Mixed Feelings

Here’s a story that gets me all philosophical:

A child psychiatrist in Charlotte, North Carolina, used artificial intelligence (AI) to make child porn, and he is now facing the consequences.

In a press release Wednesday, the United States Attorney’s Office Western District of North Carolina announced 41-year-old David Tatum will spend the next 40 years behind bars, then 30 years of supervised release for the sexual exploitation of a minor and the AI-generated child porn.

I’ll get to the philosophical bit in a moment because emotionally, of course, I want this perverted bastard to be burned at the stake and his ashes scattered far away from any children’s playground, never mind imprisoned forever.


Did not some Supreme Court, in its Supreme Wisdom, decree a while ago that making cartoon-based child pornography did not constitute a crime?  Why yes, yes it did.  (The whole story, country by country, can be found here.)

I myself once looked at 3D-printed sex dolls, with the logical extension thereof as it pertained to creating sex dolls of children (FFS).

So ‘splain this to me Simon:  if it’s okay (perhaps) to create sex dolls of children, why not AI-generated images or even movies?  Remember:  no actual person is being harmed by this activity.

This is but my philosophical musing, of course — see my “burned at the stake” suggestion above.

And boy, have we created an Alps-sized slippery slope with this one.


I know that most university students have brains like rice pudding, unencumbered as they are by any experiences with actual reality in their scholastic years — K-12 and whatever college years they’ve completed to date.

One would think that law students would be a little brighter than, say, the average Female Studies major, but that really doesn’t seem to be the case, what with law students coming out against Israel / Jews and supporting — publicly! — the amoral assholes known collectively as “Hamas”.

Let’s also keep in mind that in American law firms there is a very real chance that Jews are going to be, shall we say, very well represented as a proportion of the staffs thereof — despite the WASPy-sounding names of the firms.  In other words, if a freshly-minted lawyer from, oh, Cornell or Yale is going to begin his career at, say, Debevoise & Plimpton, Kirkland & Ellis or Winston, Strawn — to name but some notables — there is a real chance that his manager is going to be someone named Hyman Goldstein, Avi Cohen or Rachel Nathan.

How is said manager going to act towards a junior associate who once went public and signed a letter / marched in a protest which supported the genocidal “From The River To The Sea” slogan?  With compassion, kindness and forgiveness?

I’ll take “none of the above” for $400, Alex.

The pink-cheeked junior is going to be given megatons of overtime shitwork, the results of which will be mercilessly picked apart not only by the manager but also by partners (e.g. David Rosenblum or Myra Feldstein), resulting in terrible performance reviews and eventual termination.  And their next job is going to be even worse because — incredibly — senior lawyers at different law firms know each other and often talk amongst themselves about their employees at their weekly klabejas games or golf outings.

One may say that this is unjust or whatever, but it’s what’s known as “reality” — the thing from which these precious snowflakes have been sheltered by parents and teachers for over a dozen years of their lives to date — and it’s going to bite them in the ass, painfully and repeatedly.

So then, I think these idiot students can be grateful for this development (no link because NYT fucking paywall):

Law Firms Warn Universities About Antisemitism on Campus

Two dozen major Wall Street firms sent a letter to top law schools to crack down on discrimination and harassment amid an escalation in incidents targeting Jewish students.

With universities across the United States grappling with a rise in antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, elite law firms are putting schools on notice. In a letter to some of the nation’s top law schools obtained by DealBook, about two dozen major Wall Street firms warned that what happens on campus could have corporate consequences.

…nipping the careers of this little bunch of starry-eyed young idiots in the bud, so to speak.

The Gods Of The Copybook Headings say:  “Actions have consequences, and often those consequences are unpleasant.”

As these pro-Hamas-terrorist ingenues are finding out.

Not Here, It Ain’t

Here’s one from Britishland that’s guaranteed to make yer blood boil:

Shoppers trying to arrest shoplifters could expose themselves to legal action and even imprisonment for assault, a lawyer has said.

Chris Philp told a fringe event at last week’s Tory Party conference that members of the public should make citizen’s arrests on thieves and called on security guards to step in where it is safe to do so.

But Ed Smyth, partner at Kingsley Napley, said that the law generally only permits citizen’s arrests for serious cases that could be tried in a crown court. They could also be used for low value shoplifting cases, but the force used must always be reasonable in the circumstances.

And guess what?  You don’t get to decide what’s “reasonable”.

No wonder that law-abiding Brits just cower in the face of villainy.  The law is not on their side.

But Of Course

You will remember last week’s post wherein we all giggled upon seeing some shoplifting scrote getting his just deserts at the hands (stick?) of a shop owner who was fed-up by having said scrote stealing from him for the third time.

Well, because this happened in Cali-fucking-fornia, we now have this development:

Apparently, while many California cities have no desire to actually enforce the laws against people who steal from business owners and put them in financial peril, they are interested in enforcing battery laws involving the protection of said businesses. According to a new report, the Sikh man is now facing criminal charges as local police investigate the incident.

My own modest suggestion would be to borrow the man’s stick and beat the shit out of whoever actually charges this hero, but no doubt somebody’s going to have a problem with this.  (Just nobody, I suspect, among my Readers.)

But here’s what gets the RCOB moving:

Some are making the argument that the force used on the shoplifter in the video was excessive, and as a purely legal matter, that may be true. The shoplifter was begging for mercy while the store owner continued to swing back and strike him. The question is at what point the store owner is expected to disengage, and he likely passed that point.

The store owner “disengaged” before breaking any bones or causing any lasting damage to the asshole.  All he did was deliver a sound beating, and only in today’s pussified society could this be termed “excessive”.   Nobody cares if the scrote was “begging for mercy”, especially after the store owner tried his best to stop the overt shoplifting in a non-violent manner before resorting to the stick.

I am so glad I’m going to the range this afternoon with the Son&Heir…

Long Time Coming

I’ve always maintained that it’s an injustice for someone to lose their Second Amendment rights because of a criminal record imposed by the commission of a non-violent crime.  By all means, deny the Second to recently-paroled armed robbers and the like — but for non-violent offenses like forgery or tax evasion?  No.

Seems as though some judges are coming to the same conclusion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held this week in Range v. Garland that the government cannot disarm people convicted of minor, nonviolent offenses.

Unless I miss my guess, this is headed straight for the Supremes — and they’d better get it right.