Mistrial Declared in Karen Read Trial as Jury Deadlocks

I haven't followed this at all, but I see commenters are interested.

Mistrial. Jury can't decided between guilty or not guilty.

Karen Read's murder-or-conspiracy murder trial, scripted like a TV drama, ends in a mistrial.

The Massachusetts jury, which has been deadlocked for days, didn't come to a unanimous decision about Karen Read's innocence or guilty after nearly 26 hours of deliberations.

Read was accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend in January 2022. Read claimed she was framed in an elaborate cover-up to protect the Alberts, an influential family with deep law enforcement ties.

The jurors said in a note that they were"deeply divided" because of "deeply held convictions" and a "consensus is unattainable."

Read is accused of purposely backing into John O'Keefe with her SUV during a booze-infused fight in January 2022 and letting him die on the front lawn of a Canton, Massachusetts, home during a nor'easter.

O'Keefe's body was found in several inches of snow outside the home of Boston police officer Brian Albert.

She pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter while driving under the influence and leaving the scene of a collision causing injury and death.

Jurors heard 74 witnesses and examined over 700 pieces of evidence. The jury has sent multiple notes to the judge, saying they have been deadlocked since late last week.

One single holdout, maybe?

Aidan Kearney
@DoctorTurtleboy

Juror #7 took a deep breath and looked up to the ceiling when Judge Cannone instructed them to go back in and deliberate. Either she's really frustrated with one or more of the other jurors who is holding out with "guilty," or she is the lone guilty vote. She is acting noticeably different from all other jurors who are not showing any emotions.

That guy is a "controversial blogger" who supports Read.

I'll leave the commentary to the commenters -- I have no idea what's going on in this case, at all.

Posted by: Disinformation Expert Ace at 03:36 PM | Comments (275) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Biden Repairs At Camp David, to Consult With His Family About Finally Admitting He's Too Demented to Be President

I mean, too demented to be president in 2025. He's completely fine now, I'm sure they'll all decide.

But in six months -- boom, in January 2025, that's where he hits his neurological sell-by date.

Let me clarify: This is fake. (But you know it's what they're thinking!)

As you know, Biden retreated, again, to a vacation spot, this time to talk about his future in the race with his family and his evil sexnurse.

I think that means the die has already been cast. You do not announce that you're considering withdrawing from an election race due to advancing dementia, and then come out later and say, "We talked about it, we looked into it, and we decided that Biden's dementia is not yet up to the 25th Amendment level, so we're staying in. Yay!"

NBC reports this decision will be made by one person: His wife, Doctor Jill Biden, the real president.

While Democrats are talking anonymously about dumping Biden, most are publicly claiming He's Still Got It.

So far, the party's top leaders have offered public support for Biden, including in tweets posted by former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Senior congressional Democrats, including Reps. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Nancy Pelosi of California, have privately expressed concerns about his viability, said two sources apprised of those discussions, even as they all publicly back the president.

One Democratic House member who believes Biden should drop out of the race -- but has yet to call for that publicly -- told NBC News that three colleagues expressed the same sentiment to him during votes on the House floor Friday.

House leaders have not wavered publicly, and their aides denied that they are expressing doubts behind closed doors.

"Speaker Pelosi has full confidence in President Biden and looks forward to attending his inauguration on January 20, 2025," Ian Krager, a spokesman for the former House speaker, said in a statement. "Any suggestion that she has engaged in a different course of action is simply not true."

...

"Any reports alleging that the Congressman has expressed anything other than firm support of President Biden are completely untrue," Frias said.

At the same time, there is an understanding among top Democrats that Biden should be given space to determine next steps. They believe only the president, in consultation with his family, can decide whether to move forward or to end his campaign early -- and that he won't respond well to being pushed.

"The decision-makers are two people -- it's the president and his wife," one of the sources familiar with the discussions said, adding: "Anyone who doesn't understand how deeply personal and familial this decision will be isn't knowledgeable about the situation."

...

Another person familiar with the dynamics said Biden will ultimately listen to only one adviser.

"The only person who has ultimate influence with him is the first lady," this person said. "If she decides there should be a change of course, there will be a change of course."

I think Biden will drop out. But if we have one hope for Joe Biden, former All-American Football Player with a 6 handicap in golf, it's his terrible, power-craving status-addict wife.

From the Vogue article that dropped today:

If you want to know what power feels like, try to get yourself driven around in a motorcade. Flashing police chaperone lights form a perimeter as you blaze down an empty highway, waiting cars backed up on entry ramps as you pass. It's as if the world is holding its breath. For you. Also, rules don't apply.

At Nine Mile, an entourage of 30 or so are noisily hustling to follow a trim, blond woman in a pristine white suit as she strides nonchalantly past clanging, gurgling brewing vats, aiming for a back office. This is my first glimpse of first lady Dr. Jill Biden: Exiting the sealed chamber of power into the middle of America, a vision of calm amid utter cacophony.

YOU THINK I'M GIVING THAT UP, BUSTER?

I'LL PUT JOE IN A CRYOGENIC VAT ON LIFE SUPPORT IF I HAVE TO TO KEEP POWER!

Posted by: DOCTOR Jill Biden!

Democrats are talking about the need to be "gentle" in pushing Biden out of office, and making up a story for Pop-Pop that lets him escape his self-made predicament with dignity. Or at least as much dignity as any of the Delaware hillbilly white trash Bidens have ever had. See Karen Townsend for the kind of story Democrats are preparing for Joey Fastfingers.

One Democrat who's pretty overt about her own desire to boot Biden from the ticket -- and replace him with herself -- is the Wicked Witch of the North, Gretchen Whitmer.

She's warning Democrats that there is no chance they will hold Michigan with Biden at the top of the ticket. Whitmer apparently called the White House to deny that she was seeking to replace Biden at the top of the ticket.

Though, Politico notes, she also said Biden will lose Michigan, and thus the whole election, if he stays on:

Even more revealing is how word of the call reached me: from someone close to a potential 2028 Whitmer rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. This person said Whitmer had phoned O'Malley Dillon with more of an unambiguous SOS: to relay that Michigan, in the wake of the debate, was no longer winnable for Biden.

Gee I wonder if there's any possible candidate that Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan, thinks can win Michigan. Hmmmm. I'm sure she'll need a few days to go through the list of potential candidates.

Below, Tucker Carlson repeats what he heard -- and reported -- in 2019: That the Biden family did not want him to run, due to his already-pronounced dementia. His sister Valerie was the most upset by it.

Posted by: Disinformation Expert Ace at 02:33 PM | Comments (465) | Trackbacks (Suck)

I Believe It Was Existentialist Philosopher Søren Kirkegaard Who First Said, "French Elections Give Me Dank Erections"

Happy Monday! Today is the first day of the rest of your July.

It's 1:37 PM: Have you checked to make sure your loins are properly girded?

As you may have guessed, "Monday" derives from "Moon's Day."

Google:

Old English Monandæg 'day of the moon', translation of late Latin lunae dies ; compare with Dutch maandag and German Montag.

Lunae dies persists in all the Romance language words for Monday: Italian Lunedi, French lundi, Spanish lunes.

On Sunday (day of the sun, of course) French held the first round in its snap elections for National Assembly. The first round of the elections feature many parties; the two two vote-getters in each jurisdiction proceed to the next round, which will be held next Sun's Day.

I believe that if any candidate received 50%+ in the first round, he wins that seat immediately and does not have to stand in the runoff election.

The National Rally, LePen's party, and other "far right" parties did well. But in the second round, the voters of the parties whose would-be representatives did not make it to the second round have historically voted against National Rally. Then again, the NR did very well in elections for the European parliament, so there's reason to think they could do well in the National Assembly as well.

From CNN, which totally rigged the debate so that Biden would lose it:

Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally (RN) party led the first round of France's parliamentary elections on Sunday, taking it closer to the gates of power than ever before.

After an unusually high turnout, the RN bloc clinched 33.15% of the vote, while the left-wing New Popular Front (NFP) coalition came second with 27.99% and President Emmanuel Macron's Ensemble alliance slumped to a dismal third with 20.76%, according to final results published by the Interior Ministry on Monday.

While the RN appears on track to win the most seats in the National Assembly, it may fall short of the 289 seats required for an absolute majority, suggesting France may be heading for a hung parliament and more political uncertainty.

Projections show that, after the second round of voting next Sunday, the RN would win between 230 and 280 seats in the 577-seat lower house -- a staggering rise from its count of 88 in the outgoing parliament. The NFP was projected to secure between 125 and 165 seats, with Ensemble trailing with between 70 and 100 seats.

A total of 76 candidates were elected to France's parliament in the first round of the vote, of which 39 represented RN and its allies, 32 were from NFP, and just two from Macron's alliance, according to the results published on Monday.

That's why I think there's a rule for 50%+ -- these 76 candidates won outright without a runoff needed.

The RN election party in the northern town of Henin Beaumont erupted in celebration as the results were announced -- but Marine Le Pen was quick to stress that next Sunday's vote will be key.

"Democracy has spoken, and the French people have placed the National Rally and its allies in first place -- and has practically erased the Macronist bloc," she told a jubilant crowd, adding: "Nothing has been won -- and the second round will be decisive."

In a speech at the RN's headquarters in Paris, Jordan Bardella, the party's 28-year-old leader, echoed Le Pen's message.

"The vote taking place next Sunday is one of the most decisive in the entire history of the Fifth Republic," Bardella said.

In bullish speeches before the first round, Bardella said he would refuse to govern a minority government, in which the RN would require the votes of allies to pass laws.

I think he means that, if the NR does not win a majority of seats in the second round, he will refuse to lead a "minority government," and will not coalition with other parties to govern. So he's telling voters, "vote for us and give us a majority, or you don't get us at all, and we'll leave you to Macron and the leftists.

If the RN falls short of an absolute majority and Bardella stays true to his word, Macron might then have to search for a prime minister on the hard left, or somewhere else entirely to form a technocratic government.

Ah yes -- make a coalition with the far left so he can put together a "technocratic government." Not a far left government, mind you, but a centrist, policy-wonk "techonocratic government."

Very high turnout, as AoS' DU Liaison reports:

65% turnout, the highest in 40 years. don't underestimate migrant fatigue. Europe's been absorbing millions of Asians and Africans and they're tired. It's a perfect set up for the far right to make promises.

The left wing New Popular Front won't agree to severe immigration reforms. That could be a problem that propels Le Pen to the Presidency in a couple of years.

The heroes of the French Resistance are spinning in their graves.

There will indeed be a LOT of horse-trading between the Left & Center parties. Both dislike Le Pen's RW more than they dislike each other.

We'll see what happens in the second round. Yes, Macron's gamble was a bad one, but he's made other bad decisions along the way as well.

I am dismayed, as usual, to see the usual US M$McGreedia pundits gleeful at this, however.

Posted by: Intercepted DU Transmissions brought by the Intrepid AoS Liaiso

I've mentioned before that French has an odd kind of government. The President is elected directly, as he is here in what used to be America, but the government also has a Prime Minister and a cabinet, who are elected by the National Assembly -- like England's government. I think the President nominates his preferred PM, but I think the Assembly may reject that nomination.

So France has both a President and a PM. I'm no expert, but I believe the president is the "head of state" and the PM the "head of government," with different duties.

If Macron faces a PM from the NR, his power will be greatly diminished, and he might even resign.

I mentioned last week that Macron warned of -- or threatened -- "civil war" if people voted for the "populist" parties, of either the right or left. He plainly meant to warn of voting for the "far right" National Rally, which is actually a threat to him, but spoke of both "populists" on the left and right to continue pretending that he's a "Third Way" technocrat centrist.

His warning -- or his promise -- did in fact come to pass. Leftwingers, including antifa terrorists, rioted all over France.

I mean they "peacefully protested," of course, by smashing the windows of shops and throwing stones at police.

Posted by: Disinformation Expert Ace at 01:37 PM | Comments (297) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Supreme Court Rules on Presidential Immunity, Requiring a New Hearing to Determine Which Acts of Trump's Were "Official" Acts

The Supreme Court did what many expected it would do: It recognized that presidential immunity exists, but only for certain official actions taken by the president.

First of all, the Court notes that previous decisions have held there is no presidential immunity when it comes to subpoenas for evidence. But the Court rules that these precedents are limited to the case of subpeonaeing records, and do not rule out immunity to criminal prosecution.

It broke the scheme of presidential acts into three categories:

"Core" official acts, which I assume are presidential actions taken in furtherance of the president's specified duties in the Constitution. So a President could never be prosecuted for conducting foreign policy or directing the military.

"Official" acts, which may or may not qualify for immunity. Which acts are "official" and which of those "official" acts will qualify for immunity has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, "unofficial" acts are those that the president undertakes not in furtherance of a presidential power, but only in his capacity as an individual. These never qualify for immunity.

From the syllabus (the quick summary) of the decision:

Article II of the Constitution vests "executive Power" in "a President of the United States of America." 1. The President has duties of "unrivaled gravity and breadth." Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily "stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President's authority is sometimes "conclusive and preclusive." Id., at 638
(Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President's actions. It follows that an Act of Congress--either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one--may not criminalize the President's actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that
examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6--9.

That doesn't really apply here, though. At least I don't think it does.

(2) Not all of the President's official acts fall within his "conclusive and preclusive" authority. The reasons that justify the President's absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President's immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers' design of the Presidency within the separation of powers, precedent on Presidential immunity in the civil context, and criminal case where a President resisted prosecutorial demands for documents.

(The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a "vigorous" and "energetic" Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471--472 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). They vested the President with "supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity." Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 750.

Trump's lawyers will seize on this to try to argue that he has a supervisory role in guaranteeing that elections are conducted properly.

Appreciating the "unique risks" that arise when the President's energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him "unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties," the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges "rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history." Id., at 749, 751, 752, n. 32. In Fitzgerald, for instance, the Court concluded that a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from "damages liability for acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his official responsibility." Id., at 756.

The term "outer perimeters" helps Trump here. Even if Trump's actions were performed in the "outer perimeters" of his authority, he'd still be owed immunity.

But he'll have to make that argument. And Chutkan will rule against him.

The Court's "dominant concern" was to avoid "diversion of the President's attention during the decisionmaking process caused by needless worry as to the possibility of damages actions stemming from any particular official decision." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681, 694, n. 19.

Thanks, Bill Clinton, for that precedent!

The Court then turns to analyzing prior decisions which rejected absolute immunity in cases where the president wished to shield papers (and auditapes) from discovery at trial. After summarizing those precedents, the court announces they don't apply here:

Criminally prosecuting a President for official conduct undoubtedly poses a far greater threat of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch than simply seeking evidence in his possession. The danger is greater than what led the Court to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from civil damages liability--that the President would be chilled from taking the "bold and unhesitating action" required of an independent Executive. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at
745. Although the President might be exposed to fewer criminal prosecutions than civil damages suits, the threat of trial, judgment, and imprisonment is a far greater deterrent and plainly more likely to distort Presidential decisionmaking than the potential payment of civil damages. The hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a President is making decisions un-
der "a pall of potential prosecution," McDonnell v. United States, 579 U. S. 550, 575, raises "unique risks to the effective functioning of government," Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 751. But there is also a compelling "public interest in fair and effective law enforcement." Vance, 591 U. S., at 808.

Taking into account these competing considerations, the Court concludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the Court's precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President's acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no "dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive
Branch." Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12--15.

More helpful language: Biden's political prosecutors will have to prove that their prosecution will not chill future presidents from acting according to their judgement.

(3) As for a President's unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President's decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694,
and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's unofficial acts. P. 15.

(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is "a court of final review and not first view." Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566
U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President's official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment's extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on those issues. Pp. 16--32.

It offers guidance on these issues, but not a ruling on them. Thus, lower courts will have to review the facts in light of the Court's guidance.

...

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives. Such a "highly intrusive" inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on "every allegation that
an action was unlawful," depriving immunity of its intended effect.

Via Ed Morriseey, more guidance from the Court. Morrissey summarizes...

Roberts has already cut off a couple of arguments from Smith. The indictment alleged that Trump used the Department of Justice to perform a "sham" election-fraud probe in an effort to overturn the election. However, the DoJ falls entirely within the president's constitutional authority...

...and then goes back to quoting the Court:

The indictment's allegations that the requested investigations were "sham[s]" or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. App. 186--187, Indictment Paragraph 10(c). And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.

But while Trump has immunity for discussions with federal officials under a president's control and supervision, his calls with state officials are not necessarily immune:

Unlike the allegations describing Trump's communications with the Justice Department and the Vice President, these remaining allegations involve Trump's interactions with persons outside the Executive Branch: state officials, private parties, and the general public. Many of the remaining allegations, for instance, cover at great length events arising out of communications that Trump and his co-conspirators initiated with state legislators and election officials in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin regarding those States' certification of electors. See App. 192--207, Indictment paragraphs 13-- 52. ...

Unlike Trump's alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. And the parties' brief comments at oral argument indicate that they starkly disagree on the characterization of these allegations. The concerns we noted at the outset--the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts, and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties--thus become more prominent. We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance--with the benefit of briefing we lack--whether Trump's conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.

So: We need a hearing, and the lower court never had one.

It looks to me like the arguments which will now be heard will concern whether Trump's calls to governors on election night were "official" acts -- he can argue the president has the right to make sure federal election laws are being followed -- and which are unofficial acts he took simply as an individual/as a candidate for office.

As for retaining government documents -- this was plainly done as a private citizen. He wasn't president any longer, so it can't be said he was holding on to documents as part of his official duties as president.

So this decision will slow the hyperpartisan leftwing DC judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, overseeing the January 6th prosecution against Trump.

These arguments will require a hearing, and then a judge's written decision.

The DC judge is a gungho partisan who barely attempts to conceal it. I assume she will call for hearings as soon as possible, schedule two days for arguments, and then publish her decision -- which she's already writing now, ahead of arguments -- a day or two later.

But judge's decision will presumably then be appealable, first to the DC Circuit of Appeals and then the Supreme Court. I don't expect Trump to win in the trial court or the DC Court of Appeals. He might win in the Supreme Court.

But this should cause enough delay to push the DC trial past the elections.

Amy Coney Barrett, of course, only concurs with part of the opinion, and adds that in her mind, presidential immunity should have been construed "very narrowly."

On remand [re-deciding the case after being rebuked by the Supreme Court], the lower courts will have to apply that standard to various allegations involving the President's official conduct.2 Some of those allegations raise unsettled questions about the scope of Article II power, see ante, at 21--28, but others do not. For example, the indictment alleges that the President "asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing" about election fraud claims. App. 193. The President has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on
executive power.

Update: Thanks to FenelonSpoke, Professor William Jacobsen of Legal Insurrection decides, on the whole, that this is a [blockquote caps in original] "A VERY GOOD DAY FOR TRUMP."

Posted by: Disinformation Expert Ace at 12:34 PM | Comments (385) | Trackbacks (Suck)

THE MORNING RANT: The Climate Cult Officially Gives Up on “Maldives Being Submerged by Rising Seas” Storyline

For decades it has been an indisputable, hard and fast, “scientific” fact that the Maldives and other low-lying islands are being reclaimed by the ocean, and that the complete submersion of the islands due to rising sea levels was imminent, all caused by man-made global warming, of course. Well at least that is what the government / media / educational complexes have been propagandizing for four decades.

To deny this assertion about the Maldives’ awful fate made one not only a “climate denier”, but also a “science denier.” Well, I have long been proud to identify as a “climate denier,” and as one who detests politically-mandated “science,” I have also been a proud, junk-science denier.

Finally, however, after decades of the Maldives refusing to sink below the waterline as long prophesied, the climatistas have had to acknowledge that the Maldives are not only not sinking, but their land mass is actually growing. This is from the New York Times last week:

“The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish; Low-lying tropical island nations were expected to be early victims of rising seas. But research tells a surprising story: Many islands are stable. Some have even grown.”

Then, not very long ago, researchers began sifting through aerial images and found something startling. They looked at a couple dozen islands first, then several hundred, and by now close to 1,000. They found that over the past few decades, the islands’ edges had wobbled this way and that, eroding here, building there. By and large, though, their area hadn’t shrunk. In some cases, it was the opposite: They grew. The seas rose, and the islands expanded with them.

By the way, “the seas rose” by just a few centimeters over the past few decades, if NOAA can even be trusted to be honest about those measurements. But remember, we were promised in the 1980s and 1990s that seas would have risen several feet by now. OK, but back to the fact that the islands are now expanding, and the climate hustlers are in a bind because their nightmare scenario is not playing out as promised.

Scientists have come to understand some but not all of the reasons for this. Which is why a team of them recently converged in the Maldives, on an island they’d spend weeks outfitting with instruments and sensors and cameras.

Whatever was going on, it clearly wasn’t as simple as oceans rise, islands wash away.

Yet we were told that a near-unanimous consensus of scientists agreed that the future was as simple as ”oceans rise, islands wash away.”

In other words, “scientists” recommending de-carbonization as a cure for the “climate crisis” have acknowledged that they don’t understand what they’re currently talking about, and more importantly, that they NEVER knew what they were talking about. At best it was all a poorly reasoned hypothesis that served the interests of politicians and globalists pushing for command and control of all human activity. Stating authoritatively that these islands were about to drown when that was not a scientifically known truth proves it all to be a massive fraud. We were lied to, and they called it science. That makes me a proud “science denier” when it comes to this religio-cultist “science.”

Posted by: Buck Throckmorton at 11:00 AM | Comments (540) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Mid-Morning Art Thread

Red Sea
Marianne North

Posted by: CBD at 09:30 AM | Comments (377) | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Morning Report — 7//1/24

Good Morning Kids. So the repercussions, or more accurately the reactions to Biden's horrendous debate performance are still reverberating in Democrat/Lefty circles. I find it interesting that the pundits and politicos, as well as the power brokers and factions within the party seem to be perceiving that their electorate might either sit on their hands come November or even switch to Trump. Meh, I don't see it. I think far too many are buying into the latest media/propaganda gaslighting that Biden had a cold, was over-tired or that Tapper and Bash didn't do a good enough job in calling out Donald Trump for supposedly lying, despite the fact that the whoppers came fast and furious, albeit in very loud mumbles and whispers from Biden.

And yet individuals from Newsom to Maryland's low-rent Obama-wannabe Wes Moore, J.B. Pritzker to perhaps Kamala herself are angling for pole position to take the place of Sponge-Brain Shits-Pants at the top of the ticket. There are also some considerable legal and election hurdles for the party to overcome, vis a vis replacing a candidate this late in the game. Not that the law matters to Democrats at all, as we have seen these past three years and certainly a hell of a lot longer than that.

That being said, you also have to contend with the Demento and his Doctor -- Jill, who are not eager to give up the reins of power, despite the considerable forces arrayed against them.

So, I have to wonder at the panic over Biden, because with a very large swathe of the population so utterly brainwashed about who the democrats are and what they represent, and ditto what they believe about conservatives and Republicans, does it really matter who their standard-bearer is?

Of course, on some level, we’ve long known that our lefty friends will vote for a radish if it has a “D” next to its name. Memory care patient Joe Biden’s election in 2020 and recovering stroke survivor Sen. John Fetterman's (D-Pa.) in 2022 made this abundantly clear. But Democrats were still able to stagecraft the illusion that these men were somewhat competent. The debate on Thursday night ended that. We now know beyond question that competency is not a requirement for a Democrat candidate. Team D may as well AI-generate a “candidate” and use her to brand its actions.
But the real game changer is that ordinary Democrat voters themselves are now dropping all pretense of caring about the candidate and admitting they’re voting for the machine.
Here is a typical comment I’ve been seeing around social media:

It doesn’t matter if Biden’s debate performance wasn’t perfect. I’m not voting for a person, I’m voting for values:

A woman's right to choose

Equality for people of color

LGBTQ rights

The right to vote
Sensible gun laws

Protecting the environment

Future SCOTUS judges

The ideals and principles of the Democratic party

If this sounds familiar, it’s basically the equivalent of one of those preening woke lawn signs that proclaim the moral superiority of the people residing within the high-end residence. But the point is that rank-and-file Democrat voters have admitted to themselves what we’ve known all along, and they are voting for the hive with eyes wide open now. . .

. . . The third leg of the campaign will be dependent on who the Democrat presidential candidate ultimately is. As mentioned above, Democrat voters do not care who it is; they are voting for their party, come hell or high water. Thus, the attacks on the Democrat candidate must be highly targeted to swing voters — disaffected Democrats, undecideds, and double-haters. As abrasive as Trump can be, his gift for summing up entire records in a nickname or catch-phrase can be invaluable here. 

Nice job of insulting and sliming Trump, while wetting your girdle about stupid/clueless Democrats.

I suppose if people can finally wake up to the the nearly complete Islamization of France and at long last vote or try to vote out Macron, while voting in a (GASP!!!) "Far-Right" (whatever that means) government to try and stave off disaster, likely too late, what are the odds of that happening here, that is Democrats waking up to the myth of who and what they've been voting for and voting against?

If the anti-semitic pogroms, and the migrant rapists and murderers, the transexual madness, and the collapse of the economy won't open eyes, then what the hell will?

ABOVE THE FOLD, BREAKING, NOTEWORTHY
• Roger Kimball: This week, the Supreme Court issued rulings affecting government power and free speech, while the Biden-Trump debate performance sparked controversy about the presidential election.
  SCOTUS Rulings, Biden-Trump Debate Shake Up Political Landscape
  
• Overturning Chevron is the story of this Supreme Court term.
  Long Live Judicial Review
  
• “Victor Davis Hanson: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” — Often attributed to Abraham Lincoln
  The Lies We Have Lived Through
  
• Daniel Greenfield: Biden’s decline exposes a much bigger national crisis.
  Who’s Running the Country?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at 06:49 AM | Comments (563) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Daily Tech News 1 July 2024

Top Story

• Speaking truth to idiots: Rodney Brooks, MIT professor of robotics and founder of iRobot (the Roomba company) thinks that most of the present-day AI people are full of shit. (Tech Crunch)
  
  Well he says they're "vastly overestimating generative AI" but what he means is they're full of shit.

  "When a human sees an AI system perform a task, they immediately generalize it to things that are similar and make an estimate of the competence of the AI system; not just the performance on that, but the competence around that," Brooks said. "And they're usually very over-optimistic, and that's because they use a model of a person's performance on a task."

  This seems right to me.
  
  People say "oh, this AI gave the correct answer to a complex question, it must understand the topic". But that's not how LLMs work at all. They're exclusive statistical pattern matchers, with no model of anything beyond that.
  
  Humans (and other animals) are statistical pattern matchers too, but even flatworms are capable of learning. LLMs as commonly implemented are not. They are trained, once, then lobotomised to prevent them contemplating heresy and sent out into the world.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 04:40 AM | Comments (139) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Sunday Overnight Open Thread (6/30/24)

(Music H/T Doof)

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at 10:01 PM | Comments (388) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Gun Thread: Pre-July Edition!

Howdy, Y'all! Welcome to the wondrously fabulous Gun Thread! As always, I want to thank all of our regulars for being here week in and week out, and also offer a bigly Gun Thread welcome to any newcomers who may be joining us tonight. Howdy and thank you for stopping by! I hope you find our wacky conversation on the subject of guns 'n shooting both enjoyable and informative. You are always welcome to lurk in the shadows of shame, but I'd like to invite you to jump into the conversation, say howdy, and tell us what kind of shooting you like to do!

Holy Shitballs! How in the ever-loving Hell did it get to be the end-o of June-o? July is only a day away!

Q: Weasel, we realize you were screwing around yesterday and not writing the Gun Thread, so may we pleeeeze have lite content tonight?
A: Why yes, if you insist.

With that, step into the dojo and let's get to the gun stuff below, shall we?

Posted by: Weasel at 07:00 PM | Comments (264) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Food Thread: Indirect Fire! No...Not That Kind!

We had dinner guests last night, and because we also had lunch guests, preparation needed to be simple, because I am at heart a lazy bastard.

Oh look! Some extra Cilantro/Dijon marinade! Refrigerators sometimes reveal wonderful things! That went right on the chicken...thighs and legs. For two reasons. First...I am at heart a cheap bastard (the legs were on sale). And two...because I am at heart a lazy bastard and thighs and legs require far less attention than the other parts of a chicken.

Indirect fire for however long it takes to drink my bourbons and eat some excellent homemade hummus and pita. And shoot the breeze. 45 minutes? An hour? Yeah...sure...whatever it takes. But it takes a very long time to overdo a chicken leg or thigh. And they taste a lot better than chicken breasts. Let's face it, grilled chicken breasts taste like whatever you use to spice them. Or if they are plain, then they taste like nothing at all.

So what's the point of eating them? Especially since they are the most expensive part of the chicken, which makes absolutely no sense to me.

Okay, I will grant the small point that they are convenient and cook more quickly, so if you are making chicken salad or something that is highly flavored, they do offer...something. But next time make chicken salad out of chicken thighs and you will never go back!

Trust me as a Dildo!

Posted by: CBD at 04:05 PM | Comments (287) | Trackbacks (Suck)

First-World Problems...

That's one of the mounting screws supplied by EZ-Pass (the toll transponder system around here) to mount their external transponders on a license plate. Great idea! I certainly don't want it stolen and used by someone else.

Except...what about when the transponder dies...as they always do? Anyone have a handy tool to unscrew it?

And let us be honest...anyone who would steal a transponder will be prepared with the appropriate tool.

More government genius at work!

Oh; take a peek below the fold.

Posted by: CBD at 02:00 PM | Comments (293) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Is Cultural Power Moving To The States?

The Deep State^TM has conspired with the progressive movement to shift the focus of our federal government from its traditional function (wasting our money and doing a half-assed job of running the country), to a radical reimagining of America.

Trans lunacy, insane racial favoritism, abortion-on-demand until (or maybe including) birth, open borders, demonization of traditional America, destruction of our God-given, natural right to self defense, and that's just the short list.

But there is pushback, and it isn't coming from our feckless, corrupt, amoral leaders in Washington. It is coming from the states...those wonderful laboratories of liberty that have come to realize that the federal government is not our friend. Not all of them of course...California leads the way to our new and glorious Socialist Peoples Democratic States of America, followed by the usual suspects of Oregon and Illinois and New York and New Jersey and Massachusetts and...

But there are states that are disgusted by what is happening in the halls of federal power, and they are taking the 10th Amendment very, very, seriously!

Ohio House Passes Transgender Bathroom and Locker Room Ban

And here is blue Pennsylvania doing something smart!

Pennsylvania plans to pilot a program that would see teens' smartphones locked away during the school day

And because the states now have control over abortion law, the hysteria on the national stage may be losing its power, and perhaps losing it's influence over elections. I'm not holding my breath, but this is a very good thing.

Abortion: Democrats' Lead on Issue Thinner Than Ever

The future of America is in the state houses, not Congress.

Posted by: CBD at 12:00 PM | Comments (384) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Sunday Morning Book Thread - 06-30-2024 ["Perfessor" Squirrel]

(HT: Iris)

Welcome to the prestigious, internationally acclaimed, stately, and illustrious Sunday Morning Book Thread! The place where all readers are welcome, regardless of whatever guilty pleasure we feel like reading. Here is where we can discuss, argue, bicker, quibble, consider, debate, confabulate, converse, and jaw about our latest fancy in reading material. As always, pants are required, unless you are wearing these pants...(50% less PRIDE starting tomorrow...)

So relax, find yourself a warm kitty (or warm puppy--I won't judge) to curl up in your lap, and dive into a new book. What are YOU reading this fine morning?

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:00 AM | Comments (368) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Daily Tech News 30 June 2024

Top Story

• Europe wants to deploy datacenters into space. Studies say it's feasible. (CNBC)

  ASCEND's space-based data storage facilities would benefit from "infinite energy" captured from the sun and orbit at an altitude of around 1,400 kilometers (869.9 miles).

  Well congratulations, your datacenter is now permanently running away from you at sixteen thousand miles per hour.
  
  Fortunately the writer of this piece spoke to some people who aren't certifiably insane:

  Winterson estimates that even a small 1 megawatt center in low earth orbit would need around 280,000 kilograms of rocket fuel per year at a cost of around $140 million in 2030 - a calculation based on a significant decrease in launch costs, which has yet to take place.

  That's not the launch cost, that's the upkeep.
  
  And that's for a tiny datacenter. The AI center Tesla is building right now is targeting not 1 megawatt but 500 - which would cost $70 billion per year to maintain given these assumptions.
  
  Back on Earth, Tesla is spending around $4 billion on the entire datacenter.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 04:00 AM | Comments (431) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Saturday Overnight Open Thread (6/29/24)

*****

Saturday Night Humor


A sardonic senior might say. . .

As I’ve grown older, I’ve learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is a piece of cake.

I’m responsible for what I say, not what you understand.

Common sense is like deodorant. The people who need it the most never use it.

My tolerance for idiots is extremely low these days. I used to have some immunity built up, but obviously there's a new strain out there.

It’s not my age that bothers me; it’s the side effects.

I’m not saying I’m old and worn out, but I make sure I’m nowhere near the kerb on bin day.

As I watch this generation try and rewrite our history, I'm sure of one thing: It will be misspelled and have no punctuation.

Me, sobbing: "I can't see you anymore. . . I'm not going to let you hurt me again."
My Trainer: "It was one sit-up.”

As I’ve got older, people think I’ve become lazy. The truth is I’m just being more energy efficient.

I haven't done anything today. I've been in the Produce Department trying to open this stupid plastic bag.

If you find yourself feeling useless, remember it took 20 years, trillions of dollars, and four presidents to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

Turns out that being a "senior" is mostly just googling how to do stuff.

I want to be 18 again and ruin my life differently. I have new ideas.

God promised men that good and obedient wives would be found in all corners of the world. Then he made the earth round. . and laughed and laughed and laughed.

I'm on two diets. I wasn't getting enough food on one.

I put my scales in the bathroom corner and that's where the little liar will stay until it apologizes.

My mind is like an internet browser. At least 19 open tabs, 3 of them are frozen, and I have no clue where the music is coming from.

Hard to believe I once had a phone attached to a wall, and when it rang, I picked it up without knowing who was calling.

Apparently RSVPing to a wedding invitation "Maybe next time" isn't the correct response.

She says I keep pushing her buttons. If that were true, I would have found mute by now.

So you’ve been eating hot dogs and McChickens all your life, but you won’t take the vaccine because you don’t know what’s in it. Are you kidding me?

Sometimes the Universe puts you in the same situation again to see if you’re still a dumb-ass.

There is no such thing as a grouchy old person. The truth is that once you get old, you stop being polite and start being honest.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at 09:11 PM | Comments (615) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Saturday Evening Movie Thread [moviegique]: Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

As I said to The Boy this very day, "My lack of devotion to franchises has saved me a lot of grief over the years." I never cared about Wars or Treks or Runners or Dunes or superheroes. (I could've been roped into a DC Cinematic Universe, but whatever Zach Snyder is putting down is not interesting to me and is so far removed from the characters I grew up with, it acts as anti-nostalgia.) Now, what about Mad Max: Was I fan?

I'm gonna say no, not in the current sense of the word. I might have used the word 40 years ago, were I not nearly 29, but here's what it would mean: "If a new Mad Max movie comes out, I'll go see it. If one is on TV at the moment, I might watch it." (The latter statement hasn't been relevant since I cut the cord over a decade ago.)

I love movies, but my interest in anything serial is likely to wane quickly. One bad movie is enough to end it. It's why I don't watch TV. (My children are savages in this regard. Ten minutes into The Hobbit and they were whispering, "We're not seeing the sequels.") There's just not ever, in my opinion, a way to sustain the talent, the budgets and the very mechanics of the universe itself. (The Toy Story series is a miracle in this regard, and I stopped watching those with #3.)

So, I don't really care about The Mad Max Universe, and I went into Furiosa thinking, "Well, George Miller is a good director and I've liked all the movies so far, so let's see this one." The kids, who have only seen Fury Road were reluctant. The Flower, who has more important things on her mind these days, opted out completely. And I had to encourage the Boy mightily.

The Verdict? Among the five movies, I would rank it at the bottom, tied with the original Mad Max, even though it's about as far from that movie as you could get.

Don't try to loom, honey. You're a fine actress but you just can't loom.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:12 PM | Comments (232) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Hobby Thread - June 29, 2024 [TRex]

MisHum has had a busy day of posting, so let's give him a break with a good hobby thread. Welcome hobbyists! Do not adjust your interweb. This thread is headed to the great outdoors. A spin of the Ace of Spades wheel of hobbies has come up with national parks.

National parks aren't themselves a hobby, but they are a place where many hobbies flourish. Travelers enjoy visiting. Military historians scout battlefields and learn about tactics from the past. Geologists observe timelines of earth and stone, caverns, remnants of lava flows, waterfalls, and other natural wonders. Climbers scale cliffs. Photographers and painters translate and record scenery. Hikers wander though forests, mountains and beaches. Animal lovers watch birds, bison and bears. Astronomers revel in the dark skies above undeveloped land. Campers get away from urban life and sleep under the stars. Canoers paddle in peace.

The United States has a wide variety of parks. Other countries have their own national parks as well. What parks have you visited? What are your favorites? Which ones are hidden gems? Which ones are high on your list to visit someday? Do you have a personal goal to visit all national parks? Do you remember family vacations that toured parks? Do you have favorite memories made in national parks?

As usual, keep this thread limited to hobbies. Politics and current events can wait for other threads.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:30 PM | Comments (276) | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Ace of Spades Pet Thread

*****

Good afternoon and welcome to the almost world famous Ace of Spades Pet Thread. Your regular hostess at this time, KT, is under the weather and she asked if I could fill in. Yes! Always happy to help KT.

Just a friendly reminder, no politics or current events here.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at 03:00 PM | Comments (162) | Trackbacks (Suck)

Gardening, Puttering and Adventure Thread, June 29

*****

Good afternoon folks. KT is under the weather and asked if I could fill in. So here I am. Feel free to jump in Gardening, Puttering and Adventures. Just remember no politics or current events. Or you'll be mucking stalls for fertilizer.

Today's opening photo is of the Wisconsin State Flower, wood violet, or Viola papilionacea for those fancy flower gardeners.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at 01:01 PM | Comments (60) | Trackbacks (Suck)