I'm dressing up as a loan repayment receipt for Halloween, because I guess even that is scary.

Once again, The National Review gets media criticism only partially right, saying coverage of Kavanaugh was terrible post-allegations; but before the allegations, before any Republicans thought a single negative thing about Kavanaugh, the national fever was running pretty high.

I remember seeing this:

According to financial disclosures, Kavanaugh had between $60,000 and  $200,000 in debt, spread across three credit cards and a loan. [...] the White House has an explanation for the debts: Kavanaugh spent big  on tickets to see the Washington Nationals, a team he’s known to back. [...]
The more important, and curious, question is not how Kavanaugh accrued  the debts attributed to the baseball tickets, but how he paid them down.  It’s strange to imagine that a man of comparatively modest means would  put tens of thousands of dollars on credit cards to buy baseball  tickets, but even stranger that they would have been paid off so fast.  The White House says that Kavanaugh’s friends reimbursed him for the  tickets, and that he no longer buys them. The fact remains that  Kavanaugh suddenly cleared at least $60,000 and as much as $200,000 in  mysterious debt over one year—sums large enough that senators might well  want to know who the sources of the payments were.

The... friends... that's the answer. You just said so. What's the question you're demanding an answer to? Do you just want someone to swear it under oath in case they're lying?

You may suspect I'm lying when I say this was the primary "controversy" of Kavanaugh's early confirmation process. It was a more innocent time, perhaps? Obviously that minimizes the importance of the challenges America had already been facing, but that's my point. Who wastes their time on that stuff? Shouldn't we, categorically, deny them our attention if they think this nonsense is important?

The Atlantic piece also has some really strangely coded economic shaming, saying he is living in relative poverty while mentioning how he gets paid a pretty serious amount. I don't really understand that section as news, and no opinion is made explicit. But boy howdy does it rub me the wrong way.