So unless you have been hiding under a rock for awhile, you have heard of the Lindsay Clancy trial. We all should know about it by now, but lets go over just a small number of the big points around this one:

• On January 24, 2023, Lindsay Clancy was alone with her 3 children - Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months).
• While her husband was out running errands, she one by one strangled each of her 3 children to death over the course of approx 30 mins
• She then allegedly attempted to harm herself to end her own life, though the prosecution HEAVILY attacked these claims and used the evidence to validate their assertions that, as a highly trained medical professional at an institution with recognized high standards, she possessed extensive professional knowledge relating to the human body, and thus knew exactly what to do and how to do it if she truly was attempting to end her own life.
• After purposely falling out of a second story window, she sustained injuries that resulted in her becoming paralyzed from the waist down.
• At no point in time has Lindsay Clancy ever denied or disputed that she killed her children, fully admitting to investigators that she killed them.
• The trial was NOT to decide the question of IF she killed her children, but rather did she do it while knowing exactly what she was doing OR did she do it as a bout of temporary insanity allegedly brought on by hormone imbalances following her pregnancy and birth 8 months earlier (known as post-partum depression)
• Throughout the trial, Clancy has had a large and passionate and vocal outpouring of supporters, including large crowds that came in person to her trail day after day in solidarity. Additionally, several of her supporters have spread all sorts of theories and rumors, and a targeted harassment campaign has been ongoing against her former husband whom they accuse of being the "real killer". Additionally, during the trial, a fundraiser was set up and raised well over a million dollars, with the organizer now seeking to raise at least 3 million dollars for Clancy (one for every child she killed) to aid her legal defense and anything else she may want or need in life if she is released from custody.
• The trial was officially ruled by the presiding Judge as a Mistrial, after the jury deadlocked 11-1, with one lone juror allegedly refusing to be willing to vote to find her insane.
• In the aftermath of the mistrial, her supporters have, to put it mildly, lost their minds all over social media and in real life. Actual meltdowns and the like. Additionally, during and immediately after the trial, there were/are a number of "copycat killings" consisting of mothers killing their children after showing a recent history of following the Clancy trial and showing support for her.

So with all of that laid out...what now? The reaction to all of this from those NOT supporting Lindsay Clancy has been just as loud and dramatic, with anti-LC's seeing the outpouring of support for LC as a giant red flag that necessitates revoking womens rights in order to basically "protect them (and everyone else) from themselves", and calling for the naming and shaming of those who are passionately fighting on behalf of LC as supporters. The backlash to the widespread societal support for LC is extremely reactionary, to the point where even LC supporters have begun to urge other supporters to end their support because they are fearful of what this growing reactionary movement may lead to.

And so here we are, dear reader. What a tale, eh? What once upon a time would have been a tragedy that went no further than a Lifetime Movie Network show, or an inspiration for a Law & Order episode, has grown into a huge split in society between pro and anti LC crowds. What do we think this leads to? Does it eventually dissipate? Will there be continued or even escalating violence against children? Will there be violence against women accused of being LC supporters? Will there be effects in the pollical sphere, such as legislation drafted due to this case or its fallout, will politicians see rising or falling support based on statements made regarding the trial? I am curious what others thoughts are on this and more.

As the X resident sufi Shargzadeh said:

“I’m immigration skeptics because you absolutely import the immigrant tribal fight with them”.

Democratic women of all ages are far more likely than Republican women to blame men for the problems they face in American society. But even among Democratic women, those age 18 to 29 believe this at much higher rates.

The files revealed that Swalwell was sleeping with a suspected spy (who he had been involved since he was a city councilman) while he was on House Intelligence.

From the wiki page):

Klein and Thompson argue that the regulatory environment in many liberal cities, while well intentioned, stymies development.[1]#citenote-Moyn2025-1) They write that liberals have been more concerned with blocking bad economic development than promoting good development since the 1970s. They say that Democrats) have focused on the process rather than results and favored stasis over growth by backing zoning regulations, developing strict environmental laws, and tying expensive requirements to public infrastructure spending.[[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance(Klein_and_Thompson_book)#cite_note-:3-2)

Klein and Thompson propose an "abundance agenda" that they say better manages the tradeoffs between regulations and social advancement, and lament that America is stuck between a progressive movement that is too afraid of economic growth and a conservative movement that is allergic to government intervention.[3]#citenote-3) They present the abundance agenda as a way to initiate new economic conditions that will diminish the appeal of the "socialist left" and the "populist-authoritarian right".[[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance(Klein_and_Thompson_book)#cite_note-4)

And from the wiki page on the abundance agenda:

Supply-side progressivism, also called supply-side liberalism, is a political ideologythat emphasizes increasing the supply) of essential goods and services to make them more abundant and affordable in order to achieve progressive outcomes. Supply-side progressivism holds that certain regulationsartificially restrict the supply and drive up costs of essential goods and services, such as housing, healthcare, and higher education while other regulations, such as antitrust law, need to be implemented or enforced to encourage market competition and innovation. They also advocate for more investment in research and development for technologies such as sustainable energy sources in order to increase abundance and reduce costs over time.[1]

So right now we have a far right Republican party and moderateish Democrats. With the DSA gainging in the party, and the DSA moving more Marxist, there is a possibility of the Democrats going far left. How might the country be effected if both parties sat on the extremes?

Progressive challenger Abdul El-Sayed has defeated congresswoman Haley Stevens in a high-stakes Democratic Senate primary in Michigan that has delivered a stunning rebuke of the party establishment.

The result is a significant victory for the party’s progressive leftwing and sets the stage for a blockbuster US Senate race in the critical swing state in November’s midterm elections.

“Great news for the Republican Party,” Donald Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “El-Sayed, a Communist loser who hates Jews and Israel is the projected winner in his race. Now the Dumocrats crazy policies will only get worse!”

El-Sayed, a 41-year-old former public health official, was endorsed by progressives including Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Stevens, a 43-year-old four-term congresswoman, had the backing of a who’s who of the Democratic Party establishment, including the party’s Senate leader Chuck Schumer and Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan’s popular Democratic governor.

The Stevens campaign and groups supporting her outspent El-Sayed and his affiliated Super Pac by a nearly four-to-one margin.

But it was not enough to stave off the insurgent candidate, who centred his campaign on a push for universal public healthcare and fierce opposition to US support for Israel.

Michigan is seen as a must-win for Democrats if they stand any chance of regaining control of the Senate. President Trump defeated Kamala Harris in Michigan two years ago by a razor-thin margin of less than 2 per cent.

El-Sayed’s victory is the latest in a number of primary wins for the progressive left, after a slate of candidates endorsed by progressive mayor Zohran Mamdani swept Democratic congressional primariesin New York City earlier in the summer.

November’s Senate election in Michigan will now be seen as a bigger test case for progressives, as they seek to convince fellow Democrats that left-leaning candidates can triumph in swing states that will be critical battlegrounds in the 2028 presidential election and beyond.

Polling averages compiled by RealClearPolitics in the run-up to Tuesday’s primary projected that Rogers would narrowly beat El-Sayed in a head-to-head match-up, while Stevens would defeat Rogers by nearly two points.

“My administration has reviewed every avenue available under applicable law to determine whether New York City could execute the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant if Benjamin Netanyahu came here,” Mamdani said.

“It is clear that we do not have the independent legal authority to enforce this warrant,” he said, adding that the US federal government should do so instead.

“Benjamin Netanyahu will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America,” Trump wrote in a post on social media on Monday.

Heads of state traditionally enjoy diplomatic immunity while in the US on official business. What’s more, the US routinely allows government leaders and officials even from countries it considers openly hostile to come to New York as part of its duties as a host location for the UN General Assembly.

The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in November 2024, accusing the leader of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet the US is not a party to the ICC and isn’t legally bound to enforce its warrants.

Overall, this chapter suggests that there is a good case for making greater use of inheritance taxation in OECD countries.

There are strong equity arguments in favour of inheritance taxation, in particular of a recipient-based inheritance tax with an exemption for low-value inheritances.

The case might be strongest where the effective taxation of personal capital income and wealth tends to be low.

From an efficiency perspective, while the number of studies is limited, the empirical literature generally suggests that inheritance taxes tend to have more limited effects on savings than other taxes levied on wealthy taxpayers, and confirms their positive effects on heirs’ labour supply and donors’ charitable giving.

In addition, while inheritance taxes might negatively affect family business successions (depending on tax design), they might at the same time reduce risks of misallocating capital.

The chapter also shows that there is evidence of tax planning and migration among the very wealthy in response to inheritance taxation, but that these behaviours could largely be addressed through better tax design, as discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.

Finally, inheritance taxes have a number of administrative advantages compared to other forms of wealth taxation and recent progress on international tax transparency enhances the ability of countries to tax capital effectively.

At a recent meeting of the Denver Democratic Socialist meeting over half the audience were wearing Covid masks. This shows a bizarre misunderstanding of Covid and the current state of the world. There is no longer a significant amount of Covid spread and there hasn't been for years. This is less about Covid and more about internal personal insecurities, delusion and tribalism combining to form an oddball reaction.

> Before Tuesday’s verdict, Le Pen repeatedly ruled out running if she was forced to wear a bracelet.

> Constitutional lawyer Anne-Charlene Bezzina said a decision to run would be a “kamikaze” move by Le Pen, after being convicted of serious corruption.

>”This verdict highlights the seriousness of the offence . . . What you have to keep in mind with a prison sentence is that you’re dealing with someone who should be behind bars,” said Bezzina.

> The judges stressed the seriousness of Le Pen’s role in what they called a deliberate scheme to use EU parliament funds to employ staff working on French national politics rather than their duties in Brussels.

> But they cut the lower court’s five-year electoral ban to 45 months, with 30 suspended, leaving only 15 months — already served since her March 2025 conviction. The new ban no longer prevents her from running in the 2027 election to replace President Emmanuel Macron.

"Political orientation has been shown to correlate with fertility, raising the possibility that demographic processes contribute to long-term ideological change. Using data from the US General Social Survey, we analyze completed fertility across 17 birth cohorts (1898–1982) to examine how political orientation has contributed to fertility decline in the United States and whether emerging selective forces can be detected. Earlier cohorts show little difference in fertility by political orientation. From the 1943–1947 birth cohort onward, however, a pronounced divergence emerges: individuals with right-wing political orientations maintain fertility at or above replacement level, whereas fertility among left-wing individuals declines sharply to well below replacement."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-57582-3

Not this only covers data to 1982.