24 thoughts on “News/Politics 4-2-22

  1. So what they’re saying is she will continue to push the Biden admin propaganda, just with a smaller audience.

    ——

    It’s dying, and she will help kill it off, along with their last remaining shred of credibility.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Flee from evil.

    ——-

    Liked by 1 person

  3. So virtuous she is….

    ——–

    Liked by 2 people

  4. In a word….

    No.

    https://issuesinsights.com/2022/03/30/are-we-sure-the-2020-election-was-clean/

    “Americans have been warned by their superiors to not question the outcome of the 2020 election, because it will further the Donald Trump Big Lie that the presidency was stolen from him. Yet we continue to see shreds of evidence that say the Big Lie is in fact the claim that the 2020 election wasn’t corrupted.

    Merely mentioning doubts about the legitimacy of the presidential election that put a doddering, grafting, plagiarizing, on-the-wrong-side-of-everything Joe Biden in the White House is enough to be sent to Twitter jail, get flagged by Facebook, and attacked in the mainstream media. Shame is heaped on anyone who dares question the Democrat-media-Never Trump narrative that Biden won a fair and orderly election.

    Of course the left has behaved in the most hysterical ways possible, feigning fear and ever searching for a fainting couch to fall into, shocked that some Trump voters actually have had the gall to express misgivings.

    “I’ve never been more scared about American democracy than I am right now, because of the metastasizing of the ‘Big Lie,’” says Rick Hasen, co-director of the Fair Elections and Free Speech Center at the University of California, Irvine, and identified by National Public Radio as an “election law expert.”

    “This is not the kind of thing I expected to ever worry about in the United States.”

    We could say the same about the fresh discovery of “around 255,000 excess votes (possibly as many as 368,000) for Joe Biden in six swing states where Donald Trump lodged accusations of fraud.” Yet there it is.

    According to economist John Lott, whose good work we’ve trusted since we began a relationship with him while at Investor’s Business Daily, Biden carried these states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – by only 313,253 votes. Take out Michigan, and the gap was 159,065. In other words, it’s possible that the man in the White House is not the legitimate occupant.

    His objective, however, “isn’t to contest the 2020 election,” Lott writes in RealClearPolitics in reference to his peer-reviewed paper, “but to point out that we have a real problem that needs to be dealt with. Americans must have confidence in future elections.”

    Add Lott’s work to the Zuck Bucks that “helped swing the electorate” away from Trump, elections rules changes made by Democrats that helped Biden, the shadowy and all-encompassing “well-funded cabal of powerful people” that was determined to keep Trump from being reelected, and other reports of voting irregularities, and the 2020 presidential outcome looks shadier today than it did in the weeks after the election.

    But, like Lott, we’re not interested in revisiting 2020, as much as we’d like to see Biden and Kamala Harris removed as far as possible from the levers of executive power. What we want is an honest accounting of what happened, followed by a consensus admission that our system has problems, which then should be identified and fixed.”

    Liked by 2 people

  5. They are everything they falsely accused Trump of being, and so much worse.

    “The New Authoritarians

    Woke professionals acting as the indentured servants of a fearful oligarchy have become everything we were told to fear from Trumpism”

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/new-authoritarians

    “After the election of Donald Trump in 2016, many Democratic voters felt baffled and betrayed. Pollsters and statisticians had predicted a decisive victory for Hillary Clinton, and her campaign had even attempted to elevate Trump because they thought he was the easiest candidate for her to beat. Conveniently, the Russian collusion narrative and allegations of white supremacy allowed the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign, and the media to avoid asking themselves how they had made such an enormous miscalculation.

    In reality, their inability to predict or understand Trump’s appeal to voters was symptomatic of a class stratification that had been building for decades. From the 1970s until the 2008 financial crash, only the top 20% of the country saw its real income steadily grow while the real income of the bottom 80% stagnated. This top 20% consisted largely of affluent college-educated professionals who migrated to the Democratic Party, while large segments of the working class left it. In 1960, Democratic President John F. Kennedy lost the votes of white college graduates, but he won the support of white voters without a college degree by a 2-to-1 margin. For Joe Biden, the results were the exact opposite. In 1992, almost 60% of Bill Clinton’s supporters were whites without a degree, but the same was true of only 27% of Biden voters. By 2018 the top 10 wealthiest congressional districts were all held by Democrats.

    The Democratic Party’s elitism problem corresponds to a long-standing trend among liberal professionals. For decades, they have been waging a thinly veiled class war against their perceived inferiors, which Christopher Lasch described in his 1994 book Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. One of Lasch’s central arguments was that managerial elites had abandoned public debate and their basic obligations to the majority. The economic divide between the Democrat-affiliated upper-middle class and the rest of the country has produced a highly insular intelligentsia increasingly disconnected from reality and aligned with corporate interests.

    While the GOP was once considered to be the party of big business, the country’s top billionaire megadonors are split between Democrats and Republicans, and Democrats equal or outpace Republicans in donations from pharmaceutical companies, the tech sector, and Wall Street. The alliance between Democrat-led causes and corporate executives is sometimes portrayed as necessary for holding off an insurrectionist, anti-democratic threat from the right. However, it is this very alliance that has produced highly centralized government and corporate control while curbing free expression and open discourse.

    After Trump’s election, many commentators expressed anxiety that his followers would plunge the country into far-right authoritarianism. Instead, it is the class of college-educated Democrats that now openly argues for the value of blind submission to authority and the elimination of personal freedoms. The trend Lasch wrote about in the 1990s has metastasized. It no longer poses a mere threat to democracy—it has become a full-fledged attack on basic democratic principles. Far from upholding civil liberties, the self-proclaimed “resistance” to Trumpism has itself exhibited many hallmarks of authoritarianism: suppression of dissent, demand for unquestioning obedience, and tight control over the flow of information. While scapegoating Trump supporters, a nexus of billionaires, woke corporations, public intellectuals, and Democratic officials have sparked the very descent into authoritarianism they claimed would emerge from the populist right.

    The TV production of Margaret Atwood’s novel The Handmaid’s Tale premiered on April 26, 2017, and was widely touted in liberal media outlets as a “prescient” “mirror” of the country under Trump. Journalists warned that the United States was on the precipice of becoming a Gilead-like dystopia where human rights would be nonexistent. Yet based on the domineering COVID-era behavior of the show’s own target audience, The Handmaid’s Tale appears to have been less of a warning to viewers and more of a handbook. Forced and coercive medical procedures, adoption of mandatory new garbs, censorship, and frozen bank accounts were central to the totalitarian state depicted in the novel and the show. In the end, this program found its real-world parallel not in autocratic moves from the right, but in liberal-approved measures like vaccine mandates, mask requirements of dubious medical value, restrictions on speech, and seizure of protesters’ financial assets—all of which were vocally supported by the affluent laptop class.

    This is not simply a matter of hypocrisy. It is only by painting themselves as victims fighting against their oppressors that college-educated professionals can rationalize their own authoritarianism. The cult of victimhood conjures the specter of fascism, misogyny, or white nationalism in order to justify blatantly repressive measures. This is why, for example, the professional class consistently portrayed unvaccinated people as Trump supporters even though in many major cities vaccine passports mostly excluded Democrat-voting Black residents from indoor establishments. Under the guise of combatting anti-vax extremism, woke liberal politicians embraced segregation and the exact kind of “systemic racism” they claimed to oppose. While considering themselves to be on the side of righteousness and rationality, commentators called for hospitals to reject unvaccinated patients, and some even celebrated their deaths. This is precisely the type of punitive, regressive tendency that progressives warned would be a consequence of Trump’s election.

    It is also the inevitable outcome of a discourse that allows some of the most powerful people to depict themselves as helpless and persecuted. When The New York Times editorial board recently decried the culture of “social silencing” that has permeated most American institutions, some prominent progressives were incensed. New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (whose election to Congress was powered by the most gentrified neighborhoods in her district) argued that only the left is subject to real censorship, and that concerns about cancel culture are merely “about protecting bigots from feeling embarrassed in public.” Ocasio-Cortez seemed to forget that she has explicitly advocated for censorship herself on more than one occasion. In 2019, she called on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to “take down lies,” and in 2021 she pressured Apple and Google to remove Parler, a social media service popular among conservatives, from their app stores after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t think she’s calling for real censorship because she believes that the entire political opposition is composed of violent domestic terrorists bent on killing her. (She was not in the Capitol building on Jan. 6.) It is precisely her self-image as a perpetual victim that allows her to justify a tyrannical approach.”

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Once again, more fake news and the outlets that push it are exposed for the frauds they are.

    ———

    ———-

    Liked by 2 people

  7. She’s not wrong.

    “Conservative women are used to unequal treatment. We’re successful in spite of it.”

    https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/conservative-women-used-unequal-treatment-100042799.html

    “As a conservative woman, last month’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings were difficult to watch. The favoritism shown to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, and the contrast between her hearings and those of Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s, exacerbated years of frustration felt by many conservative women.

    Numerous headlines featured Democrats angry at Republicans’ treatment of Judge Jackson because she was asked about her record of lenient sentences for child pornography offenders as well as her views on Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project. Op-ed writers expressed outrage at what was perceived as partisan Republican attempts to score political points or appease crazy evangelical constituents.

    As I watched the hearing unfold, my mind went to the fall of 2020 when I was a senior at the University of Notre Dame. After Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a Notre Dame graduate and Catholic mother of seven, was nominated to the Supreme Court, I expected our campus community to greet the news with excitement and honor, despite the politics surrounding it.

    I was wrong. My classmates organized a massive student protest, joining faculty members in denouncing Barrett’s nomination and arguing that Barrett was unfit to serve on the nation’s highest court.

    Why? Because of the ammunition they found in mainstream news headlines.

    Let’s look over the main talking points: Barrett had ties to a Handmaid’s-Tale-like-Christian group. She wanted to overthrow Roe v. Wade and force all women to have babies. She was a religious bigot who would use the Supreme Court to push her “radical” agenda. She probably adopted her children from Haiti as a colonizer, and she had a large family just to show off.

    Barrett’s parenting choices were criticized. Yet, people wept last week when Jackson apologized to her two daughters for her time spent away from them.

    Interviewing students for the campus newspaper, The Irish Rover, it seemed that many of my peers had bought into the firestorm of attacks against Barrett and become ardent apostles of the narratives. Suddenly, something that could have united us as a campus (a prestigious female alum ascending to the highest court in the land) had become divisive and hateful.

    Bias against conservative women
    Why was Barrett treated differently? For the same reason Joe Biden and other Democrats filibustered the nomination of Judge Janice Rogers Brown in 2003.

    Brown was a single Black mother who grew up in rural, segregated Alabama and overcame poverty to become a “self-made African American legal star.” You would think Democrats and feminists would have cheered her on.

    Yet in 2005, after Bush resubmitted Brown’s nomination, Biden voted against her. And when Brown was on Bush’s shortlist to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and would have been the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, Biden again spoke out against her potential nomination on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

    Why? Because Brown was an outspoken conservative.”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Broken.

    Dismantle “leadership” and rebuild.

    “More Scandals Envelop the Scandalous FBI

    For years, congressional Republicans promised to hold FBI officials culpable for various scandals but failed to act.”

    LANGUAGE WARNING!!!!!

    https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/31/more-scandals-envelop-the-scandalous-fbi/

    “You’re in big @#$%&$# trouble.”

    “So said an FBI agent to Julian Khater, one of two men accused of assaulting Capitol police officers with pepper spray on January 6, during a tense interrogation last year. Desperate to sustain the falsehood that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by Trump supporters during the Capitol protest, the FBI claimed to possess video footage that showed Khater and his friend, George Tanios, attacking Sicknick and other officers with chemical spray. Khater was arrested on an airplane at the Newark airport on March 14, 2021 after he arrived home from a trip to Florida.

    For more than two hours—shackled to a metal bar in a freezing room at the New Jersey FBI field office—Khater, who has no criminal record, was interrogated without a lawyer present. FBI Special Agent Riley Palmertree refused to tell Khater why he was under arrest until he agreed to proceed without counsel in the room, which Khater reluctantly did. Recently released video confirms Khater initially told the agents he “would feel more comfortable if I had a lawyer” answering questions on his behalf. An hour later, Khater again said he wanted his lawyer.

    But Palmertree pushed back, presenting videos and photos implicating Khater in the alleged assault. Palmertree assured Khater that by admitting he sprayed Sicknick with pepper spray rather than a can of bear spray—an item Palmertree later testified was not used that day—a judge would go easy on him. Khater signed a statement confessing that he attacked officers with pepper spray.

    Khater has been in jail ever since, housed in the D.C. gulag specifically used to detain January 6 protesters; his trial is scheduled for June 6.

    But Khater’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, is now asking the court to toss the interrogation as evidence, arguing that the FBI used “coercion and deception” to force Khater into waiving his Miranda rights. Further, Tacopina wrote in a February 22 motion that Palmertree lied in his FBI report by claiming he advised Khater about the “nature of the interview” before asking Khater to waive his rights.

    Khater’s unconstitutional confession is just the latest example of how this rogue agency filled with dirty cops operates with impunity. In just the past several weeks, a number of new FBI scandals have emerged.

    A 2019 internal audit of the FBI detected hundreds of violations related to “sensitive investigative matters,” which are investigations into elected officials, candidates, or political organizations. A review of 353 sensitive cases uncovered 747 violations. “A majority of the cases studied, 191, involved domestic public officials,” the Washington Times reported this month. “Dozens of cases involved religious organizations or their prominent members, and dozens of cases involved domestic political organizations and individuals. Ten cases involved domestic political candidates, and 11 cases involved news media.” Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said on Twitter that he and Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) are “demanding answers +inspector general investigation CANT [sic] TOLERATE ‘mistakes’ of FBI trampling constitutional rights.”

    Bryan Vorndran, assistant director of the FBI’s cyber division, told the House Judiciary Committee this week that he doesn’t know the whereabouts of Hunter Biden’s laptop, a device the agency seized in December 2019. Under questioning by Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Vorndran repeatedly evaded questions as to whether the department has investigated the contents of the computer to determine if the Biden family is “compromised” or poses a security threat due to voluminous correspondence with foreign interests from China, Russia, and Ukraine. “It is not in the realm of my responsibilities to deal with the questions you’re asking,” Vorndran told Gaetz, who submitted a copy of the laptop’s hard drive into the committee’s official record.

    Meanwhile, an in-depth investigation by the Washington Post published this week confirms what the New York Post reported before the election about Hunter Biden’s laptop: “But the new documents—illustrate the ways in which his family profited from relationships built over Joe Biden’s decades in public service,” the Post finally admitted, which included Hunter’s multimillion-dollar arrangement with a Chinese Communist Party-associated energy company.

    The ongoing trial of four men accused of conspiring to “kidnap” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020 has revealed the FBI’s sloppy—and expensive—handling of FBI informants. More than a dozen FBI undercover agents and informants were involved in the kidnapping caper; Dan Chappel, the lead informant, was compensated at least $60,000 by the FBI for six months’ work, paid in cash for services rendered, and reimbursement for expenses. The FBI also gave Chappel a new laptop and smart watch; Chappel admitted he was responsible for creating encrypted group chats to bring the alleged kidnappers together.

    Defense lawyers also revealed that Stephen Robeson, a longtime FBI informant and convicted felon working the case, has a rap sheet in nine states and operates out of numerous FBI field offices across the country. (He was paid roughly $20,000 by the FBI.) Prosecutors claim Robeson is a “double-agent” and fired him as an informant after learning he committed at least two crimes in 2020. Defense counsel wanted to call Robeson as a witness but after the government threatened to charge him with new crimes and Robeson notified the court he would take the Fifth, the judge denied a defense motion to call him to the stand. “Apparently, the government doesn’t have to be held accountable for their actions,” one defense attorney said after the judge’s ruling on Wednesday.

    House Republicans sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray in March demanding answers about the agency’s arrangement with NSO Group, an Israeli-based software company that produces invasive spyware that other countries have used to track journalists and political dissidents. The New York Times reported in January that the “F.B.I. bought and tested NSO software for years with plans to use it for domestic surveillance until the agency finally decided last year not to deploy the tools,” although the equipment remains in a New Jersey warehouse. By using the platform, snoops can access cell phone activity including the device’s camera and microphone.

    “In light of the FBI’s repeated failure to adhere to safeguards on its use of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorities and the FBI’s spying on protected First Amendment activities during the campaign of President Donald Trump, the FBI acquiring yet another tool to spy on Americans is deeply troubling and presents significant risks to the civil liberties of U.S. persons,” Representatives Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mike Johnson (R-La.) wrote Wray on March 3.

    Wray has yet to answer. In fact, as his agents unlawfully coerce answers out of American citizens, Wray repeatedly ignores inquiries from elected leaders in Congress. Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) noted this week that Wray has not responded to three letters recently sent to his office; Senate Republicans routinely get the cold shoulder from Wray.

    Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of FBI records related to the Capitol breach investigation still have not been made available to January 6 defendants; although trials are underway, defense attorneys don’t have access to the government’s full trove of discovery material, including potentially exculpatory evidence.”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. It sad that they needed a lawsuit to tell these idiots it’s unconstitutional.

    ———

    Like

  10. Unqualified.

    ——–

    Like

  11. Get ’em while they’re young, because they’re easier to corrupt that way.

    That is their plan.

    ——–

    Like

  12. I thought DeSantis’s bill wasn’t a “don’t say gay” bill? Yet here we have tweets telling us that Disney wants the state to strong arm the state into teaching kindergartner’s about sex? Apparently Disney’s opposition to a bill which isn’t about LGBQT is seen as promoting LGBQT education.

    Not that I’m opposed to any criticism of Disney — I’m just enjoying the logical incongruity here. I find Disney abhorrent because of their exploitative labour practises, use of sexist and classist stereotypes, and general whitewashing of capitalist consumerism. Their promotion of so-called social justice issues is merely good PR to cover the above. If the right wishes to cancel Disney, all the power to them.

    Like

  13. Lott’s premise is that people who live near each other vote in similar patterns and thus he can mathematically model “missing” votes. This is a huge assumption. At a certain point, voting patterns do change and sometimes abruptly — whether it be a county line, a river, an interstate or in the case of my neighbourhood a busy road. In any election, provincial or federal, my neighbourhood features only NDP signs, I walk a block or two and the only signs I see are Liberal. If I employed Lott’s “model” I could find “missing” votes — just need to know which party is paying for the results of my “model”.

    In 1960, JFK won the working class white vote and now the Republicans win that demographic. The author of your linked article would like us to believe it has to do with the corporate support of the Democrats and Trump’s appeal to the working class. I’m all in favor of class based voting analysis but something is missing in the article. As Johnson accurately predicted, the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 changed the political alignment in the US. Nixon employed a southern strategy in 68 and 72 and Reagan went all in in 1980 with his first campaign stop featuring an appeal to states rights.

    Now there is a case to be made for corporate elitism in the Democratic party but that also exists in the Republican party. Energy and resource corporations tend to support Republicans and tech and entertainment tend to be Democratic. Although I’m sure they donate enough money to both parties so that class based parties never become a thing. I’m also amused your article can mention the influence of income stagnation in the 2016 election without mentioning the ghost of Ronald Reagan. I’d be far more impressed with the author if he would give an honest historical context as opposed to burying the Republican role in the decline of the middle class.

    Even his 2016 election analysis misses the extreme closeness of the vote in the rust belt. The polls actually predicted a close vote but ultimately a Clinton win. The problem was not the polls but the failure of the Clinton campaign to get out the vote in the right states. They had no ground game and they didn’t try to motivate a ground game. I read (or tried to read) some Clinton campaign leaders “tell all” books and they still blame everybody but themselves. No matter how incompetent or unlikely your opponent, you still need a ground game. The NDP still call me every election to make sure I vote and help others to the polling station despite the fact I live in the most secure NDP seat in the country.

    In trying to assert the Democrats as the authoritarian party, the author mentions forced medical procedure and lack of choice. I was momentary confused as I thought he was talking about the Texas Republican party but then he mentioned vaccines. Here we should be able to see not authoritarianism but two parties who will implement their policies. It only become authoritarian if there are no judicial or electoral redress in the future.

    I’m also vastly amused that AOC once derided by the Republicans as a mere bartender is now viewed as an elitist. In her first primary election, she ran against a member of the Democratic party elite and won. In her second primary, another member of the Democratic elite ran against her and again they lost. Her first opponent lost for the same reason Clinton lost — failure to take their opponent seriously and a lack of a ground game.

    She’s not an elitist advocating the censorship of opposing voices. She is demanding technology corporations be accountable and act in a civil responsible manner. I’ve read some of the threats and comments directed to her, other female politicians and prominent women in general. It crosses the line and often advocates acts of violence. If you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre, you can’t call for someone’s rape and/or execution on a social media site. Corporations have a civic duty.

    Like

  14. The 7 hour missing record is a bit more nuance than either side would let you believe. Nothing has been deleted but at the same time no official phones were used in that 7 hour span. It’s likely Trump or others in the White House where using personal phones or burner phones during that time period to avoid record keeping.

    I’ve lost a lot of respect for Grunwald — not for his change of political direction but for his use of tactics similar to Tucker Carlson. He’s become the foul mouth piece that 20-30 years ago he fought against. Both Carlson and Grunwald have targeted female journalists leading to abusive online commentary similar to what AOC and other politicians put up with.

    I don’t think the hearings of either Barrett or Jackson were over the top. The behaviour of some Republicans was childish though. McConnell put Barrett in an impossible position — in 2015 he said it was too close to an election for a judicial appointment and then in 2020 he rushed Barrett through confirmation. As the nominee she ended up with some of the criticism which rightly belonged to McConnell. Personally I think she should have turned it down citing McConnell’s own 2015 precedent but I can understand her motivation. During the Jackson hearings McConnell, Graham and Hawley went out of their wary to criticized Jackson in a tit for tat move — silly childish behaviour. A nation’s leadership should be better than that. Given the article you cite and its criticism of Biden for turning down a Bush black female nominee I’d be re-missed not to point out Graham voted in favor of Jackson’s previous appointment only a year ago but has now suddenly lost faith in her ability.

    Like

  15. The right is now acknowledging what the left has been saying about the FBI and the police in general for decades. Its time to defund and rebuilt. What happened to Khatar is child’s play — arrested, held in a cold room for two hours without a lawyer….. There’s minor African American children who spent years in Rikers with less evidence. And Khatar confessed in two hours…. Leonard Peltier has been in solitary confinement for more decades than he spent in hours and still hasn’t confessed. I love the use of the term “gulag”; the left has been using that term for decades. Welcome to the club.

    When the FBI and the police think one of their own died because of your actions or your fellow travellers actions, they will use any means necessary to get their version of “justice”. That’s the true meaning of the thin blue line that the police like to quote.

    However, the author then goes off on a tangent about Hunter Biden. Stay focused in your writing with one case at a time. If you want to lower the FBIs credibility, you need to focus on the easy wins and Hunter Biden’s laptop is too partisan; focus instead on FBI civil right violations — that’s an easy win, it happens every day.

    Like

  16. I’ve taught middle school health for 25 years and the most important lesson I’ve learned is most people are grossly misinformed about what is actually taught. Two tweets with 30 second clips tell you very little about what is actually taught in your local school. Each time my province rewrites the growth and development section of the health curriculum, the media, the churches, parent groups, political parties, etc will talk endlessly about what will be taught and then I will actually teach. And its if we were on different planets. This is not because I ignore the curriculum, I’m actually very careful in following it especially right after its been revised. The problem is every group has their own agenda of what they want taught or not taught. And every groups will twist and misinform solely to benefit their own agenda. Thus when I teach the need for consent, some will say I’m teaching them to say yes as opposed to no — whereas I’m teaching the need to respect each other and their partner’s views. And it goes on and on. Sometimes I wonder what depraved thoughts go through some adult minds.

    The amusing part for me is middle school doesn’t function with very separate classes and subject material that one will find in high school and often kids will ask questions during language and history class that will lead to a discussion more appropriate for health class. Since I teach all three, I have no issue with what is called teachable moments and will teach health outcomes when they arise. Not to mention other teachable moments arising out of behavior issues — I reprimand a student for homophobia (ie gay is not another word for stupid and “faggot” is inappropriate in the classroom), his defense was simple — “I’m gay so I can’t be homophobic.” And now I’ve entered a teachable moment…. 1) he’s outed himself, how does the class react 2) can marginalize groups use derogatory terms ironically? That is, can he say “fag”, can black students drop the n word, can I call myself white trash, etc.

    Like

  17. “I’ve taught middle school health for 25 years and the most important lesson I’ve learned is most people are grossly misinformed about what is actually taught. ”

    It helps if you read what is posted. I’ve posted numerous examples of the actual curriculums used. At 5:34 above is yet another example.

    Also, it’s what parents are calling for, transparency, yet “educators” seem to have a problem with informed parents.

    So try again.

    Like

  18. And yet another perv exposes himself…..

    ——-

    What part of this don’t you get?

    Like

  19. Again, it’s not rocket science here folks….

    ——–

    Like

  20. I read and listened to your 5:34. It has no substance, no grade by grade curriculum expectations. Its posted by someone who has their own agenda. All it does is increase the panic by those who are likely to panic — which confirms Atkins point. Its a political game to motivate the Qanon group.

    The 5:34 tweets do nothing to increase transparency — just ask your child’s teacher. I’ll sit down with any parent to explain the curriculum — Muslims, evangelicals, “alternative parenting” types, etc. In terms of health, I find many parents come with their own agenda — “my pastor/imam said” is a frequent phrase I hear. Transparency is easy to obtain (check the ministry of education website) but it appears most people only want to confirm their own bias.

    Your tweets confirm the bias agenda — who hears young people and porn and immediately thinks underage kids?? Regardless of the stupid question (who crowd sources porn recommendations??), the term young people could refer to anyone between 16 and 30, but most likely college age kids. Why would someone’s mind go to minor children…..over the years, the most depraved thoughts seem to come from people who claim to protect the children,

    Again your tweets indicate a belief that any advocating for a proper health curriculum indicates a person is groomer. An idea that is beyond weird. Teaching consent, proper vocabulary and respect for others in the early grades is not grooming and those in the political arena who claim it is are either cynically exploiting a voter demographic or are the actual depraved ones.

    Decided to check Florida curriculum for transparency — no wonder people are confused, very little details and very ambiguous. Amused by the requirement teachers have to submit their health lessons on to a portal. If Florida was so concerned why not write clear standards (or copy Ontario’s) and give teachers the lessons. Just for the lack of clarity, I’d pass on teaching health in Florida.

    Like

  21. I see Obama is still screwing Americans.

    ——-

    You helped Obama build this you clown.

    You did this. Enjoy the fruits of your labor.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.