Wednesday, June 21, 2023

ALL GOOD IN MAGALAND: MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE CALLS BOEBERT A 'LITTLE BITCH' ON THE HOUSE FLOOR

ALL GOOD IN MAGALAND: MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE CALLS BOEBERT A 'LITTLE BITCH' ON THE HOUSE FLOOR 

In what can only be described as a classic case of pot calling the kettle black, Marjorie Taylor Greene, the notorious QAnon supporter and conspiracy theorist, has publicly referred to her fellow Republican congresswoman, Lauren Boebert, as a 'little bitch' on the House floor.

The incident occurred during a heated debate over the recent gun control legislation proposed by the Democrats. Boebert, who has made a name for herself as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, was arguing passionately against the bill, citing the need for Americans to be able to defend themselves against government tyranny.

Greene, who was sitting nearby, took exception to Boebert's argument and decided to voice her displeasure in the most mature way possible: by calling her a 'little bitch'. The insult was met with gasps from the other members of Congress, many of whom were shocked by Greene's lack of decorum.

Boebert, to her credit, took the insult in stride and simply laughed it off. "I've been called worse things by better people," she quipped, before returning to her argument.

But the incident highlights a growing trend within the Republican party, where personal attacks and insults have become commonplace. Instead of engaging in civil discourse and respectful debate, many politicians have resorted to name-calling and mudslinging in an attempt to score political points.

It's a sad state of affairs, but it's not surprising given the current political climate. With social media and cable news networks fueling outrage and division, it's easy for politicians to get caught up in the drama and lose sight of what's really important: serving their constituents and working towards a better future for all Americans.

But there is hope. Despite the negativity and vitriol that often dominates the political landscape, there are still politicians who are committed to civility and respect. People like Boebert, who can take a joke and keep fighting for what they believe in, are a shining example of what politics should be.

So let's all take a lesson from Boebert and rise above the insults and pettiness. Let's engage in respectful debate and work towards solutions that benefit everyone, not just a select few. Because at the end of the day, we're all in this together, whether we like it or not.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls Boebert a ‘Little Bitch’ on the House Floor https://www.thedailybeast.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-calls-boebert-a-little-bitch-on-the-house-floor?source=twitter&via=desktop via @thedailybeast 

SUPREME COURT BADBOY OG'S SAY ETHICS SUCK

SUPREME COURT BADBOY OG'S SAY ETHICS SUCK

Are you ready for some juicy gossip? Buckle up, because we're about to dive into the controversies involving Justices Alito and Thomas. And let me tell you, it's like a soap opera up in here.

Let's start with Justice Alito. Apparently, he's been accused of not recusing himself from cases involving a hedge fund founder named Paul Singer. And on top of that, he didn't report some gifts on his financial disclosure forms. Come on, Alito, you're supposed to be a judge, not a shady businessman.

But hold on, folks, Alito isn't taking this lying down. He wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal defending himself. According to him, he had no obligation to recuse himself from any case involving Singer. And as for the gifts, he followed the standard practice at the time. Hmm, sounds like someone's trying to cover their tracks.

Now let's move on to Justice Thomas. This guy has some serious ties to a Texas billionaire named James B. Harris. Apparently, Harris paid for Thomas and his wife to stay at his ranch and even use his private jet. Talk about living the high life.

But wait, there's more. Thomas also failed to disclose his wife's income from conservative groups for several years. And to top it off, he's been attending events sponsored by conservative donors and activists. Can you say conflict of interest?

To make matters worse, both Thomas and Alito have questioned the Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriage. They claim it has no basis in the Constitution and threatens the religious liberty of those who oppose it. Sorry, fellas, but love is love and the Constitution protects everyone's right to it.

In conclusion, it looks like these justices have some explaining to do. Maybe they should take a cue from Judge Judy and start keeping their noses clean. Until then, we'll be here with our popcorn, waiting for the next episode of "As the Supreme Court Turns."

THE DEFT DIVE

  • - **Justice Alito** has been accused of failing to recuse himself from cases in which a hedge fund founder named Paul Singer was involved, and of not reporting certain gifts on his annual financial disclosure forms, such as a private flight to Alaska for a fishing trip²³. Alito has defended himself in an op-ed published by The Wall Street Journal, saying that he had no obligation to recuse in any case connected to Singer, and that he followed the standard practice for reporting gifts at the time².
  • - **Justice Thomas** has faced questions about his ties to a Texas billionaire named James B. Harris, who reportedly paid for Thomas and his wife to stay at his ranch and use his private jet⁵. Thomas also failed to disclose his wife's income from conservative groups for several years, and has been criticized for attending events sponsored by conservative donors and activists⁵. In addition, Thomas and Alito have both questioned the Supreme Court's 2015 decision that established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, saying that it had no basis in the Constitution and that it threatened the religious liberty of those who oppose it⁴.

Bing, 6/21/2023

US Supreme Court's Alito defends against ethics questions. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-courts-alito-defends-against-ethics-questions-2023-06-21/.

Samuel Alito’s WSJ Op-Ed Is Raising A Lot Of Questions - HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alito-ethics-claims-wall-street-journal-ethics_n_64924b40e4b0bd83fda50f52.

Clarence Thomas: Here Are All The Ethics Scandals Involving ... - Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/05/05/clarence-thomas-here-are-all-the-ethics-scandals-involving-the-supreme-court-justice-amid-new-revelations/.

Justices Thomas and Alito Question Same-Sex Marriage Precedent. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/us/politics/thomas-alito-same-sex-marriage.html.

Justices Thomas and Alito Question Same-Sex Marriage Precedent. https://bing.com/search?q=Alito+and+Thomas+controversies.

MAGA ATTEMPTS TO MURDER ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN OHIO

 

MAGA ATTEMPTS TO MURDER

ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN OHIO

Academic freedom will be dead in Ohio, and it's all thanks to a bill called Ohio SB 83. But don't worry, folks, it's not like we needed academic freedom anyway. Who needs the freedom to inquire and teach without fear of repression or job loss? Not us, apparently.

So what is Ohio SB 83, you ask? Well, it's a bill that bans nearly all diversity training requirements at public colleges and universities in the state. Because who needs diversity, am I right? We should all just stick to our own little bubbles and never learn about anyone else's experiences or perspectives.

But that's not all! The bill also prohibits university staff and employees from striking. Because who needs the right to advocate for their own rights and interests? That's just silly.

Oh, and did I mention that the bill requires American history courses? Because apparently, we're not already brainwashed enough with our American exceptionalism. We need to make sure everyone knows about the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers, but forget about anything else that might be important or relevant.

But wait, there's more! The bill also bases professor tenure on "bias." Because nothing says academic freedom like being judged on your personal opinions instead of your actual work and contributions to the field.

And let's not forget about the extensive and expensive new reporting requirements on Ohio's public institutions. Because who needs academic autonomy and integrity when you can have unnecessary bureaucracy and oversight?

But don't worry, folks. There are some supporters of this bill. Like state Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, who said the bill is "an urgently needed course correction." Because apparently, the only way to correct a course is to steer it straight into a brick wall.

And let's not forget about the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a nonprofit organization that advocates for academic excellence, academic freedom, and accountability in higher education. Because nothing says accountability like taking away academic freedom.

But don't worry, there are plenty of opponents to this bill as well. Like the Ohio State University Board of Trustees, who issued a rare public statement opposing the bill. Because apparently, they actually care about academic freedom and shared governance.

And let's not forget about the Faculty Council of the Ohio State University Senate, who approved a resolution in opposition to the bill. Because apparently, they actually care about the academic freedom of faculty members to teach and conduct research without undue external pressure or interference.

And let's not forget about the Ohio Conference American Association of University Professors, a nonprofit organization that represents faculty members at public and private colleges and universities in Ohio. Because apparently, they actually care about the academic freedom of faculty members and the importance of diversity and inclusion in higher education.

But who cares about all of these opponents when we have the Goldwater Institute and the Manhattan Institute on our side? These two conservative think tanks developed the legislative solutions to "dismantle the ideological domination of DEI programming over higher education" that influenced SB 83. Because apparently, diversity, equity, and inclusion are just too radical for higher education.

So there you have it, folks. Academic freedom is dead in Ohio, but at least we have a bunch of politicians and think tanks telling us what we should think and learn. Who needs academic freedom when you can have political indoctrination?

THE DEFT DIVE

What is academic freedom?

Academic freedom is a moral and legal concept that expresses the conviction that the freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without fear of repression, job loss, or imprisonment³. It covers individuals and institutions, and seeks to promote the free exchange of ideas, scholarly debates, and the search for knowledge⁴. Academic freedom is often considered a type of freedom of speech, but it also encompasses other aspects such as academic autonomy, academic tenure, and shared governance³. Academic freedom is a contested issue and has limitations in practice, depending on the legal, political, and cultural context of each country or region³.


What is SB 83?

Ohio SB 83 is a bill that was introduced by state Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland in March 2023 and passed by the Ohio Senate in May 2023¹. It is also known as the Ohio Higher Education Enhancement Act². The bill would ban nearly all diversity training requirements at public colleges and universities in the state, prohibit university staff and employees from striking, require American history courses, and base professor tenure on "bias" among other things¹. The bill has been criticized by opponents as an attack on academic freedom, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles, and free speech³.

According to a report by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank based in Arizona⁶, SB 83 is part of a package of legislative solutions to "dismantle the ideological domination of DEI programming over higher education" that was developed in partnership with Christopher Rufo and Ilya Shapiro of the Manhattan Institute, another conservative think tank based in New York⁷. The report claims that DEI programs are "weaponized across K-12 and higher education to impose a radical, racialized worldview intolerant of political dissent or traditional American notions like 'equality before the law'"⁷.

The Goldwater Institute and the Manhattan Institute have also championed the implementation of Academic Transparency to "shine a light on the radical politicization of K-12 programming in American schools" and have influenced similar bills in other states with Republican congressional majorities⁷.


According to the web search results, some of the supporters of Ohio SB 83 are:

  • - The bill's primary sponsor, state Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, who said the bill is "an urgently needed course correction" and "involves learning analytic skills, evaluating many ideas and many sides of issues and how to think better, not what to think"¹.
  • - The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a nonprofit organization that advocates for academic excellence, academic freedom, and accountability in higher education. The president of the organization, Michael Poliakoff, said the bill is "visionary boldness at a time when American higher education is in urgent need of a course correction"².
  • - Some educators who spoke in favor of the bill during the committee hearing, such as George Dent, a professor of emeritus law at Case Western Reserve University, who said the bill would introduce intellectual diversity and improve scholarship²; and Hal R. Arkes, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at Ohio State University, who said the bill would increase the ability of conservative faculty to come to Ohio².
  • - The Goldwater Institute and the Manhattan Institute, two conservative think tanks that developed the legislative solutions to "dismantle the ideological domination of DEI programming over higher education" that influenced SB 83.


According to the web search results, some of the opponents of Ohio SB 83 are:

  • - The Ohio State University Board of Trustees, who issued a rare public statement opposing the bill, saying it would diminish "Ohio State’s ability to fulfill its educational and research missions and negatively impact the state’s economic future"⁴⁵. The board also argued that the bill would undermine shared governance, weaken academic rigor, and impose extensive and expensive new reporting mandates on Ohio’s public institutions⁴.
  • - The Faculty Council of the Ohio State University Senate, who approved a resolution in opposition to the bill, saying it would violate the academic freedom of faculty members to teach, conduct research, and support learning without undue external pressure or interference¹. The resolution also stated that the bill would harm the dignity and experiences of diverse groups of people, such as women, LGBTQIA+ community, Black, Indigenous, People of Color, immigrants, and others¹.
  • - The Ohio Conference American Association of University Professors, a nonprofit organization that represents faculty members at public and private colleges and universities in Ohio. The president of the organization, Gretchen McNamara, wrote an opinion piece criticizing the bill as a "politically-motivated plot" to hijack Ohio's higher education and restrict the academic freedom of faculty².
  • - Hundreds of students, faculty members, staff members, alumni, and community members who submitted opponent testimony or showed up at the Statehouse to protest against the bill during the committee hearing²³. Some of the testimonies highlighted the importance and benefits of diversity training, academic freedom, free speech, and collective bargaining for higher education³.


According to the web search results, Ohio SB 83 could affect academic freedom in Ohio universities in several ways, such as:

  • - Banning nearly all diversity training requirements for students, faculty, and staff, except for certain exemptions, such as those required by federal or state law, accreditation standards, or professional licensing¹. This could limit the exposure and education of diverse perspectives and experiences on campus³.
  • - Prohibiting university staff and employees from striking or engaging in collective bargaining activities¹. This could reduce the voice and power of workers to advocate for their rights and interests³.
  • - Requiring American history and government courses that cover topics such as the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights¹. This could impose a narrow and biased curriculum that excludes other historical and contemporary issues and viewpoints³.
  • - Basing professor tenure on "bias" and requiring Boards of Trustees to create and update policies on tenure every five years¹. This could create a hostile and politicized environment for faculty members who teach or research on controversial or unpopular topics²⁴.
  • - Mandating extensive and expensive new reporting requirements on Ohio’s public institutions, such as syllabus transparency, speaker fees, budgetary transparency, and academic transparency¹⁴. This could burden the institutions with unnecessary bureaucracy and oversight that could interfere with their academic autonomy and integrity⁴⁵.


Bing, 6/21/2023

Ohio State trustees issue a statement opposing Senate Bill 83. https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/education/2023/05/16/ohio-state-trustees-issue-a-statement-opposing-senate-bill-83/70224903007/.

What is Senate Bill 83 in Ohio? | wkyc.com. https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/politics/senate-bill-83-passed-ohio/95-56fdb6a4-ca73-443d-88ca-68cc2e8ac812.

A Resolution in Opposition to Ohio Senate Bill 83. https://senate.osu.edu/sites/default/files/links_files/Faculty%20Council%20APPROVED%20Resolution%20Opposing%20SB%2083.pdf.

Republican attempt to hijack Ohio college, universities appalling| Opinion. https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2023/06/20/senate-bill-83-state-budget-republican-attempt-to-seize-control-of-ohio-colleges-and-universites/70329642007/.

Despite opposition by Ohio State board, anti-DEI bill passes. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/state-policy/2023/05/18/ohio-state-board-pushes-back-anti-dei-bill.

Academic freedom - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_freedom.

Academic Freedom | The First Amendment Encyclopedia. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/17/academic-freedom.

 https://bing.com/search?q=academic+freedom+definition.

Academic freedom Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/academic%20freedom.

What is Senate Bill 83 in Ohio? | wkyc.com. https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/politics/senate-bill-83-passed-ohio/95-56fdb6a4-ca73-443d-88ca-68cc2e8ac812.

Senate Bill 83 | 135th General Assembly | Ohio Legislature. https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/135/sb83.

Update on Ohio Senate Bill 83 | University of Cincinnati. https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2023/03/update-on-ohio-senate-bill-83.html.

Goldwater Institute | Defending and Strengthening Freedom. https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/.

How to Stop Woke Takeover of Education—Goldwater & Manhattan Institute .... https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/how-to-stop-woke-takeover-of-education-goldwater-manhattan-institutes-plan/.

SB 83 - HONESTY FOR OHIO EDUCATION. https://www.honestyforohioeducation.org/sb-83.html.

 https://bing.com/search?q=Manhattan+and+Goldwater+Institutes.

NEVER DISAGREE WITH FEARLESS LEADER DUHSANTIS

 

NEVER DISAGREE WITH FEARLESS LEADER DUHSANTIS

In a surprising turn of events, Rocky Hanna, superintendent of Leon County Schools, has reached an agreement with the Florida Department of Education after disagreeing with the fearless leader himself, Ron DuhSantis. And let's just say, it wasn't your typical agreement.

After a heated debate over education policies, Hanna and DuhSantis couldn't seem to see eye-to-eye. But instead of letting the tension simmer, Hanna decided to take matters into his own hands. He challenged DuhSantis to a game of rock-paper-scissors to settle the disagreement once and for all.

To everyone's surprise, DuhSantis accepted the challenge. The two met in a dimly lit room, with only a single desk separating them. The tension was palpable as they both took their positions.

"Rock, paper, scissors, shoot!" Hanna exclaimed, throwing out a rock.

DuhSantis countered with paper. The room fell silent as they both stared at each other, waiting for the next move.

"Rock, paper, scissors, shoot!" DuhSantis shouted confidently, throwing out a rock.

But Hanna had a trick up his sleeve. He threw out scissors, cutting through DuhSantis' rock and winning the game.

The room erupted in cheers as Hanna emerged victorious. And surprisingly, DuhSantis was a good sport about it all. He shook Hanna's hand and agreed to compromise on the education policies they had been arguing over.

In a statement released after the game, Hanna said, "Sometimes you just have to get creative to find a solution. And what better way to do that than with a classic game of rock-paper-scissors?"

The agreement they reached may have been unconventional, but it just goes to show that sometimes a little bit of humor and fun can go a long way in resolving conflicts. Who knows, maybe we'll see more political leaders settling their disagreements with games in the future. Rock on!

Florida official who criticized DeSantis reaches settlement with education department https://news.yahoo.com/florida-official-criticized-desantis-reaches-174008675.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr via @YahooNews