Freedom, Peace, Prosperity and Happiness to all.
The move from otherclub. blogspot. com is functionally complete, and I will make all new posts to this site.
If you arrived here from a search, you’re seeing a home page instead of what you searched for. Please re-enter your search in the box at upper right. There’s a 99.9% chance that what you’re looking for was successfully transferred from my blogspot blog.
I placed my last Google content contribution on the old blog, with a link to this site, though you shouldn’t have to click the new address: All traffic from blogspot is now being re-directed here.
There are some issues with the conversion.
1) The TOC links to other TOC posts should take you to the correct page here, but I’m experiencing a mystery on some of them in testing. It would help me a lot if you let me know if you experience a “not found” problem.
2) The conversion software has a flaw that randomly (apparently) causes text to change size. I know how to fix it, but for over 2,500 posts, I don’t know if I’ll ever bother. It’s not terrible.
Anyway, welcome to the new TOC. Comments and criticisms welcome.
This is a case where I can’t wait to hear from The Donald.
A few tweets so far on 1/1024th Native American DNA Senator Warren:
“This about the same results i would get to prove my chihuahua is part wolf.”
“You’re making the “one drop” theory a thing dude. How do you guys keep doing this?”
“You’re saying POTUS is more likely American Indian than Warren, right?”
“Human DNA has more in common with a banana than Liz has with native American.”
“Elizabeth Warren DNA pitch meeting:
WARREN: I’m an American Indian!
MEDIA: So, like 50%?
W: Actually 0.0976%.
MEDIA: Perfect! And they used Cherokee DNA to test against?
MEDIA: Any Indian DNA?
W: Mainly Mexican.
MEDIA: These results are solid!”
Here’s that last little glitch noted at the Boston Globe:
To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American. That’s because scientists believe that the groups Americans refer to as Native American came to this land via the Bering Straight about 12,000 years ago and settled in what’s now America but also migrated further south. His report explained that the use of reference populations whose genetic material has been fully sequenced was designed “for maximal accuracy.”
Bustamante said he can tease out the markers that these South Americans would have in common with Native Americans on the North American continent.
Some of the usual suspects are defending her by saying THIS PROVES TRUMP IS RACIST and LIZZY IS RIGHT! The more nearly astute of them see 1/1024 as, well… under-reach. So all they’ve got is pointing out that this pre-emptive strike means her POTUS campaign team is really on the ball in defusing negative stories. CNN:
And so, we get this video. And the DNA test. And all the documents. To show, yes, that Warren’s claim that she had some Native American blood is almost certainly true, but also to show that she has a full campaign team who understands how modern campaigns work and is at the ready to deal — and deal effectively — with any sorts of problems that arise during the course of the campaign.
If that’s true, they failed by; a) waiting so long, b) not realizing the story is really about attempted appropriation of affirmative action hiring to further her career, c) less than full attention to the scientific details, and d) exposing her to easily predictable ridicule and making a 5 minute video about it.
The Democratic Party/Media conglomerate has its panties in a knot about the description of Antifa, #MeToo, et. al. as mobs. Well, they have broken windows, preemptively threatened violence against demonstrations they dislike, committed arson, screamed in the faces of their opponents, physically attacked other demonstrators, injured professors during campus “deplatforming” rallies, and battered cars with steel batons while usurping police powers. That’s not a comprehensive list, and I didn’t include the individuals attacking people like Steve Scalise and Rand Paul, but don’t forget the urging to violence from individuals like Maxine Waters, Kathy Griffin, Cher, Eric Holder, Madonna, Jackson Cosko, or Loretta Lynch.
This is mob behavior. The Dem/Media conglomerate defends it; they don’t like the word. They forget they labelled the tea party protesters as a mob, while the tea party committed none of the crimes listed above.
We even left demonstration sites cleaner than we found them.
If the tea party was a “mob,” then these Progressive objections are right – the current protesters are not a mob. They’re much worse. Maybe we should call them goon groups.
I favor Thuggees, but I’m afraid it’s a tad esoteric for the average CNN/MSNBC viewer.
Hillary Clinton’s above the law self-privileging is breathtaking, even for a Democrat. She suffers from the delusion that because her husband was a genial, accomplished liar that the skill rubbed off on her. She’s also sure she’s immune to the charge of misogyny (which she would attach to anyone else behaving as did her husband) because of her sex.
Mrs. Bill can’t acknowledge Mr. Bill’s deeds, because without Mr. Bill she would have had no political career whatsoever. Might explain her bitterness and that of her handmaids.
Her nth wave Feminist supporters suffer from a similar megalomaniacal pursuit of their own (as they would put it) “privilege.” This privilege demands the destruction of any male, or white female, who disagrees in the slightest detail with THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE identity-political views, while steadfastly protecting those who who violate Feminist core values when those political views are shared. Harvey Weinstein, about whose, uh… peccadillos the Senior Harpies all knew, may not be the worst example. But, he’s the one we’ve got.
To be clear, Hillary Clinton isn’t responsible for her husband’s long history of sexual predation. She is, however, responsible for denigrating the victims of each and every occurrence; simultaneously proclaiming Bill’s vices as virtues while insulting those who question her “narrative.” She just can’t bring herself to “put some ice” on her wounded sense of entitlement.
Bill Clinton’s Sexual Assault Allegations Are ‘Different’, Hillary Says
Read the whole thing. Emphasis in original.
The numerous allegations of sexual harassment levied against him mean President Trump is a reprehensible monster, according to Hillary Clinton, but when it comes to similar claims made about her husband, former President Bill Clinton, it’s a different story…
The difference-maker, according to Clinton, is the fact that the allegations facing her husband were thoroughly investigated by a federal prosecutor…
“Well, there’s a very significant difference and that is the intense, long-lasting, partisan investigation that was conducted in the 90s,” Clinton said. “If the Republicans, starting with President Trump on down want a comparison, they should welcome such an investigation themselves.”
I dare say Justice Kavanaugh was more intensely, and with more partisan vitriol, investigated than Slick Willy, much more thoroughly investigated than her former boss, Barack Obama, and for a shorter time than the Mueller fiasco – which she initiated to cover up the DNC’s collusion with the FBI and foreign intelligence agencies.
IIRC, the claims against Trump all involve consensual activities, all of which occurred when he was neither Attorney General/ Governor of Arkansas, nor President of the United States. Since Kavanaugh was accused of far worse, my conclusion is that there’s nothing out there about Trump even as (un)believable as Julie Swetnik’s rape gang story.
Is there any doubt the #Resistance hysteria volume would ramp up to 11 if Trump was proved to have had oral sex with an intern in the Oval Office, and was disbarred for lying to a grand jury? There is, of course, no doubt the hysterics still defend Bill Clinton – of whom both are true. And that’s the real difference.
I’d like to see Bill’s yearbooks, one of which has a “dampstain” on page two. Hillary’s would be interesting only because those were her “Goldwater Girl” days. That should be disqualifying now, for any office, according to the Kavanaughts.
…or, thoughts on the Kavanaugh nomination.
Update 2:12PM. Some related articles:
Women Need To Protect Their Men From Unproven, Life-Destroying Accusations
My wife and I were at Dr. Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life lecture on Thursday (Sep. 20) in Grand Rapids, MI. We had VIP seats (3rd row, center) which added a badge, a picture with Peterson, and a separate interactive Q&A session. An unadvertised perk, for which my skinny old butt was grateful, was padded seats. Beyond row G, there was no padding. 20 Monroe live is a venue designed for rock concerts, not lectures, and all the folding chairs were packed closely.
Dave Rubin opened: A couple of decent jokes, and invocation of several Peterson memes (e.g. Cathy Newman, lobsters). All of which drew positive reaction from the audience. Rubin was OK, but has a pretty much canned intro. He welcomed 3,000 people when the capacity (it was filled) is about 1500. Must have been thinking about a previous event? He also told us we were the first audience to cheer for the venue’s announced policy of “no heckling, no video.” Aside from the fact that Peterson ticket buyers come for an intellectual stimulus and wouldn’t want to peer at the man through a forest of cameras held high in the first place, or listen to some SJW ranting instead of what they paid for, I’ve also read of the same reaction elsewhere. Maybe Dave wasn’t at that event.
The audience was about 35% female, 40% young male, and 25% older male. I make that latter distinction because I’m in the category, and it is relevant to the second-hand ad hominem arguments of many of Peterson’s critics. These postmodernist fellow travellers (most of them aren’t aware of how their social justice world views were formed) claim his demographic is overwhelmingly young, alt-right, and male – and mostly incels. They claim this audience proves he is a fascist, homophobic misogynist. Untrue of the demographic, but it’s all they’ve got. Peterson has hundreds of hours of video online going back decades, which you can be sure these SJW’s have minutely combed for any badthink.
On the contrary, the more of him you see the more you will be convinced he is intelligent, articulate, polymathic, grounded, kind, thoughtful and humbly aware of his own exhaustively examined faults. It’s not possible to spend a little time listening to him and come to any other intellectually honest conclusion.
The problem is simple: journalists guilty about inequality portray Peterson as an anti-trans, Cold War lunatic. Then, people who read that commentary and end up watching videos from his Biblical Series, or his Maps of Meaning lectures, do not find a right-wing radical. Instead, they find a passionate lecturer against authoritarianism who is deeply invested in a symbolic, archetypal understanding of human nature. Now, they realize that all these left-leaning outlets have lied to them. Instead of exposing a bigot, they’ve smeared a serious scholar.
For political reasons. But, Peterson’s message is only political in the sense that he looks at the science and comes to different conclusions about human nature than does the collectivist left.
He said nothing political during his speech.
Politics came looking for Peterson, he didn’t go looking for politics. His many years studying psychology, and vast experience as a clinical psychologist, have convinced him that postmodernism is a nihilist threat. Until his government decided to apply group-identitarian principles to him through the mechanism of compelled speech, he was invisible to the Internet. Then he made his conclusions explicitly public.
Back to the event. People I talked to said they were there because they wanted to better understand Peterson’s ideas. They sense the nihilism oozing from academia and media, and don’t want to succumb to it. Only one of them recognized the phrase “long march though the institutions;” and “Gramscian” drew a blank. But they all knew the effects. They’re looking for intellectual ammunition.
It is the first event of this nature I’ve attended which began with a standing ovation. That goes back to a Barry Goldwater campaign rally in 1964. That’s before I could vote.
I think Dr. Peterson had a cold. His voice seemed a little hoarse, or maybe it was the spirit of Kermit. A meme you’ll have to look up if you don’t recognize it.
From 2 minutes in the audience was transfixed. Interruptions by applause decreased as he continued; not because he stopped making valuable points, but because nobody wanted to interrupt the flow. Interrupting a train of thought is his specialty, but he usually does it himself (then jumping right back to his main thread).
Peterson gave an original, insightful, erudite, humble, astoundingly extemporaneous performance. It seemed improvisational. Which is to say, it was typical.
For reference, the 12 rules:
1. Stand up straight with your shoulders back
2. Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
3. Make friends with people who want the best for you
4. Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who
someone else is today
5. Do not let your children do anything that makes you
6. Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
7. Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
8. Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie
9. Assume that the person you are listening to might know
something you don’t
10. Be precise in your speech
11. Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
12. Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
He started with Rule 1 (this is not necessarily obvious, he skipped around and only directly mentioned rules 1, 3, 2, 5, 9 and 4, in that order, IIRC). He invoked Rule 1 in speaking to the Problem of Evil, and to set up the relationship between responsibility and meaning: Be prepared for tragedy, in part by taking responsibility for yourself. In doing so you find not the answer to the purpose of the universe; but meaning in your life.
He segued to the rule 3, 2, 5 sequence (with excursions to 5, 9 and 4), building the case for treating “yourself like someone you are responsible for helping” because that directly impacts relationships with your spouse, your children, and your community. Not concepts you haven’t heard from him before, but essential to the core element of his message: individual sovereignty requires individual responsibility.
The collectivist counterpoint is: “Treat everyone as a member of a group you need to control in order to ensure your own power.” I.e., power is well-being. Peterson has never specifically said this (AFAIK), but I think the contrast is both accurate and useful.
I’d put the overall experience in the top 90% of the hundred or so hours I’ve watched on YouTube, half of that (so far) his university lectures. I didn’t expect to hear shocking new directions. After all, the talk was about 12 Rules. There were many concepts with which I was familiar, but with different stories, examples, and analogies. I learned from those. JBP spoke of ideas he’d “just figured out in the last 2 weeks.” Nice to be a spectator in that journey.
He is a powerful teacher; he lets you see the mundane as marvelous – again. It’s an encouragement to regain your childlike wonder. Listening to him is a challenge and an invitation to explore the borders of chaos and order.
He was also funny. There were some hilarious riffs on relationships. Peterson had to pause to let the laughter die off.
I’d give a lot to see Peterson’s humour unleashed over a beer or three. I imagine it to be poker-faced and Menckenian, though peppered with, “And that’s that, bucko!”, “Think again, sunshine!”, and “Bloody neo-Marxists!” Hearing him laugh about something is a treat.
In a era where Jerry Seinfeld eschews college campuses because of their near Stalinist humorlessness, we won’t see unconstrained Peterson humor anytime soon. He is pilloried enough without contributing sound bites for the deliberate misinterpretation at mis-re-education camp(use)s. This is a shame.
There was a deserved standing ovation at the end of Dr. Peterson’s address.
The following will likely vary by venue, but for those of you wondering about the content, sequence and timing of activities, as I was, here’s a bit of housekeeping info. The lecture is followed by a general Q&A. In this case, Dave Rubin selected questions submitted online through Slido. This segment completes the basic portion of the show.
Then there’s a delay of 15-20 minutes while they set up for pictures.
It was stated in emails prior to the event that it was OK to give JBP a gift during the picture segment. I did. I gave him a kiddie cup from a dinner I had at Red Lobster on the occasion of my wife’s birthday earlier this month. I expected a laugh from the doctor, and I got one. He asked where it had come from, and I told him Red Lobster via my 10 year old grandson. I have my own cup, from a granddaughter. So I have that in common with him now. ;)
As my 20 seconds ended, I thanked him for the hard work and dedication that made it possible for him to give us the gift of his insights.
We were asked please not to engage in extended conversation, since to move 200-300 people through the process takes 45 minutes – if it’s moving quickly. This is why there’s no book signing, the time would easily double.
You would think that at a Jordan Peterson event, people would be particularly loath to violate this responsibility.
Well, there’s always a couple, aren’t there? You could hear grumbling from everyone both in line and already finished when a couple of people took a minute or two. I was jealous, but proud that my inner child hadn’t done anything that made me dislike him.
The reason people who had already had their picture taken were grumbling is that the last portion of the evening is spent in a more intimate, back and forth Q&A with JBP. They were robbing us of that time. About 50 of us stayed for it.
I paraphrase: The questions ranged from a long exposition (female): “I like STEM. I’m a proven talent. Males and females give me praise for my abilities. It’s still really hard. Should I continue?”, to (female) “What psychedelic drug would you recommend to a beginner?”, to (male) “I have evil tendencies. I’ve always identified with villains. I’ve resisted temptation to do -some unspecified thing- so far. How do I ensure I continue to cope?”
A takeaway for me was the intimate nature of some questions before a group of 50+. Some people had a remarkable level of trust in a bunch of strangers whose only certain characteristic was an interest in Jordan Peterson’s ideas; and a belief JBP could tell them something important about a personal problem.
He handled the serious and the oddball questions with aplomb and real interest. Probably at bit like office hours at UoT, or a clinical session with a client. ;)
This conversation lasted a little over an hour, and my wife and I discussed the evening for our entire 45 minute drive home. A fine evening.
Jordan Peterson is a classical liberal who strongly supports First Amendment principles. His cogent defense of these ideas is a gift to all of us. I highly recommend visiting his website and YouTube channel, particularly the videos of his lectures at the University of Toronto. His passion for teaching and the importance of his thinking can only be appreciated with a deeper exposure than a single lecture, or an interview with an ideologue like Cathy Newman.
Zina Bash is Mexican born, Jewish on her father’s side, and her grandparents were Holocaust survivors. She is one of Brett Kavanaugh’s former law clerks and was previously employed in the White House as part of the Domestic Policy Council.
She has recently been attacked by the #Resistance as a white supremacist.
Dr. Avital Ronell, protege of postmodernist guru Jacques Derrida, was born in Prague to a pair of Israeli diplomats. She is a self-described ‘queer’ professor at NYU. Ronell has just been suspended because one of her former graduate students claims that she sexually assaulted, stalked and harassed him. Full appreciation of Ronell’s transgressions (documented by her own emails) requires knowing that student, Nimrod Reitman, is gay.
Dr. Ronell was fiercely defended in a letter by 50 #MeToo intellectuals and academics insisting the charges were not true, though they didn’t know the facts.
So, which one is the Nazi, for making the
white power “OK” symbol…
…and which one is just scratching her arm?
If you think that government unions should be prohibited from taking members’ money to spend on political ads those members disagree with, you may also object to Consumers Energy shareholders’ money being used for political ads supporting Consumers’ agenda. Which, among other things, includes outsourcing electricity generation to other states.
I have no objection in principle to the idea of cost effective outsourcing. I mention it because the inaptly named “Citizens for Energizing Michigan’s Economy” has been fear mongering about outsourcing Michigan electricity supply jobs in a blitz of radio and television ads. Most of the funding for that electioneering came from Consumers Energy.
Consumers Energy points out the campaign ad money did not come from customers.
“Our contributions to Citizens for Energizing Michigan’s Economy came from the company in the form of non-customer, shareholder dollars. In other words, funds driven from our shareholders – people buying stock – and not from customer bills.”
As if this makes any difference. As TOC has noted previously, money is fungible. The money they used for political purposes could have been used to defray costs, increase shareholder dividends, mitigate rate increases, or invested in capital projects. Instead, it was used in a crony capitalist scheme to maintain and extend its government granted monopoly status – upon which their stock price largely depends.
Remember Consumers election spending next time they ask you for a donation to their solar projects, or their Green Generation wind program, or offer you a discount for letting them take control of your air conditioner.
Consumers’ political activity should be severely constrained, as befits a company operating with a government granted commodity monopoly.
Update, 5:09PM. I’d forgotten these details from 2014:
In November 2014 the MPSC approved a settlement agreement authorizing Consumers Energy to recover $9,752,187, with interest, in deferred major maintenance expense.
Deferred MAJOR MAINTENANCE expense? And they have a government guaranteed 90% market share? And they put $43 million into political advertising in this time frame?
That’s one way to ensure profit margins stay in double digits.
A well written peek into the suppurating cesspit that is SJW academia (which is most of it). The cracks in the edifice are being exposed, ironically, by #MeToo hypocrisy. The author would appear to be risking her career, so I find it remarkable. It’s also remarkable it could be published.
Added to the DoJ support for Asian applicants’ suit against Harvard, DeVos finally insisting Title IX must observe due process, and the fear inspired vitriol directed against Professors Jordan Peterson, Johnathan Haidt, Christina Hoff Sommers, Brett Weinstein, Charles Murray, and Stephen Pinker, this is encouraging.
If you’ve ever wondered where the Left’s version of Jordan Peterson is, there isn’t one. Oh, there are academic superstars like Avital Ronell (and Catherine McKinnon and Judith Butler, for example) all over the place. But they can’t be called “public” intellectuals because their ideas are agenda driven, deliberately obtuse, and generally abhorrent to the public.
And Ronell’s defenders know it. Judith Butler’s cringing apology is instructive, and essentially admits to autonomic tribalism. Basically, “We rose in righteous anger because the punishment didn’t fit the crime, even though we didn’t know what the crime was.”
Oops. Ronell is a female Harvey Weinstein, but they couldn’t wait to find that out before reflexively attacking her accuser.
#MeToo leader Asia Argento couldn’t be reached for comment.