I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
Conservative donors poured tens of millions of dollars of anonymous “dark money” into groups supporting Republican lawmakers in a supreme court case that could upend American election law.
The donors backed several groups that have filed supreme court amicus briefs in support of North Carolina legislators in Moore v Harper, according to a recent analysis. They are pushing for a ruling that would take ultimate decisions about voting rights and congressional gerrymandering away from state courts and hand those powers to state legislatures, of which Republicans now control the majority. Eight conservative groups that submitted amicus briefs in the supreme court case have received close to $90m from dark money donors since 2016, according to Accountable.US, a liberal leaning watchdog group that tracks government corruption.
Quote
Conservatives want the supreme court to adopt the independent state legislature theory, a once fringe idea now promoted by a coterie of conservative groups that filed amicus briefs, including the Honest Elections Project, the Claremont Institute, and the Public Interest Legal Foundation. The groups boast strong ties to rightwing lawyers Leonard Leo, John Eastman and Cleta Mitchell respectively. Eastman and Mitchell were allies in Donald Trump’s baseless crusade to overturn the 2020 election.
Sparked by a North Carolina gerrymandering fight, Moore v Harper has attracted strong opposition from many liberal and some conservative legal experts, who call it a partisan attack on voting rights by prominent conservative groups. Opponents of the case say they’re using a discredited legal theory to boost GOP political fortunes in coming elections.
Do you recognize the bolded name? He's the Trump advisor and lawyer who was heavily involved in drafting the language used to try to get Pence to throw out the EC results. He was an architect of the Insurrection and pushed his bogus legal advice even though he later admitted that it wasn't constitutional. That makes this seem very suspect doesn't it?
Do you know who doesn't want voters to vote or votes to be counted? Fascists.
I might be missing something but "working in cahoots" and "pressuring them to moderate content..." doesn't seem that bad on the surface. Twitter is a huge platform and misinformation spread fast and can be dangerous.
MTG and Gaetz certainly would be upset though because it was their party and followers that stirred things up after Trump lost the election leading to events on January 6th.
The "think of all the mass shootings they could have stopped while they were focused on this" seems lame.
I suppose the question would be should the FBI get involved at all? Should we be able to say whatever we want even if it's lies or something like "make sure to be armed when you go to the protest on January 6th at the Capitol" because it's free speech?
Should people be able to threaten Musk and his family on Twitter? He obviously doesn't believe that they should. Is that interfereing with free speech? Is giving people the how-to's of participating in an armed insurrection protected by free speech? Musk is a hypocrite and folding in a totally predictable pressure when sociopaths are allowed to dictate the future of Twitter.
Should people be able to threaten Musk and his family on Twitter? He obviously doesn't believe that they should. Is that interfereing with free speech? Is giving people the how-to's of participating in an armed insurrection protected by free speech? Musk is a hypocrite and folding in a totally predictable pressure when sociopaths are allowed to dictate the future of Twitter.
No, people should not be able to threaten him and his family and because he's the owner he can stop them if they do it on Twitter.
I think with online bullying and "death threats" intent is important. For example someone saying "I just wish Musk would die and go away" without any further intent is not a true death threat. Someone posting with a weapon saying "I'm coming after you Musk" might be a death threat the authorities should get involved with.
Sometimes it's a bit murky.
I guess the question is, is publishing public data about his airplane whereabouts free speech or not since it's public.
Quote
As social media sites like Twitter, facebook, YouTube and TikTok have become dominant conduits of news and political debate, their role in shaping the contours of that debate has become contentious. Democratic leaders worry about how their algorithms may fuel extremism and baseless theories and call on them to rein in bigoted speech or viral falsehoods. Leading Republicans contend that they’re restricting Americans’ speech freedoms.
No, people should not be able to threaten him and his family and because he's the owner he can stop them if they do it on Twitter.
I think with online bullying and "death threats" intent is important. For example someone saying "I just wish Musk would die and go away" without any further intent is not a true death threat. Someone posting with a weapon saying "I'm coming after you Musk" might be a death threat the authorities should get involved with.
Sometimes it's a bit murky.
I guess the question is, is publishing public data about his airplane whereabouts free speech or not since it's public.
Why is it OK for Musk to allow tweets that promote violence to OTHER people but not to him? Yes, it's very murky. When do online threats become analagous to yelling "fire!" He's getting a taste of his own medicine now. Widget manufacturerers don't necessarily make good social media leaders.
Why is it OK for Musk to allow tweets that promote violence to OTHER people but not to him? Yes, it's very murky. When do online threats become analagous to yelling "fire!" He's getting a taste of his own medicine now. Widget manufacturerers don't necessarily make good social media leaders.
I've always been of the mindset of "two wrongs don't a make a right" and "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".
Geraghty, a Christian, worked at the school in Massillon, Ohio, as an English language arts teacher up until her resignation on Aug. 26. Before her departure, she "taught her class while remaining consistent with her religious practices and scientific understanding concerning human identity, gender, and sex," states a federal lawsuit filed on Monday.
About a week before she resigned, two of Geraghty's students requested that she use names associated "with their new gender identities rather than their legal names," the suit states. One of the students also wanted to be addressed by their preferred pronoun. The lawsuit notes that the school had adopted a policy that required teachers to use the preferred pronouns of students.
Because the request went against her religious beliefs, Geraghty met with principal Kacy Carter "in the hope of reaching a solution that would allow her to continue teaching without violating her religious beliefs and constitutional rights," according to the lawsuit. Geraghty told Carter that she would not use the students' preferred pronouns, the suit says she was later called into a separate meeting with Carter and Monica Myers, a district employee.
During the meeting, Geraghty was told "she would be required to put her beliefs aside as a public servant" and that her unwillingness to do so would be insubordination, the suit says. Geraghty again said she would not use the students' preferred pronouns and was sent back to her classroom.
Is she refusing because of her religious beliefs or because of her feelings based upon her religious beliefs. I was really hoping that the article would articulate what specifically in her faith elevated her feelings about pronouns above the student's feelings about pronouns. She must not be Christian because that is not reflective of the teachings of The Christ.
Editing to reflect that yes the woman identified as Christian. She said;
Quote
Geraghty says she is a “professing Christian who strives to live out her faith daily,” and she cannot recognize anything other than “two distinct, complementary sexes.” Doing so, she says, “would violate biblical commands against dishonesty and lying.”
Is she refusing because of her religious beliefs or because of her feelings based upon her religious beliefs. I was really hoping that the article would articulate what specifically in her faith elevated her feelings about pronouns above the student's feelings about pronouns. She must not be Christian because that is not reflective of the teachings of The Christ.
Editing to reflect that yes the woman identified as Christian. She said;
More than likely she'll get her job back because the courts and Americans are favoriting "religious freedom".
I don't profess to know much about Christianity but I know the decent thing to do would be to respect the students. I don't know much about the whole non-binary/gender identify thing but it costs me nothing to be kind to another person and say "I respect who you say you are".
"she would be required to put her beliefs aside as a public servant" - yes, that's exactly what your job requires. It wouldn't make you any less than a Christian. It's what my job requires caring for all these drug addicts, manipulators, liars, criminals and sexual predators that I've provided nursing care for over the last 30 years.
More than likely she'll get her job back because the courts and Americans are favoriting "religious freedom".
I don't profess to know much about Christianity but I know the decent thing to do would be to respect the students. I don't know much about the whole non-binary/gender identify thing but it costs me nothing to be kind to another person and say "I respect who you say you are".
"she would be required to put her beliefs aside as a public servant" - yes, that's exactly what your job requires. It wouldn't make you any less than a Christian. It's what my job requires caring for all these drug addicts, manipulators, liars, criminals and sexual predators that I've provided nursing care for over the last 30 years.
It's not that hard.
No, not that hard.
However, getting rid of the teacher seems a bit extreme.
"According to Geraghty, the school did not consider an “accommodation” for her, such as allowing her to avoid using pronouns completely and refer to a student by their last name only. Nor did the school consider the possibility of transferring either Geraghty or the students seeking to be called by their preferred names and pronouns to a different class, she says."
Both sides digging in their heels to make a point. Rediculous, especially considering that it seems like it wouldn't be hard to not use any pronouns.
However, getting rid of the teacher seems a bit extreme.
"According to Geraghty, the school did not consider an “accommodation” for her, such as allowing her to avoid using pronouns completely and refer to a student by their last name only. Nor did the school consider the possibility of transferring either Geraghty or the students seeking to be called by their preferred names and pronouns to a different class, she says."
Both sides digging in their heels to make a point. Rediculous, especially considering that it seems like it wouldn't be hard to not use any pronouns.
Fair point. I do believe that sometimes things need to be challenged. But the "it's against my religion" is weak to me, but that's just an opinion. It's more of "the rules don't apply to me". But it is too bad a compromise couldn't be reached.
I also have no sympathies gay for a gay teacher being fired from a conservative Christian school and then whining about discrimination. Like "you didn't know?".
toomuchbaloney
16,100 Posts
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/16/dark-money-us-supreme-court-case-voting-law-moore-v-harper
Do you recognize the bolded name? He's the Trump advisor and lawyer who was heavily involved in drafting the language used to try to get Pence to throw out the EC results. He was an architect of the Insurrection and pushed his bogus legal advice even though he later admitted that it wasn't constitutional. That makes this seem very suspect doesn't it?
Do you know who doesn't want voters to vote or votes to be counted? Fascists.