The Pentagon says that the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, will be executed publicly by firing squad.

 

Major Nidal Hasan. AP/police handout. 

The Pentagon says that the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, will be executed publicly. AP. Hasan, who was a Major in the US Army, launched a terror attack at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead and 32 others injured. The execution would be viewable on a livestream for members of the general public and the method of execution will be by firing squad. Making the execution public and the plans to broadcast it are controversial. Supporters say it will bring much needed transparency to the death penalty, especially after a botched execution in Tennessee where Christina Pike survived. Opponents say the method of execution is too brutal and that broadcasting it is disturbing. Regardless, it is unclear if the execution will happen on its scheduled date. Hasan could file an appeal, though there is not any indication that he wants to, as he has said that he feels an execution would count as martyrdom in his Muslim faith. 

My Comment:

I am not at all certain that this will even happen. Though Nidal Hasan is unlikely to appeal at this point, by all accounts, he wants to die, it's possible some judge somewhere could rule that executing him publicly is unconstitutional. That seems pretty unlikely, I don't think anyone but Hasan and his lawyers would have standing, but I also have very little trust in the legal system right now. And it's possible that Hasan's commitment to "martyrdom" is as strong as he says it is. It's very possible he changes his mind and a writ of habeas corpus could be filed, which would delay things considerably. 

Still, I think it's very possible that this could happen. Hasan might not want to appeal this and could want his death to be public. He is a devout Muslim of course and he launched his attack for Jihad. He might think his execution will get him into heaven. I'd say there's a very good chance that he won't appeal. 

The method of execution is controversial, but I don't really understand why. From what I understand, the firing squad is the most reliable method. It's the only American method that has never been botched, unlike lethal injection, like the Christina Pike case shows. And if the shooters are at all competent, death is almost instant, with little relative suffering. It hasn't been the standard for execution in the military, the last one was in 1961 by hanging, but it was commonly used in World War II for both enemy spies and cases of desertion. 

I think most of the objection is that a firing squad is a more bloody and violent method of execution compared to an injection or gas. I tend to disagree given how quick it is, but I can at least understand the argument. 

However, if it was just a firing squad execution very few people outside of determined opponents of capital punishment would care. But the decision to make the execution public is going to be hugely controversial. America hasn't done a public execution since 1936, and it has never been broadcast. Doing so would certainly be different. 

The bleeding heart argument is that it's humiliating to Hasan and not befitting to human dignity. I don't agree given that he murdered 13 people and betrayed not only his government, but his comrades in arms. There are other objections to be made. I do wonder if children will be prevented from watching it. Honestly though, as someone who watched enough World War II documentaries, I have seen executions on TV before and I don't think it affected me in any way. Though I would guess the execution will likely have some kind of age verification. 

I think the arguments for this being broadcasted are strong. I do think that transparency for capital punishment is something we should have always been doing, and even many death penalty opponents agree. I also think that sending a message is important. I generally think half the problem with Islamic terrorism is that our enemies don't take us seriously at all. They see weakness in us because we don't do these kinds of things. In their world, hiding an execution is cowardice (though not as cowardly as not executing anyone at all). If you don't believe me I am sure you can see plenty of ISIS and al-Qaeda murders. 

Politically, this might be a mess. I do think that this could "scare the normies" a bit and turn a few people off from the GOP. I can see this playing fairly poorly with women especially. On the other hand, I have seen many accounts on social media that were otherwise unhappy with the Trump administration ecstatic with this move, to the point where folks who were planning on sitting out the midterms will actually vote for Republicans now. My guess is that it will likely end up as a wash. 

As for my thoughts, I am in favor of this. Hasan's actions were unforgivable and execution is a deserved punishment for his actions. Broadcasting it is unusual but I do think it's important to publish it. I have never been very comfortable with how much secrecy there has been around execution in this country and I also think it sends an appropriate message to the terrorists. 

FBI arrests 18 year old man of Somali descent for plot to attack the Mall of America.

 

File photo of the Mall of America. AP.

The FBI has arrested an 18 year old man of Somali descent for a plot to attack the Mall of America. AP. Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud was arrested after purchasing an AK style rifle and 200 rounds of ammo from a federal agent. Mohamud had expressed interest in returning to Somali to fight for al-Shabaab but was unable to afford travel expenses. Instead, he devised a plot to attack the Mall of America and wanted to kill between 30 and 60 people. Mohamud is a descendent of Somali immigrants and is an US citizen. Tens of thousands of people of Somali descent have moved to Minnesota and many of them have been charged for supporting or committing terrorism. 

My Comment:

It's still crazy that so many of these would-be terrorists fall for these FBI stings. You would think it's obvious that the guy that wants to sell you a rifle so you can commit a major terror attack is probably a fed, but apparently it is not. Again, I am thankful terrorists are so stupid. 

That doesn't mean this man wasn't dangerous. Had he simply gotten a low paying job in a few months he would have enough money to buy actual weapons and could have pulled off an attack. Hell, Somali Americans are capable of getting all kinds of government aid and he could have even used that to fund an attack. That this didn't happen is lucky. 

Would an attack have gotten the 30 to 60 casualties with what he had? Probably not. 200 rounds is not much and it didn't seem like he had any training or experience with weapons. And the Mall of America? It's kind of a hard target. It has a large security force and a permanent police presence and I am guessing that he probably would have gotten one magazine off before he was killed. That still could have resulted in multiple casualties, but, regardless, his plan was not a good one. 

What is concerning is that this is not the first time someone of Somali descent has attempted a plot like this. Indeed, it's fairly common. Islamic radicalization is very common in Somalia and it stands to reason that it would disappear once the people came to the United States. And this incident fits the patter where a 2nd generation person ends up radicalized.  

It does seem like bringing in all these Somalians has backfired rather badly for Minnesota especially. They have a huge fraud problem there, largely due to the Somali community and the people that empower them and there is also the terrorism threat. I do expect both of those problems to continue in the future... 

Cornell 7 frat brother makes explosive claim saying that Jane Doe assaulted him.

 

The Chi Phi frat house at Cornell. New York Post.

A fraternity member accused of sexual assault in the Cornell 7 case has made and explosive counter-claim that the Jane Doe in the case actually assaulted him. New York Post. Matthew Ingalls made the statement during Cornell's internal investigation into the incident. Ingalls said that while he was passed out, Jane Doe "sodomized" him (referring to oral sex). Ingalls also said that university was aware that he made the claims against Jane Doe but did not receive any assistance or help because of his gender. Doe's own account said that Ingalls passed out multiple times during the initial sexual encounter. Ingalls was expelled by Cornell after the investigation, and no one has faced charges in the case. 

My Comment:

When I first read about this case I thought that by Jane Doe's original statement, it was very possible that she sexually assaulted at least one of the brothers under New York Law. Male #1 and Male #2 in her statement were showing signs of extreme intoxication and even she admitted that Male #1, Matthew Ingalls, had passed out during the sex. She claimed she stopped having sex with him then, but Ingalls now claims that he was assaulted as he was passed out. 

Indeed, the accusations against Jane Doe are a lot less legally ambiguous than the accusations she made. Under New York Law simple intoxication isn't enough, you have to be drugged against your will. Nothing in Doe's original statement said that she was drugged against her will. 

However, Ingalls accusation is a lot more cut and dry. If he was passed out while Doe was giving him oral sex, that's unambiguously rape. There isn't a legal question there, it's pretty explicit, having sex with an unconscious person, even just oral sex, is highly illegal and if Jane Doe did so she should be charged and convicted.  

Ingalls isn't the only one who has accused Jane Doe of wrong doing. Another brother, Gillio Lopes, said that Jane Doe initiated sexual contact with him without his consent. Again, this is a bit more cut and dry as it doesn't have much to do with how intoxicated Lopes was. Legally, it probably doesn't reach the standard of sexual assault under New York Law, but it would be a violation of Cornell's sexual assault guidelines. 

Of course, people's reactions to these new accusations against Jane Doe will probably tell more about them than the actual facts of this case. I think the feminist supporters of Jane Doe will, at best, not update their priors at all and will simply dismiss the claims of Ingalls and Lopes. At worse they will claim they are making it up. Supporters of the Cornell 7 will likely say this proves that Jane Doe was lying about everything and that at least Ingalls and Lopes were the actual victims. 

However, it's very possible that both groups are wrong and both Ingalls and Jane Doe assaulted each other. If we take both Ingalls and Doe's statements at face value and "believe the victims" than that is what happened. It's very possible that Ingalls passed out, Jane Doe assaulted him, he wakes up, Doe passes out and he assaults her. Then both of them are felons! And, of course, it's not proof either way for the rest of the frat brothers named in the lawsuit, especially the three that said they had no sexual contact with Jane Doe whatsoever. 

I think the ambiguity over this case and the obvious questions over the law more than justifies the fact that this case never made it to an arrest. Ingalls does have a credible claim that he was a victim and Jane Doe is not a good witness given she changed her story. Without clear evidence proving either side is telling the truth, a conviction would be unlikely. Indeed, I think that the original Cornell case outcome is almost fair, two brothers were kicked out for their behavior, which even if Jane Doe's accusations are false, would still be a violation of Cornell's policies, not to mention the drug use. It would be fair if Jane Doe had been expelled too, as, again, without any judgement to the truth to the claims, still voluntarily took illegal drugs. 

What I do think is true is that Cornell did discriminate against Ingalls. If he did indeed report Jane Doe for assault, there should have been an investigation into his claims. I do think that this was not done because Ingalls was a man. He might have a lawsuit against Cornell as well. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, under the laws of the United States, he had just as much of a right to have his accusations examined as Jane Doe. 

Finally, I do think that this case is a lot more complex than folks want to make it out to be. It's an extremely messy and complicated one where there may have been multiple victims. It's not an open and shut case of sexual assault or a clear cut false accusation. And the truth of the matter is that without actual physical evidence or a witness that doesn't have an incentive to lie, we probably won't ever know what exactly happened and who did what to whom. 

It's he-said she-said all the way down and it's a major reason why it's frustrating that this case blew up the way it did. I know some of that is the Democrats trying to blow it up to get young women to vote in the midterms, but honestly this is a case of generating heat, not light. What I do know is that it is pouring fuel on an already raging gender war. 

US pulls B-1B bomber fleet out of RAF Fairford after continuing terror threat.

 

A B-1B Lancer at RAF Fairford. 

The United States has pulled out the B-1B Lancer bomber fleet out of RAF Fairford after a continuing terror threat. NBC News. 12 of the bombers flew out on Sunday after continued threats to the base. Last week, five men were arrested for a possible terror plot while a sixth was arrested as well. All of the suspects were released on bail. Additional threats were reported, including the possibility of a drone attack on the base. Pulling the planes out of RAF Fairford will not prevent the B-1B bombers from striking Iran or other targets but will make any operation more complex and will use more fuel. Iran is suspected in organizing the terror threat against RAF Fairford. 

My Comment:

This is pretty embarrassing for both the United States and the United Kingdom. Pulling these planes out is an admission that the base can't really be defended. Given the lack of security and the fact that nobody answered the phones when the initial incident occurred, it does seem clear that the threat is real. 

The fact that this is embarrassing does not mean that this isn't the right choice. The last time I wrote about this, I mentioned that the B-1B Lancers are irreplaceable. The factory that made them does not do so anymore and we only have about 45 of them, though a few more could be reactivated, the fact is that every airframe is irreplaceable. Losing even one of these jets would greatly damage our capabilities and losing as many as 12 would be a disaster of epic proportions. 

Indeed, the only replacement for the B-1B would be the B-21 Raider, but those are not in wide production. And even if we were to rush them due to the loss of some B-1B airframes, we can only make a few each year given the complexity and expense of the planes. It does raise the question that perhaps we need an additional bomber to make up for the fact that the Raider is the only bomber in production right now. 

I do think that this threat is real. The initial attack now seems like a "dry run" for an actual attack. The initial men only had fuel and no explosives and they were able to threaten the base even with that. A real attack, perhaps involving either drones or explosives, could have done serious damage to the base and the planes stationed there. 

Indeed, we may still see an attack, either at RAF Fairford or some other strategic target in the United Kingdom. Though the B-1B's have been evacuated from the base, there are still US troops there. And there are other bases in the UK or Europe in general that could be chosen as targets instead. Those bases won't have B-1B Lancers but they absolutely could have other targets and the troops at those bases could be targets themselves. 

I do have to say that even if an attack does not happen, this is still a minor victory for Iran. Like I said, the optics of it aren't good and you can't really argue that the threat was enough to push the B-1B's out. It's a minor victory in a war where Iran has been devastated, but a victory nonetheless. The B-1B's can still hit Iran, of course, but the look is not good. 

On a related, but separate topic, I do worry that we could see a terror attack somewhere on October 7th. That is the anniversary of the 2023 attack that started the Gaza War. Muslim terrorists are big on anniversaries and the October 7th attacks were the last major successful one. There was some speculation that the RAF Fairford incident could have been a dry run for an attack on the base on that date, though that is just speculation. But it is very possible the attack, or a unrelated one, could occur on that date. 

Is Russia covering up a plague lab leak?

 

Daria Shipilova along with her coworkers. New York Post/government handout. 

An outbreak of plague is possible after a woman died after being exposed to the bacteria in her work at an anti-plague institute. New York Post. Daria Shipilova died after developing pneumonia after contracting the disease. She had told medical officials that she had broken a vial containing the bacterium that causes the plague, Y. Pestis. She then fell ill and passed away. So far contact tracing has not found any other people infected with the disease. However, questions are being raised by the circumstances of the case with people questioning why Shipilova was not wearing a protective suit. 

My Comment:

Two things can be true at the same time. This is not a major incident, despite the fact that it's gaining a lot of media attention, and that Russia is probably engaging in a coverup. There are real questions how Shipilova contracted the virus and I do question the official story. But I am also not worried about a 2nd Black Death. 

Plague is still no laughing matter. It is a dangerous disease and it regularly kills people. It does spread via close contact and, famously, spreads through insects like fleas. There have been major plague pandemics in the past and there are still minor outbreaks every year. Indeed, the United States usually has a few cases each year due to rodents in the Southwest. 

With that being said, a large outbreak is unlikely. Unlike something like the Coronavirus, Y. Pestis does not spread as easily. It can spread if you get coughed on but it doesn't spread easily. And unlike many other diseases, common antibiotics are able to treat the disease easily. The fact that no new cases have popped up is a good sign that it probably won't happen. 

Indeed, I am not surprised that there was an accident like this. Lab accidents aren't uncommon and though the COVID pandemic was likely caused by a lab leak, incidents like this are a lot more common. 

What is unclear is how Shipilova contracted the plague in the first place. The standard for working with Y. Pestis is to have a full suit, it's a level 3 pathogen and people are supposed to take major precautions while working with it. However, the "broken vial" theory is not the only rumor out there. There are also rumors of field work near Mongolia or a trip to Thailand, both of which could have been the true source of the infection. 

In any case, it is clear that Russia is both taking this incident seriously and aren't really telling the truth about what has happened. Indeed, their story keeps changing. My guess, given the utter notoriety of the pathogen involved, they want to keep panic at a minimum, especially as it looks like an outbreak is unlikely. There is evidence that a panic is happening anyways, given that the article mentioned a possible shortage of antibiotics. 

So what really happened? I am not sure. I do think it's very likely that Shipilova was exposed after breaking a vial. Was she wearing a suit? Possibly, though it wouldn't be the first time that a lab worker in a lab cut corners. But it's more likely that her suit failed, either due to incompetence or accident. It's possible while breaking the vial, she also cut her suit open, or the suit had a filter failure. 

Either way, I don't think this is a very serious incident. I don't expect an outbreak to happen and it already seems like the incident has been contained. This wasn't a weaponized pathogen either, the anti-plague institute is legitimate and not a germ warfare lab. Russia's secrecy and confusion about the actual incident is concerning, but beyond that I have no worries. Like I said, plague isn't that uncommon and neither are lab leaks like this. 

Japan raises fee for permanent residency in effort to control immigration.

 

File photo of Japan. BBC/Getty. 

Japan has raised the fee for permanent residency in an effort to control immigration. BBC. The price has increased 20 times to $1270. Permanent residences will also meant new income, pension and Japanese language requirements. The visa hike is the first in 50 years. Immigration is a hot-button issue in Japan as the country tries to balance an aging population with a labor shortage. Japan's foreign born population was at 4.12 million, a 9.5% increase in 2025. 

My Comment:

As one of the last homogonous Western countries, it is nice to see Japan taking steps to preserve their country from unlimited immigration. This means that Japan will probably have a much brighter future than most Western countries, barring a huge war with China or some act of God. 

Indeed, these restrictions seem like common sense to me. Folks have to pay to play and if they don't they can't stay. They have to work while they are in Japan and make a decent amount of money while doing it and they also have to contribute to pension funds. And, they have to speak the language too! It's like a wish list for what we should have here in America. 

Japan also seems to realize that bringing in millions of people that don't respect the local culture and act however they want is a bad thing. Japan does have a labor shortage, mostly due to an aging population, but the solution to that is not immigration. Some immigration is being allowed but the path the citizenship is hard to attain and citizenship is based on blood, not soil. 

So why are they restricting things now? In short, some of the migrants brought in under the previous administration were not well behaved. Japan has seen a minor uptick in crime, but the source has been migrants. And there have been several high profile incidents of foreigners acting terribly, be they immigrants or immigrants, and that led to the conservative government getting into power and restricting things. Imagine that, a problem arises and the voters elect people to deal with it! It's not just crime, it's the fact that a lot of these people were not fitting in with Japan's culture of respect and cleanliness. 

This new fee structure probably won't do a whole lot. The new restrictions and fees will make it a little harder for less desirable folks to get in while still allowing a few people in to help with the labor shortage. And those people won't automatically become citizens. It might not be a permanent solution for Japan but it's a lot better than what we are doing here in the United States. 

Attempted hijacking foiled by passengers and crew.

 

Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu hugs Yaniv Hayoun still covered in blood. New York Post/GPO.

An attempted hijacking on a Flydubai flight out of Dubai was foiled by passengers and crew. New York Post. The captain of the flight, Smit Machchhar, an Indian national, was attacked and stabbed by his copilot. Machchhar was able to alert his crew that he was under attack. He unlocked the cabin and allowed civilians to help subdue the copilot. One of those passengers, Yaniv Hayoun, an Israeli plumber, helped subdue the attacker as he was pounding on the control panels. He and other passengers were able to subdue the copilot. Hayoun was then able to pull the plane out of a dive due to watching the program Mayday (Air Crash Investigations in the United States). The pilot was able to help at that point and two off-duty pilots were able to land the plane. Hayoun then met with Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu still covered in blood. 

My Comment:

This was a very serious incident and it could have, at the very least, resulted in the deaths of everyone on the plane. The copilot was attempting to sabotage the plane and it was diving. If it weren't for the actions of the pilot, Smit Machchhar and the passengers, including Yaniv Hayoun, this plane would have been destroyed. 

What isn't clear is if this was an attempt to just destroy the plane or if it was an attempt to pull off a 9/11 style attack on Israel itself. Given the circumstances of this incident I am guessing the first scenario is more likely. Given that he was smashing the controls, I am guessing the copilot simply wanted to crash the plane in the Saudi Arabian desert. 

A 9/11 style ramming attack isn't impossible though. It could be that was the copilots original plan but it was disrupted by the pilot, who managed to unlock the cockpit. At that point his plot may have been foiled, and much like United Airlines Flight 93, tried to put the plane on the ground to at least accomplish something. Thankfully that did not come to pass. 

This is pretty clearly an attack on Israel and Israeli citizens. The majority of people on the flight were Israelis returning from Dubai and there is little doubt in my mind that that was the entire point. I doubt that there is going to be any other motive for this attack. 

What is unclear is if the copilot had any help. My guess is that this was a lone wolf attack and one that did not have any involvement with a wider terror network. I am guessing he may have been radicalized online at worst, but this was probably his plan and he didn't get any help.  

Regardless of his actual plan or his alignment to any terror groups, what is clear is that the passengers and crew were heroes here. All of them had to act to save themselves and stop this attack. There were multiple points of failure here that were avoided. 

First, the pilot had to survive long enough to open the door and alert the crew. Then the passengers, along with Hayoun, had to fight and subdue the attacker. Finally, there had to be pilots on board to actually land the plane as I doubt Machchhar would have been able to do so at that point. I do hope that the pilot makes a full recovery from his wounds too, he's a hero, along with the people that fought and the pilots that took over. 

The "Cornel 7" case has erupted on social media. But the case was not brought before now for a good reason.

 

Cornel University. Reason.

A sexual assault case in New York at Cornel University has erupted on social media, but are folks rushing to judgement? Reason. The case shares similarities to other cases than turned out to be false, like the Duke Lacrosse scandal and the UVA case that appeared in Rolling Stone before being retracted. The Jane Doe in the case now alleges that she was gang raped at a frat party. However, charges were not brought when the incident was reported in 2024 as it did not reach the level of criminal activity due to New York's standards on intoxicated sex. According to the original prosecutor, Jane Doe's statement did not allege any non-consensual action. In the statement she said she was involved in two separate threesomes. She originally claimed that neither the sex or the use of alcohol and ketamine was non-consensual and under New York law, that would not be sexual assault. However, Jane Doe filed a lawsuit this year saying that the acts and drug use were not consensual and the investigation has been reopened. 

The statement from the District Attorney can be found here.

Sunny Hostin, a former sex crimes prosecutor, actually defends the Cornell 7. She argues that under New York State law, the girl consented and that the media is "reporting this story inaccurately. I think they're reporting it unfairly."
"The pictures of these young men who have… pic.twitter.com/ZbnJpS8G6R

— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) September 29, 2026

My Comment:

There's a lot to unpack with this case. The first is the dueling narratives that are in place right now, the second is the actual legal standard. We will start with the legal standard first as that explains much of the controversy. 

New York has a fairly strange law when it comes to consent. Most states have a stricter standard where if you attempt to have sex with someone who is intoxicated to the point of incapacitation (to the point where they are not in control of their actions) is considered rape/sexual assault. However, New York, and several other states, have different standard. 

Under New York law, if the intoxication is voluntary, it is not sexual assault. You could still be charged if the person passed out or was completely incapable, but that wasn't alleged in the 2024 report. Jane Doe's statement was that she consented to both the sex and drugs and that she wasn't incapacitated. Given New York's standard it is little surprise that the men were not charged for a crime. Under New York law, no crime was committed based on the original allegations. 

Much of the outrage about this case is folks not understanding the law. Indeed, Jane Doe herself seemed to not understand it either, given that she made the report. You can argue that the New York Standard should not be what it is, but what you can't argue is that given the sworn statement and the law of the state, this was not a rape. 

Of course, that doesn't mean that the case is open and shut. The woman has now amended her statement to say that she did take drugs against her consent. If that can be proven in court, then a conviction would be likely under New York Law. 

However, with the evidence now, I doubt there is going to be a conviction. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that corroborates Jane Doe's statement, like forensic evidence, a statement from a witness or video or other recording of the event. Such evidence could be found, of course, but without it, there is no way that this case reaches the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". 

That's the legal situation, but this is a political story. There are, of course, two dueling narratives. The first one is the feminist "believe all woman" narrative that says we should believe Jane Doe, the men involved are all monsters and that this is proof that white males involved in Greek Life should all be treated as potential rapists (never mind that not all of the accused are white). 

The second narrative is that this case is, at best, a mess, and, at worst, basically blood liable. This narrative suspects that Jane Doe had a lot of kinky sex that she enjoyed and ended up regretting it after she became the "girl at Cornel that likes drug fueled orgies". She's now lying to save face and reputation. The case also has similarities to other cases that have been used by the left politically, including the Duke Lacrosse case, the UVA Rolling Stone story, and the accusations against President Trump and Justice Kavanaugh. 

These two narratives are now battling it out online, another chapter in the gender war which has gotten exceptionally vicious this year. The Lindsay Clancy case damaged things quite a bit, and it is affecting the battle over this case as well. This battle will probably make things worse. 

What is my take? I'm skeptical and fairly disgusted. There are a lot more important things than a single controversial criminal case. Honestly, this isn't an important case legally and the outcome before was fair. The men in this case were not angels and they should and were punished for the drug use if nothing else. But I also don't think, under New York Law, there is any criminal liability and I am afraid it's going to turn into a witch hunt. I really don't like that the men in this case are having their names and pictures blasted across the internet while Jane Doe is still a Jane Doe when they haven't had a chance to defend themselves in court. 

What really angers me about this case is that both the dueling narratives are damaging, regardless of their truth. Women are going to think that men are rapists and men are going to think that women will just falsely accuse them of rape. You can argue until you are blue in the face which narrative is right or wrong, but in either case, its going to make it even more difficult for folks to get together. 

And I am on record as saying the problems men and woman are having getting together is one of the most dangerous things happening in the United States today. Historically, it's not a good thing when millions of men and women are single, especially the men. That's a recipe for revolution and warfare and this story is not going to help things. 

With that being said, I am open to new evidence. If someone corroborates Jane Doe's statement, or some physical evidence is found, I could be convinced that a crime occurred. Sometimes that happens, like the Ahmaud Arbery case. In that case it seemed like an open and shut case of self defense, but evidence was eventually released that showed he was hit by a car while fleeing, which nullified the claims of self defense. I don't think such an outcome is likely in this case, but it's early enough that a break in the case is possible. 

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders ignites firestorm after add depicting white males as lazy welfare recipients.

 

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Fox News/Getty. 

Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders has ignited a firestorm after an advertisement depicting white males as lazy welfare recipients. Fox News. The ad, made to promote a policy that requires work for welfare, stars a white male named "Brad". Brad is depicted as a lazy video game playing loser gorging himself on junk food. However, he was also depicted as white, which does not match the demographics of welfare recipients at all. The advertisement caused immediate backlash, with Sanders seemingly not understanding the reaction. Many conservatives said the ad was both inaccurate and tone deaf and questioned the intelligence of insulting a group that is a major GOP demographic.

 

You pay taxes to cover welfare for people who just choose not to work. That’s why I launched a welfare-to-work requirement.

If you’re young, healthy, and get government assistance, you should work, go to school, or volunteer. pic.twitter.com/M83nxNMdry

— Sarah Huckabee Sanders (@SarahHuckabee) September 28, 2026

My Comment:

I know there are some people that are theorizing that the GOP is purposely trying to tank the midterms and though I don't think that is what is happening here, I certainly get the argument. For a sorta of younger white male who likes to play video games during my time off work, this seemed like a direct middle finger towards me and if I was in Arkansas I'd at least consider not voting for Sanders because of it. I can't think of an advertisement which has played worse for me, and, given the reaction online, I don't think I am alone. 

The obvious problem is that young white males are about the least likely group to ever be on welfare. There are a few, obviously, but the numbers are extremely small given the actual demographics of government assistance. Most government assistance goes to women, minorities, children and the elderly. And young men? The ones that work are the ones paying for it. But Sanders took the cowardly way out, depicting "Brad" as a White Male instead of a Black female or immigrant from some random country.  And Sanders isn't the first person in the GOP to do this, other people, like Speaker of the House Johnson and Congressman Bobert, have said similar things about young men being lazy and playing video games, but saying it's White folks. 

And that's assuming young men can get jobs at all. A lot of noise was made about the fact that almost all of the new jobs under President Trump have gone to women. And there is still the simmering issue of H1B visas and illegal immigration taking jobs that would otherwise go to young men (and not just young White men, Blacks and Hispanics are getting screwed by this too). Though the economy is strong, that hasn't translated into good jobs for young men, and even when those jobs are available they have to compete with much of the world to get them. And that's not even counting the fact that HR departments are using AI to filter out applicants before they even get a chance to interview! 

What is more is how tone deaf it is for trying to get out the vote. The winning message in 2024 was that the economy was rigged against young White Men (and men in general) and that the GOP was going to be the party to fix it. Though efforts have been made by the Trump administration, and things are better than they were, the popular sentiment is that not enough has been done to help the demographic that helped the party win. Indeed, many folks are genuinely angry that the Trump administration has focused so hard on foreign policy, and I have to agree, even though I generally approve of Trump's foreign policy. 

So what is the message here? Young White Males are video game addicted losers that are scamming everyone else? How is that any different from what the Democrats are saying? The whole point of putting the GOP into office is to stop that message and offer something else, jobs, money and respect, that the Democrats refuse to give them. But we got the exact opposite from Sarah Huckabee Sanders. 

I do think that ever since the assassination of Charlie Kirk the GOP has had a major messaging problem for young people. Kirk was young enough and talked to enough young people to understand that young men are in trouble and need help, not a lecture. Though this ad might have happened regardless, I do think that Kirk would have been able to talk a lot of young men angry about this ad off the ledge and get them out to vote. But he's dead and I don't know if anyone in the GOP has the perspective he had, let alone the voice. 

So who was Sanders making this ad for? My guess is Boomers. Despite essentially all being on welfare, as what else could Social Security and Medicare be called, Boomers have as their generational story that they were the folks that worked hard. The younger generation? They are all lazy takers, despite the fact that they are the ones paying into those programs now in the first place, even though most of them believe they won't ever get the benefits that the Boomers are getting now. Given how red of a state Arkansas is, it might even work for Sanders, she doesn't need young people when the GOP has a lock on Boomers (and Silents and Gen X to a lesser degree). This kind of ad is catnip for them. But  I don't think she seems to understand or care that a short term gain for her is doing permanent damage to the Republican Party.

What message would be better? Almost anything really, but I know what I want to hear from the Republican Party is something like this: "We love and respect young White Males and know that you folks are working hard to make this country great again. We want to ensure that you won't be discriminated against and want to make sure you can succeed. We know you don't want a handout, but a fair chance to get a good job, a good home and a good wife and we want to get rid of the obstacles that the Democrats have put into place to stop you". Why that isn't the message for the 2026 midterms, instead of the slop we are getting from people like Sanders is beyond me. 

UK police disrupt major terror plot targeting RAF Fairford.

 

A B1B Lancer stationed at RAF Fairford. AP. 

A major terror attack on an airbase in the UK has been disrupted thanks to a vigilant citizen. AP. The attack would have involved three vehicles with explosives targeting RAF Fairford, a base used by the United States military. The base has been used to launch attacks against Iran and has several Air Force B1B Lancer bombers. Five men were arrested after a citizen say them wearing masks and driving towards the base. Police arrested them and bomb disposal units were called. It is unclear who is responsible for the plot, though Iran is largely seen as the most likely suspect after they declared bases like RAF Fairford to be legitimate military targets. 

My Comment:

This was a serious plot and if it wasn't for someone calling the cops on these guys, it may have succeeded. The attackers had explosives and they may have been able to blow the gate into the base and once that happened, they could have targeted the bombers or their hangers. And, even worse, they could have detonated the bombs in the town itself if the operation failed.  

I have no question that the B1B Lancers were the main targets. The US Air Force only has 45 B1B's, though they could probably reactivate a few that are currently mothballed. Losing even one of those to a terror attack would be devastating, let alone a few. Plus this attack could have knocked out the base for awhile too, meaning that any further strikes on Iran would be difficult. But losing any B1B's, let alone as many as a full squadron would be devastating. The type is slowly being replaced by the B21 Raider, but barely any of those have been built. 

So who was responsible for this attack? I would say that it's almost certainly Iran. Iran said this base was a legitimate target and they are absolutely capable of carrying out an attack like this. The suspects were described as Middle Eastern, and they absolutely have a motive to destroy as many B1B Lancers as they could. 

Iran isn't the only suspect though. I guess this could have been a terror organization like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. But I don't really see that being likely. Those terror groups go for civilian targets for the most part and are more about causing casualties, not degrading capabilities like this attack was. I also doubt it was the Russians. Though Russia is capable of this kind of attack and they have some ethnicities that could conceivably be described as "Middle Eastern", they don't really have a reason to attack an Air Force base. Indeed, trying to escalate the Ukraine war by targeting a base that isn't really a threat to them seems idiotic to me, and I don't think the Russians are that stupid. 

This attack was not a justifiable one, assuming Iran was the attacker. For one, the UK isn't really a party to the war and launching an attack on an airbase would be an act of war. The attackers also committed perfidy by not wearing uniforms and wearing civilian outfits. The target itself, the bombers and crew at the base, may have been valid targets, but this was not a valid attack. Indeed, had it succeeded, it may have drawn the UK into the war directly, though you never can tell with the current state of the UK. 

Either way, if it is proven that this was an Iranian attack, it will likely draw a response, perhaps from the very bombers that were the targets of this attack. It also means that a peace deal, already a longshot before the midterms, is probably dead for some time. Keep in mind, Iran reopened negotiations last week, to launch this attack while that is happening is not going to play well at all diplomatically. A new round of strikes isn't guaranteed, indeed, we don't even know Iran is responsible at this point. But I do think they are more likely now than they were before. 

The United States and Iran are discussing ending the war in a phased shutdown. Will it happen before the midterms?

 

Vessels stacked up in the Strait of Hormuz. Reuters. 

The United States and Iran are discussing ending the war in a phased shutdown. Reuters. The meeting happened in New York during the UN Assembly. The deal would potentially end the blockade against Iran and would fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Both sides have motivations to end the conflict. Iran is being crushed economically due to the blockade while the United States has been affected by high gas prices due to the conflict, which is also affecting the 2026 midterm elections. However, both sides do not want to give up the leverage they have over each other, Iran could believe they could get a better deal after the midterms. And President Trump could be content to let Iran's economy collapse. Still, talks could ease tensions and prevent the on-and-off conflict from erupting again. 

My Comment:

Somewhat promising news from the Iran conflict. The war has been in a limbo where not much has been happening. No talks have been happening and very little has been happening in the way of combat either. Indeed, the Yemen conflict has been the main issue lately, though that is mostly a Saudi problem. 

Fortunately it does seem like the Iranians are using the the UN meeting as an opportunity to talk. Talk is always preferable than not talking and it could mean a negotiated settlement will come. Indeed, that seems like the only realistic way to end the war, the only other possibilities are the Iranian regime collapsing (which isn't likely) or America getting tried of the farce and going home. Neither of those are likely, so it will likely end with talks. 

The problem is that the Iranians aren't rational actors. Indeed, if they were the war would have never started in the first place or, at the very least, would have ended months ago. It's very possible they will continue to be obstinate because they don't actually care what's best for them or their country. 

I do agree that both sides have a major reason to end the war. The blockade and sanctions against Iran have been fairly successful. And remember, Iran's economy was already in shambles before the conflict even begun. They had major environmental problems and were already experiencing hyperinflation. They just can't keep going economically and something is eventually going to have to give. 

As for Trump and the Untied States, I think there is less pressure there and it's mostly political in nature. There is a problem with depleted weapons stocks, which has been overblown but is real, but it's mostly about the midterms. I think the war's impact is overstated and, at the very least, the Republicans are going to keep the Senate, but the chances of keeping the House grow if the war ends and gas prices go down. There's absolutely a motivation to end the conflict. 

However, I do think that Trump isn't willing to sell the farm just for an advantage in the Midterms. He wants the best deal he can get and isn't going to settle for something that doesn't give him the advantage. And he might be more concerned about the 2028 elections than the 2026 midterms. His thinking might be "it's worth it to lose the house if it means the GOP keeps the Presidency in 2026" and that would be more difficult if the Iran war flares up again in 2027 or 2028. 

Either way, the Iran conflict has lasted way longer than it should have. It should have ended months ago and I could see the Iranian's screwing it up again. If I was optimistic, it's a 50-50 chance that these talks lead to anything, but I am not at this point and it's probably 70-30 that it won't amount to much. Still, at least there is an effort to end the war. 

Why are the Saudis having so much trouble against the Houthis in Yemen?

 

A screengrab showing combat in Yemen. Times of Israel/AFP.

Despite wealth and modern weapons, the Saudis are having major issues in the fight against the Houthis in Yemen. Times of Israel. Saudi Arabia has bought billions of dollars worth of weapons from Western nations, most recently a $24.3 billion deal for 48 F-35 fighter planes. But they have been unable to prevent the Houthi rebels from taking almost all of the coastline of the Red Sea, blocking oil traffic from the Saudis and even striking Riyadh itself. Despite the advantage in weaponry, Saudi Arabia's military is viewed as weak due to concerns over a military coup. The Saudis have also has issues with their allies. Local Yemeni forces complain of a lack of weapons and support. The Saudis have also alienated their UAE allies after the UAE took over government areas in Yemen. The Saudis objected to that and the UAE left the conflict, but the Saudis were not able to take up the slack. The US and Britain also launched strikes against the Houthis in the past, but so far the United States has refused to launch strikes against the Houthis, given diplomatic efforts from the Houthis themselves along with not being willing to open another front in the Iran conflict. 

My Comment:

The Saudis are proof that money can't buy you anything. You can buy the most advanced weapons in the world but if you don't have the will to use them, you will still lose. And that is what is happening with the Saudis in Yemen now. 

Though the article mentioned it, the main problem is the weakness of the Saudi allies in Yemen. It's the same old military problem in the Middle East. They have the same kind of problems they had in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ghost soldiers are a real problem and it's pretty common for a lot of these units to exist in name only. That's a good example of there not being enough local control over these units and it's a huge problem and it's a major reason why these forces collapsed. 

The Saudi military has their own issues. In short, the Kingdom does not want a strong military that could ever be a threat towards the Royal Family. They have kept their military weak and they don't really have a lot of people that are competent. 

Alienating their allies has been a big issue as well. I don't really understand why the UAE's actions last year angered them so much. But kicking them out of Yemen without being able to replace them was a huge mistake and it's a major reason why everything in Yemen went so badly. Given that the UAE has a pretty competent military it was obviously a mistake to send them out. 

I do think this is a major reason why Israel remains a major ally of the United States. The Gulf States in general are pretty bad at warfare, while Israel is a lot more powerful and competent. I don't think the Saudis could have done anything like the Israelis did during the Iran conflict and the conflict in Yemen shows that the they have a lot more to offer. 

As for the conflict itself, I do hope we stay out of it. It does seem like the Saudis are pushing us to back their play but it also seems like Trump is very much suspicious of doing so. Given the Houthis are playing nice it's likely we will avoid getting dragged into this war. 

I do have to say that it's important to note that the Houthis themselves are tough fighters. For being a bunch of backward people that are addicted to khat, they absolutely know how to fight. They have been consistently punching above their level and though the Saudi military is fairly weak, it's impressive that they can stand up to them so effectively. Plus, how many other rebel groups can pull off ballistic missile strikes?  

Canadian MAiD case erupts in controversy as family alleges that an 83 year old grandmother died without her consent.

 

Brigitte Stegemann (left) and her granddaughter Brigitte Kranendonk. Fox News. 

The family of a 83 year old woman who died under Canada's Medically Assistance in Dying program is alleging that she was killed against her will. Fox News. The woman, Brigitte Kranendonk, suffered from stomach cancer and her granddaughter, Brigitte Stegemann, had power of attorney over her. She was in an elderly care program and while the daughter was on vacation, a nurse recommended MAiD for Kranendonk. Stegemann claimed that Kranendonk had opposed MAiD for religious grounds, but when she returned Kranendonk had already been signed up. She also alleges that the doctors misled her grandmother and that she appeared to not understand what was happening. The incident brings further criticism of Canada's MAiD program, which is now responsible for 1 in 20 deaths in the country. An investigation into this case is ongoing and could lead to charges. 

My Comment:

I don't think I have changed my mind on any other issue more than these assisted suicide laws and what is happening in Canada is a major reason why. "Canadian healthcare" use to be a left wing talking point in favor of socialized medicine but now? Now it's shorthand for a government killing its citizens. 

To be fair, nothing in this case has been tried yet. It's possible that the granddaughter is wrong and that Kranendonk truly did want to die. She did have cancer and could have been in pain. It's possible the granddaughter was seeing things that weren't there or is trying to be an advocate. 

However, that seems unlikely. I can't say for sure that this case is exactly how it has been described, but I would put money on it given what I have heard in similar cases from Canada. I am guessing that Stegemann is telling the truth. And if she is? Then this is murder, not assisted suicide, even by the laws of Canada. 

I don't really trust Canada to actually investigate this either. Sure, there is the idea that they might want to come down hard on any violators of the law so folks will have faith in the program, but I doubt it. Canada has made MAiD a keystone program of their healthcare and I doubt they would relish a case that calls it into question. I don't think they will be able to cover anything up, but I don't think the investigation will be valid either. 

Regardless, I do think that this case shows that the MAiD program is a mess. It seems very clear that the nurses and doctors are pushing MAiD as hard as they can. I won't speculate too much what the motivation in this case is, but it could be that they were true believers and actually thought they were helping, regardless of what Kranendonk wanted. 

But my real fear is that MAiD is mostly used to save money for Canada's socialized medicine. End of life care is expensive and by ending the life of 1 in 20 Canadians is probably saving millions of dollars. So there is a real incentive there to push it on vulnerable people, like this 83 year old grandmother. That might not have been what happened here, but it seems very possible. 

Houthi Rebels say they won't target anyone but the Saudis, warn other countries from joining the war.

 

Houthi supporters in Sanaa. AP.

The Houthi Rebels have said that they won't target anyone but the Saudis but warned other countries against getting involved in the conflict. AP. Washington had reached out to the Houthis and an agreement was made that neither side would attack each other. The Houthis said they would not attack any other countries ships transiting the Red Sea. Oman had hosted the meeting between the United States and the Houthis. The Houthis are demanding that the Saudis end their blockade against rebel areas that they have imposed during the civil war. The Houthis have had some success lately against the Yemeni government and have launched major attacks against Saudi Arabia. 

My Comment:

After years of stalemate the situation in Yemen seems to have escalated dramatically. The Houthis have taken most of the territory on the Red Sea and have even launched major attacks on Saudi targets. Indeed, right now the attacks on Saudi oil production is a major reason why gas prices exploded last week. 

The situation is an embarrassment for the Saudis as they have never been able to deal with the Houthis. The fact that not only are the Saudi allies in Yemen getting devastated this last couple of weeks. And they have not been able to defeat Houthi attacks on their homeland. It's part of the reason why the oil markets were panicking, they just couldn't deal with the Houthis and their attacks. 

The Saudis aren't putting boots on the ground but they are training the Yemeni forces opposed to the Houthis. They are also launching heavy air strikes in support of these forces. But it hasn't been enough. The Houthis are tough fighters. They have been very resilient to these kinds of attacks and are on the offensive. 

The real fear was that other countries were going to be dragged into this conflict. Indeed, I had feared that Trump's return from Camp David early this weekend had more to do with Yemen than Iran. Thankfully I appear to have been wrong. The Houthis are, as of this writing, saying they don't want to fight anyone but the Saudis. And the United States and Israel don't seem to be willing to back up their Saudi allies. 

Could it happen in the future? Of course. But I don't think either side really wants to be involved in Yemen. The United States and Israeli military are a lot more competent than the Saudis and the Houthis don't particularly want to face that kind of firepower. And nobody wants to be dragged into another conflict while the Iran conflict is still raging. 

The problem is that these attacks on Saudi oil facilities is not helping oil prices, which are already high due to the Iran conflict and the Russia-Ukraine War. This report might calm things down a bit, but I am guessing lower fears over Yemen will be outweighed by the bad news from Russia this weekend where Ukraine launched major attacks on their oil facilities as well. And the Iran conflict still lingers on. 

US and Denmark make breakthrough deal on Greenland.

 

Nuuk Greenland. Reuters. 

The United States and Denmark have made a breakthrough deal on Greenland. Reuters. The deal will expand the US military presence on the island far beyond a previous 1951 agreement. The agreement, which has no end date and would apply even if Greenland would gain independence from Denmark, also prevents foreign adversaries from building military bases there. The United States already has a small Space Force base, formally known as Thule, in Greenland. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that the new agreement answers all of America's security concerns with the island. President Trump had said in the past that he wanted to acquire Greenland, though those efforts will likely be dropped with the new deal. 

My Comment:

Looks like Trump's months of saber rattling last year paid off, Greenland is now under de facto US military control. Though we already had a lot of power over the island militarily, this new deal goes a lot further and will likely result in new bases being built beyond whatever they are calling Thule now (Pituffik Space Base). 

Though the specifics of this deal are still unknown what is known is that US dominance over Greenland in terms of the military will now last for the foreseeable future, even if Greenland leaves Denmark. Given how critical the island is for the military defense of the United States and how unreliable our allies our, especially in Canada, this is a coup. 

It also ensures that America's adversaries, most notably China and Russia, won't be able to sneak into Greenland either. Though I don't think either nation has the ability or desire to take over Greenland, this will also prevent them from becoming friendly with Greenland and will ensure that they won't be able to get a toehold there any time soon.

This is a pretty big win for the Trump administration and I think it's one that following administrations, be they Republican or otherwise, will appreciate regardless. Like I said, Greenland is critical for US defense given how useful it is as an early warning base. It also sits on major trade routes, and has a lot of mineral resources. It also has about as much oil as the United States has left, though that's more of a long term opportunity given the obvious difficulty drilling for it in Artic conditions would imply. 

I do think this is another example of Trump's more aggressive foreign policy being useful. By demanding Greenland itself, Trump was able to secure a deal where he got everything he wanted in the first place. And I don't think this deal would have happened if it wasn't for the fact that Trump was saber rattling. 

98% of jobs created last month went to women...

 

File photo of women at work. Fortune/Getty.

98% of jobs created in August went to women. Fortune. The jobs report for August was good, with 162,000 new jobs, far exceeding expectations, but 158,000 of them went to women while only 4000 went to men. Though one month of data can be considered noisy, it does show a trend. Women make up the majority of the workforce now for the third time in history, but unlike the past two times, the Great Recession and the pandemic, the problem is which jobs are being added and who is getting them. Indeed, some industries, most notably leisure and hospitality, had more than 100% growth for women as men lost their jobs in the sector. 

My Comment:

This story is a few days old but it blew up yesterday because Trump decided to weigh in on it. President Trump put out a post on Truth Social touting these numbers and to say that his male supporters are upset is an understatement. To be fair, he was talking about the longer term data that claims that women have gotten half a million new jobs during his 2nd term while men have lost 6000. 

pic.twitter.com/6vMFd79KZB

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 7, 2026

It's another example of Trump putting his foot in his mouth. Women mostly hate Trump so pandering to them is pretty useless. But men are Trump's biggest supporters and they last thing they want to hear is that jobs are going to women, not men. Though it's a minor gaffe that folks will probably forget about in a week, it's an entirely avoidable one. 

And I think it has a lot to do with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Kirk was a lot more important than folks realized and I think this is an example why. Kirk was a younger Millennial and he was able to connect with young men in a way nobody else in the Trump circle was able to do. Had Kirk still been alive I think he would have absolutely advised Trump to not post what he did and he would be steering the administration into focusing on this issue. 

So why is this happening? There's a ton of new jobs getting created, the economy isn't actually bad. It's just those jobs are ones that are in female dominated industry including health care, teaching, local governments and hospitality. The jobs that men want? They aren't showing up to the same degree.

Some of this is due to active discrimination though. HR Departments are still captured by DEI. Though few men would want to be in these industries the fact is that if they do try they often get discriminated against and have difficulty getting hired in the first place. 

Some of it is also due to Trump's success in curtailing immigration, legal and otherwise. Many of the jobs lost were ones that were held by immigrants, legal or otherwise. With 2 million folks, at the very least, being deported or going home willingly, and almost all of them being male, it's going to affect the male working rate. 

 

Judge declares mistrial in Lindsay Clancy case

 

Lindsay Clancy supporters. The Boston Globe. 

A judge has declared a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case. BBC. Clancy admitted to strangling her three children, aged 5, 3 and 8 months, before cutting herself and throwing herself out the window. She then plead not guilty by reason of mental illness under Massachusetts lack of criminal responsibility law. The case was in extended deliberations and it turned out that one jury stood alone wanting to convict her. Despite last minute efforts by the defense to extend the trial, including an appeal to the State Supreme Court that failed, the judge declared a mistrial as the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Clancy will be held in the same mental hospital she has been held in since committing the murders.

Clancy, her ex-husband Patrick and the three children she killed. BBC.

My Comment:

There are two aspects to this case I find baffling, to say the least. The first is that there were 11 jurors and a whole lot of people that watched this case somehow thought that Clancy was not responsible for her murder of three of her own children. The second is the actual courtroom drama itself. The first issue is the more important one but the second is where I am going to start. 

To begin, there were quite a few irregularities in this case, to say the least. The jury was not sequestered, which I am told is standard in Massachusetts, even for cases of this profile. This case is an good example of why that is a bad thing as it was also pretty clear that the jury was being influenced by outside forces. The jurors were likely able to see the news and social media coverage of this case, even despite jury instructions,  and I think it influenced the final vote and certainly two jurors showed up in court wearing pink, which was adopted by Clancy's supporters for some reason. 

There was also an arrest for jury intimidation as a true crime blogger showed up at the trial and started photographing the jurors. She got charged for this, but who know if that had an impact as well? Certainly it may have affected the jury knowing that their faces could be out there and that their decision would not remain anonymous. 

But what really got me is that the lone hold out was semi-doxed by the court. We know he alone wanted a conviction and that he was a man. Normally that stuff stays locked down tight and when a jury is deadlocked we only know that it is deadlocked, not the vote and who did it. I fear now, with this information out there, that his life is going to be ruined if his name actually gets out there. I think he was extremely brave to continue to stand up for his take on the case even knowing that it could end up backfiring on him and his courage did restore a bit of faith in jury trials that otherwise would have been destroyed by this case.

Much of the problem might be Massachusetts insanity law. Under their lack of criminal responsibility standard, the defense is one that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. This is the exact opposite of most states where insanity is an affirmative defense, one that has to be proven by the defense. It seems to me that the jury may have gotten hung up on this and read too much into the standard (raising it to "beyond any doubt").

In my view, Clancy was mentally ill, but not insane. She knew what she was doing was wrong, she planned it and even called her husband in the middle of the murders so she would have more time to kill her last kid. I don't believe she was suffering from PPD or PPP, just standard depression, and she was in control over her actions the whole time. But under Massachusetts law you have to prove all that beyond a reasonable doubt. Without watching the trial it's hard to figure out if the prosecution screwed up, or if the jury really was affected by the media and social media firestorm that was this case.

Regardless, this case would not have been important at all without the frankly shameful actions by the supporters of Lindsay Clancy. There are many child murders in this country, sad as it is to say, and many trials where the insanity defense is brought up, but they don't blow up. This blew up because Clancy got support online somehow.  The fact that she had any supporters at all is shocking and something I have been having an existential crisis over. It's not something that should have ever happened.

You can make an argument that Clancy was insane during her crime and by Massachusetts law she should go to a mental hospital instead of prison. I don't agree with that, but I can see the argument. But that's not what a lot of Clancy's supporters were doing. Instead they were making insane claims that she was totally innocent and that every woman has the same feelings and desires that Clancy had, the desire to murder her kids. They were also arguing that no women could be held responsible for their crimes if their hormones were giving them mental issues. Ironically that was the old misogynist argument against giving women rights in the first place, but it's now being used unironically by supposedly feminist women. And the level of hatred, actual hatred, for Patrick Clancy, is beyond the pale. And it seems to mostly come from the fact that he moved on after he divorced the woman who murdered his children and destroyed his family. 

Some of these women were also using it to advocate their own hobby horse issues, saying that post-partum depression and psychosis are major issues that should be covered more and that the medical industry shouldn't hand out prescriptions like crazy (though in this case it was Lindsay Clancy that was prescription shopping with multiple doctors). I'd even agree with most of that, but it's insane to me that they would pick such an awful example to use. Like I said, I don't believe that Clancy had PPD or PPP and, if anything, she should have been regularly taking her meds. 

If women were reacting to this case with support of Clancy (not just emotional, Clancy raised over $1 million for her defense), men's reaction has been different to say the least. I won't speak for my entire gender, but it does seem clear that something broke in this case. It may have been the "women are wonderful" effect. Most men (and women for that matter) tend to put women on a pedestal and end up treating women better than men, it's a demonstrated effect in psychology that is well documented. But I think a lot of men are now thinking this has gone way too far. Because I don't think there is any argument that if this case had been with a male offender and all other facts were the same, he would absolutely go to prison. 

I do think this case is going to further damage relations between men and women. Given that relations are already so bad that the birthrate has collapsed and a huge number of young men are going to be perpetually single for their entire lives if nothing changes, this is a very bad thing. I don't think women really understand just how badly it plays for men to see women chanting support for a family annihilator, let alone blaming the husband for her crime. 

Indeed, I have seen some anecdotal evidence that this case has already destroyed some relationships and it's not hard to understand why. No one is going to want to stay with someone who thinks its at all justified or excusable to murder three children, and men are, quite logically, breaking up with people who do think that way. 

The one question I am seeing from young men over and over is "what happened to women, why are they like this?" It's not one I have an easy answer for either. It's clearly not all women, there were obviously a lot of women just as baffled as I was that this case blew up the way it did and think that Clancy should either spend the rest of her life in prison or be sent to the gallows, but there is a large faction of women who supported Clancy. And it's not even a left v right issue, there were voices on the right, even discounting clearly insane ones like Candace Owens, who were supporting Clancy too. 

If I have any answer at all it might be the proliferation of algorithm-based short form video. This case blew up on TikTok and I have always said that the short form video they specialize in is extremely potent propaganda, as the videos are short enough to be effective but not long enough where you actually have to think. And the algorithm makes it even worse as it is only going to show you stuff that you already agree with. And given the consensus based thinking that a lot of women (and more than a few men) suffer from, it's incredibly easy to get folks to agree with things that would otherwise be laughed at when you don't actually get exposed to opposing viewpoints.   

And it absolutely scares me that there may be copycat cases because of this trial blowing up the way it did. Even today news broke about another mother that murdered her son. In that case a mother killed her two year old child and attempted suicide only a few hours after having a discussion with her friends about Lindsay Clancy. I have said for a long time that social contagion is a thing, it's why I am always reluctant to cover mass shootings unless there is a good reason to do so, and I think the coverage in this case may lead to further copycat murders. 

 

Bernie Sanders floats banning super intelligent AI.

 

Senator Bernie Sanders. Politico/Getty.

Senator Bernie Sanders has floated legislation that would ban super intelligent AI. Politico. The ban would punish anyone who developed a super intelligent AI with 20 years in prison. Critics say such a ban would handicap the United States against China. Sanders has also called for a moratorium on data center construction. Such legislation would face strong headwinds in Congress and might be ruled illegal by the courts. However, the ban and moratorium might be popular with voters deeply skeptical of AI. 

My Comment:

There's very little chance of this passing. Not only would the tech companies not go along with it, the executive branch would have a fit as well. There is zero chance that the United States would simply wave the white flag to China and allow them to develop advance AI while leaving ourselves without similar technology. It would essentially be suicide. I think there is less than a 1% chance of this legislation happening and even if it did, I think the courts and the executive branch would prevent it form going into effect. 

Not that I think a true super intelligence, in the way sci fi people define it, is likely any time soon. AI can, and already does, some things better than humans, but they are not sentient and still make major mistakes. Such a thing might be possible in the far future, but I am skeptical in the short term at the very least. I generally think it's another example of the Whig view of history, where people assume that society will keep advancing and there will never be any regression. I think we absolutely could end up with hurdles that will take decades or even centuries to overcome when it comes to AI super intelligence, if they ever get solved at all

Do I think there are dangers to advanced AI? Sure, there are dangers with every technology. Many of them are not predictable before the technology is released. But the AI safety "sci-fi tech uprising" that ends humanity? That's not one of them. AI could do a lot of things, many of them bad, but I don't see them gaining actual sapience, which would be required for malice. 

Regardless, Sanders is a savvy political operator and I don't think this is about super intelligent AI. Sanders is a communist (ok, a socialist), and his objection isn't that AI may go rogue and kill us all, it's that companies are making a profit. He's just exploiting popular sentiment that is critical of AI. 

So why are people critical of AI? I don't think it has a thing to do with AI safety. Much of it is simply fear of change. There are always winners and losers when a new technology is rolled out. Horses lost out when the automobile was invented, industrial workers lost out when robotic automation became common and now a lot of entry level white collar jobs are going to disappear as well, and many already have. It's pretty natural to be opposed to a chance when it does in fact harm people, but that also usually doesn't do a thing to stop progress. 

The other problem is that the current tech barons don't understand the concept of noblesse oblige. The old robber barons of history were also centers of progress and made their millions by changing the world. But unlike the tech barons, they understood that in order to keep the loyalty of the people, they had to give something back. So they built museums, parks, colleges and charities. 

Today's tech barons? They don't do any of that, at least not for Americans. Many of them send their billions to the third world, not really caring if they have a positive effect or not (a good example is the mosquito nets they buy being used for overfishing). Even Elon Musk, who is probably the most benevolent of the tech barons, hardly gives anything back to the people, most of his spending is political. To be fair, he does give folks access to Starlink during disasters, but that's the exception that proves the rule. 

In that, I guess I have to grudgingly admit that Sanders might have a bit of a point. If we want AI (and I think we should), I do think that these tech barons have to shape up. Sander's solution is idiotic of course, but I would argue that the tech barons should indeed be giving back to the people out of naked self interest if nothing else. I don't think people would be anywhere near as opposed to AI and data centers if the tech companies cut a check to improve their lives.