Honestly, just when I think I've seen it all, or read it all, or heard it all, something else comes along and I'm left, again, shaking my head. Here are just a few examples
A textbook publisher in Florida is scrubbing references to race from lessons. Rosa Parks? She was merely asked to move to another seat, with no reason given why. Jim Crow laws? It was illegal for "men of certain groups" to be unemployed, and "some men couldn't serve on juries," again with no reason given. Is this really how we want to be educating kids?
Missouri state representative Mike Moon told quite a horrific tale in justifying why he voted against a bill that would raise the legal age for kids to marry other kids from 16 to 17. His 'no' vote was in part because the bill didn't include "allowances for... extreme circumstances" like a couple he met a while back: a couple of pre-teens who "took actions that resulted in the girl becoming pregnant. The parents decided to allow the children to marry. They weren't forced."
How is he holding up these parents as positive examples when they leave the decision of marriage up to their 12- and 13-year-old children? How many other bills has Moon (or anyone else in Missouri) fought to have "allowances for extreme circumstances" included in other laws, such as rights for trans children or abortion?
Clarence Thomas. Billionaire friends. Money changing hands. Ethics. Bullshit. Need I say more?
NOW NYC is objecting to Judge Rowan Wilson, Gov. Kathy Hochul's latest pick to be Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. The issue? Wilson wrote the opinion that tossed a rape conviction because the prosecutors were morons who inexplicably wasted not just months, but years, in getting their case nailed down. Among the issues? They couldn't figure out how to get a warrant for a DNA sample... which pretty much everyone who's watched even one episode of a crime drama on TV in the last 30 years knows how to do.
I don't understand why a women's organization wouldn't be up in arms about prosecutorial malfeasance that denied a woman her day in court for years -and I can't for the life of me understand why NOW or any other group wants a Chief Justice who ignores the law, as long as it fits their agenda.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he would pardon a convicted murderer - the day after the guy was convicted. Why? Because Tucker Carlson and Kyle Rittenhouse told him to, I guess. A jury unanimously convicted Daniel Perry of murder in the death of Garrett Foster, who was participating in a Black Lives Matter rally in Austin. Perry ran a red light (on purpose) and drove into the protest (on purpose) and then, in self-defense (he said), shot Foster five times before driving away.
All of this was after Perry had posted on social media things like how he might "kill a few people" on his way to work as an Uber driver.
Comically, Abbott noted that the Texas stand-your-ground law" cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney." Because, you silly goose, jury nullification is the purview of governors, conservative commentators, and teenagers who shoot people at protests.
TGIF, everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!