The moonbats comprising the Democrat base have reacted to Trump’s triumph with predictably childish temper tantrums. Deep in the woke fever swamps, Scientific American Editor-in-Chief Laura Helmuth went so hebephrenic that even she eventually realized she had made a fool of herself:

“Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f–k them to the moon and back,” she wrote in one post on the social media platform Bluesky, according to Fox News.

In another post, she reportedly wrote, “I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is full of f–king fascists.”

That’s not a very scientific appraisal of the American population.

In a pathetic attempt to salvage the publication’s lost credibility, she apologized days later, confirming her general cluelessness by attributing her own foul-mouthed screeds to “shock and confusion about the election results.”

“These posts of course do not reflect the position of Scientific American or my colleagues. I am committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity,” she added.

Yeah right. As noted when Scientific American endorsed the godawful Kamala Harris,

The leftist propaganda rag issues Newspeak Dictionary updates, gins up hysteria over the weather, informs us that we like climate radicalism, hypes drag queens, racializes NFL injuries, equates failing to subject children to sex change procedures to Nazism, and even proclaims that sex organs are merely a social construct.

Who knows? Maybe Scientific American will change course and once again prioritize science over moonbattery — though this is not likely to happen with Laura Helmuth at the helm.

On a tip from Jack D.

Moonbats have mainstreamed their lunatic ideology in part through a Trojan horse strategy of politicizing institutions that have nothing to do with politics. Sports is an obvious example. The difference between MSNBC and ESPN is that the former is limited in how much damage it can inflict, given that it is preaching to a choir of leftist kooks. Another example is the formerly respected publication Scientific American, which attempts to mask woke politics behind scientific pretensions.

The leftist propaganda rag issues Newspeak Dictionary updates, gins up hysteria over the weather, informs us that we like climate radicalism, hypes drag queens, racializes NFL injuries, equates failing to subject children to sex change procedures to Nazism, and even proclaims that sex organs are merely a social construct.

No one will be surprised to learn that Scientific American, which endorsed the disastrous Joe Biden, also endorses Kamala Harris.

Equally unsurprising is that the endorsement consists largely of shopworn lies and distortions: Trump told people to inject bleach, no state allows the killing of babies who have been born (the most egregious example of those that do is Tim Walz’s Minnesota), J.D. Vance dismissed school shootings as a “fact of life,” Project 25 is “devious and divisive” and will be implemented by Trump, et cetera. But the piece does make a good case — for Trump:

• Harris wants to socialize medicine through expansion of Medicare.
• Harris wants to raise taxes even higher.
• Harris had a role in driving up inflation through the grotesquely extravagant wasteful spending imposed by the Inflation Reduction Act.
• Harris wants to fix prices in the pharmaceutical industry, which will retard innovation and possibly result in shortages.
• Harris is a fanatical advocate of abortion.
• Harris wants to take people’s guns away.
• Harris would raise energy costs.
• Harris would exploit the global warming hoax to increase the power and scope of government, thereby reducing our standard of living.
• Harris would push costly electric vehicle idiocy.

As for Trump:

• Trump would allegedly repeal ObamaCare, thereby lowering insurance prices.
• Trump might scale back federal bloat and overreach.
• Trump acknowledges that the “climate emergency” is a hoax.
• Trump pulled the USA out of the suicide pact known as the Paris Agreement.

Then there is this:

Trump appointed the conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, removing the constitutional right to a basic health-care procedure.

Aside from the ghoulish depravity of characterizing killing inconvenient children as “a basic health-care procedure,” there was never a constitutional right to abortion. If the Constitution says whatever leftists on the Supreme Court would like it to say, we may as well not have a constitution.

Scientific American seals the deal by denouncing Trump as “a convicted felon” — reminding us that he is the guy running against tyrants who want to throw him in prison for opposing them.

Thank you Scientific American, for encouraging people to vote for Trump twice as hard.

On a tip from Franco. Hat tip: Legal Insurrection.

Like many formerly respected institutions, Scientific American allowed itself to be subverted by leftists. Painting woke propaganda with an ever thinner veneer of science has reduced it to farce (e.g., here, here, here, here, here). At this point, readers are led to believe that not subjecting children to sex change procedures is equivalent to Nazism:

In the past century, there have been three waves of opposition to transgender health care.

By “transgender health care,” they mean sex change procedures. Scientists don’t speak in euphemisms; liberal activists do.

In 1933, when the Nazis rose to power, they cracked down on transgender medical research and clinical practice in Europe. In 1979, a research report critical of transgender medicine led to the closure of the most well-respected clinics in the United States. And since 2021, when Arkansas became the first U.S. state among now at least 21 other states banning gender-affirming care for minors, we have been living in a third wave.

Not using chemicals and/or surgery to freakify children into horrific parodies of the opposite sex so as to recruit them into the LGBT community = Nazi policy.

Only time will tell whether Scientific American can push self-parody any further from here.

On a tip from Mike B.

Once a publication has succumbed to the Long March Through the Institutions, its ostensible subject matter is subordinated to moonbattery. Scientific American is a case in point (see here, here, here, here, here, etc.). A recent article on affixing numbered pieces of plastic to sharks so they can be identified for research purposes is not about sharks; it is about promoting flamboyant displays of sexual depravity:

It starts like any other day on the water for the Field School, a marine research and education organization based in Miami. Scientists and volunteers cram into the main cabin of the RV Garvin, a 55-foot converted yacht…

Soon we’re cruising through calm seas off Florida’s Atlantic coast. …

Then the music starts.

The cabin door pops open, and Miss Toto—a tall, muscular drag queen with a long red-and-blonde wig and a colorful ruffled costume reminiscent of a tropical fish—emerges and takes the makeshift stage. [He] dances and lip-synchs to Nicki Minaj’s “Starships” as the boat rolls with the waves. [He]’s soon joined by Viola Putx, who is dancing energetically to Bad Bunny in heavy black boots, a spiked collar and pointy elf ears, and finally by Opal Am Rah in a tight pink dress, performing (what else?) Céline Dion’s “My Heart Will Go On”—because this is no ordinary shark tagging expedition. This is Drag ’n Tag. …

[This Toto guy and] Catherine Macdonald, head of the university’s shark research program and director of the Field School … started Drag ’n Tag expeditions in 2021 to showcase queerness in marine science.

Barks Macdonald, who introduces herself to associates as a “raging lesbian”:

“We want to create welcoming spaces for visual queerness.”

That’s what marine science is all about, in a world run by moonbats.

In case the political message is too subtle for a readership that probably isn’t as bright as it once was, SA clubs you over the head with it:

Drag ’n Tag was never intended to be a political statement—but it is taking place in Florida, where simply existing as queer has become an inherently political act. The state has been turning into an increasingly hostile place for queer people; its infamous “Don’t Say Gay” law limits classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity, and the state has also imposed restrictions on gender-affirming treatments for minors, as well as on drag shows, bathroom usage and the pronouns that kids can use in school.

The much-needed Parental Rights in Education Act, which leftists mischaracterize as “Don’t Say Gay” in an attempt to mislead, protects children through third grade from being groomed by perverts in public schools.

“Never intended to make a political statement.” Yeah right:

The Garvin flies both a rainbow Pride flag and a Black Lives Matter flag, prompting the occasional shouted slur. “We’re still figuring out what protecting our students looks like,” Macdonald adds. “It’s important to make our values clear, but we don’t want people screaming at them.”

Woke “values” prominently feature promoting sexual perversion to children, so liberals should find this inspiring:

But the only screaming today (besides from the audience during the drag show) comes from a family on a passing boat, whose children recognize Miss Toto and call out happy greetings. “I never expected that!” Toto says, with a huge grin and a hint of tears in [his] eyes.

Maybe Scientific American and the Field School could further promote their values by teaming up to do a remake of Jaws. I’ll be rooting for the shark.

On a tip from Mike B.

Scientific American is where leftist propaganda imitates parody. Just as the World Economic Forum proclaims that we will be happy owning nothing, Scientific American assures us we like climate radicalism. With its cartoonish racialization of the Damar Hamlin injury, it jumped the shark and can no longer be considered even a kiddy version of a scientific publication. But that doesn’t mean it serves no purpose. It provides climate-related updates to the Newspeak Dictionary so as to help us avoid committing wrongspeak.

Transforming the way we talk about climate change can engage people and build the political will needed to implement policies strong enough to confront the crisis with the urgency required.

Modern leftism is founded upon postmodernism, a central tenet of which is that power is achieved through control of language. To implement this strategy, Scientific American provides a handy graphic listing politically correct terminology regarding the global warming hoax:

A key point to remember is that just as “global warming” became “climate change” to cover for when temperatures go down instead of up, “climate change” is now to give way to “climate disruption,” because too many people understand that the climate has always changed and always will, no matter how much tyranny progressives use it as a pretext to inflict.

Also, never say “natural disasters.” People who cling to wealth and freedom are to blame for all bad weather, so say “human-made disasters” instead. Because this racistly implies that sacred BIPOCs help cause bad weather, it will probably be updated to “Caucasian-made disasters.”

Further orders regarding politically expedient climate vocabulary:

Terms such as “regulate,” “restrict,” “cut,” “control” and “tax” are unpopular, especially among conservatives. Perhaps people would be more likely to support solutions described with words such as “innovation,” “entrepreneurship,” “ingenuity,” “market-based” and “competing in the global clean energy race.” The fact that the first significant U.S. climate policy is called the Inflation Reduction Act is another example of how word choice matters. The name itself helped to gain the crucial support of Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the swing vote. The name may also have made the legislation more appealing to the many Americans who worry about climate change but rank it below inflation and the economy on their list of priorities.

The Orwellian title convinced few that the blowout climate kookery spending bill would reduce inflation instead of making it worse. Scientific American thinks its readers are as dumb as Joe Manchin pretends to be.

On a tip from Steve D.

Scientific American cashed in its credibility to become a soapbox for leftism ages ago. With its racialization of Damar Hamlin injury, it has jumped the shark.

In a freakishly rare incident, Hamlin’s heart temporarily stopped following a normal tackle.

This ordinary violence has always riddled the sport and it affects all players. But Black players are disproportionately affected.

Here’s why:

Non-white players account for 70 percent of the NFL…

They make more in a year playing a game for a few months than most of us will earn in our lives. Sports fans idolize them. Many envy them. Yet we are told that because they might get injured playing football, they are enslaved:

On these playing fields, ones that sociologist Billy Hawkins would argue are never theoretically far from plantation fields, financial stakeholders value Black bodies for their productive potential and physical prowess. … In the words of sociologist and activist Harry Edwards, “like a piece of equipment, the black athlete is used.” While I am not aware of research that compares the rate of injury between Black and white football players, heatstrokes, ACL and labrum tears, ankle sprains, bone breaks, and concussions are just a few of the consequences of how these bodies are used.

Author Tracie Canada is “not aware of research,” but has plenty of unfounded opinion to compensate. Yet they call it Scientific American.

Just so that you don’t forget that achieving the dream of playing for the NFL amounts to slavery:

Further, to dismiss the almost certain breaking down of their bodies as just part of the game is a process of objectification and commodification that prioritizes the player over the person in a way that Black feminist scholar bell hooks says calls to mind “the history of slavery and the plantation economy.” The anti-Blackness of the system is inescapable.

No matter what happens, it is evidence that the world’s most conspicuously privileged minority group is actually oppressed and therefore America is bad and deserves what leftists are doing to it.

Legal Insurrection offers other recent examples of Scientific American subordinating Science to its un-American moonbat ideology:

[O]ver the summer, Scientific American slammed NASA for ending their “Pronoun Project.”

Also, in June 2021 SciAm removed an anti-Israel op/ed from their website after criticism from other scientists, some of whom called out the magazine for “falsifying facts.”

They’ve also admittedly colluded with the mainstream media on politicizing the climate change debate.

The formerly respected publication even participates in the establishment of obesity as an oppressed identity worthy of cultural Marxist reverence:

They’ve also alleged that there is an “anti-fat” bias in the medical community primarily because some physicians dare to point out to their patients that losing weight could help them become healthier and perhaps experience fewer physical problems.

In a related piece, one author proclaimed that “you can be fat and fit at the same time.”

Not surprisingly, they’ve also gone woke on the gender identity politics front, stating that it’s “transphobic” for anyone to suggest that men who identify as women should not be allowed to play in women’s sports.

Anything moonbattery infiltrates is reduced to contemptible farce. Publications like Scientific American are no exception.

On a tip from Occam’s Stubble.

As the name suggests, Scientific American was once a scientific publication. Then it succumbed to moonbattery. Now it churns out cartoonish left-wing propaganda, regarding itself to be safe from ridicule because like Anthony Fauci, it embodies The Science.

On behalf of the LGBT agenda, it has come out against identifying babies as male or female. On behalf of the Great Reset, it tells us that we like watching the US economy destroyed in the name of the global warming hoax.

Actual headline:

Climate Change Actions Are Far More Popular Than People in U.S. Realize

Never mind what you think you think. The Experts will tell you what you think as well as what everyone else thinks.

From the article:

A multibillion-dollar slate of moderate climate-mitigation measures in the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act has been met so far with general public approval. But a broader reaction to the historic federal action underlies the discourse: What took you so long?

During a time of stratospheric inflation, the Democrats flagrantly waste hundreds of $billions on frivolous crap that not a single reasonable person expects to have any perceptible impact on the supposedly problematic climate. Because this massive looting spree is certain to drive inflation significantly higher, they call it the “Inflation Reduction Act.”

Note that dissipating a vast fortune that we cannot afford on inefficient, eagle-killing, taxpayer money-laundering wind turbine boondoggles and EV subsidies for rich moonbats is portrayed as “moderate.” Scientific American would prefer more radical measures — the kind likely to inflict total economic collapse, like the Green New Deal.

Adding insult to injury, we are told that we enjoy seeing our future canceled by corrupt scoundrels like Biden on behalf of laughable lies. The article even tells us that we like the Green New Deal.

Americans almost universally underestimate the extent of climate concern among their compatriots. They also underestimate the extent of public support—at the state and national level alike—for policy measures to address the climate emergency.

The point of the article is that if only we realized that everyone else wants society fundamentally transformed so that Big Government can control the weather, then the Great Reset could proceed.

Left unexplained is why we would underestimate other people’s support for radical measures in the name of pretending to control the climate when the media is run by ideologues who aggressively advocate these measures. Instead, we are told,

Major media outlets should probably give more coverage to public support for climate policies because people don’t seem to get how popular they are.

Evidently, the media relentlessly browbeating us for years on end with the hoax, twisting stories and fabricating nonsense to support Al Gore’s swindle, has been sufficient to convince us that there is a “climate emergency,” but not to convince us that everyone else is convinced.

This isn’t even bad science. It isn’t science at all. It is fanatics who want to destroy your way of life peeing on your leg and telling you that climate change is making it rain.

This is what moonbattery leaves of a long-respected publication. Anything it infiltrates, it renders pernicious and contemptible.

On a tip from Steve D.

In 2017, a pair of pranksters demonstrated that moonbattery is making a mockery of academia by getting a parody article about how sex organs are a social construct published in an academic journal. Their warning was wasted. Radical moonbattery has seeped out of the ivy-covered ivory tower to infect the broader society. As noted at Not the Bee, parody is now presented as reality:

The Scientific American published an actual article arguing that sexual organs are merely social constructs, not biological realities of dichotomous sex with specific functions in procreation.

Pranksters Jamie Lindsay and Peter Boyle were probably sniggering as they wrote this:

Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity. Through detailed poststructuralist discursive criticism and the example of climate change, this paper will challenge the prevailing and damaging social trope that penises are best understood as the male sexual organ and reassign it a more fitting role as a type of masculine performance.

Yet Rachel E. Gross no doubt wore an expression of smug righteousness as she excreted the following for Scientific America:

[W]hat is a penis? … Basically, we’re talking about a fleshy organ lined with columns of spongy tissue, which can fill with blood and grow rigid. As it turns out, that’s also the definition of a clitoris, which develops out of the same embryonic structures and is made up of the same tissues. …

“What I’ve come to realize is that everything a man has a woman has; everything a woman has, a man has, anatomically,” says Dr. Marci Bowers, a gender affirmation surgeon in Palo Alto who has done more than 2,000 male-to-female surgeries. “The penis is just a large clitoris. In fact, I don’t know why they don’t just call it a large clitoris.” …

[M]uch of what we know about our nether regions has been shaped by lazy, antiquated stereotypes about what men and women are. Looking past the penis and beyond the binary categories of male/female, penis/vagina (or, more accurately, penis/clitoris) opens our eyes to the full spectrum of gender and genitalia in all its glorious permutations.

Yet again we see that the liberal establishment is at war with reality.

Hilariously, liberals denounce their opponents as enemies of science.

On tips from Steve T and Mr. Freemarket.

The moonbats at Phys.org had almost caught up to Scientific American when it comes to subordinating science to wokeness. Then they went and admitted that EV owners sin against their own godless religion by having larger carbon footprints:

A pair of psychologists and an economist at the University of Turku, in Finland, have found that because the average electric vehicle (EV) owner is wealthier than the average person, they still have a bigger than average carbon footprint.

So it is not transportation that offends the weather but wealth. Don’t worry, leftist politicians have a cure for that.

Despite EV owners being wealthy enough to waste money on expensive green posturing, their playthings are heavily subsidized by those of us who do not. EV manufacturers naturally raise their prices to match the subsidies.

On a tip from Steve T.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, but the liberal ruling class is fooling ever fewer with the global warming hoax. It is public knowledge that the climate has always fluctuated and always will, that the government cannot control this, and that there is no climate crisis. The era of unchallenged climate doctrine is over:

Leading voices in the climate community are in an uproar as their warming hypothesis comes under fresh assault by new scientific papers.

Scientists have boldly pointed out that the mild warming we have experienced is caused by solar activity, and temperature readings have been grotesquely distorted by the urban heat island effect.

Meanwhile, human CO2 emissions constitute less than 1% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and have little measurable effect on the climate. Leftist global warming dogma is a lie, the purpose of which is to impose globalist authoritarianism.

The authors of the papers are being attacked and say that “activist scientists” threatened by the new findings are “aggressively conducting an orchestrated disinformation campaign to discredit the papers and the scientific reputation of the authors.”

Underhanded tactics to suppress legitimate research have been employed by pseudoscientific establishmentarians like Michael Mann of hockey stick and Climategate infamy, bureauweenie Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Dan Vergano of the leftist propaganda platform (see here, here, here, here, here, etc.) Scientific American.

The papers are also fueling even more public skepticism about the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the authors say ignores the facts as well as climate science more generally.

The United Nations answers threats to its agenda by declaring war on what Undersecretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming calls climate “disinformation.” This approach was successful at suppressing dissent during Covid hysteria — for a while.

Progressives face a losing battle, for all their superciliousness. Despite decades of relentless propaganda from the media, less than half of Americans are gullible enough to believe that climate change is caused by people. The percentage will fall lower still as the world continues to not end and real science evades suppression.

Meanwhile, our rulers spend us into oblivion and conspire to radically reduce our freedom and our standard of living in the name of the climate. A collision is coming.

On a tip from ABC of the ANC.

No modern convenience will escape the climate police. Now the woke kooks who made Scientific American into a laughing stock demand we stop putting ice in cocktails — because the climate.

On the level:

For years the hospitality industry has seen diners clamoring for foods that prioritize climate-friendly practices, such as local and seasonal ingredients that are grown or raised with carbon footprints in mind. Yet cocktail culture hasn’t been hit with the same scrutiny. As the American West experiences water scarcity and energy prices remain volatile, the protocol for properly made cocktails doesn’t look sustainable. Is it possible to make satisfying cocktails without so much ice?

The author calls for an “energy-efficient, climate-conscious cocktail movement” that entails room-temperature drinks.

We won’t have ice anyway if Democrats have their way, because they have already declared that refrigeration is offensive to their climate gods, along with air conditioning, washers and dryers, dishwashers, gas stoves, et cetera.

You don’t have anything that liberals won’t take away from you once they have enough power. In the meantime, we get to listen to them preach their backward weather-based religion.

On a tip from Stormfax.

No matter how hard Dr Fauci and the rest of the liberal establishment try to keep Covid hysteria going indefinitely, the pandemic is winding down. It is time to take the lessons learned regarding how much the little people will tolerate without rebelling and apply them to the global warming hoax. Did I say, “global warming”? I meant, “climate change.” No wait, they have changed it again, in hopes of generating panic. Update your Newspeak Dictionary; the nonexistent weather crisis is now to be called “climate emergency.”

The Hill reports:

Scientific American Magazine announced Monday that it will begin using the term “climate emergency” instead of “climate change” when referring to the challenges of global warming, saying its task is to accurately report the news.

Actually, its task is to support the liberal agenda. Calling the fact that the climate continues to fluctuate as it always has and always will is not dispassionate reporting; it is propaganda.

The publication joined a slew of other outlets, including the Columbia Journalism Review and The Guardian, in its statement regarding the change in posture, Yahoo News reported.

You could almost get the impression that someone is coordinating this propaganda campaign from above.

Scientific American senior editor Mark Fischetti obediently yelps that fluctuating climate could “render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable” if the carbon emissions that accompany all human activity are not severely limited. This would require government to take control of the economy and radically reduce our standard of living, not to mention our freedom.

Actually, a significant portion of the Earth already is uninhabitable, because it is too cold. Danish farmers settled Greenland because it used to be green up there. Temperatures trending upward would not be all bad. In any case, Big Government may control everything else, but it cannot control the weather.

“Why ‘emergency?’ Because words matter. To preserve a livable planet, humanity must take action immediately,” Fischetti wrote.

The emphasis on manipulating our view of reality by manipulating vocabulary is classic postmodern leftism. This does not work in the long run, because people adapt to changed meanings. Just as “peaceful protester” now means “left-wing rioter,” “climate emergency” will soon mean “pleasant weather.”

“Guided by science, journalists have described the pandemic as an emergency, chronicled its devastating impacts, called out disinformation and told audiences how to protect themselves,” Fischetti wrote. “We need the same commitment to the climate story.”

It could not be clearer that the liberal ruling class intends to impose Covid-style tyranny on a permanent basis in the name of pretending to control the weather. Some of the more sinister leftists like John Kerry call this scheme the “Great Reset.”

Even amid a pandemic, which has paused travel plans and reduced economic activities, scientists found that [the level of harmless CO2 in] the earth’s atmosphere has continued to rise, according to The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Yahoo reported.

That means something even more repressive than the devastating ChiCom virus lockdowns is called for, in order to respond to this perpetual “emergency.”

On tips from Henry and Stormfax.

The cancer started in social science departments, where no one was learning anything useful anyway. Unfortunately, social justice ideology has metastasized to every corner of academe — even real science:

In an op-ed, titled, “Physicists Need to Be More Careful with How They Name Things” for the Scientific American, St. Anselm College physics professor Ian Durham, University of Bristol math professor Karoline Wiesner, and freelance journalist Daniel Garisto call for doing away with the physics term “quantum supremacy” in an anti-racist measure.

The concept of white supremacy is so horrific to moonbats that the word “supremacy” must be banned by association. Revise your copy of the Newspeak Dictionary accordingly.

The popular term, coined in 2012 by quantum physicist John Preskill, refers to quantum computers outperforming classical ones. It has nothing to do with racism, which the authors of the op-ed even acknowledge, but say that it is “uncomfortably reminiscent” of “white supremacy.”

Everything in academia is about political correctness; that is to say, it is about hatred of white men.

The authors add that while abolishing the term “quantum supremacy” would not in itself diversify science, it is a small step toward making the scientific community “less white and male.”

It doesn’t matter what discoveries are made or even whether they are made. All that matters is that if there are any discoveries, they are made by members of approved identity groups.

The corrupted liberal arts have established supremacy over the sciences.

On a tip from ABC of the ANC.

Unable to cope with not getting their way, moonbats have responded to Trump’s triumph by shrieking obscenities, disfiguring their appearance, threatening lawfare, telling Trump voters to kill themselves, and publicly indulging in meltdowns. Others have apparently taken it less well:

A 33-year-old woman has been charged with first-degree murder after allegedly killing her father with an ice ax during an argument over turning off the lights.

There was more to it that the lights. The murder occurred on the evening of the election.

Corey Burke reportedly told detectives that she killed her father during a mental health crisis, feeling overwhelmed by emotions related to Election Day.

I’ll go out on a limb and assume she is a Democrat.

She admitted to using the ax and also strangling him, stating that she “just freaked out” when her father argued with her about the lights.

The insanity defense will probably allow her to evade justice. If that fails, maybe she can plead that her father voted for Trump, given that this happened in moonbattery-addled Seattle.

On a tip from Dennis G.