It’s actually missing from the entire article, an article which had the time to mention how there’s a group trying to have a school board member recalled (without telling us how big or small the group is, who their members are and what other organizations they’re connected to (e.g. Moms for Liberty)), list all of the group’s alleged grievances (without looking into whether any of them have any validity), and link to the group’s Facebook page (without discussing the prevalence of misinformation on those pages).

*After the first two Muslim bans were too blatantly racist for even that Supreme Court, they came up with just enough bullshit to cover their racism to get the third Muslim ban attempt to stick

Looks like mądry Polak po szkodzie isn’t always the case

Doesn’t matter, just wash you hands when you’re done

Gerrymandered Congress, no campaign finance laws, bought and paid for judiciary - Allow us to introduce ourselves

This comment has the sort of broken cynicism and utter indifference to our shared humanity you normally only see in CNNs coverage of foreign wars

The auditing firm for Trump Media and the auditor’s owner were charged Friday with “massive fraud” by the Securities and Exchange Commission for work that affected more than 1,500 SEC filings, the federal regulator announced.

The auditor, BF Borgers CPA and its owner Benjamin Borgers have agreed to be permanently suspended from practicing as accountants before the SEC, and also agreed to pay a combined $14 million in civil penalties, without* admitting or denying the allegations, the SEC said.

So we didn’t find out that the SEC thought this auditor committed criminal conduct until the SEC had already negotiated this settlement where they don’t have to admit any wrongdoing? Bang up job enforcing the laws there guys, that will definitely deter this kind of conduct from other bad actors in the accounting industry /s

*The article actually says “with” there, but the SEC post it links to says “without,” so I’m fairly certain that was a typo in the news article

e; It really should go without saying, but since the conversations on this website have effectively reduced my whole personality to “why aren’t more people talking about how this Democratic administration’s handling of the federal government is falling short of what that party says they stand for,” I feel like I should say I doubt we’d see even this pittance of enforcement out of a Republican government, so, yeah, I sincerely hope these pathetic losers get another four years to keep disappointing me because the alternative is still a hell of a lot worse

Someone federal should “callously” charge him for mass child endangerment and “choose not to wait for a ruling” before throwing his ass in a jail cell

I honestly kind of wonder if these Biden super fans are a reverse psychology operation. Like, I log on to Lemmy thinking “Eh, Biden’s not great but I do have to vote for him,” read a bunch of dumbass posts like this one and walk away thinking “I want nothing more in this world than to see neoliberal moderates crash and burn in the most humiliating fashion imaginable.”

Yeah, sure, when Bob Menendez got dragged into court he had over one hundred sitting Democratic lawmakers stand up for him, and what he was accused of doing was way more serious than just trying to overthrow the government /s

The Democratic party isn’t perfect, but you’re out of your mind if you think they’re anywhere near Republicans’ level

This is the main reason why a lot of conservatives are conservatives, because fundamentalist morons who are scared out of their minds by benign things like blue hair and nose rings are super easy marks once you get all the regulators and teachers and anybody else who might call out your bullshit out of the way

That’s quite literally what Biden is doing now [except for how he isn’t doing it at all and is instead occasionally dropping much smaller scale things that are mostly just implementing things that got passed years ago and hoping everyone forgets that he promised to help everyone]

lol indeed

Greedy universities

Banks, thousands of other kinds of predatory businesses that prey on students: “Ha, yes, yes! ‘Geeedy universities,’ that’s the ticket!”

Oh, but what more could you ask of him? He tried once and the Supreme Court said no, and that’s all he can do. Sure, when Trump wanted to ban Muslims from the country and the Supreme Court told him no he just changed one or two small details and issued the same order again and again and again until the Court gave up, but Biden couldn’t possibly do something like that here because it wouldn’t be very polite. You don’t want a rude president, do you?

/s

100%, I just want to spread the word on this one because even though the state is putting in some effort to find prisoners who qualify they’re still going to have to know they qualify and file some paperwork to actually make these early releases happen

deleted by creator

For real, the real kick in the ass here is it’s not just like the US withdrawing is going to make the situation any better, since Russia is trying to do the exact same stuff, and those assholes give even less of a fuck about anyone else than our assholes do

“International law for thee, not for me!” - US

Under international law, countries have the right to claim sovereignty over areas of the ocean that lie beyond the 200-mile limit, as long as those areas are physically connected to underwater shelves that extend from continental masses. Sovereignty includes control over resource development.

But for the U.S., there is a catch: The U.S. Senate has not ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the treaty under which such claims are adjudicated.

~

Of course if the Republicans win again the strategy just reverts to “drill baby drill”

Seems like that’s the plan already. Fta,

Crucially, this declaration… focuses on control over the seabed and its resources, including mining and research rights, as well as pipeline activities.

Worth noting that U.S. oil production hit a record under Biden in 2023

I wonder how much the opioid lawsuit settlements’ rules for drug distributors and pharmacists is driving this

The distributors use algorithms that cap the quantities of controlled substances a pharmacy can sell in a month. Before the settlement, pharmacists said, they could explain to a distributor the reason for a surge in demand and still receive medications past their limits. Now the caps appear to be more rigid: Drugs are cut off with no advance notice or rapid recourse. As a condition of the settlement, distributors cannot tell pharmacies what the thresholds are.

…

But some doctors said that legitimate prescriptions were being caught in the dragnet, while pharmacists said they were declining to dispense some medications for fear of setting off triggers.

Distributors can investigate and resolve red flags if they are satisfied by a pharmacy’s explanation, but they can also stop supplying them with controlled drugs altogether.

Swept up in the scrutiny are college students far from home trying to fill their Adderall prescriptions, patients in rural areas where it is customary to drive long distances for medical care, and hospice providers that rely on local pharmacies for controlled substances instead of on a specialized supplier that would be exempt from the limits, The Times found.

Restrictions on controlled substances had already been ratcheted up for years, as concerns about abuse grew during the opioid epidemic. More recently, shortages of some drugs, such as Adderall, which is used to treat A.D.H.D., made those medications hard to get. The settlement with distributors appears to have tightened supplies even more.

e; I feel the need to preface this one - she’s claiming she had no responsibility here, but

a) we haven’t gotten the school’s side of it or any other independent confirmation,

b) the hearing board exoneration could just be a case of the school district not keeping good records and minding details of their teacher’s contracts and doesn’t really establish that this teacher didn’t exercise poor judgment and show poor character during this,

c) it seems really weird that this teacher had nothing to do with this collage, but also felt compelled to take it down herself when she saw it (instead of reporting it to the administration and letting them do what they will with it), and then just happened to be the person asked by the other teacher to serve as a union rep in the meeting that led to her suspension.

I could believe that the administration ignored a bad situation until it started to blow up and then went looking for a scapegoat and this teacher just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but with all these weird little details it does start to feel like more of a stretch.

Either way, my main point in making this comment was just to say the discussion about whether these nooses were racist or not is beside the point because everyone agrees they were dumb, the only dispute here is whether this teacher was or wasn’t responsible for them.

Anyway, my original comment starts on the next line -

Her claim is she didn’t do it -

Ms Jones Doering claimed in the lawsuit that she never created, displayed or assisted anyone in putting up “any racist collage.”

…

The lawsuit states that on 6 February 2019, the Roosevelt Union Free School District was informed of the “offensive and racially infused” collage on display, but when administrators from the district visited and inspected the collage they “failed to remove it or instruct that teacher from removing it.”

Ms Jones Doering said in the lawsuit that the classroom where the collage was displayed was not hers, referring to it being in an “other teacher’s classroom.”

The suit claims that a day after, Ms Jones Doering entered the classroom to leave lesson plans there she “noticed the offensive nature of its content, and removed it from the classroom so that students and staff members are not exposed to it.”

She then allegedly placed the images in a locked cabinet in her classroom.

The next day, Ms Jones Doering was asked by the other teacher who allegedly had the collage in her classroom, to accompany her to a Human Resources meeting to represent her as her “union representative.”

However, following the meeting, they were both given letters of suspension and claimed the defendants “refused to provide any information regarding” this decision.

She claimed that the school district “falsely accused her of displaying the collage in her classroom, which is completely false and fabricated accusations,” the lawsuit said.

Ms Jones Doering also purports that she was accused of “interfering” with an alleged investigation into the collage by removing the offensive imagery and bringing “negative attention” to the school - which she claims was caused by tips to the media.