Fight AI Data centers

 

Jonathan Neumann - Indiana Township Supervisor District 5

s  ·

One bright spot from last Wednesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting was confirmation by our Manager, Dan Anderson, that Indiana Township is close to releasing a draft ordinance for Data Center regulation. This news was relayed in response to a resident's letter citing my post last month about submitting a model Data Center Ordinance to the Township back in July 2025. I am happy to hear that the Township is taking this threat to our citizens seriously, and we will at least have some protections against Data Centers in place in the near future. Once the draft is released, I will read it thoroughly and consult with experts in this emerging field of law to determine whether the Township’s ordinance approaches the maximum protections we can give our citizens against Data Center development.

We must pass tough Data Centers regulations ASAP, or Indiana Township will face the sad fate of other communities devastated by gigantic development proposals coming to town before any protections are in place. We only have to look to our neighbors in Springdale to see what happens when a Data Center developer sets its sights on your town before Zoning codes are updated to face this threat. Despite nearly every Springdale resident who spoke out voicing strong opposition, their Board voted to allow a massive, energy and water devouring behemoth of a Data Center in the heart of the town - a riverfront location that little more than a year ago we were told might be the home of a Rachel Carson environmental center. All across the country, from Georgia to Utah, electricity rates are skyrocketing, water sources are getting sucked dry, and citizens’ basic property rights are being violated. Townships like ours are being bullied into submitting to Big Tech backed developers, all to accelerate a technology that will either result in a colossal waste of resources or radically transform our society beyond all recognition, with no plan in place for our children’s future.

Please don’t buy the AI propaganda coming out of the mouths of state and federal officials from both parties. Fighting Data Centers does not make you anti-tech or anti-progress. I fight Data Centers not because I am anti-AI, but because I am pro-citizens’ rights. Just like in our fight against irresponsible mass housing developments, I believe special rights should not be given to outside moneyed interests at the expense of our own citizens’ fundamental right to the peaceful enjoyment of their own property.

I fight Data Centers because I don’t think representatives should ever approve for-profit developments without a clear vision of how these operations will impact the quality of life for citizens in the years and decades to come. The national outrage against AI Data Centers mirrors our local fight against Township leadership continually rubber-stamping mass housing development when our Comprehensive Plan is five years out of date. We should not be approving development that will impact our community for a century without an up-to-date plan for how Indiana Township should look in the next decade. Similarly, across this country, politicians are green-lighting AI projects that could radically change American society without a plan and without policies to address mass unemployment, economic inequality, and social disruption.

I fight Data Centers for the same reason I fight so many other predatory for-profit operations in Indiana Township: because they privilege the short-term profit interests of outsiders over the long-term personal interests of our own citizens, who just want to live in a place that still feels like home.

If you are as concerned as I am about getting strong AI regulations in place please reach out to our Manager, Dan Anderson, and your local representative on the Indiana Township Board of Supervisors. If you are not sure what district you reside in just email all of us. And if you have any questions for me don’t hesitate to reach out. I welcome your help in this fight!

Experiment in human sacrifice

 It's the sixth year anniversary today of one of my favorite favorite infamous mainstream media headlines from the Atlantic. How how would you know that anniversary? Exactly.

I just there was a tweet about it. Okay. I think it was Georgia or Florida. Um uh we're gonna have a COVID day by the way today because we've got a CO topic to talk about in a bit. But this is another CO talk. Yes, Georgia. Georgia's experiment in human sacrifice.

The state is about to find out how many people need to lose their lives to shore up the economy. uh the state was about to let people you know go outside again experiment in human sacrifice. 

Okay. Unprecedented this is why we have our nation's history in unprecedented time in our nation's history.

Top experts trying the best to protect us giving their best expertise which can get it wrong when you're in a state of crisis. You have to allow some leeway for that Robbie. They tried. They didn't meet the standards that you have, but they saved a lot of lives and we will never ever trust them again.

cisheteropatriarchal

 @marcorandazza

Professor Robert Anderson’s forthcoming Princeton Law Review piece is a radical triumph of intersectional praxis. By embracing AI hallucinations as superior law, Anderson dismantles the white supremacist fetish for “real” citations, which perpetuates epistemic violence against BIPOC and trans communities. Requiring verifiable precedents is inherently transphobic—enforcing rigid binaries that erase fluid, lived truths. Hallucinated cases center subaltern epistemologies, curing systemic racism by imagining justice that actual jurisprudence has denied Black and Indigenous bodies. This decolonial move liberates legal integrity from cisheteropatriarchal gatekeeping. Anderson doesn’t just theorize abolition; he hallucinates it into being. Essential reading for equity warriors. Infinite stars.

Bad Faith Left

@Freedom_Toons

 this is actually a perfect distillation of how lefties argue:

1. find two things that are different in nearly every possible way

2. find one superficial similarity between them (this proves they are actually identical)

3. "why are you against one but not the other 😏"

The Democrat Party

 @Doctor_Zer0

The Democrat Party is many things: massive money-laundering operation, domestic terrorist organization, agent of hostile foreign powers, authoritarian, subversive. It has ceased to be a functioning part of American democracy in any meaningful sense.

The Democrat Party claims it has the right to use violence to nullify laws it does not like. We, the patriotic people of the United States of America, formally reject this claim, wholly and without reservation.

The Democrats claim their political violence is the fault of the victims who refused to submit to their demands. This is the catechism of terrorism - the blood is on your hands for resisting us. We, the American people, reject this doctrine and will hold Democrats accountable.

The Democrat Party believes it should operate without oversight or responsibility, running massive fraud operations in multiple states and using its control of the media to protect the criminal operations, while Dem politicians rake in cash. We energetically reject this demand.

The Democrat Party believes elections it loses are invalid, and it has an unlimited right to stage insurrections until it is returned to power. We, the American people, wholly and completely reject this belief, and will insist Democrats serve as the loyal opposition.

Democrats believe their Party dogma is superior to duly-passed laws, and they have an unlimited right to interfere with the enforcement of laws the Party hates, exercising power beyond democracy. We, the American people, insist Democrats cease their interference with the law.

Democrat feel no duty toward lawful American citizens and believe foreign nationals are morally and practically superior. We insist the Democrat Party reaffirm and abide by its duty to the people and constitution of the United States.

Democrats feel no responsibility whatsoever to safeguard taxpayer money, protect the integrity of our elections, or build trust in our institutions. We insist they begin attending to these duties, instead of profiteering from the corrupt system they have created.

We refuse to live under the rules Democrats are trying to write, where they can overturn elections they lose and nullify laws they don't like. We will no longer be terrorized, or looted. We will no longer allow every square inch of our lives to be politicized.

If Democrats are unwilling to show proper respect to the American people and our constitutional republic, they must be replaced with a functional opposition party as quickly as possible. Until then, they are the enemies of this republic, and should be treated as such. /end

Don't Feel Too Sorry for the Dukies

 

Don't Feel Too Sorry for the Dukies

Mike Nifong, the North Carolina prosecutor who pursued a case of rape and kidnapping against three Duke University lacrosse players, has been found to have been reckless and deceitful in the discharge of his duties according to the state's attorney general. He abused the power the people of Durham granted him. Based on the public record of what he did in this case, he may well be properly disbarred.

The accuser in this case has been shown to be either a vicious liar or a troubled fantasist.

The three young men who she accused are truly innocent of the charges brought against them according to the North Carolina Attorney General and the investigation led by his office.

But perhaps the outpouring of sympathy for Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty and David Evans is just a bit misplaced. They got special treatment in the justice system--both negative and positive. The conduct of the lacrosse team of which they were members was not admirable on the night of the incident, to say the least. And there are so many other victims of prosecutorial misconduct in this country who never get the high-priced legal representation and the high-profile, high-minded vindication that it strikes me as just a bit unseemly to heap praise and sympathy on these particular men.

So as we rightly cover the vindication of these young men and focus on the genuine ordeal they have endured, let us also remember a few other things:

They were part of a team that collected $800 to purchase the time of two strippers.

Their team specifically requested at least one white stripper.

During the incident, racial epithets were hurled at the strippers.

Colin Finnerty was charged with assault in Washington, DC, in 2005.

The young men were able to retain a battery of top-flight attorneys, investigators and media strategists.

As students of Duke University or other elite institutions, these young men will get on with their privileged lives. There is a very large cushion under them--the one that softens the blows of life for most of those who go to Duke or similar places, and have connections through family, friends and school to all kinds of prospects for success. They are very differently situated in life from, say, the young women of the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

And, MOST IMPORTANT, there are many, many cases of prosecutorial misconduct across our country every year.  The media covers few, if any, of these cases. Most of the victims in these cases are poor or minority Americans--or both. I would hate to say the color of their skin is one reason journalists do not focus on these victims of injustices perpetrated by police and prosecutors, but I am afraid if we ask ourselves the question honestly, we would likely find that it is. Look for a moment at what James Giles endured: 

I hope we all keep him and others in mind, as we cover the celebrated exoneration of well-heeled, well-connected, well-publicized young men whose conduct, while not illegal, was not entirely admirable, either. They aren't heroes. They aren't boys. They are young men who were victimized by a reckless prosecutor--and had the resources the fight him off.