The post 40 Pics of dogs before &; after adoption that are seriously mind-blowing appeared first on Animal Channel.

Remember when you actually had to ask someone to take a picture of you? Gone are those days‚ as now all you have to do is simply whip out your phone and take it yourself. But while selfies are popular‚ turns out‚ humans aren’t the only ones who enjoy them. In Boulder‚ Colorado‚ a black... The post Curious bear finds wildlife cam and it hilariously leads to 400 selfies appeared first on Animal Channel.

Another week‚ another teacher who sexually harassed her students. Ann Bacon‚ 24‚ was charged Monday after admitting to having sex with one of her 18-year-old students‚ in Minnesota. Though the student was legally an adult when the interactions took place‚ Bacon was in a position of power since she was the teacher and he was the student‚ therefore she  is charged for the professional misconduct‚ Daily Mail reported. Bacon‚ a special education teacher and the dance team coach of Tartan High School‚ lived in her parents’ basement in the Ramsey county area of southeastern Minnesota. Since she couldn’t bring the teen to her parents’ house‚ Bacon admitted that she rented a hotel room a “handful” of times to have sex with him. This took place during May 8 and July 4 of 2023 as confirmed by hotel records. The victim's ex-girlfriend was a witness and said that in May the boy broke up with her and began secretly hanging out with his teacher. In August the victim and his girlfriend got back together and the girlfriend found sexual messages and nude pictures in the chat between the victim and Bacon. Additionally it showed Bacon drinking alcohol in the hotel with the victim and a Venmo payment of $40 and titled “liqq” in June is part of the investigation. The victim's girlfriend claimed the Venmo payment was from her 17-year-old cousin who sent it to Bacon after Bacon allegedly got the underage teens alcohol. Bacon denied this and insisted that she couldn't remember what the payment was for. Another witness told authorities that they reported the crime to the school in July‚ Bacon denied the accusations at the time‚ but then the witness reported it again after having concerns that Bacon was still teaching at the school and “as a special education teacher‚ had access to vulnerable students." Bacon eventually admitted to sleeping with the student five times but initially refused to admit that any took place while the 18-year-old was still a student but instead when he’d graduated. Later‚ as USA Today reported‚ she “eventually admitted to having sex with the former student‚ and that it began when he was in her class.” Bacon has since resigned from her position and the school principal sent out the following statement to staff and students this past Tuesday: I am writing to inform you of the recent resignation of a Tartan teacher‚ Ann Bacon. We have been informed by local law enforcement that Ann Bacon is being investigated for alleged misconduct. Please be assured that the trust and safety of our students remain our utmost priority. We are cooperating fully with law enforcement’s investigation and will continue to do so throughout the process. We understand that this news affects our school community. School counselors and administrators are available for any students needing support. On Monday‚ Bacon was charged with felony third-degree criminal sexual misconduct and has a pre-trial hearing March 20.   Y’all I can’t keep up with these stories! They’re becoming way too popular and make me want to homeschool my kids more and more!  

With X personality Tucker Carlson trapesing around Moscow‚ Russia pretending like the glorified third-world country still unable to dig itself out of the hole communism put it in was some kind of bastion of Western Civilization‚ ABC’s The View decided to break the broadcast network blackout to take some swipes at him. Of course‚ their jokes were fairly unoriginal and‚ in the case of moderator Whoopi Goldberg‚ bizarrely sexual. Calling Carlson’s trip to Russia and his interview with President Putin “insane‚” Goldberg began the segment by saying “Carlson gave a megaphone to one of America's biggest threats by posting his social media sit-down with Russian President Vladimir Putin‚ and even Putin trashed the interview” by saying he wasn’t left “fully satisfied” by it. Something about their names tickled something in Goldberg’s brain; leading her to interrupt herself to announce she had discovered “a great stripper name”: GOLDBERG: Both of them‚ it's too much. So‚ did Tucker play right into Putin's hands? I'm going to change my name! I thought of a great stripper name! ANA NAVARRO: What? SUNNY HOSTIN: What‚ what? SARA HAINES: That came from Putin? GOLDBERG: Yes! NAVARRO: No‚ it came from Tucker. GOLDBERG: Tucker Putin. [Laughter] GOLDBERG: “Please welcome to the stage‚ Tucker Putin. [Goldberg does a little dance‚ applause] Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead‚ please.     Keying in on Putin being left unsatisfied‚ co-host Ana Navarro went with the obligatory bad-at-sex joke. “As you just read there‚ Putin said that he didn't get complete satisfaction from Tucker. I have a feeling that's not the first time Tucker Carlson has heard those words. Or the last‚” she chided. Navarro also tackled Putin saying that he preferred President Biden to get reelected over former President Trump. “Look‚ I think obviously Putin here is using reverse psychology saying that he prefers Biden‚” she argued. “We have all seen the relationship and that he has with Donald Trump. We've all seen Donald Trump falling all over himself for years and years‚ even before being president to kowtow to Putin and get in his good graces.” Staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) couldn’t think up her own insult so she had to go with someone else’s: I also have a Chris Wallace quote. Chris Wallace slammed him calling him an “eager puppy.” He said‚ “Tucker Carlson showed up in Moscow this week to interview Vladimir Putin. It turned out to be anything but an interview. Putin droned on for two hours and seven minutes while Tucker sat there like an eager puppy.” She really made that quote work for her. Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin seemed gleeful by the idea that Carlson’s phone might be compromised by Russian intelligence. “The Russians made a point to say that Tucker charged his phone with a USB port while in Moscow‚” she noted; the concern being that the Russians could’ve extracted his data or planted something on his phone. “So‚ any bad text he ever sent‚ nude‚ sex‚ something racially inappropriate--He strikes me as somebody that there's a lot of things you don't want out there‚” she beamed. “They own him and he walked right into that. If he was an actual journalist‚ he would have known better‚ but too bad.” Goldberg did have an actual critique of the interview‚ or rather‚ Carlson’s lack of ability to be an interviewer: “But I think he knows what he knows. Do you know what I mean? He's not a person who digs deep or wants -- He didn't ask tough questions because he didn't know what to ask. He didn't know how to ask it.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 15‚ 2024 11:03:23 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Tucker Carlson gave a megaphone to one of America's biggest threats by posting his social media sit-down with Russian President Vladimir Putin‚ and even Putin trashed the interview. Yeah‚ he was on a Russian state TV -- he said he didn't get complete ‘satisfaction’ from Tucker who didn't ask the aggressive‚ sharp questions that he was expecting. Now‚ Putin went on to say he wants President Biden to stay in power because Biden's more predictable. Please. You know‚ child. [Laughter] Both of them‚ it's too much. So‚ did Tucker play right into Putin's hands? I'm going to change my name! I thought of a great stripper name. ANA NAVARRO: What? SUNNY HOSTIN: What‚ what? SARA HAINES: That came from Putin? GOLDBERG: Yes! NAVARRO: No‚ it came from Tucker. GOLDBERG: Tucker Putin. [Laughter] GOLDBERG: “Please welcome to the stage‚ Tucker Putin. [Goldberg does a little dance‚ applause] Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead‚ please. HAINES: What was the question? NAVARRO: As you just read there‚ Putin said that he didn't get complete satisfaction from Tucker. I have a feeling that's not the first time Tucker Carlson has heard those words. Or the last. (…) 11:05:03 a.m. Eastern NAVARRO: Anyways. Look‚ I think obviously Putin here is using reverse psychology saying that he prefers Biden. We have all seen the relationship and that he has with Donald Trump. We've all seen Donald Trump falling all over himself for years and years‚ even before being president to kowtow to Putin and get in his good graces. And I think that Putin‚ who’s very smart and understands American psychology –sometimes I think better than Americans – realizes that is if he says he prefers Trump‚ it'll be used against Trump who is the guy that he actually wants. There is no doubt that he doesn't want the guy who is 100 percent backing and supporting Ukraine‚ not Russia. (…) 11:07:13 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: I also have a Chris Wallace quote. Chris Wallace slammed him calling him an “eager puppy.” He said‚ “Tucker Carlson showed up in Moscow this week to interview Vladimir Putin. It turned out to be anything but an interview. Putin droned on for two hours and seven minutes while Tucker sat there like an eager puppy.” (…) 11:08:13 a.m. Eastern ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: By the way‚ a part of this that is both funny and scary is‚ in the Russian playbook‚ any time if you go to Moscow your device will be surveilled the rest of your life. They will take every bit of data you have. The Russians made a point to say that Tucker charged his phone with a USB port while in Moscow. HOSTIN: Smart. FARAH GRIFFIN: So‚ any bad text he ever sent‚ nude‚ sex‚ something racially inappropriate— HAINES: He doesn’t seem like the nudes type. FARAH GRIFFIN: He strikes me as somebody that there's a lot of things you don't want out there. They own him and he walked right into that. If he was an actual journalist‚ he would have known better‚ but too bad. HOSTIN: But he doesn’t. GOLDBERG: But I think he knows what he knows. Do you know what I mean? He's not a person who digs deep or wants -- He didn't ask tough questions because he didn't know what to ask. He didn't know how to ask it. (…)

Climate scientist Michael Mann recently won his $1 million defamation lawsuit against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn where the two men fiercely criticized his work. On Wednesday‚ he joined PBS’s Christiane Amanpour to take a victory lap for his efforts to squash free speech. Amanpour began by noting‚ “A new report shows a sharp rise in personal attacks on climate scientists. Well‚ one widely respected scientist is fighting back. He is Michael Mann‚ distinguished professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. After a pair of conservative climate deniers accused him of faking his data back in 2012. Mann sued for defamation and he won. Last week‚ a jury awarded him a million dollars in compensatory damages. And Dr. Mann calls the decision a victory for science. And he's joining me now from Philadelphia.”     Writing in National Review in 2012‚ Steyn opined‚ “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph‚ the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And‚ when the East Anglia emails came out‚ Penn State felt obliged to ‘investigate’ Professor Mann.” Defending Steyn‚ National Review top man Rich Lowry wrote‚ also in 2012‚ about the problem with Mann’s argument‚ “In common polemical usage‚ ‘fraudulent’ doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud. It means intellectually bogus and wrong. I consider Mann’s prospective lawsuit fraudulent. Uh-oh. I guess he now has another reason to sue us.” Mann originally sued National Review as well‚ but they were later dropped from the case‚ but now that Mann was won‚ he may very well re-sue them. “They’re next‚” his lawyer declared. Back in 2024‚ Amanpour welcomed Mann with none of this information‚ “So‚ firstly‚ you know‚ congratulations‚ especially as you‚ you know‚ frame it as a victory for science. What was it that -- you know‚ that caused you to take on this case and it took you 12 years?” Patting himself on the back‚ Mann claimed‚ “Well‚ you know‚ we sort of drew a line in the sand. It's one thing to criticize scientists. That's all‚ you know‚ appropriate in science. In fact‚ good faith criticism‚ skepticism plays an important role in moving science forward‚ but making false and defamatory accusations‚ accusations of fraud and comparing a scientist to a convicted child molester‚ which is what the plaintiffs did -- what the defendants did in this case‚ clearly goes beyond the line.” Back in 2012‚ Simberg wrote: But now that we know how bad it was‚ perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair‚ particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science‚ except that instead of molesting children‚ he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet. Politics is full of nasty comparisons. It is not a glorious part of our political discourse that public figures are routinely compared to Adolf Hitler‚ Joseph Stalin‚ Benito Mussolini‚ and others‚ but such comparisons should be protected by the First Amendment. If they aren't‚ the rest of the media is in big trouble. Mann continued‚ “it did take 12 years to play out‚ but we're very pleased that the jury saw‚ you know‚ through the smoke and mirrors that they tried to put up during the trial‚ saw to the heart of the matter‚ that they had engaged in false and defamatory allegations. They had done so with malice‚ hence the award of a million dollars in punitive damages.” Amanpour then quoted Mann for what she hopes the case means‚ “So‚ to be clear again‚ you have‚ you know‚ fought this because of the science and you said‚ ‘I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.’”  PBS and CNN—Amanpour and Company originally airs on CNN International— do not appear to value free speech. What about the rest of the media? Here is a transcript for the February 14 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 2/14/2024 CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: A new report shows a sharp rise in personal attacks on climate scientists. Well‚ one widely respected scientist is fighting back. He is Michael Mann‚ distinguished professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. After a pair of conservative climate deniers accused him of faking his data back in 2012. Mann sued for defamation. And he won. Last week‚ a jury awarded him a million dollars in compensatory damages. And Dr. Mann calls the decision a victory for science. And he's joining me now from Philadelphia. So‚ firstly‚ you know‚ congratulations‚ especially as you‚ you know‚ frame it as a victory for science. What was it that -- you know‚ that caused you to take on this case and it took you 12 years? MICHAEL MANN: Thanks‚ Christiane. Well‚ you know‚ we sort of drew a line in the sand. It's one thing to criticize scientists. That's all‚ you know‚ appropriate in science. In fact‚ good faith criticism‚ skepticism plays an important role in moving science forward‚ but making false and defamatory accusations‚ accusations of fraud and comparing a scientist to a convicted child molester‚ which is what the plaintiffs did -- what the defendants did in this case‚ clearly goes beyond the line. And we sort of -- you know‚ we had no choice. We asked them to take down those defamatory posts and to apologize. They refused to do that. And so‚ we moved forward with the litigation. And it did take 12 years to play out‚ but we're very pleased that the jury saw‚ you know‚ through the smoke and mirrors that they tried to put up during the trial‚ saw to the heart of the matter‚ that they had engaged in false and defamatory allegations. They had done so with malice‚ hence the award of a million dollars in punitive damages. AMANPOUR: So‚ to be clear again‚ you have‚ you know‚ fought this because of the science and you said‚ “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.” 

In a move that impacts European Union Parliamentary elections and provides an ominous warning for U.S. elections‚ Google — which also owns YouTube — is determined to make its mark on the election process. In a Feb. 9 blog post‚ Google reemphasized its commitment to “fight misinformation‚” a leftist catchphrase for censorship‚ as it prepares for the June EU elections for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). The tech giant seems to have its election interference plan mapped out as it claims it will collaborate with government authorities‚ promote selected sources‚ and use artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance its ability to censor and control the information that voters can access.  Google highlighted how it will continue its long legacy of censoring news sources that go against the grain of the mainstream narrative. The blog post promised that Google would be “surfacing high-quality information to voters” and that it would enhance and enforce its “policies around demonstrably false claims that could undermine democratic processes." In the past‚ this has meant that Google censored and suppressed the speech of those who got in the way of its political agenda.  That’s where AI comes into the picture. Google claimed it would have “an increased focus on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and the part it can play in the misinformation landscape.” The company added that it would also be “leveraging AI models to augment our abuse-fighting efforts.” Google-owned YouTube will also be working to control what election information is available to voters. The company alleged it would push the election content specifically selected by Google. “For news and information related to elections‚ our systems prominently surface content from authoritative sources‚ on the YouTube homepage‚ in search results and the ‘Up Next’ panel‚” the blog post stated.  Google further noted its efforts to provide “campaigns and candidates with best-in-class security features and training.” The company added that it will identify and target vaguely defined “coordinated influence operations.” Based on its track record of blatantly censoring the news and certain political candidates‚ Google cannot be trusted to fairly play the role of information referee. Google has repeatedly blacklisted well-respected news sites. And‚ over the last eight years‚ study after study has shown that Google presents more liberal and left-leaning content than conservative or right-leaning content.  In recent years‚ MRC Free Speech America research has also found evidence of Google bias‚ especially when it comes to ranking GOP candidates’ sites in search results. Google should not be setting itself up as an arbiter of truth.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact Google at 650-253-0000 and demand it be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Far-left billionaire George Soros is set to seize control of Audacy’s 220 United States radio stations ahead of the 2024 presidential election‚ the New York Post reported.Soros Fund Management‚ the hedge fund manager’s investment management company‚ has purchased $400 million of the radio platform’s debt.Audacy‚ formerly Radio.com‚ is the second-largest radio broadcaster behind iHeartMedia. Last month‚ the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and announced that it had reached a prepackaged restructuring support agreement with a supermajority of its debtholders. According to an Audacy news release‚ the plan will allow it to reduce its total debt from $1.9 billion to $350 million.The company’s restructuring plan‚ which requires approval‚ is scheduled to be reviewed by United States Judge Christopher Lopez on February 20.David J. Field‚ chairman‚ president‚ and CEO of Audacy‚ stated‚ “Over the past few years‚ we have strategically transformed Audacy into a leading‚ scaled multi-platform audio content and entertainment company through our acquisition of CBS Radio and by building leading complementary positions in podcasting‚ audio networks‚ live events‚ digital marketing solutions‚ and our direct-to-consumer streaming platform.”“While our transformation has enhanced our competitive position‚ the perfect storm of sustained macroeconomic challenges over the past four years facing the traditional advertising market has led to a sharp reduction of several billion dollars in cumulative radio ad spending‚” Field continued. “These market factors have severely impacted our financial condition and necessitated our balance sheet restructuring. With our scaled leadership position‚ our uniquely differentiated premium audio content‚ and a robust capital structure‚ we believe Audacy will emerge well positioned to continue its innovation and growth in the dynamic audio business.”Sources told the Post that Soros’ stake in the company — which he picked up over the past few weeks for 50 cents on the dollar — is equal to approximately 40% of its senior debt.Audacy has since confirmed Soros’ investment.“The decision by our existing and new debtholders to become equity holders in Audacy represents a significant vote of confidence in our company and the future of the radio and audio business‚” the company stated.Last year‚ Vice Media was sold to lenders‚ including Soros Fund Management‚ Fortress Investment Group‚ and Monroe Capital‚ after the company filed for Chapter 11.One source told the Post he is concerned that Soros’ acquisition of Audacy will be used to influence public opinion leading up to the 2024 presidential election. The source‚ who stated he was a Republican‚ said‚ “This is scary.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A dozen anonymous Jeffrey Epstein victims filed a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday‚ accusing the agency of a cover-up and enabling the financier's sex trafficking operations‚ Reuters reported.The women claim that the FBI attempted to cover up its failure to investigate allegations made against Epstein. The lawsuit states that the agency's inaction enabled Epstein to continue committing sex trafficking crimes for over two decades.According to the women‚ the FBI received tips about Epstein's criminal activity as early as 1996 but failed to interview those alleged victims or notify other law enforcement agencies. The complaint stated that the bureau did not open an investigation into the late financier until 2006 and ended its probe just two years later. The closure of the investigation coincided with Epstein pleading guilty to a prostitution charge in Florida‚ for which he served 18 months in prison.The FBI continued to receive tips that Epstein was involved in sex trafficking that ultimately went ignored‚ the lawsuit alleged. He was arrested in 2019 and died months later while in custody."As a direct and proximate cause of the FBI's negligence‚ plaintiffs would not have been continued to be sex trafficked‚ abused‚ raped‚ tortured and threatened‚" the women's suit stated. "Jane Does 1-12 bring this lawsuit to get to the bottom — once and for all — of the FBI's role in Epstein's criminal sex trafficking ring."The complaint alleged that the agency "had photographs‚ videos and interviews and hard evidence of child prostitution and failed to timely investigate and arrest Epstein in deviation from the FBI protocols.""The FBI had a non-discretionary obligation‚ governed by established policies‚ procedures‚ rules‚ and protocols‚ to handle and investigate tips concerning potential and ongoing underage child erotica‚ rape‚ sex with minors‚ and sex trafficking in a reasonable manner and to act against Epstein and to prevent him from committing repeated crimes‚" the lawsuit continued. "Yet contrary to its own established rules‚ the FBI failed to take appropriate action and botched and covered up investigations for years."The victims are seeking monetary damages from the federal government.The United States Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment from Reuters. The FBI told CBS News that it does not comment on litigation.In November 2022‚ Epstein's victims filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank‚ accusing the banking institutions of enabling the financier's sex trafficking ring. Before deducting legal fees‚ the banks agreed to pay the victims $500 million to settle the lawsuit.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

According to a report from intergovernmental watchdog International IDEA‚ half the world's democracies showed signs of decline over the last five years. Well‚ no sh**‚ Sherlock – most of those democracies spent a significant portion of that half-decade forbidden to associate freely‚ in some cases compelled to undergo medical interventions‚ and subject to fines or even imprisonment if we breached strict rules about being out of the house for anything except a narrowly defined set of reasons. It's not clear whether International IDEA will have anything to say about COVID measures‚ of course‚ but faced with the propagation of authoritarian pandemic policies throughout most advanced democracies‚ any watchdog measuring the state of "civil liberties" would surely struggle to find anything positive to say. Whatever print-era democracy enjoyers may think‚ for people habituated to the emergent-systems mindset native to the digital era‚ individual agency is just less important than the system's overall health. And this comprises most people under forty in the developed world. This demographic has‚ by and large‚ grown up with online communities as a key normative template for the legitimate use of power. And online communities are rarely "democratic" all the way up‚ in the print-era sense. Rather‚ while such platforms make a big song and dance about enabling everyone to "have their say‚" at scale‚ rules and sanctions are doled out without accountability. And any action that threatens the system overall legitimates near-limitless top-down control. The swarm is not a democracy A generation raised to view the autocratic power of online moderators as normal will not find it particularly strange if real-world authorities also begin functioning in much the same way. In this context‚ it should not surprise anyone that young people are increasingly authoritarian. But perhaps the most salient feature of online communities as a governing metaphor for legitimate use of power is the backstage fusion it enables between human and machine authority. Most social media platforms don't have named moderators but have the worst content violations managed by a rotating cast of (routinely traumatized and increasingly offshored) humans. These are not wielders of power so much as fleshbots tasked with enacting the real source authority‚ which is a set of procedures underwritten by technologies of control. The work of these fleshbots is‚ across numerous platforms‚ seamlessly supplemented by algorithms that identify problematic content‚ amplify or throttle others‚ supply "context" to posts that trigger algorithmic concerns about "misinformation‚" and otherwise curate the overall shape of the memetic swarm. This algorithmic level of governance is an increasingly key field of political struggle‚ as illustrated by recent denunciations of Elon Musk's decision to roll back Twitter's COVID censorship regime. So the mode of governance normalized by digital platforms is a combination of human implementation supplemented by AI‚ in the service of impersonal "community guidelines‚" which is to say unaccountably enforced proceduralism. Let's call this post-democratic order "swarm governance." And the characteristic forms of this swarm governance now percolate well beyond the digital world to structure the offline one too. Bratton's case for a swarm mother The positive case for this fusion of human and machine rule was set out shortly after the pandemic by the high priest of swarm governance‚ Benjamin Bratton. In his paean to post-COVID "positive biopolitics‚" "The Revenge of the Real‚" Bratton denounces in disgusted tones those eccentrics and reactionaries still wedded to obsolete ideas of "the destructive (and self-destructive) nature of libertarian individualism as the basis of sovereignty." The way forward‚ in his view‚ is in a merging of human and machine intelligences into collectivized hybrid super-intelligence at a planetary level: "A positive biopolitics‚" Bratton declares‚ "is to be found in the agency of the non-subjective‚ in abstraction‚ in externalization‚ and in different relay points within these." And this‚ by definition‚ necessitates sacrificing some measure of individualism: For the system to work‚ it's not enough to engage with humans on their own chosen terms‚ or as he puts it "at an origin point of anthropomorphic sovereignty." Bratton conceives of this imagined order almost ecstatically‚ as a kind of algorithmic analog to maternal attunement‚ able to care for the needs of any point in its aggregate body via "sensing layers" with both human and machine components. History tells us‚ though‚ that utopian practice often falls short of utopian ideals. And Bratton has little to say on what this all-enveloping cyborg swarm-mama does when some component of its collective misbehaves. You'll live in the pod &; be happy Based on performance to date‚ what does positive biopolitics look like in practice – and how does it discipline rogue elements of the collective? We can garner a few clues from the live-action cautionary tale in China‚ where Xi Jinping's zero-COVID regime welded people into their apartments. There‚ Chinese citizens burned to death inside buildings they can't escape because of lockdown confinement and engaged with the "sensing layer" – which is to say‚ take a PCR test at their own expense – every 48 hours in order to use public transport‚ go shopping‚ or go to work. For with access to public services and even apartment doors now digitally controlled via smartphone‚ citizens discover that failure to cooperate with the all-enveloping "sensing layer‚" or otherwise commit infractions against the regime‚ may result in their COVID code being remotely set to red – which means two weeks in COVID quarantine‚ at their own expense. In a sense‚ this isn't dissimilar to receiving a temporary social media ban for violating terms and conditions. Except it's your real-world life and your access to food‚ shelter‚ and basic public services. But surely this is something that could only happen Over There‚ in places where Our Democracy doesn't prevail. Well‚ let's not forget that as Thomas Fazi noted‚ the G20 announced a resolution to strengthen global digital health infrastructure including surveillance capacity at borders‚ global standards on proof of vaccination‚ and a commitment to "capitalise and build on the success of the existing standards and digital Covid-19 certificates." Meanwhile‚ large-scale efforts are under way to transform (and digitize) children's education via virtual platforms‚ AI‚ "gamification‚" and the monitoring of "social-emotional learning" metrics‚ while critics worry that this will amount‚ over time‚ to the introduction of social credit scores in the West by the back door. Elsewhere‚ too‚ a number of countries are test-running central bank digital currencies. These are entirely digital forms of currency‚ whose use would render citizens' every transaction visible to the issuing state. And a bit like Twitter mods being able to read your DMs‚ this isn't really a problem until you find yourself politically at loggerheads with those mods for some as-yet unforeseen reason. Let's not forget‚ after all‚ that when the trucker protests against Canadian COVID authoritarianism threatened to get embarrassing‚ Justin Trudeau (who is now praising Chinese protests against zero COVID) ended the standoff by cutting off protesters' bank accounts. Put all these pieces together‚ and it's clear that once applied to governance‚ even in the West‚ the digital transition and resulting shift toward swarm governance does an end run around many of the core principles of government by consent that structured liberal democracy. The best-case argument for doing so is the belief that it will deliver a positive biopolitics‚ which promises a kind of impersonal‚ omniscient nurture: an all-enveloping‚ touchless‚ hygienic cyborg mother. To do so‚ the post-democratic digital order merges technology and biomedical surveillance with faceless‚ procedural authoritarianism: governance via "Community Guidelines‚" enforced "for your own good." Resistance is futile Pacific Press/Getty But few enthusiasts for this cyborg mother want to think about what happens when she makes mistakes or gets angry. In this light‚ we can all point and shudder at the drones Over There spraying chemicals to "disinfect" the air over Chinese cities‚ or barking mechanized orders to stay indoors. But in truth‚ positive biopolitics‚ underwritten and extended by robot intelligence‚ is increasingly backed up in the West as well as in China by the ultimate in impersonal coercion: lethal machines. No one seriously believes Boston Dynamics' promise that the company will never put a gun on Big Dog. And San Francisco granted permission for its police force to deploy killer robots in certain circumstances. I doubt this is what "defund the police" advocates had in mind as a replacement‚ but here we are. The difference between the relatively soft-pedaled and opt-in nature of cyborg technocracy in the West and its full-bore top-down rollout in China is mainly because Chinese culture doesn't emphasize the individual‚ as is the case in the West. Unsoftened by the Western cultural imperative to reassure those who still believe in individual freedom‚ the Chinese order looks more nakedly‚ coercively dystopian than the one now emerging in the West. But it's the same picture. And it's not just coming. It's already here. You can expect the majority of Western young people to welcome it. We've been forming young people into the ideal citizens for a distributed‚ unaccountable‚ AI-supported procedural technocracy since the early 2000s by acclimatizing them to the governance norms of social media. That demographic is now well into adulthood and has‚ by and large‚ accepted the transition to digital post-democracy without a murmur. If I have cause for optimism‚ it rests on a very qualified foundation: the manifest ineptitude of states where large-scale tech projects are concerned. While poor implementation is itself a likely source of countless as-yet unimaginable cruelties of algorithmic bureaucracy‚ it does at least hold out the bleak hope that cracks will remain in the cyborg mother's omniscience. That is‚ as long as governments continue to be useless at IT‚ there remains some hope that pockets of eccentricity will be able to persist‚ where our characteristically human friction‚ untidiness‚ and resistance to standardization continue to flourish despite every technocratic effort to nurture them out of existence.

Not long into Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' misconduct hearing Thursday‚ a witness provided a damning indication that the Black Panther's daughter and her lover may have been less than honest with the court about their potentially compromising affair. Whereas Willis would prefer Judge Scott McAfee to think her affair started in 2022‚ it may actually have started as early as October 2019. Quick background Willis' lawyers filed a document with the Fulton County Superior Court on Feb. 2 confirming the Democratic DA had been romantically involved with Nathan Wade — the allegedly underqualified man she appointed top prosecutor in former President Donald Trump's Georgia election interference case. This admission came weeks after a lawyer for one of Trump's co-defendants filed a motion to disqualify Willis‚ alleging she was embroiled in "an improper‚ clandestine personal relationship" with Wade; that the relationship was to her financial benefit; and that the affair may have involved possible criminality. The Feb. 2 filing from the DA's office stressed the "personal relationship between Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis has never involved direct or indirect financial benefit to District Attorney Willis" and that "Willis has no personal conflict of interest that justifies her disqualification personally or that of the Fulton County District Attorney' Office." Furthermore‚ the filing suggested that the affair did not start until after Wade's November 2021 appointment as special counsel. Wade made expressly clear in his affidavit that they did not start dating until 2022. Blaze News previously reported that a new complaint indicated Friday that attorney Terrence Bradley‚ a former friend and business associate of Wade's‚ has "non-privileged‚ personal knowledge that the romantic relationship between Wade and Willis began prior to Willis being sworn as the district attorney for Fulton County‚ Georgia in January 2021." Bradley is apparently not the only person who could cast doubt on the Democratic DA's preferred timeline. Longtime bedfellows Attorney Ashleigh Merchant telegraphed how Willis' misconduct hearing might go down at the outset‚ including what a former friend and employee of the Democratic DA might say on the stand. — (@) While much went to plan‚ there was nevertheless at least one surprise before lunch. Bradley‚ for instance‚ clammed up about the timeline of the affair‚ testifying that the Georgia Bar Association told him that he might be risking his license by divulging his communications with his former divorce client‚ Nathan Wade. — (@) Judge McAfee suggested in response that Bradley was making a "broader representation of attorney-client privilege than I've ever heard‚" reported the New York Times. Merchant‚ who filed the original motion to disqualify Willis in January on behalf of Trump co-defendant Michael Roman‚ pivoted from Bradley to Robin Yeartie‚ a former "good friend" of Willis and Fulton County DA employee who Merchant indicated "has a lot of personal knowledge." McAfee allowed Yeartie to take the stand despite the DA's office's desperate attempts to quash the subpoena to call her. "From everything that you saw‚ heard‚ witnessed‚ it is your understanding that they were in a romantic relationship beginning in 2019?" asked Merchant. Yeartie responded‚ "Yes." "You have no doubt that their romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with her?" asked Merchant. "No doubt‚" responded Yeartie. According to Willis' old friend‚ the Democratic DA and Wade began their relationship in earnest shortly after a conference in November 2019. When Merchant pressed Yeartie on whether the relationship was in fact romantic‚ Yeartie answered in the affirmative‚ later telling Trump's lawyer Steve Sadow that she observed them "hugging" and "kissing" long before Wade's 2021 appointment. — (@) After the court heard from Yeartie‚ the Atlanta Journal-Constitution highlighted that Wade doubled down on his claim that his relationship with Willis began in 2022. He also kept to the script about how the costs pertaining to his trips with Willis were usually settled more or less equitably. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!