Well, that firing seems justified.
Meanwhile, committed-to-the-destruction-of the USPS Louis DeJoy, head of the USPS, is still collecting a paycheck.
Yeah, I thought they had enough votes to dump him now? Also wanna bet despite the “bipartisan stuff” the GOP don’t let Biden appoint another Architect
Meanwhile, in Arkansas, a GOP state senator asks a trans pharmacist if she has a penis.
Couldn’t finish that article - woulda put that in the reps are evil thread.
I wish she’d have told him that unless he was asking her out, it was not of his fucking business.
That is, after all, today’s Qliban, going by their TtC hero (45), isn’t it?
I got that one.
And I kinda had those two if you combine them.
From the linked article
barring youth with any mental health-related diagnoses like depression or eating disorders from being able to access these treatments,
What the fuck! They are specifically targeting those most in danger of suicide. They actually want these kids to kill themselves.
They’re already born, mission accomplished.
After which they’ll point to the high suicide rate among trans youths as “proof” that it’s a mental illness that needs to be discouraged. It’s a win-win!
I got one today and it was about what I expected - the gist of it was “Of course I support all those programs, this was just about condemning Lenin and Stalin and all those baddies”, with a side of “look at this bill I co-sponsored” and “the resolution is gonna die in the Senate anyway”, topped off with an “I appreciate your concerns and will keep your perspective in mind”. It was nice to at least get a response that doesn’t entirely read like a form letter, but I still don’t think she understands the rhetorical trap she walked into by voting yes on the bill.
Anyway, our local progressive free paper is going to publish my letter on their front page next month, so at least it’ll get some more eyeballs on it and get people thinking about how many programs have been demonized as “socialism” that so many of us rely on.
Bravo! From there, other outlets may pick it up. Well done.
Here’s the link to your excellent letter in case somebody here missed it when you posted on Feb 3.
I haven’t yet been able to figure out if this is a stupid republican idea or an actual common sense law. I’m hoping for the latter.
The background is a (female) teacher brought six (female) high school students into the bathroom and made the strip down to their underwear while trying to find a vaping device. The teacher resigned and was charged with six counts of false imprisonment, but the charges were dismissed because the judge felt the girls knew they could leave at any time. And maybe they did, there’s very little detail about that part of the ordeal.
However, based on what I’m reading, in Wisconsin it’s a misdemeanor for a school district employee to strip search a student but since the students never removed their underwear, it’s not considered a strip search.
Three lawmakers have decided to expand the definition of a strip search so that a situation like this would still be illegal (where they’re not actually exposing themselves, but still essentially naked).
Currently, Wisconsin defines a strip search as:
a search in which a person’s genitals, pubic area, buttock or anus, or a female person’s breast, is uncovered and either is exposed to view or is touched by a person conducting the search.
The text of the bill, so far as I can tell, is not published yet so all I have is the various news articles and every one of them is nearly, or entirely, identical. What I’m trying to figure out is the meaning behind a specific line in these articles. It is either poorly worded resulting in a different meaning than intended OR worded correctly and is going to have very intended consequences.
USAToday, FoxNews and nearly every local news affiliate in Wisconsin running an article about this have used an almost identical line to explain the new law:
The new law would define a strip search as one in which a person’s genitalia or private areas, or underwear-clad genitalia or private areas, are exposed or touched by the searcher.
On the face of it, it makes sense, right? If you force a student to strip down to their underwear, you’re as guilty as making them fully strip (or touch them).
My question is with that last phrase “exposed or touched by the searcher”.
So, the question is, is this poorly worded and what they mean is that the student is “required to expose themselves by the searcher or touched by the searcher” or is it “exposed by the searcher or touched by the searcher”?
That sentence, IMO, is open to the interpretation that if a teacher made six students remove all but their underwear but didn’t do it themselves, they wouldn’t be guilty of anything, right? I’m hoping I’m reading that wrong and/or it’s written poorly, but I can’t help but see that as not an expansion of the law but a loophole that actually narrows the definition of a “strip search” to require the searcher going hands on.
I guess the question comes down to the whether or not “exposed by” includes the searcher telling them to remove their clothes or if they’d have to be physically disrobing the student.
Also, with this, if it really is just meant to cover cases where the searcher is telling students to disrobe, then I’m curious about the dismissal of the false imprisonment charges. Again, I have no details whatsoever about it, but hopefully the students really did realize that they could have walked out. Otherwise the judge in the case may not have a full grasp of how the student/teacher power dynamic works, which could very much play into this bill. For example, what if there was a clause that requires not just telling them to disrobe, but they also must be physically prevented from leaving otherwise it’s their own fault for not getting up and walking away.
Anyway, that’s my morning rant, hopefully it makes sense.
Here’s a random article, but there’s dozens of others if you want to read essentially the same thing on another website.
I suspect the news stories just dropped a comma here.
“The new law would define a strip search as one in which a person’s genitalia or private areas, or underwear-clad genitalia or private areas, are exposed*,* or touched by the searcher.”
Putting a comma after “exposed” would clear this up.
The Black players should have all taken a knee during the Black National Anthem. That surely would have made some righty heads asplode.
I wish she’s have said, “No, Mr Senator. Do you?”
That’s what I’m assuming and looking at the current law, I’m assuming it’ll be worded similarly.
is uncovered and either is exposed to view or is touched by a person conducting the search.
But, even in that case, I think the bill would still have to specify that the student was exposed at the teacher’s request. I’m not going to go down this particular rabbit hole right now, but I’m curious if ‘searcher’ or ‘person conducting the search’ is defined to make them some type of active participant (or even a passive participant/observer).
“Mr. Senator, you really need to work on your pick-up lines.”
“Which answer will get me a date with you, big boy? No…or yes?” [bats eyes seductively]
Reminds me. I cribbed from the letter to write to my Democratic rep who voted “for” on February 6th. No reply as yet.