Cosmic Orchid
       curating integrative theatre
Carpe Diem Per Diem
But What If He Didn't Do It?


1.       The evidence points to his guilt. What evidence?

 

a. For someone who claims not to have/had a drinking problem, he spent an inordinate amount of time, not only on the topic of drinking but specifically, on his fondness for, and frequent indulging in, beer(s)* According to a few news agencies, he mentions it approximately 30 times.

 

b. His rendition of the social climate in High School/College is in stark contrast with what his peers describe, and to what is logically known to be commonplace in the “Beer(s)” culture.

 

c. He states: “Sometimes, I had too many beers.” When asked what that meant by the prosecutor (representing the Republican Senators), his response was: “I don’t know.... whatever the chart says.” Without consulting the chart, what would lead him to deduce he had “too many beers”, in the absence of a blackout or of getting sick? He attributed his getting sick to a weak stomach, and not to the beers. He also said he never passed out, but he did fall asleep.

 

d. His refusal to answer whether he ever had a blackout was trumped only by his rude retort. His response was: “I don’t know. Have you?” After a bit of back and forth, the Senator attempts to confirm his answer, to which he responds: “...Yeah and I’m curious if you have...”. He never fully articulates the answer. He echoes her response of not having a drinking problem with: “Nor do I.”

 

e. His refusal to answer whether he is Bart O’Kavanaugh is suspect and begs a review of the evidence. He even slips and says: “...I think he picked out names of friends of ours to throw them in as kind of, close to what...for characters in the book...”. Close to what - reality?

 

Were it merely Judge’s book, one could attribute the character to a wild imagination. However, consider this: Not only does he state in his yearbook entry: “Judge, have you boofed yet?”, Judge’s yearbook entry includes the mirror entry: “Bart, have you boofed yet?” Therefore, it is evident that, at the very least, Judge called him “Bart” long before he ever published his book. This leads to the next point.

 

f. He describes his relationship with Judge as: “...a friend of ours in High School...” (Who is this mysterious “we” that coincides with the possessive “ours”?) But the mirror yearbook entries support the likelihood of them being very good, if not best friends.

 

g. His retort to the Senator when he pressed the above (e.) question: “We could sit here and make fun of some guy who has an addiction...” was so off-topic, its purpose could only serve to do just that - steer away from the topic.

 

h. His referring to Dr. Ford’s experience as “may have had” is both minimizing and disrespectful. Why? His point was - it wasn’t him. So why not say I have no doubt that she “was”.

 

i. His incessant insistence that he is a proponent for women was overkill. Sorry but thou “doth protest too much, methinks”. Many misogynists hide behind the shield of being empathetic to women’s causes (like a pedophile who works at the local youth center).

 

j. His inclusion of his high school calendar, as being anything even remotely consistent with something a rational person would consider as evidence, is downright comedic. If I hadn’t seen the actual testimony, I would have thought it originated in the SNL skit.

 

1.       In the unlikely event that he is innocent, why is he still unfit to sit on the Supreme Court?

 

a. For a man who has spent his entire career practicing law, I was neither impressed with the content of, nor tolerant of the lengthiness of his opening statement, which was peppered with enough redundancy to choke a moose. It also contained irrelevant information (He wrote it; He showed it to no one.)

 

b. He displayed bravado & arrogance, weaving in and out of palpable anger, from his opening statement through the lion’s share of the testimony. Why the diatribe - because he was falsely accused? A judicial response would be to temper one’s outrage and channel it into a lucid, eloquent, dignified presentation.

 

c. His demeanor was far from steady or contained. He lacked composure.  He flipped through pages and drank enormous amounts of water, whilst sniffing incessantly.  He lacked the fundamental ability to follow directions.  He failed to answer yes-or-no questions with a yes or a no.  He answered questions by asking the question back to the person who asked and interrupted when questions were being posed.

 

d. He lacked humility, repeatedly reciting his own (impertinent) press releases. “I busted my butt...”

 

e. If he is innocent of the sexual assault but failed to truthfully answer all the questions, failing to provide an accurate representation of his drinking history, he has committed perjury.

 

All of this collectively amounts to him presenting as an immature, if not irrational man. One would expect a candidate for a seat on the Supreme Court to present an even-tempered reserve and dignity commensurate with the role for which he is being considered. He is expected to show sound judgment, and certainly not to perjury himself.

 

*Despite his prestigious education (prep school, Ivy League) and high-profile legal/judicial career, the fact that the plural of beer is “beer” continues to allude him. (The only time you add an “s” is if you were quantifying ex. 5 beers) And although it is acceptable to say: “too many beers”, it would be grammatically more effective to say: “too much beer”. 


If you find this confusing, let us use wine, as an example.  Would you say: “I had too much wine” or “I had too many wines”?  That linguistic choice is indicative of someone who is “counting” and is, in and of itself, telling.  It may be the biggest indication of his lack of candor, regarding his drinking.

Add a Comment

(Enter the numbers shown in the above image)




We now live in a digital world where so much of our existence is integrated.  By exploring

this integration as a collective of multidisciplinary artists, it is hoped that the 

audience experience resonates with themes from their own integrated, often chaotic lives. 

 

We want the conversation of 'collective creativity' and 'blurring the lines of the respective

art forms' to resonate once our audience has walked out the door.  Not only do we wish

to engage the audience in this exploration, we hope for them to ultimately see themselves

as artists, in whatever life roles they embody.  






Stay tuned for discussion streams about theatre, art, creativity, spirituality and what ever else flows through the ether!
Donate now!

Cosmic Orchid is a fiscally sponsored project of Fractured Atlas, a non-profit arts service organization. Donations for the purposes of 

Cosmic Orchid must be made payable to Fractured Atlas and are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.

Cosmic Orchid is a fiscally sponsored project of Fractured Atlas, a non-profit arts service organization. Donations for the purposes
of Cosmic Orchid must be made payable to Fractured Atlas and are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.