The following have been trending for more than a couple days and is concerning. Especially for the midterms. Oil heading for $105/barrel, 10 year treasury at 5.0%, 30 year treasury at 5.37%. Out of curiosity I looked up the price of diesel fuel in my community. Between $7.7 – $8.0/gallon.
In the long view, 5% T-bonds doesn’t sound like a big deal, but the Treasury wasn’t carrying a $40T debt 20 or 30 years ago either.
Slightly later, it became common for women’s outermost dress to have slits on the hips. Under the outer layer, but over the innermost, they would wear a belt with pouches attached. She could slip her hands through the slits to reach the pouches, giving her pockets to store things in.
Which was convenient and worked fine, unless the belt happened to break, in which case she could lose her pocket as it fell down the dress to the ground.
I haven’t commented much on the Clancy case, for reasons I’ve mentioned before.
I have concluded, though, that the next round should be differently handled. I’m willing to say that the former jury should have been immediately sequestered, and the next jury should be sequestered.
The whole Clancy trial brings back memories to me of the O.J. Simpson farce, albeit on a smaller scale. When a trial becomes a major public story like this, extra steps need to be taken to keep it from turning into just the sort of clown show we’ve just seen unfold.
HC68:
I concur. Memories of the OJ trial, I was shaken when he skated. More recent abuses of the justice system include the Derek Chauvin marsupial show.
HC68:
I concur. Memories of the OJ trial, I was shaken when he skated. More recent abuses of the justice system include the Derek Chauvin marsupial show.
— om
I was disappointed by the outcome of the O.J. trial, but not terribly surprised. The prosecution handled that trial ineptly, there’s no way around that.
Their first big error was agreeing to a venue change and jury recruitment from a place that already had a natural inclination to let O.J. go. Then they ended up with a mostly female jury.
I suspected at the time, and Clark later said things in an interview afterward the confirmed my suspicion, that she failed to understand the underlying race/gender dynamics. She believed that a mostly female jury would be sympathetic to Nicole because of fellow femaleness. She completely overlooked the racial dynamic in play.
At least at that time (I don’t know if it has changed significantly since), there was a widespread resentment among black women about black men who would become wealthy and successful and then marry a white woman. It doesn’t matter if that perception was justified or not, only that it was a thing and not rare. Add in deep cultural suspicion of the police in the black community in downtown LA at the time, and it was a double hit.
Also, even back then, it had been observed that male juries tended to be harder on fellow males accused of spousal abuse, rape, etc. than women were. It was debated why, but the tendency had been observed.
So, when she agreed to a mostly female, mostly black jury, she had voluntarily given up two strikes before she even went to bat.
But all that aside, even if O.J. had been convicted, the public divide was such that just like the Clancy case, a wide swath of the public would be convinced it was a miscarriage of justice. One faction or the other was going to feel that way no matter the outcome, because the trial had been publicized and turned into a media circus for months, and just as with Clancy, most minds on both sides were 80% made up before it started.
Criminal trials shouldn’t be media events. It destroys their purpose. Sometimes it can’t be helped, but what steps that can be taken to insulate them should be.
And sweet mercy: no cameras in the court room!
There had been a growing movement for cameras in court in the 80s and early 90s, the O.J. circus derailed it for a generation, but now we’re hearing calls for it again, and it’s still a horrible idea.
“Open thread 5/15/2026
Posted on September 15, 2026”
Oh how I wish it was May 15th! Thanks for the brief moment of hope.
Thomas Crooks, psychopath with a gun at Butler, PA? Attempted Trump Assassin, July 2024. New evidence is suggestive, I think.
Iowa Senator Grassley has released interview documents about Crook’s behavior and thinking. The NYPost tells us the themes in five illustrative broad points.
…During COVID I watched the Democratic Party turn against every one of its essential values, its principles, and all of the policies that define my party. Democrats turned away from gold standard research and blindly defended industry-sponsored, agenda-driven science written by corrupt and captive regulatory agencies.
“And the Democrats, which were once the champions of the American Constitution, systematically obliterated the Bill of Rights. And particularly beginning with the First Amendment, under the guise of combating misinformation, Democrats censored hundreds of scientists and physicians who questioned the government’s dubious COVID pronouncements and orthodoxies [Thirty-seven] hours after President Biden took the oath of office, he ordered Facebook and Instagram to remove my accounts …
“Democrats obliterated the second leg of the First Amendment, the guaranteed right of assembly, by social distancing regulations that were completely un-science-based. Democrats violated the third leg of the First Amendment, the freedom to worship. They closed every church in our country for a year … Democrats torpedoed the 7th Amendment right to jury trial by giving liability shields to the giant pharmaceutical companies. No matter how negligent they were, no matter how reckless, no matter how toxic the ingredients, no matter how grievous your injury, you could not sue them. Democrats violated the 5th Amendment by shutting down 3 million businesses with no due process and no just compensation. Democrats shut down the 4th Amendment, protection from unlawful searches and seizures, by forcing Americans to disclose their medical information before they could exercise their constitutional rights. In a single year, my party obliterated 250 years of constitutional guarantees. The only Bill of Rights that they left unscathed was the Second Amendment, and probably only because there is a Second Amendment.”
“And then the party of my body, my choice forced citizens to wear masks and to submit to invasive and intrusive medical interventions against their own wills. The party of MeToo – remember that we were all supposed to listen to women and to believe women – they cruelly silenced the voices of tens of thousands of mothers who believed that their children had suffered vaccine injuries. The Democrats declared war on women’s sports, effectively destroying Title IX.
“Democrats condemned meritocracy openly and celebrated mediocrity. The Democratic Party became the party of elites, labeling working Americans as deplorables. Democrats cultivated deep ties with Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Ag, Big Food, Big Insurance, and the mainstream media. They embraced policies that divided Americans along racial lines. They abolished my uncle’s physical fitness test because they said that competition was bad for children.
Trump Derangement Syndrome Blinds the Democrats
“The Democrats abandoned all of these values and all of their traditional values, offering Americans only one policy, the one policy that they stood for, the unbridled, sociopathic, and blind hatred of a single man, Donald J. Trump. And they were so confident that Trump hatred alone was sufficient to win elections that they abandoned accountability and made our government a predatory organism of monumental incompetence and corruption….
One can view RFK Jr’s speech multiple places online.
It’s both a great testament to his change in the face of evidence, and a salute to Trump
He tells us that everything the MSM tells you about Trump is false. He personally knows that fact. Just as my friend’s friends said after months campaigning for Trump in 2016, and with Trump, Stephen Moore and Arthur Laffer told us.
Thanks for the reminder, Barry. Another Kennedy is a Golden Boy (at 72!), but this time for the right side.
Would appear that the absolute need to “smother [RFK, Jr.’s speech] with a pillow” explains the current Democratic-Party-driven AI hysteria along with Massie’s latest stunt:
HC68 on September 15, 2026 at 3:09 pm said:
“And sweet mercy: no cameras in the court room!”
I think on balance, given our modern technical capability, I disagree.
I agree about jury sequestration, but having a video record of the trial might still be a useful resource for later appeals, impeaching the judge, or whatever. It can become a form of “objective” evidence when we know that human recollection can be easily distorted by various factors. Presumably the offical court reporter (recorder?) gets almost all of the language expressed, but might still miss something.
Does anyone know if the court recorders also record non-voice aspects of a testimony, such as “witness broke into tears”, or whatever? Is there now in fact an audio recording being made at the same time?
But the video of the procedings does not have to be made public if there is real concern about adversely impacting the pursuit of justice or inflaming public opinion. Then it can be released later, under a law suit and a court order to release it. I could still accept that perhaps the video should never show the members of the jury?
I suppose it would be a rare situation where “journalists” or media reporters are excluded from a nominally public trial, but they can get by with their notes and artist drawings.
Xi Jinping, returning from India, appears to have a very serious medical issue:
I think on balance, given our modern technical capability, I disagree.
I agree about jury sequestration, but having a video record of the trial might still be a useful resource for later appeals, impeaching the judge, or whatever. It can become a form of “objective” evidence when we know that human recollection can be easily distorted by various factors. Presumably the offical court reporter (recorder?) gets almost all of the language expressed, but might still miss something.
— R2L
When I say ‘cameras in the court room’, I mean reporters’ cameras. TV cameras for the networks or YouTube. I have no problem with an officially present audio-video record, though I would want steps taken to make sure it’s not tampered with or easily accessible.
Back in the 90s, before the O.J. trial, there was a growing pressure to permit TV cameras in the court room. I can remember as a kid when a high-profile trial was happening, you’d see artist renderings of the event. The argument for TV cameras was that trials are supposed to be public. The counter-argument is that watching on TV is not like being there in person, so it’s not ‘public access’.
The pressure was growing steadily until O.J. That farce pretty much stopped the movement in its tracks for over 20 years. All the potential problems and issues were right there on display, from daytime talk shows dissecting the judge’s rulings to lawyers grandstanding for the camera to threats from public anger on both sides.
But O.J. was three decades ago, and now we’re seeing pressure for TV cameras again. It’s a bad idea now for the same reason it was a bad idea in 1995.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali again, this time on “The Economist”‘s prodigious talent for prevarication and deception:
On the cover of its latest edition, “The Economist” promises to uncover “the truth and the lies” about “Islam in Europe.” The story it presents is, for the magazine’s readership, a reassuring one: a crisis of two extreme fringes fighting across a sensible middle. But this is a false framing that betrays the complexity of Islam in Europe it promises to untangle, just when honest understanding is urgently needed. Allow me to explain why….
File under: The NARRATIVE uber alles…
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
The following have been trending for more than a couple days and is concerning. Especially for the midterms. Oil heading for $105/barrel, 10 year treasury at 5.0%, 30 year treasury at 5.37%. Out of curiosity I looked up the price of diesel fuel in my community. Between $7.7 – $8.0/gallon.
In the long view, 5% T-bonds doesn’t sound like a big deal, but the Treasury wasn’t carrying a $40T debt 20 or 30 years ago either.
Slightly later, it became common for women’s outermost dress to have slits on the hips. Under the outer layer, but over the innermost, they would wear a belt with pouches attached. She could slip her hands through the slits to reach the pouches, giving her pockets to store things in.
Which was convenient and worked fine, unless the belt happened to break, in which case she could lose her pocket as it fell down the dress to the ground.
I haven’t commented much on the Clancy case, for reasons I’ve mentioned before.
I have concluded, though, that the next round should be differently handled. I’m willing to say that the former jury should have been immediately sequestered, and the next jury should be sequestered.
The whole Clancy trial brings back memories to me of the O.J. Simpson farce, albeit on a smaller scale. When a trial becomes a major public story like this, extra steps need to be taken to keep it from turning into just the sort of clown show we’ve just seen unfold.
HC68:
I concur. Memories of the OJ trial, I was shaken when he skated. More recent abuses of the justice system include the Derek Chauvin marsupial show.
— om
I was disappointed by the outcome of the O.J. trial, but not terribly surprised. The prosecution handled that trial ineptly, there’s no way around that.
Their first big error was agreeing to a venue change and jury recruitment from a place that already had a natural inclination to let O.J. go. Then they ended up with a mostly female jury.
I suspected at the time, and Clark later said things in an interview afterward the confirmed my suspicion, that she failed to understand the underlying race/gender dynamics. She believed that a mostly female jury would be sympathetic to Nicole because of fellow femaleness. She completely overlooked the racial dynamic in play.
At least at that time (I don’t know if it has changed significantly since), there was a widespread resentment among black women about black men who would become wealthy and successful and then marry a white woman. It doesn’t matter if that perception was justified or not, only that it was a thing and not rare. Add in deep cultural suspicion of the police in the black community in downtown LA at the time, and it was a double hit.
Also, even back then, it had been observed that male juries tended to be harder on fellow males accused of spousal abuse, rape, etc. than women were. It was debated why, but the tendency had been observed.
So, when she agreed to a mostly female, mostly black jury, she had voluntarily given up two strikes before she even went to bat.
But all that aside, even if O.J. had been convicted, the public divide was such that just like the Clancy case, a wide swath of the public would be convinced it was a miscarriage of justice. One faction or the other was going to feel that way no matter the outcome, because the trial had been publicized and turned into a media circus for months, and just as with Clancy, most minds on both sides were 80% made up before it started.
Criminal trials shouldn’t be media events. It destroys their purpose. Sometimes it can’t be helped, but what steps that can be taken to insulate them should be.
And sweet mercy: no cameras in the court room!
There had been a growing movement for cameras in court in the 80s and early 90s, the O.J. circus derailed it for a generation, but now we’re hearing calls for it again, and it’s still a horrible idea.
“Open thread 5/15/2026
Posted on September 15, 2026”
Oh how I wish it was May 15th! Thanks for the brief moment of hope.
Thomas Crooks, psychopath with a gun at Butler, PA? Attempted Trump Assassin, July 2024. New evidence is suggestive, I think.
Iowa Senator Grassley has released interview documents about Crook’s behavior and thinking. The NYPost tells us the themes in five illustrative broad points.
The first is the most demonic. Even as a baby, Crook’s never cried.
MORE https://nypost.com/2026/09/14/us-news/chilling-details-of-thomas-crooks-upbringing-revealed-in-bombshell-fbi-docs-emotionless-since-birth/
A MUST read:
RFK, Jr. carpet bombs the Democratic Party.
“A Speech For The Ages: Bobby Kennedy Lays Waste To ‘Democrats’”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/speech-ages-bobby-kennedy-lays-waste-democrats
Some key selections (RTWT):
One can view RFK Jr’s speech multiple places online.
It’s both a great testament to his change in the face of evidence, and a salute to Trump
He tells us that everything the MSM tells you about Trump is false. He personally knows that fact. Just as my friend’s friends said after months campaigning for Trump in 2016, and with Trump, Stephen Moore and Arthur Laffer told us.
Thanks for the reminder, Barry. Another Kennedy is a Golden Boy (at 72!), but this time for the right side.
Would appear that the absolute need to “smother [RFK, Jr.’s speech] with a pillow” explains the current Democratic-Party-driven AI hysteria along with Massie’s latest stunt:
“…Massie Forces House Vote To Impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-massie-forces-house-vote-impeach-defense-secretary-pete
Related:
“AI Just Became A Massive Midterm Election Issue”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ai-just-became-massive-midterm-election-issue
HC68 on September 15, 2026 at 3:09 pm said:
“And sweet mercy: no cameras in the court room!”
I think on balance, given our modern technical capability, I disagree.
I agree about jury sequestration, but having a video record of the trial might still be a useful resource for later appeals, impeaching the judge, or whatever. It can become a form of “objective” evidence when we know that human recollection can be easily distorted by various factors. Presumably the offical court reporter (recorder?) gets almost all of the language expressed, but might still miss something.
Does anyone know if the court recorders also record non-voice aspects of a testimony, such as “witness broke into tears”, or whatever? Is there now in fact an audio recording being made at the same time?
But the video of the procedings does not have to be made public if there is real concern about adversely impacting the pursuit of justice or inflaming public opinion. Then it can be released later, under a law suit and a court order to release it. I could still accept that perhaps the video should never show the members of the jury?
I suppose it would be a rare situation where “journalists” or media reporters are excluded from a nominally public trial, but they can get by with their notes and artist drawings.
Xi Jinping, returning from India, appears to have a very serious medical issue:
https://tinyurl.com/4ah4kxaw
https://tinyurl.com/5n8p8fdb
H/T Blazingcatfur blog.
If you’re a bit confused about the Democratic Party’s AI-hysteria gambit…
https://tinyurl.com/34vkvvmn
H/T Instapundit
— R2L
When I say ‘cameras in the court room’, I mean reporters’ cameras. TV cameras for the networks or YouTube. I have no problem with an officially present audio-video record, though I would want steps taken to make sure it’s not tampered with or easily accessible.
Back in the 90s, before the O.J. trial, there was a growing pressure to permit TV cameras in the court room. I can remember as a kid when a high-profile trial was happening, you’d see artist renderings of the event. The argument for TV cameras was that trials are supposed to be public. The counter-argument is that watching on TV is not like being there in person, so it’s not ‘public access’.
The pressure was growing steadily until O.J. That farce pretty much stopped the movement in its tracks for over 20 years. All the potential problems and issues were right there on display, from daytime talk shows dissecting the judge’s rulings to lawyers grandstanding for the camera to threats from public anger on both sides.
But O.J. was three decades ago, and now we’re seeing pressure for TV cameras again. It’s a bad idea now for the same reason it was a bad idea in 1995.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali again, this time on “The Economist”‘s prodigious talent for prevarication and deception:
https://instapundit.com/823250/
Opening graf:
File under: The NARRATIVE uber alles…