October 6, 2018

"The crowd in front of the U.S. Supreme Court is tiny, looks like about 200 people (& most are onlookers)..."

"... that wouldn’t even fill the first couple of rows of our Kansas Rally, or any of our Rallies for that matter! The Fake News Media tries to make it look sooo big, & it’s not!"

Trump tweets.

Also at Twitter, I'm seeing Jordan Peterson promoting (but not necessarily endorsing) the idea that Kavanaugh, confirmed, should step down. Responding to him is Scott Adams, who says, "This feels like a terrible idea to me, but because smart people are saying it, I’m open to hearing the argument."

Peterson replies: "I'm not certain that is the right move. It's very complex. But he would have his name cleared, and a figure who might be less divisive might be put forward."

And Adams says, "Quitting would clear his name? I'm not connecting any of these dots."

I agree with Adams and would add that a "less divisive" figure is a fantasy. If the Democrats dream of stopping Kavanaugh were to come true, they would be fired up to use any means necessary to stop the new nominee. I'm reminded of this passage in the Susan Collins speech:
The President nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9th. Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn’t even bother to fill in the Judge’s name on its pre-written press release – they simply wrote that they opposed “Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States.” A number of Senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee’s identity was even known.

193 comments:

tim in vermont said...

Her speech was really good, which is why nobody to the left actually responds to it. Like the NYT editorial on it doesn't actually quote even a single line.

anti-de Sitter space said...

Peterson is a total dork.

Trump's no genius, but he's not a dork.

anti-de Sitter space said...

BTW, his daughter only eats red meat. And salt.

Gahrie said...

And yet you reflexively sided with Ford anyway.

Gahrie said...

Hell the Left is already opposed to Trump's next Supreme Court nomination, and there isn't even a vacancy yet.

Gahrie said...

I'm sure Peterson's idea has something to do with shaming the Left and restoring comity. The problem is, the Left feels no shame.

Francisco D said...

I'm sure Peterson's idea has something to do with shaming the Left and restoring comity. The problem is, the Left feels no shame.

Dr. Peterson is a good man and represents Psychology very well. However, people in the field can be naive in thinking that those who want to destroy have even a smidgen of honor and integrity.

Original Mike said...

Peterson replies: "I'm not certain that is the right move. It's very complex. But he would have his name cleared, and a figure who might be less divisive might be put forward."

Wow. I’ve seen this idea before (at least one commenter here has advanced it), but I’m amazed to see Peterson hold it. The left’s reaction to Kavaugh has nothing to do with him per se. The divisiveness does not stem from Kavaugh. The next nominee would meet the same level of resistance.

JPS said...

Sure, a figure who might be less divisive could come forward.

Then, by the most remarkable happenstance, that person could be accused of something both terrible and very difficult to disprove, at the last minute. And serious, thoughtful people would say you just can’t elevate someone under a cloud like that.

Mark Jones said...

I generally like Dr. Peterson's take on things, but this--that the Republicans voluntarily commit an "own goal" by having their hard-won SC Justice step down--is asinine. The lefty lunatics are already talking about impeaching him over the same non-crimes they smeared him with, and he wants the Republicans to GIVE them a win?

Browndog said...

I see many on the right are attacking Peterson, to the point of bringing up old tweets from 2012 when he praised Obama.

Just stop it.

No one on the right had a bad word to say about Peterson before now. I have yet to see anyone disagree with what he has said, or espoused to believe before his recent Kavanaugh tweet.

Somehow, being wrong about one thing erases the 99 things you were, and still are, right about.

Just stop it.

Oso Negro said...

Jordan Peterson is a Canadian. Who sits on our Supreme Court is none of his fucking business.

chickenlittle said...

Gahrie said...”I'm sure Peterson's idea has something to do with shaming the Left and restoring comity. The problem is, the Left feels no shame.”

Not just that, they also believe that they will triumph in November because of the Kavanaugh opposition.

Paul Mac said...

The interesting question to me next is who gets put forward to fill the DC Circuit seat just vacated and how that goes.

Maybe Neomi Rao or Randy Barnett or elevate one of the short-listers for the next seat Barrett, Thapar, Larsen, etc.

If I was Trump I'd be strongly tempted to nominate Zina Bash, but that is probably not practical.

madAsHell said...

Who knew that Dr. Peterson would be the lobster pulling Kavanaugh back to the bottom of the pot?

Two-eyed Jack said...

As Francisco notes, stepping aside would be a gesture by Kavanaugh asserting that his honor had been restored. This would work (to the extent of restoring honor) if people recognized that his opponents had impugned his honor and he had faced them down.
Problem: There is no one who opposed him who thinks this. His opponents think they were right to impugn his honor and that his victory is built on bluff and power. They would assert that whatever happens, it just proves them right, and any subsequent candidate should be compelled to run a gauntlet of outlandish allegations, and Kavanaugh should be subjected to whatever humiliation pop culture can mete out.

wildswan said...

Canada is another country with a different politics and Petersen just doesn't get ours. What Kavanaugh should do is continue to stand up straight and hold his shoulders back.

chickenlittle said...

The act of political resignation seems to mean something different in Commonwealth nations than it does here. Why is that?

Browndog said...

Further, Peterson has said from day one he was politically aligned with the left.

Further more, when he said Kavanaugh should step down, he said 'I'm not certain", which means in kanuck "I could be wrong".

I align with conservatives, as a template, but I reject purity tests, and the right to be wrong in good faith.

Paul Mac said...

Peterson is wrong on this, you will be often if you put yourself out there as he does. It isn't a big deal

I understand where the impulse comes from but I think feeling it realistic stems from lack of thorough familiarity with the past decades of history regarding politics around the Court and optimism that the Left will step back and re-evaluate soon. They won't, not soon enough for this to be pragmatic anyway. And if they do it will still be unnecessary.

n.n said...

Somehow, being wrong about one thing erases the 99 things you were, and still are, right about.

Just stop it.


I agree. A perfect match only exists in our mind.

Crimso said...

"to the extent of restoring honor"

Dueling should be made legal again.

I saw video of them chanting "No justice, no peace!" They got a Justice, so STFU and go home.

Michael K said...

Meanwhile, Democrats are doing what they can to keep up GOP voter enthusiasm.

A petition to impeach Kavanaugh has gathered over 125,000 signatures, progressive groups have raised money to expel him from the federal bench and a key Democratic lawmaker has promised to investigate the judge if the party retakes the House in November.

That's the way. Keep going ! Right up until November 6.

gg6 said...

ALTHOUSE says: "a "less divisive" figure is a fantasy."...I say no kidding, Sherlock, I'm w/ you on that 100%! Being realistic is a good thing ....and not all that common.

Clyde said...

That would be like defeating the Nazis at Normandy Beach and then handing the beach back over to them. Fuck that!

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Jordan Peterson is a Canadian

Foreign interference in our elections!!11!!

wildswan said...

As for "Kavanaugh as had his name cleared so his honor is OK", the Democrats intend to impeach him if they win the house. Perhaps Peterson, thinking as a psychologist, just thinks that Kavanaugh is suffering from media battle-shock and needs a rest. But the storm will pass away from Kavanaugh and he will be, as he wished to be, a working Justice of the Supreme Court. And soon others will face the same storm and in the universities, conservative and pro life students have been facing it for some time. I've even heard of a case where a high school student gun-control advocate has gotten death threats which is totally evil. It's no time to run away and there is, in any case, nowhere to run to.

gg6 said...

btw, if trump gets to make another nomination, is there any doubt it will be a Female?...No...What will the Eem-Libs say to that? Don't worry, they will...she worked her way thru college by being a pick-pocket for Fagin!!!

F said...

BAD idea. The left would take that as proof that their attacks were right all along. Kavanaugh should take his seat and encourage RBG to drink a lot of beer.

Achilles said...

Browndog said...
I see many on the right are attacking Peterson, to the point of bringing up old tweets from 2012 when he praised Obama.

Just stop it.


No.

He is wrong on this.

Due process is a first principle. Without due process none of this exists.

If Ford wants to clam assault there is a process.

File the police report or shut the fuck up.

In her case she committed perjury, witness tampering, and conspiracy to both so it is time for her to claim her due process rights.

LYNNDH said...

Ah, Merrick Garland maybe?? HA HA
Just wait when Ginsberg steps down. Trump will nominate a very far right woman to replace her. Will they accuse her of molesting small boys? Would not bet against it.

whitney said...

I like Peterson, I've been contributing a very small amount to his patreon account for a couple years now. But he's totally wrong on this. He's living in a fantasy world where the Rules of Civility are still engaged. This Is War

Achilles said...

And yes people are noticing how pathetic and small these "protests" are.

This is 100% astroturf funded by wealthy people with cropped media pictures.

We would be a better country without these professional leftists. They produce nothing of value.

Michael said...

Cut him some slack. That is just how Canadians roll. Comity at any price.

Bob said...

I think one of Jordan Peterson's big concerns is with polarization in the US. See his appearance on Bill Maher sometime back. He criticized the "Impeach Trump" movement on the basis that overturning the will of nearly half the electorate through impeachment / conviction would be a terribly divisive thing to do.

I disagree with him on Kavanaugh, but I don't think he advances his position in bad faith. He just doesn't realize polarization is the normal state of American politics unless we have an external enemy against which to unite.

rhhardin said...

Rules of civility still work. Just re-explain your position.

Civility doesn't mean PC.

rhhardin said...

Things are in a bad state is Susan Collins's speech is looked to for insight. She was wrong to go female in the first place.

Bob said...

tim in vermont said, "Her speech was really good, which is why nobody to the left actually responds to it. Like the NYT editorial on it doesn't actually quote even a single line."

The Slate headline was, "Susan Collins’ Senate Speech Was a Cruel Attack on Christine Blasey Ford". And they quoted parts of the speech to prove it!.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Will they accuse her of molesting small boys?

No they'll drag up some black to say she used the N word.

James K said...

Somehow, being wrong about one thing erases the 99 things you were, and still are, right about.

Once again, praising someone's ideas at one time does not preclude criticizing a later idea.

In this case I think Peterson fell prey to his own success, deciding to be too clever by half. And he doesn't seem to understand American politics.

Browndog said...

Achilles said...

Peterson made the point for Kavanaugh to withdraw after due process, and his name is cleared.

Maybe go to the horses mouth, and see what he actually said.

n.n said...

over 125,000 signatures, progressive groups have raised money to expel him from the federal bench and a key Democratic lawmaker

Monotonic... they would be well advised to qualify their Change.

Browndog said...

James K said...

Somehow, being wrong about one thing erases the 99 things you were, and still are, right about.

Once again, praising someone's ideas at one time does not preclude criticizing a later idea.


Somehow, you're arguing against a point nobody is making.

Achilles said...

Browndog said...
Achilles said...

Peterson made the point for Kavanaugh to withdraw after due process, and his name is cleared.

Maybe go to the horses mouth, and see what he actually said.



You can bold "after" all you want.

It is stupid. Peterson is wrong.

Peterson does not understand the fundamental nature of due process and the presumption of innocence.

It doesn't make him wrong everything else. But he is dead wrong here in a fundamental way that is dangerous to our Republic.

Khesanh 0802 said...

The "just imagine" game should now be played with Amy Cony Barrett as the nominee. What will the Dems come up with to sleaze all over her. Catholicism? That's a god one. Feinstein already tried it out.

Achilles said...

More on the above, Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty.

That means he is treated like he is innocent. He isn't treated like he might have done it.

He is treated like Bob Menendez and Keith Ellison and Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy are treated.



exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Francisco D wrote:
"Dr. Peterson is a good man and represents Psychology very well. However, people in the field can be naive in thinking that those who want to destroy have even a smidgen of honor and integrity."

It surprises me that Peterson is naive in this respect, since he has written "Never give in to the mob."

Peterson has been smeared and targeted by left-wing scum himself. He should know better.

He has said all along that he is not on the right (he is certainly not alt-right). He defines himself as a classic liberal. But since classic liberals no longer exist on the left, he is labeled conservative.

tim in vermont said...

I think that what Kavanaugh should do is ride a float in a parade in Chicago surrounded by girls dressed in dirndl singing Danke Shein.

tim in vermont said...

You can't "clear your name" when the Democrats have a vested interest in making sure that your name stays good and dirty.

Achilles said...

Khesanh 0802 said...
The "just imagine" game should now be played with Amy Cony Barrett as the nominee. What will the Dems come up with to sleaze all over her. Catholicism? That's a god one. Feinstein already tried it out.


Some leftists kid was molested by her 30 or 31 years ago. Thats what catholics do.

As Bill said above she also used the N-word 37 or 38 years ago.

We don't know what day or even what year.

Or where.

But I bet the "corroborating" witnesses are handled better this time. Bet on that.

I just happened.

Unknown said...

Perfect outcome

- Resistance shows its senseless and uncaring to opponents/people not id'ed in "marginalized" groups
- Voting public angered by unfair spectacle
- Republican leaders notch a win by toughening up
- Never Trumpers start to see the reason primary voters chose Trump
- Kavanaugh sworn in anyway - right celebrates a win instead of going "we could have had a better conservative"

Resistance shot themselves in the head aiming for Trump

If Reps keep the house it will be winning all the time

We gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. president, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!

Paul Mac said...

He also replied with

"That might decrease residual alienation from the left, and make things less polarized moving forward. Of course, that has to be balanced against handing any victory to the "believe all accusers" crowd."

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1048643964050370560

James K said...

Somehow, you're arguing against a point nobody is making.

Project much? You're missing the distinction between criticizing someone's idea and criticizing that person. The objection is to this Peterson's proposal. You seem to think people are maligning Peterson more generally. The only person I've seen do that here is anti-de Sitter space, who I'd guess has never had anything positive to say about him.

Ken B said...

Today they'd howl over Garland.

There is no less divisive candidate. That was the point of BK, he was a certified moderate conservative mainstream judge. The only way a candidate could satisfy the Left is if he strangled Trump with Thomas's intestines. Twice.

Martha said...

I bet Blasey Ford had her letter to Feinstein ready to send before Kavanaugh was named. The first line has an all purpose ring to it:


Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein;
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.

Khesanh 0802 said...

According to her attorneys Ford will not pursue this any further. Probably a good idea to fade into the background as soon as possible. "Take the Money and Run!" For a few hours work she has cleared well over a million bucks and even after her lawyer's "pro bono" fees she will be sitting pretty.

I remain convinced of two things: she was traumatized by her lack of badly needed orthodonture as a teen ( I can hear the cool girls now); and she is a bit of a sociopath who can be convincing even when telling a bald faced lie.

Grassley has the bit in his teeth about about Ford's "evidence". Will that continue?

Susan Collins speech was excellent. If you haven't you should read the whole thing.

James K said...

According to her attorneys Ford will not pursue this any further. Probably a good idea to fade into the background as soon as possible.

I'd prefer to think she needs to fade into a country without an extradition treaty, as she will be pursued for perjury, with her pal McLean charged with witness tampering. If only to extract a confession that she made the whole thing up.

Browndog said...

James K said...

Once again, praising someone's ideas at one time does not preclude criticizing a later idea.

Name one person that argued otherwise-

Name one person that argued Peterson is right on Kavanagh because he's been right on other things.

Projection?

Smarten up-

Yancey Ward said...

Peterson's idea makes no sense other than as a slap at the Republican's in the Senate who worked to get him confirmed. I thought 10 days ago that they would deserve such derision, but people like Grassley, McConnell, Graham, and Collins did do heavy lifting once Kavanaugh decided he would not back down to the likely libel and slander.

sane_voter said...

The only way to stop this from happening for the next Trump nominee is for there to be prosecutions of the lying witnesses. And a few lawyers to be prosecuted and disbarred.

sane_voter said...

I am a fan of Jordan Peterson, but he is dead wrong about this.

Wow, that was easy.

Unknown said...

Collins was mostly good other than "I believe"

We have to stop saying "I believe" as a sop to the Soap Opera Women

everytime a SOW pulls a "Pagliacci" performance.

The accusations amount to descriptions of feelings

Instead of "believe" maybe a new word to show you COULD feel as she does

"I menstrualsync her"

Darrell said...

Peterson makes the mistake of thinking that the Left is expressing honest concerns.
He learn better when they come for him.

Ray said...

Petersons response originally was to Eric Weinstein. Jordan has become friends with both Weinsteins, Dave Rubin, and other reasonable Lefties. I think if they represented the Democrat party, he'd be right. But, if they represented the Democrat Party, there would have never been the mess we just went through. Jordan rails against the far left, and its dangers, and he himself proclaims one should never back down to the mob. I like Dr. Peterson, and think he's an important figure in defending Western Civilization, and Christianity's influence on it. I think in this case he's been debating with his reasonable friends, and responded personally to one of them (on twitter). He obviously backtracked some, he just needs to study what's going on here in the United States more deeply, and admit it's a bad idea

CWJ said...

"According to her attorneys Ford will not pursue this any further."

If true, it really means that since we lost this one, we're done working pro-bono. You're on your own.

Humperdink said...

RIP John McCain.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

I disagree with him on Kavanaugh, but I don't think he advances his position in bad faith. He just doesn't realize polarization is the normal state of American politics unless we have an external enemy against which to unite.

10/6/18, 6:57 PM

The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, who started out as a liberal Canadian Lutheran minister and ended up as a conservative American Catholic priest (he was the editor of the journal "First Things") once defined the basic difference between Canadians and Americans as their attitude toward government. Because of their history, Canadians see government as ultimately benign. They simply don't have the same innate suspicion of government that is baked into the DNA of many Americans, although, sadly, many of us have come to embrace statism.

Remember, the iconic figure of the Canadian West is the Mountie - a government employee. The iconic figure of the American West is the cowboy - an individualist, often at loggerheads with the authorities. Neuhaus said the Canadian ideal is GOOD government, not SMALL government. And they have the parlimentary system, which is dependent on building coalitions and sometimes makes for highly unlikely allies.

So I think you're right. He's well-meaning and intelligent, but on a fundamental level, he doesn't quite "get" us.

Spiros Pappas said...

Kavanaugh = Abe Fortas. Out in 3 years or less. Sad!

Achilles said...

CWJ said...
"According to her attorneys Ford will not pursue this any further."

If true, it really means that since we lost this one, we're done working pro-bono. You're on your own.

It actually means please don't indict us for conspiracy to commit perjury and witness tampering.

These are the same people that set up the Russian Collusion hoax.

Time for them to go down.

Ray said...

"I bet Blasey Ford had her letter to Feinstein ready to send before Kavanaugh was named. The first line has an all purpose ring to it:"

Gorsuch went to the same school as Kavanaugh. He's actually 2 years younger then Kavanaugh. Same age as Ms. Ford

gilbar said...

he should step down after due process?
So,
Step down after name cleared; since he didn't do anything?
Does that make sense to Canadians? 'cause it don't to me

If he steps down he is ADMITTING GUILT, and therefore would need to step down from the DC court as well.

This sounds Lots like people saying that the Repubs should Impeach Trump and Sessions, then have Ryan appoint Hilary as VP and then resign; you know, 'cause it would Clear His Name

Achilles said...

Spiros Pappas said...
Kavanaugh = Abe Fortas. Out in 3 years or less. Sad!

Sometimes I wonder just who could be stupid enough to support the democrat party.

Welp...

mockturtle said...

Forget about 'less divisive'. We all know it's not about Kavanaugh. It's about Roe v. Wade and no matter who gets the nod to replace RBG he/she will bring out the shrieking fem-mobs. Yielding even an inch to these would-be tyrants only strengthens their resolve. Resist!

Lewis Wetzel said...

"According to her attorneys Ford will not pursue this any further."

I take this to mean that Ford and her attorneys know that they are at a dead end. No further investigation will produce anything that favors ford's story (and may detract from it).
Where has gone the belief that more investigation will prove Kavanaugh guilty?

traditionalguy said...

Peterson thinks out loud and sometimes says stupid things. That is his quota for the next 6 months. It is a failing common to academics. Scott Adams is as smart as Jordon but is not into Academic wandering thoughts.



Mary said...

Well, Neil Gorsuch who was nominated to the Supreme Court last year did not have these sorts of accusations or issues, and he went to the same private school that Kavanaugh attended, he was two years younger and he would have been exposed to the same party culture as Kavanaugh. He got 2 votes on the Dem side, the votes were mostly along party line but absolutely nothing like this. So it's possible to get someone "less divisive", it just happened last year! Geesh

Jupiter said...

Two-eyed Jack said...
"There is no one who opposed him who thinks this. His opponents think they were right to impugn his honor and that his victory is built on bluff and power."

I think you give them too much credit. I think that most of the Democrats in the Senate realize, at a minimum, that Ford is a wackjob and her accusations against Kavanaugh are weak. They realize that guys who do that shit, like Bill Clinton, do it over and over and over, and you can prove it easily, without dragging in some ditzy broad who can't recall any of the details of the experience that ruined her life. They voted No on Kavanaugh because they realize he is a conservative, and they don't want him on the Court. But they are perfectly happy to have it believed that their opposition is due to his dating practices, if that fires up their voters. They're the fucking scum of the Earth, is what they are.

mockturtle said...

His logic is beyond flawed. Maybe Peterson has become a pod person, a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers. At some point he went to sleep...these mobs sound a lot like pod people, don't they?

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

"Maybe Peterson has become a pod person, a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers. "

Nah. One dumb opinion does not a pod person make. :)

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Wonder if the ideologues appointed by Obama fell into corrupt ways? If so there could soon be resignations coming. And why did Roberts obey orders on Obamacare and throw the fight!

Ken B said...

Might need that tape in, just a second, carry the 1, 2054.

rcocean said...

Kavanaugh should resign to "Bring the country together" has to be the most puzzling thing I've ever heard.

First, the Left would take his resignation as an expression of guilt.

Second, it would just lead to another SCOTUS fight even worse than this one.

Third, 65% of Americans can't name a single SCOTUS judge! Not even Goresuch who was confirmed in 2017 or Thomas. The Country isn't "divided" over Kavanaugh. Most of the country doesn't care about the SCOTUS.

Fourth, any resignation would encourage to Left to hurl nasty, unproven charges against EVERY Republican nominee. After all, it worked once, why not try it again?

I wonder if Jordan Peterson gets his American news from the CBC or BBC?

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Gorsuch was replacing another conservative. Kav is replacing a swing vote and thus changing the balance of the court.

That's the reason for the hysteria. If Trump had replaced Scalia with Kavanaugh and chosen Gorsuch to replace Kennedy, Gorsuch would have been accused of assault and gang rape and boofing too.

Big Mike said...

If Trump had replaced Scalia with Kavanaugh and chosen Gorsuch to replace Kennedy, Gorsuch would have been falsely accused of assault and gang rape and boofing too.

FIFY, exiled.

rcocean said...

The problem with Scott Adams, and Jordan Petersen, and a lot "Moderates" and "deep thinkers" they just skip over the facts.

The reality is that ever since Bork, the Left has done whatever they think is necessary to keep Republicans from putting true conservatives on the court. Sometimes, they've failed, sometimes they've succeeded.

The hit job on Bork and the massive food fight, not only led to "Swing vote" Kennedy, it intimidated Bush I into going along with Souter. Bush didn't want to fight, so he elected Souter, who Rodman assured him would sail through, and Thomas who Danforth assured him would sail through the Senate.

The left wing hit job would've worked on Thomas, if Thomas had not saved himself with his wonderful "High-tech lynching" speech.

Meanwhile, the R's voiced no objection to Ginsberg and Breyer. Did the D's return the favor? Of course not, they tried to filibuster Alioto, and failed. And now we're done in the gutter because they didn't want Kavanaugh.

We need to pin the blame on the who is driving this. The Democrats and the Liberals.

Its not "we" or "us" or "The Senate" - its the Liberals.

Big Mike said...

Peterson is making a basic mistake — in the eyes of the Left, Kavanaugh has not been, and will never be, exonerated. Moreover a resignation by Kavanaugh would be a slap in the face to those who worked so hard, and took political risks, to pull him through.

Michael K said...

Think of the cats left alone today with no food and water as their mistresses went nuts on Capital Hill.

Think of their pain and sorrow.

rcocean said...

I like Scott Adams but he's your typical pragmatic business/corporate guy.

He just doesn't understand religious people because he's sorta atheist/agnostic.

And he doesn't understand political ideologues because he's a pragmatic moderate.

He thinks everyone is just out for their self interest or doing what they think is best for the country. That someone may be motivated by political ideology or political power just doesn't register with him. He thinks everyone is motivated by $$$, or they're smart or dumb. But religion and political ideals? Doesn't compute.

Comanche Voter said...

A guy can dream; Sotomayo succumbs to a diabetic coma, or Ginsburg (who can't remember the 14th amendment until someone hands her a copy of the Constitution) shuffles off this mortal coil. And then Ted Cruz or Amy Barrett gets nominated for the vacancy. Dem heads explode---but the Republican Senate majority has grown to 55-45 and either or both of them (one or two vacancies?) sails on through.

Meantime I'm hoping that Senator Spartacus and the boofing doofus Whitehouse are among the departed Senators. As for Di Fi--for her part in this little fiasco, I'm going to cast a vote for her opponent in November---notwithstanding the fact that he is loonier than she is.

robother said...

"Nomination of XX to the Supreme Court." So they would've opposed a female appointee as rabidly as a male (XY).

Breezy said...

I think Jordan Peterson should take a hard look at Schumer and Feinstein and then come talk to us again. He’s missing something big IMHO.

Francisco D said...

J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS:

I was in the Senate gallery this afternoon when Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed. You would have thought I was at an exorcism in an insane asylum.

Perhaps you were watching on television and heard the disruptions, though you certainly didn’t see them. The attenuated audio probably didn’t catch the frightening incoherent shrieking – including the lingering screaming and howling as they were being dragged down the hallways outside the gallery.

If there was any doubt that the opposition to Kavanaugh was unhinged, uncivil, disruptive, rude, and borderline nuts, my experience in the gallery made it clear.


I wonder if some of our lefty commenters were there.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Browndog@7:08 "... withdraw after due process, and his name is cleared."

Okay, so when does his name get cleared, Dog? All I see is a whole lot of harpies, dykes, dumb bitches and feminazis wearing shirts that state that Kavanagh is a rapist, and all I hear is the leaders of the democrat party vowing to take Kav-brah down when they get back power.

So you and that Canuck cuck just let us know when his name is as cleared as, say, Clarence Thomas's, then he can quit to make progs and Democrat party members happy.

And what about the millions of us who want Kav-brah on the court, and will be just as unhappy as progs if he isn't? Don't our feelings mean anything, or do we have to "take to the streets" and act like fucking scumbags to get our way?

Browndog said...

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Browndog@7:08 "... withdraw after due process, and his name is cleared."


Go back and read the entire thread, and quit taking me out of context.

What the hell is wrong with you people tonight?

Drago said...

You dont hand matches to an arsonist and ypu dont hand power to an angry left wing mob...

Michael K said...

The attenuated audio probably didn’t catch the frightening incoherent shrieking – including the lingering screaming and howling as they were being dragged down the hallways outside the gallery.

Hundreds of cats were left alone all day. Each of these women probably has 20 so it might have been thousands.

Does no one feel their pain ?

James K said...

Browndog, you wrote this to characterize what people were saying:

“Somehow, being wrong about one thing erases the 99 things you were, and still are, right about.”

But no one was making that argument. They were just saying he was wrong about this.

Another person who likes to do that is Inga, incidentally.

Michael K said...

McConnell, for all his faults and they are many, is exulting in this vote and will be stoked for the election.

Browndog said...

Instead of celebrating, many want to throw a Canadian Psych professor into the water to see if he floats.

Attack me all you want for defending his right to be wrong on this one issue, but I don't see anyone getting huffy at the many "conservatives" that had the exact same sentiment the minute it was announced there would be a delay in the vote for an FBI investigation.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Another, more practical, problem with Peterson's idea is that Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court Justice. He can't just go back to his old position on the D.C. Circuit. He would have to be nominated again and confirmed again!

Browndog said...

James K said...

Learn how to read. Or, comprehend what you read.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Browndog@8:27... Oh, out of context, was it? Set me straight- What is the context for Kavanagh should step down as soon as his name is cleared?

After you're done contexting, you can elaborate on how his name gets cleared, so like, Democrat party members won't be calling him a rapist for the rest of recorded time.

mockturtle said...

These harpies are an embarrassment to sane women everywhere.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Sworn in already. No time wasted.

Mr. Majestyk said...

I am thinking about attending the Supreme Court arguments on Tuesday. Partly to see Kavanaugh and partly to see if any looney whackadoodle nut jobs try to protest inside the courtroom.

Ken B said...

I have always like McConnell, ever since I lived in Kentucky. I like all the RINOs, being RINOish myself. People undervalue that N. It means committee control, subpoena power, routine votes. It matters.

Collins should be a great fucking GOP hero. Her speech was everything Althouse's posts have not been: clear, logical, evidence based. She didn’t vote for BK for a mirror image reason of say why Booker voted against. She did it because it was right, and she explained why forcefully.

Browndog said...

Blogger Michael Fitzgerald said...

Browndog@8:27... Oh, out of context, was it? Set me straight- What is the context for Kavanagh should step down as soon as his name is cleared?


Do I have to scroll up, copy what I already wrote--in full-- and repost it down here, or can you manage to scroll up and re-read what I wrote all on your own?

Lewis Wetzel said...

Dear Democrats:
Please ask your Deranged Harpy Brigade to turn it down a notch. Thanks!

Sincerely,
America

Rt1 Rebel said...

I saw a meme that looked to be an awkward HS picture of CBF, and written on the photo "I noticed you Brett, but you never noticed me. Someday, you will notice me." Looking at the protesters, I can't imagine any of them receiving unwanted male attention. Somehow this entire movement seems to me isn't about unwanted male sexual aggression, but the bitterness of the lack of desired male sexual attention. There, I said it. ST can praise, the rest of you can blast me.

buwaya said...

I'm surprised there weren't bigger crowds.
There are very deep pockets behind the astroturf organizations, and they have managed to call out 10,000+ in Washington on a weekend quite regularly. They certainly have the permanent staff in place to generate such numbers locally.

And heck, there's the election, on which record amounts are being spent.

This is yet another of those dogs that didn't bark.

I suspect its been decided there's no percentage in it, the Kavanaugh thing is a political loser.

anti-de Sitter space said...

Looking at the protesters, I can't imagine any of them receiving unwanted male attention.


https://www.si.com/swim-daily/2018/10/04/emily-ratajkowski-arrested-brett-kavanaugh-protest?xid=si_swim_daily

Diff strokes fer diff folks.

Not that there's anything wrong w/ that.

Rt1 Rebel said...

Sitter, hot and crazy in a bad way doesn't do it for me. I almost added "except Hollywood" to my post, but I didn't think it was necessary to make the point.

Rt1 Rebel said...

buwaya, I suspect you're correct. They've spent too much money and burned too much political capital to keep this going, on to November!

anti-de Sitter space said...

Don't worry Rt,

I didn't take your comment seriously. That meme you jabbered about has been disproved for quite awhile. So, I knew you aren't in the know.

But, I thought I'd take the opportunity to add some beauty to the thread.

And FTR, there are actually hot and smart models. Sometimes close at hand. Or, so I've heard.

Ken B said...

The whole shit show summed up

http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2018/10/summary-judgment.html

Rt1 Rebel said...

Sitter, I know damn well that the meme was fabricated. The second I saw it. That's not the point. Don't be dense.

James K said...

Learn how to read. Or, comprehend what you read.

What are you, 12 years old? Great argument.

Derek Kite said...

This is the classic situation of a working institution with agreed upon rules and conventions is taken advantage of by someone willing to do anything required to get their way no matter the cost. The only response to such a situation is likely to end up with the working institution breaking down irreparably.

This is war, plain and simple. The war will end when one side has 40% of it's combatants dead or injured.

I suspect the citizenry at large will simply make sure that these battles are contained and don't bother anyone. If it bothers people, which it is with this situation mirroring the reality in colleges and universities, the citizenry will apply a serious slapdown. It already did in 2016, and will again in November.

This is indeed a shameful situation that makes hallowed institutions repugnant. There must be a way to avoid that, or one can hope. But there isn't, except consequences. Someone has to lose the war. It likely will be the extreme wing of the Democrats as they lose any grip on power.

Ambrose said...

Why even the Alt-Right can outdraw these folks.

narciso said...

Lol, Michael, personally the thicke boy shows,not a lot of sense ditching Paula Patton (mission impossible ghost protocol) for the girl with unspeakable name, but,as compared to any Schumer, yikes,

n.n said...

The Twilight Amendment is at risk. Maybe. A large, vocal, and sometimes violent minority seem to be trapped at the fringe.

Unknown said...

So, is Saturday Night Live "live" tonight, or a rerun?

narciso said...

I'm not going to discard Petersen because of one opinion, just hold it in reserve.

Fernandistein said...

I see many on the right are attacking Peterson, to the point of bringing up old tweets from 2012 when he praised Obama.

Just stop it.


Anyone who praised Obama should be criticized.

No one on the right had a bad word to say about Peterson before now.

You missed my posts (That's shocking, I know). I think Peterson's a quasi-mystical shyster, with his convoluted rambling on numerology and Jungian Bible stories.

M Jordan said...

This is the problem with academics; they never see the full picture. Let’s say Kavanaugh follows Peterson’s advice. Trump then must nominate another and we go through this whole three-month hell again.

This was a seriously bad idea on Peterson’s part and calls into question a lot of what he’s been preaching.

Tom said...

From what I see and hear, the last two weeks have galvanized a lot more people into tribes. Sadly, I think all the research into neuroscience has allowed political operatives to create incredibly targeted messages to keep our amygdalae in a constant state of triggering. For anyone who's ever been assaulted or falsely accused, I'm afraid these political operatives were intentionally causing these victims extreme distress to further their agendas in the most cruel way possible. Sadly, I think this is a prelude to things to come.

It's going to be harder to resist the triggering going forward. In the past, the triggering messengers had to guess what messages would work. Now they can hook up a few members of a focus group to an fMRI and see exactly what lights up our fight-or-flight centers in the brain. It doesn't matter how smart we are - our only defense is if we can recognize and challenge our own underlying mental models that are causing us to be triggered. This is a skill only a small minority's of people possess - and even they possess it in limited quanties.

Otto said...

Peterson is out of his league. An Academic that takes himself too seriously.

Blogger Lewis Wetzel said...
"According to her attorneys Ford will not pursue this any further."

This women will make some money after her lawyers take their bite. Pro bono my arse.
However this women has ruined her family. Her two sons now know that their mother is a liar and a whore. They now know that their mother shacked up with a guy for six years and then cheated on him, all before she married their father.

The progressives used her for fodder and like Lewinsky will suffer for a long time.

elkh1 said...

K is divisive. He divides the sane from the insane.

Rick said...

The next nominee would meet the same level of resistance.

No, the next nominee would meet a much greater level of resistance since the expectation of it paying off would be greater.

glenn said...

PYA.

Trumpit said...

Kavanebriate will Make Beer Great Again. He will also Make Drunk Sex Great Again. Do it sober? Lock the door, and hush her mouth. I love bears more than life itself. Brett Kavanaugh: "I liked beer. I still like beer."

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Browndog@8:49 Okay, doggy, I chased the stick, I went back and re-read all your comments and your replies to Achilles and where you bolded "after due process", and where you scolded everyone for missing you. Hey, brah, it's okay, you're having a bad night, that's all. You're still a good doggy, we still love you. I think most of us are thinking like gilbar @7:44, and of the mind that Kav-brah resigning would be a gesture not only futile but disastrous, for the Republican party and the country. Democrats would be emboldened to continue their domestic terrorisms, amplify and increase them because they get rewarded for it. Republicans walked on eggshells with this doctor fraud, brought in a special woman to question her, called her doctor and treated her like she was Billy Mumy in Twilight Zone. And for their pains and deference how many Democrat party members voted for Kav-brah? 1, and he did it to keep his seat come November and help the democrat party. So basically, we aren't seeing any reasoning or context where there would be any benefit at all to unilateral capitulation.

Now to the point of Kav-brah's "name being cleared". I think he said it best himself when he said, "You've ruined my life." He knows full well his name will never be cleared. These smears will stain him forever because the democrat party will never let him be exonerated. Democrat party members will not be reasoned with, they will not abide by established rules of order, they will not permit peacefulness, they will not respect your rights.

Yancey Ward said...

I don't think the crowd was only 200 people, but then I am also sure that Trump deliberately misstated the rough size just to annoy the left. At it peak, I don't think there were more than 1500 to 2000. I was surprised the crowd wasn't 10 times as big as it was. I don't think there are more than small fraction of the country that both cared and wanted Kavanaugh defeated, and that explains the somewhat surprising lack of intensity today in D.C.

Ken B said...

Lest anyone doubt the hatred. https://nalert.blogspot.com/2018/10/stephen-colbert-writer-brags-that-she.html

Yancey Ward said...

I didn't want to laugh at some peoples' pain this evening, but I can't help it just a little.

Ken B said...

Yancey
You really should not laugh at their pain tonight. Save it to savor tomorrow.

Gahrie said...

No, the next nominee would meet a much greater level of resistance since the expectation of it paying off would be greater.

If the next nominee is replacing RBG or Sotomayor it's going to be turned up to 11 anyway.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Well well well, you just can't tell, well well well my Michelle.

Guildofcannonballs said...

I am Octoseal.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Trumpit wailed:

"He will also Make Drunk Sex Great Again."

Again? It's been a while since I've had it, but drunk sex can be pretty great. I doubt Trumpit has experienced sex either drunk or sober, which might account for its lunacy.

It's entertaining to see leftists channeling their inner Carrie Nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Nation


Loosen up, Trumpit! Don't be such a prude. Have a beer or two...

Rabel said...

Maybe Peterson was making a sly Animal House reference because his idea would indeed be stupid and futile.

But it would be in keeping with the whole frat boy theme, and would simply be a reversion to the mean for the Republicans, so it's not out of the question.

Achilles said...

Browndog said...
Instead of celebrating, many want to throw a Canadian Psych professor into the water to see if he floats.

Attack me all you want for defending his right to be wrong on this one issue, but I don't see anyone getting huffy at the many "conservatives" that had the exact same sentiment the minute it was announced there would be a delay in the vote for an FBI investigation.


The delay was a brilliant move.

It strung the dems out in a beautiful rope a dope.

And the dems doped. Hard.

But Peterson is wrong and the way he is wrong is not good. Due process and Presumption of innocence are not really points good people can disagree on.

At some point he has to come around.

President Pee-Pee Tape said...

This is the problem with academics; they never see the full picture. Let’s say Kavanaugh follows Peterson’s advice. Trump then must nominate another and we go through this whole three-month hell again.

Not if he nominates someone qualified, with an actually defensible judicial temperament.

But that wasn't the point. Trump needed to appoint a justice who would rule that presidents are immune from any obligation to follow the law and remain subject to prosecution if they don't. And so that's exactly why he appointed Judge Belligerent Blackout Brett.

Bob Loblaw said...

The lefty lunatics are already talking about impeaching him over the same non-crimes they smeared him with, and he wants the Republicans to GIVE them a win?

The impeachment talk is just fleecing idiots for election cash. There won't be any impeachment. Democrats who're actually trying to win elections and get policies enacted realize frivolous impeachments is a MAD scenario where the Republicans have all the power.

Sure, impeach Kavanaugh then fail in the Senate. Up next: Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

Martin said...

I respect Peterson but he has not yet figured out that the Democratic Party is at war with the rest of the country. He has been pushing a bunch of Democrats led by an ex-student of his who are trying to soften the Dem image, but it's clear he (and maybe that group) are way behind on what the Dem party has become since about about 2000.

There was/is nothing inherently "divisive" about Kavanaugh, about whom the worst anybody credibly said is that as a HS and college student in the 1980s he drank more beer than many of us are comfortable with 30+ years later. Any other person that was considered would have been the same or worse. The divisiveness was not due to the nominee, it was due to the situation and specific decisions made by the Democrats.

Martin said...

And, having gone through this once I have no interest in going through it again until it is necessary.

Lewis Wetzel said...

The Democrat base is pissed because they think that Kavanaugh is triply disqualified: he was appointed by Trump, who was elected with < 50% of the vote, and only won because he plotted with Putin to steal the election, and because Kavanaugh is, in their eyes, a serial sex abuser of women, and is a partisan Republican.
And journalists are part of the Democrat base, these days.

Lewis Wetzel said...

And Ritmo claims the lawyer who drove Ken Starr to conclude that Clinton could be impeached for lying under oath would be "a justice who would rule that presidents are immune from any obligation to follow the law and remain subject to prosecution if they don't."
Poor reasoning mixed with paranoia. Welcome to the Democrat mainstream, Ritmo!

FIDO said...

The Left is much like a Yorkie: small, well groomed and far noisier than their size would suggest...and about as smart.

Birkel said...

I cannot wait for the next SCOTUS retirement or dirt nap.

Birkel said...

Normally sequels are not as good as the originals.
But I think Trump SCOTUS nominee 2.0 was better than 1.0.
Trump SCOTUS nominee 3 will be EPIC.

FIDO said...

I'll say to Trump what the Joker said to Batman. "You didn't disappoint."

tim in vermont said...

Poor reasoning mixed with paranoia.

A good working definition of rhetoric is "Sounds like logic, but isn't." That's how pp 'reasons.'

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Possibly infelicitous channeling ??

***remark made by American Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman when he was being considered as a possible Republican candidate for the presidential election of 1884. He declined, saying, "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."***

tim in vermont said...

RBG is going to be wearing a one piece swimsuit to all gatherings now, since it seems to be the only way to stop Brett.

Humperdink said...

The Hitler videos have gone a bit stale for me. This one is hilarious.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/hitler-learns-the-democrats-have-failed-to-block-kavanaugh.php

FIDO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FIDO said...

Cynthia Ward had something interesting to say.

She is a legal scholar and discusses legal studies, and domestic violence et al.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/susan-collins-just-saved-the-womens-movement-and-its-progress-on-rape-prosecutions?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

Here is an excerpt.

In addition, some in the “Believe the Victim” movement would restrict the relevance of the presumption of innocence — the idea that a person charged with wrongdoing is “innocent until proven guilty” — to criminal adjudications only. This gets the truth exactly backwards.

To be sure, the presumption of innocence finds one important expression in the criminal setting. But its basic idea, that the party who accuses must bear the burden of proving the charge, is rooted not in law but in morality. It is exceptionally difficult to prove a negative. And so, as a matter of basic fairness and decency, we require the person who accuses to prove their case against the accused.

Both the case law and the scholarship in this area instantiate key moral principles: that it is unfair to put someone to the task of proving their innocence upon a mere allegation; that this rule applies not only to criminal but also to civil proceedings (albeit under different burdens of proof); and that the resulting presumption should apply in direct proportion to the seriousness of the charges and the harm to the accused of an erroneous decision. That is to say, the graver the allegations and possible harm, the more heavily we should weigh the presumption of innocence and lay the burden of proof upon the accuser.



It is refreshing to get a cruelly neutral legally parsing examining the other side of this whole debacle and I'm glad I found a female legal scholar who was able to address the issue in so interesting, engaging, and yet, while presumably a Feminist, unbiased way.

rhhardin said...

I'm a feminist, but one looking to remind women to notice what they're interested in rather than swapping sexual identity cards with men.

They're not interested in men-stuff.

At the moment, to persuade women about men stuff, you have to offer an alternative soap opera. With a guy, you just have to mention the structure.

Tina Trent said...

Peterson is a Canadian Jungian, an impossibility. He has some decent insights about psychology and family, but he woefully underestimates leftist radicalism. He also has the poor habit of academicians who believe they are above polotical frays and deserve to be so by dint of their special status. This intellectual laziness is weirdly particular to the tenured. It's too bad: they woild be sharper thinkers if they did not imagine themselves as special outsiders before engagement.

FIDO said...

Meh. rhhardin. I'm a guy and I like the dirt as much as any girl.

But I want my dirt DIRTY! Someone getting pounded, in the good or bad way. Not the unsubstantiated ephemera that women build in their own minds.

rhhardin said...

Peterson disparages Derrida without having read him, a major flaw in a know-it-all. That leads actual know-it-alls to dismiss him.

FIDO said...

Mm.

Christine Fair, the same lady who got Richard Spencer thrown out of his gym, said that white male senators should be killed for their Kavanaugh stance, that feminists should take glee in their deaths and that their bodies should be castrated and fed to swine.

Sarah Jeong, is that you?

She is practically on par with Adams and Jefferson at the sheer breadth and insight of politics and attempting to have us excel to our higher nature!

THIS gets tenure protection.

She had some dodgy grant money disappear. I'm thinking that she is unlikely to get another grant for quite a while...

Evergreen college got a 70% drop in admissions because they went batshit crazy. I wonder how much her male attendance to her lectures is likely to drop off? If these boys were smart at all, it should be double digits because the idea that this amount of hate and rage isn't finding its way into her grading or attitudes is unlikely.

sinz52 said...

FIDO,

I agree with most of what Cynthia Ward wrote.

But not her inaccurate nostalgia for a past women's movement that she claimed only wanted women to get equal treatment under the law.

She is an academician, and hence does not understand the long game that the Left was playing.

Ever since the advent of black militancy and college radicalism in the late 1950s, the New Left was less about equal justice for all and a lot more about getting revenge.

For the New Left, equality or parity is but a steppingstone on the road to superiority. For half a century, their real goal has been to turn the tables on their perceived oppressors:

Nonwhites on top, whites on the bottom
Women on top, men on the bottom
Palestinians on top, Jews on the bottom

Marcus said...

Re: Peterson. He can't have good opinions 100% of the time.

Marcus said...

Imagine, if you will, these hearings and all the drama that went with them, being reported in the Only Three Networks days? We would have heard only what the Left decided to let us hear. Instead, we have the internet and instant or live coverage and we can tell them to take their lies and shove them.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Why do liberal dystopic stories always features mobs of right-wingers trying to fundamentally change America (I'm thinking of Roth's The Plot Against America)?
The truth seems to be that live in the opposite of that world. The past week has featured left-wings mobs opposing a Supreme Court nominee who believes the constitution limits the ability of government to fundamentally change America.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger FIDO said...
. . .
Christine Fair, the same lady who got Richard Spencer thrown out of his gym, said that white male senators should be killed for their Kavanaugh stance, that feminists should take glee in their deaths and that their bodies should be castrated and fed to swine.

Sarah Jeong, is that you?

Isn't Fair trying to use Jeong's excuse for her despicable words? That it was a response to hate-postings by men? That is, her hate is the fault of men?
At any rate, try using that excuse if the mob turns on you. "Oh, I only said liberal women should be gang-raped because I was ironically mirroring what Christine Fair wrote."

Paco Wové said...

"a response to hate-postings by men"

The old "provoke a response, then use the response as justification" tactic.

Georgetown has a genocidal bigot on faculty, but somehow I doubt the administration is losing much sleep over it.

Related: ran across an interesting set of twitter comments by ex-Evergreen State prof. Bret Weinstein this morning, which I can't figure out a good way to link and so I'll include below:

Oppression is real. If you want to help the oppressed, educate them. Don't induce them to obsess on injustice. Arm them to escape it.

These fields [gender and race studies] should never have been created, and they should have been shut down as it became clear they had no interest in genuine inquiry.

There is a way that the academy's meltdown is karmic. Students have been maleducated in gender and race studies all along. That should have been enough. But most academics are timid and busy, and so this intellectual infection was foolishly allowed to fester.

We now face the need for amputation, and that might not be enough.

What if it isn't? The academy plays a vital role in steering civilization. And we have allowed it to be crippled by facile assertions like: men and women would be the same but for the oppression of women.

It's a childish notion. Equality does not require us to be identical, nor is it difficult to understand how and why we evolved to be different. It's all up for debate, of course, but scientifically, not emotionaly. Not under threat.

Nobody likes to see professors accusing other professors of being phonys. But at this late our, there is no gentle way to save the patient. At the very least we owe it to all the students who might fall into this ruse if we don't shut it down.


The Dissolution of the Universities: it's a thing!

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

"I'm not certain that is the right move. It's very complex. But he would have his name cleared, and a figure who might be less divisive might be put forward."

Translation: "I don't have a clue in hell what's going on here."

What's going on often looks "very complex" to people who don't understand what's going on.

Thanks, Mr. Concerned Canuck, but the last thing we need right now is an inoculation of "after victory, retreat and surrender is the way forward" canadianosity. We've been having a devil of time trying to clear up a virulent infection of a closely-related pathogen in American "conservatives" for some time, and are just now seeing signs of recovery and hopeful return to health.

I know you mean well, Mr. CC, but a friendly American "please fuck off" is in order here.

dda6ga dda6ga said...

"No they'll drag up some black to say she used the N word." If he still alive they will use the one man in world with a tumor thought to be caused by Roundup. Forty years, hundreds of millions of users and then one black guy..

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Browndog:

Just stop it.

No one on the right had a bad word to say about Peterson before now.


Probably because they didn't disagree with what he said. You're being silly. I don't follow Peterson. I bet he says a lot of things I'd disagree with if I saw them.

I have yet to see anyone disagree with what he has said, or espoused to believe before his recent Kavanaugh tweet.

So? I'm not seeing what your problem is here.

Somehow, being wrong about one thing erases the 99 things you were, and still are, right about.

Saying something clueless about one thing means saying something clueless about that thing. You're the one extrapolating out to erasing "the 99 things".

I agree with you about a lot of things. Is that supposed to mean I shouldn't criticize you for saying something bone-headed? If your name wasn't attached to your post I'd assume that it was Inga's. (She was in ecstasy once about some commentary by/about Peterson here, which she thought meant...something hugely negatively something about the righties here, because according to her he was worshipped as a god by the righties here. Who knows what, and God knows she wasn't able to articulate any "whys" behind her usual chimp hooting.)

Apparently I'm not the only one who noticed the resemblance.

mockturtle said...

Angle-Dyne @ 7:50: Excellent! And this: What's going on often looks "very complex" to people who don't understand what's going on. is spot on. So many people become distracted by details and peripheral concerns that they are unable to see the core--the meat--of the matter. 'Not seeing the forest for the trees' is a timeworn, but still valid, expression.

mockturtle said...

A headline from The Telegraph reads: Brett Kavanaugh sworn in as Supreme Court judge after battle that split America.

Um, no. America was already split and the 'outrage' was largely orchestrated. Like Dr. Peterson, the British are also misled by the MSM.

Birkel said...

mockturtle,

I must politely disagree with the word 'misled' above.
Willing dupes are not misled.

Bruce Hayden said...

“This is the problem with academics; they never see the full picture. Let’s say Kavanaugh follows Peterson’s advice. Trump then must nominate another and we go through this whole three-month hell again.”

Except that the vote would be in the next Congress, where the Dems hope to pick up a majority in the Senate. Which is their chance to get Garland confirmed, etc. (Esp if they can get that pesky Trump out of the way). This delay being the big reason that Feinstein cheated with the Ford accusations, sandbagging the Republicans after the committee hearings were officially complete. This was her ace in the pocket. She knew about the accusations before the committee started their work, and sat on them. And, indeed, they were the most serious allegations she had at her disposal. She cheated to get the delay, and pretty much everything that the Dems have done there was to push the confirmation beyond the election, and hopefully, for them, into the next Congress.

Which is to say that Peterson is suggesting that the Republicans, being victorious here, should give up their hard earned victory, just for the appearance of comity. Which I can see from a Canadian, but here, it is insanity. If the Republicans give back their victory, they just embolden the Democrats to go even further next time. If he truly is a decent psychologist, he should understand operant conditioning, and why rewarding bad behavior is exactly the wrong thing to do when trying to extinguish that behavior.

FIDO said...

sinz52

I am not going to presume to know the motives of every woman in the 70's at what they really felt or really desired. Granted, the rape victims and lesbians in the Feminist field probably were not exactly operating in good faith, but Pure Polly Purebread? Sure, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

Where I get MASSIVELY pissed off is where you have smarter, wiser, women with a Feminist slant, who can see other Feminists operating in bad faith AND THEY DON'T SAY A WORD ABOUT IT!

They refuse to call out their sisters because...confrontation. Not giving comfort to 'the enemy'. Being overly sympathetic to a line of mostly bullshit. This is the majority of them.

Now, since we are on the 'say 99 things right and one thing HORRIBLY WRONG' theme, we run into that with Althouse. She has, for the most part, been pretty staunch in calling out Feminists for their bullshit, if for no other reason that the bullshit is so transparent that it's a huge PR negative for ANYONE associated with that ideology. She doesn't want them to discredit HER if she happens to need to pull out the Feminist card and is concerned that that card is woefully overdrawn.

HERE, Cynthia Ward had the ovaries that Althouse, for most of this debate, lacked. Althouse says she was assaulted, Althouse probably saw and heard about a bit more of frat culture incivilities than your average American, who only see it for 4-8 years, not a 30 year career...and she REALLY hasn't gotten over missing out on all the benefits that Kavanaugh had.

So sure. She was wrong and overly predjudical in the legally and morally wrong direction. She refused to call out obvious bullshit and that is enraging to me where people operating in bad faith do not. Enemies attack, sometimes atrociously. But folks who don't really speak out against an atrocity, I DO blame.

BUT normally she is much better than that. Her silence was uncharacteristic and that was doubly frustrating, and not just to me.

And to be fair, I have no idea if Cynthia Ward called out Ford on her BS accusation BEFORE this tactic failed. She might also be an Ex Post Facto Legal Scholar.

But Ward has no history at calling out Feminist BS for me; Althouse did so I held her to a higher standard.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me add that we are traveling with a kitten. His first long trip. He whines piteously when he wants something, esp our food. So, because we are tired, we give in too much (we did discover he loves spaghetti, which he sleeps like an Italian). But my partner assures me that when we are done with our trip, normal rules will be reimposed. I remain the be convinced, and rather think that we are just making things worse. She tells me that having travel rules and regular rules will work, and that the kitten can be trained to tell the difference. I think that we are just rewarding bad behavior, making it just that much harder to extinguish. Of course though, I am overruled.

Phil 3:14 said...

One question I never heard answered: Did anyone ever testify/state that Brett Kavanaugh had met Christine Blasey?

As for Prof. Petersen I can only say

“Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.“

Birkel said...

Bruce Hayden,
Good luck. I sympathize.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Birkel - the excitement, unfortunately, last night was that he discovered that he could jump bed to bed. My partner thinks that he was afraid of going onto the floor, because he couldn’t see much in the dark. In any case he would switch beds about once every hour or so. You would feel a whomp as his 2 1/2 lbs landing on your bed, followed by some intensive grooming of your hair. After an hour of this, you would feel a lesser bump as he jumped the 3-4 feet to the other bed. Rinse and repeat for 8 hours. I should add that he pretty much sleeps in the car. So, a day or two driving might be ok, but yesterday was #3. So, there was a lot of pent up energy. Unfortunately.

bagoh20 said...

"Hysterical 'Kavanope' Harpies Set Women Back 100 Years"

https://pjmedia.com/trending/hysterical-kavanope-harpies-set-women-back-100-years/

"Taken from a parliamentary debate in 1912, Viscount Helmsley nailed it.

The way in which certain types of women, easily recognised, have acted in the last year or two, especially in the last few weeks, lends a great deal of colour to the argument that the mental equilibrium of the female sex is not as stable as the mental equilibrium of the male sex....It seems to me that this House should remember that if the vote is given to women those who will take the greatest part in politics will not be the quiet, retiring, constitutional women… but those very militant women who have brought so much disgrace and discredit upon their sex. It would introduce a disastrous element into our public life…it is little short of nauseating and disgusting to the whole sex…"

Bill Peschel said...

Bruce wrote: "If he truly is a decent psychologist, he should understand operant conditioning, and why rewarding bad behavior is exactly the wrong thing to do when trying to extinguish that behavior."

Unfortunately, I can't find the tweet, but someone combined Peterson's tweet with an older one that made that exact same point but in another context.

I think JP ran afoul of Krugman's Law: Expertise in one field doesn't not imply expertise in all fields.

victoria said...

Trump still focused on size? Wow. Man up, Cheeto, there were less people at your inauguration than at Obama's. Get used to it. he is lying about the people protesting, there were thousands. He looks at everything through his own distorted prism,

Get out and vote.

Get rid of people like Devin Nunes and Dana Rohrbacker. They are a curse on our nation.

Vicki from Pasadena

Yes, i only really care about California

mockturtle said...

FIDO at 9:46: Yes. Althouse is wrong about as often as Inga is right.

mockturtle said...

Bruce re his kitten: But my partner assures me that when we are done with our trip, normal rules will be reimposed.

Hah! Good luck with that. Pets of any species never forget when it comes to food. I learned that the hard way, when my husband, who fed our dog from the dinner table, passed away. Bucky looked so pitiful at mealtime that I felt sorry for him and continued the tradition.

mockturtle said...

Victoria declares: Yes, i only really care about California

And I sincerely hope the far-leftist Mr. de Leon soundly defeats Maleficent.

Earnest Prole said...

I don't own a television, but I could tell the protest was tiny by the tight cropping of photographs.

RigelDog said...

{{ btw, if trump gets to make another nomination, is there any doubt it will be a Female?...No...What will the Eem-Libs say to that? Don't worry, they will...she worked her way thru college by being a pick-pocket for Fagin!!! }}

Oh that's a no-brainer! She will be portrayed as an extremist KREEESTIAN if at all possible. Preferably, a little nutty and a little dumb too.

chickenlittle said...

Vicki from Pasadena wrote: “Yes, i only really care about California”

Don’t you care about seagulls?