FAX Sen. Heidi Heitkamp YES on Kavanaugh! Her mail boxes full!

 

FAX Sen. Heidi Heitkamp YES on Kavanaugh

Fax Sen. Heidi Heitkamp re YES  Kavanaugh!   Vote on Saturday Oct 6, 2018.  See FAX numbers for North Dakota below:  FAX does get to her. Her email boxes are full.  So — FAX !!

701 258 1254  Bismark

701 232 6449  Fargo

701 225 3287  Dickinson

701 746 1990 Grand Forks

701 838 8196  Monot

202 234 7776 Washington D.C.

 

Share

Dr. Ford not “Psychologist”, flies when testifies cannot fly & remodeled home before 2012 My! My!

 

Dr. Ford flies around the world for fun and work

Dr. Ford is not a CA  Psychologist as she claims. She has a Ph.D. in Psychology.  There’s the difference of  several thousand hours  of supervised training and  various exams one takes in California in order  to become  a Psychologist. She recently scrubbed literature describing herself as a Psychologist.  My! My!

Dr. Ford claims she could not fly to Washington D.C.  She actually flies world wide for vacation, see family on the east coast and work related. She has traveled to Costa Rica, Hawaii and other places for water sports.  She visits her parents yearly. This summer Dr. Ford spent one month on the east coast and attended the funeral of her grandmother the day of or before she took a lie detector test.  Mmmmm. Attend a family funeral and them take a exam that measures ones’s emotional state?

written by Cameron Jackson    jaj48@aol.com

Share

Victims of Democrats delay & destroy tactics — Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh? Yes!

Victims  of Democrat tactics?

Are both Dr. Ford  and Judge Kavanaugh victims of Democrat tactics  to delay and destroy?

Victims?  Are both Dr. Ford  and  Judge Kavanaugh   victims  of  Democratic  strategies to   delay and destroy ? Yes!

In her actions,  was Dr. Ford complicit with the Democrats   delay and destroy  tactics?  Possibly.   See below why.

Both witnesses  9/27/18 are compelling.  Which  testimony has more credibility?

Largely  it appears that Dr. Ford  was  used by the Democrats for their purpose to  destroy Kavanaugh any  way possible.

Democrats sought to destroy  Kavanaugh’s  public and private life based  largely on a  page from his high school yearbook  which concerned remarks about  drinking.  Committee Democrats  repeated called  for another FBI investigation.  Six  FBI  investigations have been done of Kavanaugh.  The Committee has investigated all allegations brought to them and they are the determiner of  fact.  Not the FBI which makes no recommendations or conclusions

What we know  now from the hearing about   a)  the   leak of Dr. Ford’s Letter; and b) the delay and obstruct tactics by Democrats including Ford’s attorneys;  c) inconsistencies in  Dr. Ford’s statements.  d) what the public now knows

  1. leak of Dr. Ford’s letter:      Ford  testifies that she sought complete confidentiality & expected  it.  Dr. Ford first contacted   her Rep. Ossho and  later spoke with Feinstein by phone.  Dr. Ford requested confidentiality of her letter.  Under oath, she states that she never released confidentiality.

If we believe her, then Dr. Ford’s letter was leaked to the press.  By whom?  Only four  sources  had Dr. Ford’s letter which  detailed alleged sexual abuse by Judge Kavanaugh:    Dr. Ford & her attorney  and CA Anna  Ossho  and  CA Senator Diane  Feinstein.

Either  representative, their   staff or someone they gave it to leaked Dr. Ford’s letter to the press.  Best guess for leak:   Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Diane  Feinstein.

Why  probably Feinstein?   Because of Feinstein’s misleading actions of delay and cover up of information during the Committee’s hearing.  She sat on information and asked no questions.

Feinstein denies leaking the letter.  However, her  actions show a strategy of deny and obstruct.  She sat on the letter for 45 days and asked no questions of Kavanaugh concerning abuse during the judiciary hearing which went on for days.

There is  substantial support that there was a  coordinated effort by Democrats in conjunction with Dr. Ford’s attorneys   to use delay tactics to put off the vote until after the mid-term elections, and keep the seat open   until the 2020 elections.

Abuse by Democrats of Dr. Ford:  Dr.  Ford testifies that she only went public via an interview with the Washington Post  after reporters appeared at her house  peering in her window talking to her dogs and showing up posing as a student in class.   Thus, she  went public due to the leak of her letter by the Democrats.  This is how the Democrats abused Dr. Ford.

Curiously, asked   under oath whether she contacted   President Trump  she testified that she did not know how to contact the President.  That’s odd because  this is a woman with four degrees including a Ph.D.  Dr. Ford  uses a computer for work and can readily  Google the President’s contact information .

Feinstein had the letter alleging sexual assault for   45 days yet asked no questions of Kavanaugh during the entire Judiciary Hearing.  Feinstein stalled and delayed.

  1. Delay and obstruct tactics of Democrats  CA Sen. Diane Feinstein & Democrats

Over 150 nominations by the Trump administration have been delayed by the Democrats.  So delay and obstruct is the pattern the Democrats use.

Dr. Ford testified that she did know know/ understand that the Judicial Committee would come to her in CA or anywhere.  Did Dr. Ford really not know or did she Dr. Ford  prevaricate  saying  that she did not understand what the committee’s offer meant?  Perhaps her lawyers did not inform Dr. Ford.

Take Away:  Both witnesses make powerful, compelling statements.

Dr. Ford ‘s three fact witnesses deny her story and do not corroborate any facts she alleges.   One key witness,  Leland, is the only other female teenager at the small party and a longtime friend of Dr. Ford. She two denies it via her lawyers and sent an email.

Concerning her basic Who,  What, When, Where  facts  — No new  information came out when Dr. Ford testified under oath.

Judge Kavanaugh:  Under oath, he walked through using his 1982 calendar  stating how he was out of town and what  his activities d were during the summer of 1982.  He has contemporaneous evidence that supports his position.  His evidence  is strong and consistent.  In contrast, Dr. Ford’s evidence is not corroborated and her story is denied by all  three key witnesses.

  1. Inconsistency / not  believable testimony by   Ford

Flying:  Dr. Ford said her fear of flying prevented her from readily going to Washington D.C.  She testified that she travels widely by plane  for vacation and work. This summer she spent a month back east, attended her grandmother’s funeral. She vacations in various parts of the world (Costa Rica, visits each year to her parents, Hawaii)

Alcohol:  Only 1  beer drunk  by Ford and  others  at the party except Judge and Kavanaugh.  How did Ford  know?  Was she counting the beers?  Could someone downstairs have consume a beer   during the alleged ab use going on upstairs in the bedroom?  Teenagers typically don’t count the beers which  others drink.

Date of event:   Ford first  said it was the mid-80s, then early 80s and then summer of ’82. She testified that her recollection of when she got her driving permit made the date more fixed.   Question: how did  Ford  on a daily basis in the summer of ’82  get to  her Country Club  by car which was 20 minutes away  from her home?   More than likely, someone drove her.  Was that someone who also drove her to the party and home?  She testifies she did not drive in ’82.

Contact with abusers:  Encounter with Judge at Safeway six weeks later:  Most people avoid persons and situations that have caused  them high anxiety.  Ford went up to Judge in Safeway and said ‘Hi.”  Dr. Ford testified that she had numerous periphery contacts both before and after the event with Kavanaugh.  Nothing sexual or of note happened.  One would think she would avoid all contact afterwards.

What to conclude:  

The Democrats violated  Dr. Ford’s  privacy and confidentiality  by leaking her letter to the press.

Dr. Ford clearly  did not tell the truth about not being able to fly to Washington D.C.   She actually flies everywhere for vacation and work purposes.

Perhaps Dr. Ford’s attorneys  did not inform  Dr. Ford  that the Senate  Judiciary Committee  would go anywhere including CA.  She testifies that — had she understood — she would have welcomed them.  Perhaps she  simply went with the flow and agreed to “delay and destroy” tactics.

Dr. Ford comes across as  vulnerable, and much  younger than her age of fifty-one. Her speech patterns are those of a much younger  person.  Tentative.

She testified that she did not know how to contact President Trump.  Wow!

She  testifies that she did not make any attempts to contact any member of  Congress except two Democrats.  Why only two Democrats?    She testified that she did not know  what “exculpatory” means.  She  testifies that did not know who pays for her lie detector test,  She  testified she was unsure whether the lie detector test was both audo and visual.   Anyone looking around the conference room  or asking basic questions would know.

Further, she testifies that she does not know “best practices” for interviewing victims of abuse. That is not believable.

Dr. Ford is a published  research psychologist having published in the area of abuse,  When asked under oath,,  Dr. Ford did not know “best practices” for how to interview victims of sexual abuse.   Best practices include  a forensic interview using verified interview techniques.  Such an interview was  possible had the Judiciary Committee flown to CA or Dr. Ford   consented.

Yes, both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh are victims.   Yes, the Democrats  “search and destroy” tactics towards  Kavanaugh  are  far worse than the McCarthy era of the 1950’s. Yes, Kavanaugh’ has credibility.

Dr.  Ford does not have corroboration from any of her three key witness.  All three deny her story. Unlike Kavanaugh (who has detailed calendars)  she has no contemporary evidence.   Her presentation is believable — that she experienced sexual abuse by someone. But by whom?  When?  Where?

 What to do?   Vote!  Contact your representatives!   Talk to Democrats about these terribly harmful tactics.  Stop the abuse by Democrats in our public arena.

written by Aptos Psychologist Cameron Jackson    jaj48@aol.com

 

 

 

Share

G for Guilty for Kavanaugh believes Sen. Gillibrand “given what we know” from Dr. Ford

 

Senator Gillibrand believes Kavanaugh Guilty based on next to nothing

G for Guilty for  Kavanaugh believes Sen.  Gillibrand.

An editorial comments this week on Ford v. Kavanaugh   in the Wall Street Journal 9/20/18.  The following quotes from  the WSJ editorial:

“Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, another 2020 presidential aspirant, said, “I believe it is disqualifying, given what we know.” In other words, what  Gillebrand  believes is based on next to nothing.  Written in the Wall Street Journal   9/22/18.  

“It  is still true: What begins as tragedy can end as farce. So it is with the case of Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of assaulting her when she was 15 and he was 17.

“As of the most recent available moment in this episode, Ms. Ford’s lawyer said her client would not appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee until there is a “full investigation by law-enforcement officials.” Like the Mueller excavations, that could run to the horizon, unable to find anything but unwilling to stop until it finds something.

“Let us posit that the one thing not at issue here is the truth. As a matter of law and fact, Ms. Ford’s accusation can be neither proved nor disproved. This is as obvious now as it must have been when Dianne Feinstein and the other Democrats came into possession of this incident.

“Surely someone pointed out that based on what was disclosed, this accusation could not be substantiated. To which the Democrats responded: So what? Its political value is that it cannot be disproved. They saw that six weeks before a crucial midterm election, the unresolvable case of Christine Blasey Ford would sit like a stalled hurricane over the entire Republican Party, drowning its candidates in a force they could not stop.

“In #MeToo, which began in the predations of Harvey Weinstein, Democrats and progressives finally have found a weapon against which there seems to be no defense. It can be used to exterminate political enemies. If one unprovable accusation doesn’t suffice, why not produce a second, or third? It’s a limitless standard.

“The Democrats’ broader strategy is: Delay the vote past the election; win the Senate by convincing suburban women that Republicans are implacably hostile to them; seize power; and—the point of it all—take down the Trump government.

“This is the “resistance.” This is what Democrats have become. Resistance is a word and strategy normally found in a revolutionary context, which is precisely the argument made by the left to justify its actions against this presidency since the evening of Nov. 8, 2016. Anything goes. Whatever it takes. Brett Kavanaugh is not much more than a casualty of war.

“Rather than try to argue or win public issues on substance, the Democrats have become a party that seems to think it can win with muscle alone. Environmentalism emerged in the 1970s as a worthwhile idea that attracted the interest and support of both parties. From Al Gore onward, it became a bludgeon to beat up the other party. Now sexual abuse, an issue originating in utmost seriousness, has been quickly captured and fashioned into a political weapon by the Democratic left.

“Politics as trench warfare has relieved the Democrats of the burden of thought. Extending the Pelosi Rule—we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it—we now have the Gillibrand Standard.

“Commenting this week on Ford v. Kavanaugh, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, another 2020 presidential aspirant, said, “I believe it is disqualifying, given what we know.” In other words, what she believes is based on next to nothing.

“Put on defense by these accusations, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley unsurprisingly agreed to a hearing in which Ms. Ford would tell her story and Judge Kavanaugh would speak. Then the senators would vote.

“Consider the spectacle: Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court, the embodiment of a modern rule of law, is being decided in the Senate by the medieval practice of trial by ordeal, such as surviving immersion in fire or ice. Trial by ordeal was outlawed by the Lateran Council in 1215.

Or worse, the standards of the mob in the Roman Colosseum, turning thumbs up or down on the combatants. Though unlike the Senate Democrats, the Roman mob at least had an open mind.

Incidentally, the standard trope that Donald Trump has degraded our politics? We don’t need to hear that anymore. Or about the moral certitudes of the religious right.

“Is there a sadder figure in the modern Democratic Party than Sen. Dianne Feinstein? Elected to the Senate in 1992, Mrs. Feinstein has produced a creditable career. Her above-it-all reputation was never quite deserved, but she has at least performed with dignity.

“Now, seeking re-election at 85, she is getting heat from the progressive-dominated Democratic Party in California, the world capital of identity-only politics. By withholding from the committee the accusatory Ford letter that came into her possession nearly two months ago, Sen. Feinstein ensured the nomination’s descent into such a hapless, cynical moment. This will be the most remembered event in Sen. Feinstein’s career.

“The Kavanaugh nomination, “given what we know,” has come down to an undiscoverable accusation. The defeat of a Supreme Court nominee on this basis would be a victory for a level of conscious political nullification not seen in the U.S. for a long time. Republicans in the Senate shouldn’t allow it, and voters in November should not affirm it.

Write henninger@wsj.com.

Appeared in the September 20, 2018, print edition.

_____

Aptos Psychologist opines:

Sen. Gillibrand’s brand?  G for Guilty believes  the Senator/ presidential aspirant in Kavanaugh v Dr. Ford based on “what we know” which is next to nothing

Is this Gillibrand’s brand?  G for Guilty.   Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh supposedly  guilty based on  something  that Dr. Ford says occurred 36 years ago (she has not yet  testified under oath) and New York Senator / Presidential aspirant  Gillibrand believes it?

Share

Dr. Ford – accuser of Kavanaugh – flunks basic decency standards including APA guidelines for psychologists

Psychologist  Blasey Ford  flunks basic professional  APA standards

Dr. Ford  — accuser of   Kavanaugh — flunks  basic  decency standards  including  APA guidelines for  psychologists.   That is, don’t exploit or harm others & avoid relationships that could reasonably impair their professional performance.

What about the legal standards of presumption of innocence and preponderance of evidence?   A research Ph.D. psychologist knows how to add up the overall picture of “facts” of her case. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s facts — best we know — are weak.

Ford, a  registered Democrat who signed a letter opposing Trump’s immigration  policies, joins other   Democrats & progressives  who turn  American due process upside down. See Presumption of Guilt published in the Wall Street Journal 9/22/18.

American Psychological Standards (APA)  standards for psychologists  are not put on  akin to a business suit for   the 8 to 5 day.

For many professionals what they do – whether  doctor, lawyer, psychologist  becomes interweaved with the essence of who they are as a person  and  how they interact  in general  with people.

Read in their entirety, APA ethical guidelines and standards  expect psychologists  to show care towards all persons equally  and to  provide options and ways for persons to  respond back.  The  thinking  that underlines guidelines for  psychologists and  doctors:    do no harm

Concerning  the APA  ethical guidelines:

  • Psychologist Ford failed to treat persons equally by a)  failing to notify  all parties  e., President Trump, Republicans, the Judiciary Committee.   Dr. Ford is a registered  Democrat who  only notified other Democrats.
  • Psychologist  Ford failed to provide the entirety of  her Therapist Notes for general inspection by neutral parties.  Her therapist notes state 4 boys   and Dr. Ford opines fewer.    No  names are included in the therapist notes.
  • No highly specific identifiable information is provided   i.e., what the boys looked like,  their clothing,  the color of  room, how Dr. Ford   got there or got home (as she did not drive)

Self-care by Psychologists is   is part and parcel to providing care towards others:

Dr. Ford states in her publications that mentoring future psychologists is her primary goal.  Dr. Ford presumably has professional /  clinical interactions with her students.    For trauma Dr. Ford states that  she  incurred sometime in 1983-85, Dr. Ford first  sought professional help roughly six years ago.

What were  the  Therapist  Treatment Goals related to the trauma Dr. Ford  says she  experienced 36  years ago?   Diagnosis is the flip side of treatment.     If you go to a MD and he/she determines that you have a torn ligament and not a broken leg then there’s one treatment and not another.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) may have been the diagnosis?   If that was the diagnosis, what were the treatment goals and are they in the clinical notes  of the therapist Dr. Ford and husband  saw in 2012 or so  for couple’s therapy?   Those clinical  notes could and should be released by Dr.Ford.

Aptos Psychologist opines:

Dr. Ford  fails to meet basic  decency standards as well as  general APA  guidelines for  psychologists.   Do no harm, take care in all your interactions with people and provide multiple means for feedback are part and parcel of  APA guidelines and standards.

Dr. Ford is a research/ clinical  psychologist.  Psychologists measure — carefully –small differences  using standardized tests in conjunction with  behavioral observations and  other information.    Finding commonality  in all of  the information (standardized test data,   reports from different sources and  behavioral observations)   is the hallmark of what clinical / research psychologists do best.   It’s what psychologist  are particularly trained to do.

What  psychologists are trained to do best — fit together the “big picture” from all  available information — Dr. Ford fails to do.     I give Ford an F.

written by Cameron Jackson, Ph.D.   Monterey Bay Forum 

Monerey Bay Forum

127 Jewell Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
United States (US)
Phone: 831 688 6002
Fax: 831 688 7717
Email: jaj48@aol.com

Share

Kavanaugh’s accuser psychologist Christine Blasey Ford flunks APA standards for psychologists?

Research psychologist Christine Blasey Ford,  Ph.D. flunks  basic  professional standards  for psychologists  –standards  related to fabricating data, deceptive statements and sharing research data for verification?  Take a look.

American Psychological Standards (APA)  standards for psychologists  are not put on  akin to a business suit for   the 8 to 5 day.

For many professionals what they do – whether  doctor, lawyer, psychologist  becomes interweaved with the essence of who they are as a person  and  how they interact  in general  with people.

Read in their entirety, professional standards:  expect  professionals to show care towards all persons equally  and to  provide options and ways for persons to  respond back.    That thinking  underlies   the  professional standards for all psychologists, and  all  medical doctors.   Summed up – do no harm

Concerning  the APA standard for sharing research data for verification:

  • Psychologist Christine Blasey. Ford failed to treat persons equally by a)  failing to notify  all parties  e., President Trump, Republicans, the Judiciary Committee.  She, a Democrat, who  only notified other Democrats.
  • Psychologist Blasey Ford failed to provide her Therapist Notes for general inspection by neutral parties.   Some stories floating around the Internet  say 4 boys  were involved and others refer to 2 boys. Most sources say no names are included in the therapist notes.
  • No highly specific identifiable information is provided i.e., what they looked like, clothing, color of room, how this 15 – 18 year old woman got there or got home (as she did not drive).

What was the  Therapist  Treatment Goals related to the trauma Blasey-Ford says she  supposed experienced 30+ years ago.  Diagnosis is the flip side of treatment.     If you go to a MD and he/she determines that you have a torn ligament and not a broken leg then there’s one treatment and not another.  So what was the diagnosis and   treatment goals – if any —  as stated in the therapist notes?

Aptos Psychologist opines:

This woman, research psychologist  Christine Blasey Ford, fails to meet basic  professional standards.  The standards that  all Ph.D. research psychologists are expected to meet. What standards?   Read the  American Psychological Association standards.  Do no harm, take care in all your interactions with people and provide multiple means for feedback are part and parcel of the thinking that underlies the   APA standards.  Read the specific  APA professional standards — and consider in general what they mean.

Research psychologist measure — carefully –small differences using standardized tests in conjunction with careful, thorough behavioral observations and other information.    Noticing small differences and recording them and  finding commonality  in all of  the information, i.e., how all the data (standardized test data,   various reports from various people, behavioral \observations) fits together.  That’s what clinical/ research psychologists excell at doing.  That’s what psychologists do best.

Research/ clinical psychologist Christine Blasley Ford, Ph.D. fails to meet basic professional standards.

written by Cameron Jackson, Ph.D.   Monterey Bay Forum

Share

Give people “free fish” or a fishing pole? Free fish first! per COPA / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc speaking at St. John’s in Aptos CA

Give people in need a “free fish” or fishing pole?

Give people in need a  “free fish” or a fishing pole?  Free fish first! per  COPA / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc.

Community organizer Tim McManus of COPA / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc.,  a non-profit organization  located in Watsonville, CA,    spoke 9/16/2018  to 15- 20 parishioners  at  St. John the Baptist Episcopal Church in Aptos, Calif.

So, does your church/ synagogue / mosque “welcome the stranger”? Seek “social justice”?

How about lots of  cheap  housing,   free health care/ free  specialist MD referrals for  illegal alien  immigrants, & expanded  free mental health?  Those are COPA’s 2018  goals for Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito Counties in California.

So what  methods really  work to effect “social justice” according to COPA?

Just show up  when told to  —  says   McManus of COPA /  Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc.  The power politics of sheer body count  with government officials effects COPA specified change  according to  Mr.  McManus.

Here’s what COPA Tim McManus says:

 

________

Aptos Psychologist:  COPA is not my cup of tea.  What was the original tea party that lead to the American revolution all about?  Not about “body count” muscling local government officials to achieve socialist progressive goals. About COPA — be wary. Give a fishing pole not free fish.

 

Share

Trump’s Tax Cuts – Make permanent? Yes! Support ICE & defund “sanctuary ciites”

Democrats want to abolish I.C.E. and support “sanctuary cities”– 

Democrats want to abolish I.C.E. and support “sanctuary cities”.  Lots of people benefit from Trump’s tax cuts. So — let’s

Make permanent last year’s middle class tax cuts? Yes! Rep. Kevin Brady, the Ways and Means Committee chairman, has introduced legislation to do exactly that. Make Trump’s middle class tax cuts permanent.

Now’s the time for Republicans to schedule votes. Even though Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may not have 60 Senate candidates the Republicans can use Democrat “no” positions to huge effect in their races.

Now — two months from mid-term elections — is the time for you  to speak out in support of  I.C.E. and to de-fund “sanctuary cities”.

 

 

Share

Who is CA Senator Kamala Harris– described as a female Obama — who resists Trump’s Supreme Court nominee?

Kamala Harris “resists” Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court

CA Senator  Kamala Harris is an   ex- mistress of Willie Brown.  Then she moved on.

Among other accomplishments, she is a  former San Francisco District Attorney who — according to the San Francisco Examiner — knew of evidence tampering before the public or police chief knew of it.

Controversy

The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office found itself under fire in early 2010 when it came to light that Deborah Madden, a drug lab technician for the city police, confessed to removing cocaine from evidence samples. Her admission resulted in the police lab’s testing unit closing and pending drug cases being dismissed. The police department also had to investigate cases already prosecuted due to Madden’s admission of evidence tampering.

Kamala Harris  is age 53 and grew up in Oakland, CA.  Her mother, a M.D. took her daughter  to Muslim temples to worship. Growing up, Harris  visited India various times.  Her father is  Black and was, not sure when,  employed as a professor at Stanford.  Harris after graduating from Howard University and then  Hastings College of Law was employed as a Deputy D.A. in Oakland.  She then moved on.

In Washington D.C.  today   Senator Kamara Harris vociferously resisted the confirmation hearing of Kavanaugh  today. She said,  “we cannot move forward”.

Share

Firenze Sage: Is room temperature sexist, or isn’t everything?

 

room temperature preference, men & women?

Room temperature preference, men and women:?

A woman candidate prefers 76 degrees.  New York Democratic gubernatorial  female candidate Cynthia Nixon’s campaign requested that the auditorium where she will debate New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo Wednesday be kept at 76 degrees.

Many spaces are “notoriously sexist when it comes to room temperature, so we just want to make sure we’re all on the same page here,” Nixon’s chief strategist Rebecca Katz stated in an email, according to The New York Times.

The campaign made the request to WCBS-TV, the radio station hosting the debate that will take place at Hofstra University in Long Island, reported the National Review.

Andrew Cuomo is known to prefer speaking in colder temperatures.

———————————————————————–

Firenze Sage opines:   Sex in the city actress finds sexism in cool room.

Share

Next Page »

Translate »