Say hi to Tammy Faye…in Hell

Jim Bakker is dead. Remember him for his accomplishments.

Bakker was convicted after a ‌six-week trial in federal court on all 24 fraud and conspiracy charges brought against him. Prosecutors said he defrauded followers of $158m by selling promises of lifetime annual vacations that he could not provide. They said he siphoned $3.7m to bankroll a lavish lifestyle that included several homes, luxury cars, mink coats, diamonds, servants – and an air-conditioned dog house.

Religion really helps skim off $158 million. That’s its primary virtue.

His legacy? Buckets of freeze-dried, powdered apocalypse food to fuel the doomsday he experienced today.

Vox Day responds to my criticism of his refutation of evolution

Ted Beale and the books he hasn’t read

Not really. My criticism was that his math was invalid and that he thinks evolution is a simple serial process (the same thing Zach Hancock pointed out), but he ignores that and instead asserts that he is a world-class genius of historic levels, far more significant in the course of human intellectual development than sweet St. Darwin himself, who somehow managed to cripple Man’s correct understanding of his own origins for 167 years and counting. He has donned the armor of impenetrable narcissism. As usual, it is his own words that demolish him.

Shows what I know, though. He’s got Jesus backing him.

And here’s the more important thing for him to contemplate. If he was wrong about me, well, that’s going to sting a little. But it’s not really that big a deal in the cosmic scheme of things. But if he was wrong about Jesus Christ, on the other hand, that’s a much more serious problem. So if the former turns out to be true, however unlikely, maybe take another, closer, look at the latter.

Vox Day’s amazing ego, and Bill Dembski don’t care

It’s been a long time since I paid any attention to Bill Dembski or Vox Day/Theodore Beale, but they seem to have found each other in an unholy marriage of stupidity. Vox has “published” a new article called MITTENS 3.0 — MITTENS is an acronym for Mathematical Impossibility of The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection — and it attempts to use mathematics to disprove evolution, using the data from the Long-Term Evolution Experiment by Richard Lenski.

It’s not really “published” in the sense of scientific publishing. There was no peer review, but just a dump of his assertions to an archive with no critical assessment. He compares the data from the LTEE to known divergence rates between Homo sapiens and chimpanzees, asking whether documented mutation rates in E. coli are sufficient to account for the 35 million single-nucleotide variation between two primate species. He says not.

The numbers are clear. At the non-mutator rate, 191 fixations can be accomplished in 252,000 generations. The requirement is 205 million. The shortfall is 1,075,000-fold.

Unfortunately for him, he exposes his methodology. He looks at the rate for a single mutation to go to fixation, divides the number of generations (252,000) by that rate, and concludes that there has only been time to accumulate 191 mutations. That’s true, if each trait has to wait for the previous mutation to go to fixation before it can be selected/drift to fixation itself. This is not how evolution works. Evolution is a property of populations and involves massively parallel action on multiple traits and individuals at once. Vox is using the typical simple-minded sequential estimations that simple-minded creationists have been using for decades to disprove their cartoon version of evolution. It’s ridiculous.

But Bill Dembski sees a naive “disproof” of evolution and decides that he and the author must be bestest buddies, and grants him a long interview in which Vox gets to thump his chest and gloat. Nowhere in this interview does Bill bring up Vox Day’s long history of coarse racism and ugly misogyny, nor does he bother to dig into the mathematics of Vox’s “disproof,” which is surprising since Dembski is purportedly a mathematician. Instead, it’s a long exercise in sucking up to Vox’s ego.

For instance, Vox has an undergraduate degree in economics and East Asian studies from Bucknell University, a small private liberal arts college. He does not have a science degree, and by his own admission he did not exactly apply himself to his studies.

Bill: You graduated from Bucknell University with majors in economics and East Asian studies. Please describe your training in economics in detail. What mathematics, probability, statistics, econometrics, or modeling did the program teach you, and which parts of that training have proved most relevant to your work on evolution?

Vox: My econ program covered all of those things except probability, although I didn’t take a course in modeling because my focus was on the historical process of development in late-developing countries like Japan and the Soviet Union. I did independent studies under Michael Moohr and Robert Chernomas, so my studies were a little bit more Marxian than was customary at the time. I would say developing an intuitive grasp of statistics, their limits, and how important it is to understand them contextually is what proved to be most relevant to all of my subsequent work, in games, evolution, and philosophy.

That’s not a very detailed answer. Any student who tells me that their achievement was developing an intuitive grasp of a subject is bullshitting me. Then he confirms it: Vox Day was a slacker who learned nothing in college.

Bill: Did you pursue any graduate study, professional research, or sustained independent work in mathematical economics or mathematics more generally after Bucknell?

Vox: None whatsoever. My biggest educational regret is not dropping out after my first semester sophomore year. I consider academic credentials to be a pointless waste of time. At Bucknell I seldom went to class and sometimes didn’t even bother buying the textbook. Once my professors realized that I was doing fine academically without doing the reading or attending the classes, they switched me to independent studies. I barely went to to a class my senior year.

He wishes he dropped out after his first semester, he seldom went to class, and didn’t bother reading the textbook — and he probably thinks that means he must have been a genius, rather than a lazy goof. It doesn’t speak well of Bucknell or his professors that they decided to get rid of him by putting him in a program of independent studies, rather than flunking him. I sorta sympathize with them. You get attached to your students and want to help them succeed, so you coach them through and design a limited curriculum that matches their abilities to allow them to finish the program. I guess we’re doing the students no favor if that just means their ego is stoked.

So if he has no background in or comprehension of biology, how did he write MITTENS? He explains it all:

Vox: AI did all the calculations and wrote the first draft of everything. It also provided about 750 of the 20 effective criticisms that improved the paper. I don’t think most people understand the first thing about the proper way to use AI to augment your outputs. If you don’t really know what you’re doing, AI will do nothing but defend its training and convince you that you’re wrong. I address this in great detail in Hardcoded, a book I wrote about the process of writing PZ and TFG.

[PZ is his book, Probability Zero, and has nothing to do with me; TFG is The Frozen Gene, another book he hacked together with AI. Isn’t AI wonderful? So many words, so much nonsense.]

Apparently the proper way to use AI is to hammer its outputs through multiple iterations until it tells you the answer you want to hear.

Well, but surely he had the work reviewed and evaluated by his colleagues? Nope, he has no colleagues. He has more AI.

Vox: My first, foremost, and primary form of feedback is from my Red Team. For all my papers, non-fiction books, and translations, I run them through a Red Team Stress Test comprised of ChatGPT, Deepseek, Gemini, and Grok instructed to take a hard oppositional stance. They produce detailed and extensive criticisms, most of which are obviously erroneous in some way, but even when incorrect, often produce new lines of attack. I seldom bother with human feedback. But both PZ and TFG were sent out pre-release to about ten volunteer readers, who ranged from a world-class physicist to a number of mathematicians with PhDs. I got some very good suggestions for improvement from a few of them, and even an Introduction and an Appendix from Dr. Tipler. But none of them had anything to add that fundamentally altered the work; I discovered and resolved the Kimura and LTEE [Long-Term Evolution Experiment] anomalies on my own after the fact.

Oh, well, he’s got the approval of notorious crank Frank J. Tipler, who has written multiple books on the physics of the supernatural and also writes for the Discovery Institute. So much credibility, wow. I’ll have to quote Wikipedia on Tipler to give you a little background.

Frank Jennings Tipler (born February 1, 1947) is an American mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University.[2] Tipler has written books and papers on the Omega Point based on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s religious ideas, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. He is also known for his theories on the Tipler cylinder time machine. His work has attracted criticism from many, for example cosmologist George Ellis, who has argued that his theories are largely pseudoscience.

The bulk of the wikipedia article is about all the people who reject his nonsense. But sure, Vox Day has one supporter with legitimate academic credentials, that he was too lazy/incompetent to earn for himself. Otherwise, he’s just smarter than Kimura and Lenski.

He really does think he has disproven all of evolution all by himself, with a paper that contains all of 11 citations (a number I’d find unacceptable in an undergrad student paper that was much more narrow in its scope). Even worse, 7 of those citations are to the LTEE, and contradict his conclusions, and 2 are to ape genome sequencing papers whose authors would be surprised to learn how their work is being distorted. At least he has 2 that reinforce his argument, sorta, but they’re both also written by Vox Day.

So this is an argument made by an unqualified buffoon who churned it out of a battery of AIs, written with negligible knowledge of the scientific literature, and rubber-stamped by a couple of biased dorks from the Discovery Institute. But have no fear, his anti-evolution sentiment is not based on religious dogma at all.

Bill: To what degree, if at all, do religious considerations motivate you, not so much in the arguments you make but in the fact that you are making arguments against neo-Darwinism at all? In 2008, you published a book titled The Irrational Atheists, taking on what were then “the New Atheists” — Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris. They all lean heavily on Darwin to support their atheism. Did your religious leanings or your anti-atheistic leanings at all motivate your work criticizing evolution? Briefly, can you state your religious faith, whatever it may be?

Vox: Not at all. My faith is not based upon the historical origins of homo sapiens sapiens or any other species. I believe in material evil and I believe that Jesus Christ is the only thing standing between Man and his enslavement by that evil. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God… In sum, I’m a Nicene Creed Christian.

And he has a flaming sword. Can’t argue with that.

The belated and well-deserved decline of Steven Pinker

If you ever thought Steven Pinker was a member of the liberal intelligentsia, think again. That was his carefully maintained facade, an illusion built on his politeness and careful speech, but underneath it all, he really is a kind of troglodyte with regressive views. Like so many right-wing podcasters, he’s been hiding behind free speech absolutism; whenever some horrid troll says something that ought to get them slapped down hard, here comes little Stevie, the Harvard professor, to defend them with a shout of “Free Speech!”

He’s had a long history of playing this gambit, and it’s starting to catch up with him. Virginia Heffernan lays out all the evidence, prompted by yet another book from the man. It must be hard on him to see his legacy dissolve.

But something’s not right. Pinker’s off his cognitive game. He’s admittedly had a hard stretch over the past few years, during which his reputation has sustained slow-rolling but significant damage. His glory days – from The Language Instinct in 1994 to his selection by Time magazine as a top evo-psych influencer in 2004 – may simply be behind him now. And though Bill Gates, Joe Rogan, Richard Dawkins, Jordan Peterson and other masters of the manosphere continue to look up to him, Pinker’s also at the centre of a cyclone of academic catastrophes.

For one, he’s still smarting from a six-year-old petition that tried in vain to get him removed from a linguistics association for alleged racist statements. “In the old days,” he said of cancellation culture on a recent podcast, “there were public hangings, public crucifixions, burnings at the stake. The electronic equivalent is the internet petition with 600 signatures.”

There’s the weak point of all those “free speech” claims. It’s really ‘free speech for me, not for thee’ if, when someone exercises their free speech to accuse him of racism, why, that’s comparable to a public crucifixion in his mind. These days he’s remarkably busy, since so many of his friends have done so many odious things, and he has to race around defending them all while trying not to muss his hair.

In his hard-won role as a public intellectual, Pinker has taken it upon himself to defend the freedom of anti-woke darlings to say and do whatever they want. These include the British philosopher and alleged sex pest Colin McGinn, the American academic fraud Marc Hauser, and the American “race realist” Nathan Cofnas, who ignited the media campaign against Professor Jason Arday.

Notably, too, Pinker worked with his friend Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard lawyer, on the legal defence of their associate, the eugenicist and child rapist Jeffrey Epstein.

And now his intellectual child, evolutionary psychology, is in trouble.

And if stumping for the outlaw brotherhood weren’t taxing enough, Pinker’s domain of study has quietly collapsed. Evolutionary psychology, which he pioneered, came under a cloud after the exposure of its iffy methodology (in which its claims can’t be disproven), and controversies over race science (in which racial hierarchies are biological) and rape apologetics (in which rape is a reproductive strategy). Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics (PED, yes, PED), where Pinker was a regular, closed ignominiously in 2021.

News of the death of evolutionary psychology may be premature — that collection of ugly misinterpretations of science is remarkably resilient, drawing as it does on the never-ending wellspring of racism and sexism. I wouldn’t count it out just yet, even if I do wish it would truly go away. I don’t think Pinker is the knight in shining armor who will rescue it. His reputation is finally being tarnished.

In 2019, Pinker’s reputation took its biggest hit when his clandestine ties to Epstein surfaced. It seemed that Epstein had hosted Pinker on his jet, nicknamed the Lolita Express, and the men appeared in friendly photos together. Part of their relationship was Pinker’s starring role at Edge, a masculinist network of billionaires and academics that Epstein bankrolled and used to advance his plans for a master race. (I was a lesser light in Edge; that story is told here.)

Then there’s something darker: the evidence that Pinker helped Dershowitz with Epstein’s legal defence in 2007 – and did so knowingly, as was recently reported by the anthropologist Cathryn Townsend in Liberal Currents. (Pinker says he didn’t know which of Dershowitz’s clients he was helping.) Then in 2015 he tweeted out Dershowitz’s defence of Epstein and the former Prince Andrew.

Follow that link to the story of Edge — I was also a lesser light in that community, and wasn’t involved long enough to perceive how dark and evil that group was. But wow, did I ever dodge a bullet there.

He can’t help himself. He tends to ally himself with the worst people who are eventually exposed, and he’s left holding a bag of excuses.

Pinker, who never met an anti-woke campaign he didn’t like, recently joined the crusade of “race realist” Cofnas against Arday, the onetime Cambridge sociologist and suspected plagiarist who died last month. On X, Pinker grieved not over Arday’s presumed suicide but the fact that he and Cofnas had been been “tarred” with charges of racism for their attacks on him.

Metaphors that turn speech acts into medieval torture have become Pinker’s stock-in trade. For a man whose academic field was built largely on faulty studies (a devastating 2015 study found that more than half of psychology studies could not be replicated) to ignore the intellectual fraud in his circle and lash out at people like Arday for bad scholarship – well, psychologists used to call that projection, but Lord knows if those studies hold up.

Heffernan does not recommend Pinker’s latest book.

Skip the new book. The once-sharp Pinker has trouble landing a point these days, and it’s even a little worrying to see a don of his stature reduced this way. Pinker already blocks me on X for pointing out his ties to Epstein, so I’m sure he won’t see this piece and fear me as a hangman. (See “Free Speech Crusader Blocking Anyone Mentioning His Epstein Ties.”) But if he does, I will be careful not to say something violent. You read this piece, Professor? Perhaps you felt your blood pressure rise…

Thanks for the suggestion, but reading anything by Pinker has not been on my to-do list for many years. I will skip it. I’m not at all interested in anything by an Epstein apologist.

Quantificosis

We need a name for this disease, and it may already have one, because it’s been rampant for decades. It is the need to attach a specific number to a phenomenon that is not a single parameter, that encompasses a diversity of causes and consequences, and then treat the phenomenon as something that can be ranked, or min-maxed, or just generally be reduced to one number. And then it gets treated competitively! The most familiar example is IQ, taking a complex multivariate property like intelligence, and reducing it to this one single number, and then regarding the highest score as the best, without even considering the best…what? The best mathematician, the best musician, the best conversationalist, the best humanitarian, the best poet? It’s a sickness. We spend way too much time obsessing over the quantification of our existence.

Another example is sports and athletic performance. How much do you bench? How fast do you run 100 meters? What’s your freethrow percentage, your RBI, your golf handicap? These are all valid contributions to your performance at a game, but they don’t capture the totality of that performance, despite being easy to print on the back of a collectible sports card. In particular, they don’t come close to representing the value of that human being’s life.

It’s disturbing when someone focuses so much on the statistics of their existence that they miss the broader view of what that life is about. Case in point: Bryan Johnson, the weird millionaire who is obsessed with fine tuning every aspect of his physiology to maximize his longevity. His life is a constant whirl of pill-popping, exercise regimes, blood testing, and pointless measurement, all to a goal that he won’t get any closer to with his endless tweaking. Watching Johnson on his ridiculous hamster wheel of a life is entertaining, in a sad kind of way.

The latest news is that Johnson has a girlfriend, and he has immediately started scoring her.

Bryan Johnson, the world’s most dedicated oversharer, is in love. The 48-year-old got famous for documenting his strict diet and elaborate regimen of supplements—many of which he also sells—as well as exotic therapies including an injection of “young Swedish” stem cells, all in the pursuit of not dying, ever. And after he got a girlfriend, he told his public more than they’d ever want to know. “Just gave Kate oral sex. Goodnight everyone,” he tweeted this spring. Alas, there was more: “This is her vaginal microbiome report. 100/100 score. Top 1% of all vaginas.”

What followed was a report from a vaginal microbiome test, confirming the elite status of Kate Tolo’s. This, Johnson claimed, was a critical marker of Tolo’s overall health. (He soon began referring to his girlfriend’s genitals as “Kate’s 1%.”) Tolo then leapt into the comments, reassuring followers that she was totally fine with the world knowing that the bugs in her vagina are the very best bugs.

Wait. My first thought was about how you score a microbiome. Is this a thing? It turns out that it is.

In the simplest terms, a microbiome score is a metric designed to summarize the state of the microbial ecosystem living in your gut. It is a data-reduction tool. Instead of listing the relative proportions of hundreds of different bacterial species, a testing company uses a single number or a small set of numbers to represent the overall health and balance of your gut flora. This is analogous to a Body Mass Index (BMI) score: it condenses complex data into a single, comparable figure.

These scores are not universally standardized across the industry. Each testing company uses its own proprietary algorithm to calculate them. A “score” is meant to be a starting point, a way for you to quickly gauge whether your gut ecosystem appears healthy (often called “high diversity” or “good balance”) or potentially imbalanced (sometimes termed “dysbiosis”). However, you must distinguish between a summary score and the raw data. The raw data—the specific bacteria found and their levels—provides the most detailed and actionable information for a healthcare professional.

So it’s a scheme for reducing hundreds of numbers to one number, and different companies (that’s telling — it’s a profit-making tool) have different schemes, and it’s just as valid as BMI…which we already know is seriously flawed.

How was the sex, Bryan? What do you love about your girlfriend? He replies with a simplistic calculation of the distribution of bacteria on her body. I think you’re missing the point, Bryan.

I hope for Kate’s sake that she can keep her bacteria in tip-top shape. Would Bryan shame her if she were only in the top 5%? A yeast infection would be a devastating crisis in their relationship.

Biology don’t care

Stumbling across an online conversation between AI advocates is so weird, because they are using the language and concepts of evolutionary biology, but in such a crude, mangled, ignorant way that ultimately, they’ve stripped away the biology to replace it with a religious eschatology. There is a whole fantastic mythology they’ve developed in which they are battling for a paradisial end goal in which they become gods, fused with their technology of Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) which doesn’t actually exist, but hey, we can measure our progress by looking at NVIDIA’s profit growth.

All they really care about is capitalism’s march into the future, and they’ll ignore all the little details. Build more data centers! If we don’t, we’ll stop all our evolutionary progress. I just want to yell at them that there is no such thing as evolutionary “progress,” and that you can’t change it, you can only vary environmental conditions such that you get a different outcome, and it won’t be the one you expect. They have a belief that they can control how they “evolve,” while not really understanding how evolution works.

So right now they are banging on about human extinction, and how AI can be either a boon or a bane to humanity, and how they need power to shape its direction Of course, that’s what it’s really about: power. They’ve got no idea what they’re doing except that getting legal and financial power over their technology is necessary to keep them rich and happy. It’s all a massive misdirection to whimper about the threat of AI while clutching at the power they want, which is mainly a childish illusion taken from science fiction (see Elon Musk for the premiere example of that.)

Dr. Émile P. Torres is one of the people opposing the nonsense, and I mostly agree with his take on it, but sometimes I feel like he’s so deep into it that he is losing track of how silly these people are. He’s expecting people to recognize how profoundly stupid the debate AI proponents are by attempting to explain their terminology, but then it ends up being an effort to define their terms.

With all this talk about human extinction right now, I am BEGGING people to understand the difference between TERMINAL and FINAL extinction. TESCREALists *only* care about final extinction, but nearly the entire public *misinterprets* them as warning about terminal extinction.

Oy. I always have to look up what stands for — it’s not a very intuitive acronym.

TESCREAL is a neologism proposed by computer scientist Timnit Gebru and philosopher Émile P. Torres. An acronym, it stands for Transhumanism, Extropianism, Singularitarianism, (modern) Cosmism, Rationalism (denoting the ideology of the rationalist community), Effective Altruism, and Longtermism. Gebru and Torres argue that these ideologies should be treated as an “interconnected and overlapping” group with shared origins. They claim these constitute a movement that allows its proponents to use the threat of human extinction to justify expensive or detrimental projects and consider it pervasive in social and academic circles in Silicon Valley centered on artificial intelligence. As such, the acronym is sometimes used to criticize a perceived belief system associated with Big Tech.

It’s a garbage pail word used to hold a lot of garbage, in other words, making it not particularly memorable. It’s also always disappointing because none of the letters stand for “Eugenics,” which is actually what it means, with all the argle-bargle nonsense philosophy assembled to hide that reality.

Torres goes on to explain the distinction between terminal and final extinction.

Terminal extinction is the disappearance of our species, full stop. Final extinction is the disappearance of our species such that we don’t leave behind any (worthy) posthuman successors. Since TESCREALists want a cosmic utopia/posthuman paradise through “aligned” ASI, what
they really mean when they say, “We must avoid human extinction” is: “We must avoid final human extinction.” Once posthumanity arrives, most don’t give a SHIT whether OUR SPECIES persists. Indeed, as I have documented in tremendous detail, many WANT terminal extinction to happen
once posthumanity arrives via “aligned” ASI. If what you care about is our species’ survival — i.e., avoiding terminal extinction — then these people are literal *pro-extinctionists*. DO NOT BE FOOLED by their rhetoric; by the sneaky language games they play!! They are NOT on
Team Human. They are on Team Posthuman. They care about our species surviving long enough to create “aligned” ASI. Once that happens, our species SHOULD die out. These people are not your friends–they are your enemies, insofar as you value humanity. All the quotes can be found
here. Read it and be very terrified that TESCREALists are running the AI companies and monopolizing the conversation. This is so deeply fucked up.

This handy diagram helps explain what he means. It’s a cartoon sketch of a cartoon concept held by a bunch of clowns.

What bugs me about the diagram is that it treats extinction and the branch point as two moments, sharp and discrete, in the history of the species, and ignores the fact that each line is actually a cloud of human variation bumbling its way into the future, and that what happens in extinction is actually a slow sad decline in the face of multiple environmental threats, and the branch point is just the gradual separation of the cloud. With some members of each cloud continuing to interbreed. There would be lots of exchange of genetic material.

In fact, in this longish essay on all these philosophies, the TESCREALists scarcely acknowledge the existence of genes, and seem to think their goal is to shed their genetics and abandon biology altogether.

Pro-extinctionist views go back to the very origins of the TESCREAL movement. In a 1989 article, published around the time Extropianism was taking shape, roboticist Hans Moravec describes himself as “an author who cheerfully concludes that the human race is in its last century, and goes on to suggest how to help the process along.” He claims that we’re developing “intelligent” machines that will soon “be able to manage their own design and construction, freeing them from the last vestiges of their biological scaffolding, the society of flesh and blood humans that gave them their birth.” He then proclaims that “this is the end,” as “our genes, engaged for four billion theirs in a relentless, spiraling arms race with one another, have finally outsmarted themselves”—by enabling the rise of world-dominating digital posthumans. But we shouldn’t fear this transition, he insists, because “post-biological life” in the form of advanced AIS, which he describes as “the children of our minds,” will prosper and flourish.

I hate to tell Moravec the troubling reality that there, beneath the shadow of his crystalline silicon post-human digital paradise, people will go on rutting in the earthy foundation, and that apparently his reality is going to rely on that biological foundation to hold it all up. The genes will go on, since they aren’t going to depend on venture capitalists and vast amounts of energy, water, and rare minerals to keep on going.

To me, it sounds like the AI weirdos are clinging to an outmoded model of orthogenesis, where evolution is linear and progressive, and wouldn’t even recognize the terms anagenesis (the gradual accumulation of variation in a single lineage) and cladogenesis (the splitting of a lineage into two). They’re too busy inventing nonsensical terminologies that aren’t contingent on understanding the reality of the process.

It’s all very silly, except for the fact that these bozos are trying to take over our government and economy.

I may be wrong. I didn’t wait for the STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) person to weigh in on the matter.

Unjected?

When you are creatively bankrupt, and you want to make money off the internet, what do you do? Make a dating site, the most hackneyed idea of the modern age. The crackpots have created a dating site called “Unjected,” which is exclusively for people who haven’t been vaccinated. Imagine: in addition to getting a venereal disease, you could get measles, polio, covid, smallpox, or ebola from a date! You can trust your partner to be ignorant, deluded, and uninterested in hygiene or good health. If you’re really lucky, maybe you can go on a date with RFK jr!

The only reason they give for wanting to avoid vaccinated people is their slogan, unvaxxed are hotter, a subjective opinion that can have no evidence to back it up. Unless, that is, they mean that the unvaxxed are more likely to run a fever.

I’m not interested in dating ever again, but if I were, education and intelligence would be my major criteria for a partner, and this is a site that excludes that category.

Where should Paloma go to college?

This is the notorious professionalized liberal making machine

The Secretary of the US Department of Transportation is an airhead lawyer and former reality-TV “star” with no qualifications in transportation, Sean Duffy, but hey, you knew because he has a high appointment in the Trump administration that he was unqualified and incompetent. At least it’s better than his previous sinecure as the acting administrator of NASA! The last I heard about Duffy he was advising us to take advantage of the long delays at airports by doing calisthenics in the terminals. That’s just the kind of guy he is.

What I didn’t know is that he roped in a bunch of corporate sponsors who wanted to curry favor with the Trump administration, like Boeing, Toyota, Shell, United Airlines, Comcast, Royal Caribbean, Enterprise Rent-A-Car and Lyft to fund his summer vacation. He, his wife, and his 9 kids got into a gigantic RV with a following camera crew to drive all around the US for 6 weeks or so. Boeing and Toyota each coughed up a million dollars to pay for the extended joy ride.

I haven’t had a vacation in years. Maybe I’d be able to if just one of those corporations gave me a million dollars. Unfortunately, I’m not a corrupt opportunist like Duffy, and don’t have any influence on our government.

So anyway, one of the purported justifications for this trip was to visit colleges, for his kids who were of age to enter college. They visited Harvard. His daughter Paloma wants to go to school there. Duffy has opinions.

After declaring that they were a highly conservative family and that they had raised their kids in a strictly Catholic environment, he announces that she cannot go to Harvard because he didn’t believe that Harvard offers a well-rounded education.

His wife, Rachel Campos-Duffy, declares We spent a lot of time nurturing and providing formation for our kids, giving them an environment where they are steeped in faith and values, so the idea of dropping her off at a place where they would undermine that or undo all those things makes me worried.

Because he is a profoundly stupid man, Sean chimes in And again I don’t want them to get one viewpoint, I want them to get a lot of different viewpoints, but I don’t want them fed only one viewpoint that is contrary to the way my kids were raised, completely oblivious to the fact that he has just contradicted his wife and himself in one sentence. Because he is truly, deeply, stupid and unthinking. He then claims that Harvard has professionalized figuring out how they can take good young girls and corrupt their minds.

Uh, I’m not the greatest fan of Harvard (I think they are over-rated and too rich for their own good, and that we have numerous great institutions of higher education all over the country), but Harvard is not particularly liberal, and they are not a machine with the goal of churning out liberal students. The liberalism is a side-effect of getting a lot of different viewpoints. Harvard has a lot of prestige, a lot of money, and has a privileged status in the world; if any of my kids had had the opportunity to go there, I would have encouraged them, although it probably would have bankrupted us. Duffy wouldn’t have that problem. He’s just an ignorant goober attached to an administration that hates education.

I am wondering about poor Paloma. What shithole school would Sean and Rachel like to ship their daughter off to? I hope it’s not Liberty University, but that’s probably not Catholic enough for them. Sean is a graduate of Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, a private Catholic college which I wouldn’t describe as a shithole, but it probably doesn’t have the status the Duffys would want. Notre Dame? Bad news there, they expose their students to a healthy diverse student body, and she’d probably end up learning about feminism and equality and reason, all those things the Duffy family opposes.

I’d recommend that she attend the University of Minnesota Morris, if Harvard is off the table. We don’t have a professionalized liberalizing process here, we just let students be who they want to be, and help them get the education they need. Paloma might just fit in perfectly here.

Lock him up!

I told you about how James O’Keefe had tried to prank Minnesota elections. This state had a major fraud scandal where a few people had scammed childcare funds for millions of dollars, and the government has been hammering through those cases and slamming the con-artists into prison, while MAGA has been shrieking for justice because some of the perpetrators were Somali (never mind that the organizer was a white American-born woman). We are going to have to be strict in the prosecution of these white-collar criminals.

I guess we’re just going to have to drop the hammer on James O’Keefe.

The man in the video who falsely identified himself as William Pomeranz, whose real name is James O’Keefe, may have put himself in legal jeopardy.

“It’s illegal in the state of Minnesota to impersonate another voter, and this is apparently what O’Keefe did,” David Schultz, a constitutional law professor at Hamline University, said.

Schultz, Pomeranz and Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon say the video shows the system worked.

“As I read the law, you can’t impersonate another registered voter, and that’s exactly what they appear to have filmed themselves doing,” Simon said.

Impersonating a Minnesota voter at a polling place is a felony punishable by a maximum of seven years in prison and a fine of up to $20,000.

I wouldn’t object to seeing O’Keefe locked away for 7 years. We have to do it to avoid being seen as soft on crime.

James O’Keefe still likes to play dress-up

If you thought James O’Keefe was washed up and would vanish in the sewage outlet of history after his exposure and disgrace, guess again. He attempted to meddle in the Minnesota primary by dressing up as a “muslim”, putting on a poor “muslim” accent, and attempting to vote illegally, to show that Minnesota election laws were leaky and would allow for significant election fraud.

Veritas founder James O’Keefe, along with reporter Cam Higby, impersonated Muslims and went to multiple Twin Cities polling places during the Aug. 11 primary.

“During Minnesota’s Primary on August 11, 2026, members of a widely discredited Florida-based political group visited several polling places in Minneapolis impersonating Minnesota voters,” Simon said in a news release.

“Dressed in what they called ‘Muslim’ costumes, and imitating foreign accents, they falsely claimed to be registered Minnesota voters. The group used concealed cameras to record their interactions with poll workers, releasing a heavily edited video of their encounters. Their apparent goal was to cast doubt on one or more Minnesota election laws that have been in force for over fifty years. Instead, they revealed their ignorance of how those laws actually work – while putting themselves in legal jeopardy.”

According to Higby, their goal was to see if they’d be allowed to vote without showing identification, and whether they’d be allowed to vouch for people who aren’t registered to vote.

He failed, but he still went ahead and spliced together a very bad video that purported to show Muslim election fraud. O’Keefe has a kink for putting on cheap costumes and posing in racist one-act plays. Isn’t it past time to throw out this piece of trash?