mentioned Kavanaugh once with a barely legible "Brett":

The part of the hand-written statement containing the name includes:

"Two ['The'?] boys were in the room. Brett ['Bich''?] ['lay' - crossed out] laid on top of me and tried to remove my clothes while groping me. He held his hand on my mouth to stop me from ['ye' - crossed out] screaming for help. His friend Mark ['Mahk'?] was in also [sic] the room and both were laughing."

The questions reported did not include Kavanaugh's name. The only two "relevant questions" reported from the polygraph test by the examiner, who was selected by her lawyers, were:

"Is any part of you statement false?"
and
"Did you make up any part of your statement?".

But she was asked several questions as part of the polygraph test. The questions from which those two were selected were characterized as "includes relevant questions addressing the issues to be resolved by the examination, comparison questions to be used in analysis, symptomatic questions, and neutral or irrelevant questions. All questions were reviewed with Blasey prior to the test." (Different types of questions are included for calibration of the physical polygraph responses.)

The report does not say what any of the other questions were (let alone answers) or if any others not reported were "relevant questions addressing the issues".

The report says that Blasey (Ford) first consulted with her lawyer without the examiner present, wrote the hand-written statement and gave it to her lawyer, then signed it in the presence of the examiner before the lawyer left the room. The examiner interviewed Blasey, in order "to formulate the relevant questions", and Blasey gave a verbal account of her claims. The examiner described what she said, including the name "Kavanaugh" several times in his description, but did not provide a transcript of the verbal interview. His report says that the polygraph test followed the interview. It does not say if the "statement" referred to in the polygraph test questions means the written statement or the verbal interview or both.

The name at the top of the August 7, 2018 "Polygraph Examination Report" is "Jeremiah P. Hanalin", but no where is it stated that he was the examiner or whether the final report was written by the examiner or the lawyers.

The lawyers also stated in their response containing the polygraph report provided to the Senate Committee request for documents that they "reserve the right to provide supplemental documents as necessary", as if they and not the US Senate decides what to offer, and "we will not produce copies of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's medical records. These records contain private, highly sensitive information that is not necessary for the Committee to assess the credibility of her testimony", claiming the right to decide that, too.

Regardless of the unreliability of polygraph tests, if one were to be taken seriously at all it would be accompanied by subpoenaed documents, not just those volunteered as helpful to her, and could not be filtered through Ford's lawyers the way this one was.

Whatever happened to Ford, the accusations against Kavanaugh and Ford's problems are too separate issues. Whatever actually happened to her, and her emotional state, require no explanation or response from the Kavanaugh nomination: It is more than enough that they have no evidence for their arbitrary assertions against him -- together with his own record of his character and evidence that he was not there at all. The rest is logically irrelevant to the nomination even though it is being emotionally exploited (along with several other subjectivist, hysterical mud slinging cases piled on by Democrat activists).

But he is to be dragged down -- for the sake of the Democrat's obvious political goals to prevent the court from limiting their power under the Constitution -- in deference to Ford and her highly publicized victimhood and accusations, all promoted in a hysterical campaign for believing whatever a woman says against 'evil men'. We're supposed to go along with it without regard to reason, logic, ethics and justice -- morally intimidated by the demands to sacrifice strength to weakness along with the man-hating left's proclaiming the moral high ground as a basic premise. Don't grant them the sanction of the (real) victim. This is fundamental and should not be diluted by crazy conspiracy theories from the anti-conceptual mentality.

Whatever Ford's actual history, and whatever her emotional problems and confusions, she is not innocent in this. She is a Bernie Sanders socialism supporter -- which fits and mutually supports her sense of life and emotional problems -- who is willingly being coached by high level national Democrat activist lawyers in the phony name of her "civic duty".

Now you've got it: Ford is falsely believed to be at an obscure university controlled by the CIA because she is actually being held in Area 51. Kavanaugh's family came in on the crash of '47 at Roswell and she was abducted a few decades later. It's all part of the Agenda 21 black helicopter plot. OlduglyCarl's Nephilims are behind all of it.

As to Dr. Ford's "accurate" memory, I have a hypothesis. Maybe there was somebody who did attack her, and maybe she knows d well it was not Kavanaugh, but maybe she just wants to make somebody pay (possibly the original offender having gone off somewhere where he couldn't be found). And maybe she just wants to make someone pay for it. Re Mme. Defarge: "It was nothing to her, that an innocent man was to die for the sins of his forbears; she saw not him, but them." (Charles Dickens, Tale of Two Cities*.

Bravo.
My experience in life is that most people would agree that they have had similar experiences that they remember something that is more or less correct but not quite.

"She has emotional problems but is not completely crazy. She functions in a serious career with intelligence." I have to agree with that assessment, but there is something terribly wrong here. Too much missing information to "lynch" Kavanaugh. Add the fact that his mother ruled against Ford's parents in court before Trump even ran for office and that act may have triggered a false appearance of Kavanauigh's face onto her scrambled memories. Ford's support of the Democrat party and hatred of Trump and his nomination of Kavanaugh for SCOTUS only poured gasoline on a fire already started in her mind. In the world of psycho-babble all sorts of scenarios can be imagined that could fill a fiction novelist's career of writing.

Enter the Democrats that would do anything to crush any attempt to putting a Constitutionalist (or someone closely resembling one) on the SCOTUS. Ford is a lame horse, but the Democrats still pushed her onto the track. Not to win, but to disrupt the race and hopefully stumble the favorite from winning. In the end an innocent (IMHO) Kavanaugh's professional career may be forever trashed and Ford will have simply been a "useful idiot" for the moment and then discarded when no longer relevant.

Recovered memories usually include alien abduction and ghosts of long dead relatives...also very difficult to prove the veracity of....

Coal digger. A very astute analysis!!! A vein of quartz and with some significant gold therein.

Is that the only reason to be thirsty while nervous in front of national TV at a U.S. Senate hearing?

Ayn Rand was a little deeper than arguing "just plain crazy" and the summary of events given at the top of this thread is in fact made up and a smear that does not address real problems.

Most or all of that is false, but widely spread by 'right wing conspiracy' sites as if true and relevant.

According to some accounts she is a world traveler, flying on vacations. She seems to be a hand-wringing type and may very well be afraid of flying along with a lot more, but she does it and it was no excuse to delay the hearing while Democrats stalled.

The polygraph documentation showing that Kavanaugh's name was not in the statement she gave is at https://www.scribd.com/document/38952...

A door to a bedroom typically easily unlocks from the inside, and it isn't clear who left the room first.

She has emotional problems but is not completely crazy. She functions in a serious career with intelligence. But she has a history of emotional problems, has required therapy for years, said she had only previously met Kavanaugh indirectly when she was with a friend, and only mentioned his name after he appeared in Trump's short list over thirty years later. That leaves a lot of room for not correctly identifying him properly and/or "remembering" as a result of conscious "reconstruction" in and out of therapy until it emotionally seemed to be a "memory". She has also been coached by activist Democrat lawyers with a history of politically motivated "making a case".

Don't know if this was posted elsewhere on the forum, here is an analysis of Ford's body language during the testimony:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...

Watch Feinstein, how "worried" she is, as if Ford had been hacked to death but miraculously lived.

BTW: Ford says the boys locked the room. How did she managed to escape when she got lose through the locked door? Did the door unlock itself?