Democrat U.S. Congressman man Ro Khanna (California): “It is absurd that Palo Alto School district just voted to remove honors biology for all students & already removed honors English. They call it de-laning. I call it an assault on excellence. I took many honors classes at Council Rock High in PA.”
https://x.com/RoKhanna/status/1921958772706066650
https://x.com/RubenGallego/status/1921982084777746456
Congressman criticizes Palo Alto schools for eliminating English and biology honors classes
By Braden Cartwright
May 13, 2025
Congressman Ro Khanna has waded into a debate over honors classes in the Palo Alto Unified School District, prompting thousands of supporters and opponents of the board’s decisions to weigh in on social media.
“It is absurd that Palo Alto school district just voted to remove Honors Biology for all students and already removed Honors English,” Khanna said on X. “They call it de-laning. I call it an assault on excellence.”
Khanna, D-Santa Clara, is referring to the board’s 3-2 vote on Jan. 21 to eliminate Honors Biology, instead grouping all freshmen in the same introductory class starting in the fall. Khanna’s post on X had more than 3,500 replies Tuesday, including from senators and fellow congressmen.
Senator weighs in
“I wish my high school had more AP and honors classes,” said Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona. “I can’t imagine a school willingly dumbing itself down.”
Former school board member Jennifer DiBrienza came to the district’s defense.
“Oh Senator, please educate yourself before weighing in. Nothing is being dumbed down,” she said. “If you’d like to know why the district did this, feel free to reach out to the district. The #1 district in the state, which continues to offer many AP and honors opportunities.”
Yoni Appelbaum, deputy executive editor of The Atlantic, said he took AP Biology at Gunn High School with Barbara Snapp, a Cornell Ph.D., and the class was college-level.
“Today’s Gunn students deserve opportunities like that too,” Appelbaum said.
DiBrienza’s defense
DiBrienza replied that Gunn and Palo Alto high schools still have AP Biology that students take all the time, and the elimination of Honors Biology was led by teachers who thought a single class would better serve all students.
“I trust they know what they are doing,” she said.
Easier transition
At the Jan. 21 board meeting, teachers said that grouping all students in a single class would ease the transition from 8th grade to 9th grade, when students are still learning what level is appropriate for them.
Teachers said they would make the standard class just as tough by offering opportunities for students to dive deeper on certain topics, if they want to.
Teachers said they don’t foresee changes to Honors Chemistry or Honors Physics that require higher-level math skills, science teacher Liz Brimhall said at the Jan. 21 meeting.
“We really want to give all students a really strong foundation and springboard so they can access our various science pathways, including honors,” Brimhall told the board.
A handful of students and parents said they wanted to keep Honors Biology.
“I’m very passionate about STEM, including life science and biology,” said Katie Hu, an eighth grader at Greene Middle School. “I want to take a science class that challenges me and moves faster than a regular class, and I was really looking forward to Honors Biology.”
How board voted
Board members Alison Kamhi, Shounak Dharap and Shana Segal voted to move to a single biology course./p>
“Once we start to subject teachers to strict scrutiny on educational decisions, we are going to get fewer educational initiatives from them,” Segal said.
“People have concerns, but they don’t work with our kids every day,” Dharap said. “To not vote for this would be a disastrous mistake.”
Student reps wanted to keep honors
All three student representatives to the school board voted to keep Honors Biology, but their votes don’t count.
Board members Rowena Chiu and Josh Salcman also voted to keep Honors Biology.
“I would really like us as a district to move toward a process, when we’re doing things like this, where we engage the community earlier,” Salcman said. “It concerns me that Mr. Dharap frames this as, ‘You’re either with the teachers or you’re against them.’”
Chiu said she’s heard from students and parents who fear the district will eliminate other advanced classes.
“Do we trust our high school students with autonomy and choice, to decide for themselves what their learning journey looks like?” Chiu asked.
Some of Silicon Valley’s most prominent schools have ditched honors classes in the name of equity — but it’s a terrible idea
Some of Silicon Valley’s most prominent schools have ditched honors classes in the name of equity — but it’s a terrible idea
By Rikki Schlott
May 13, 2025
Palo Alto schools are doing away with Honors courses in the latest assault on excellence.
Starting in September, freshmen will no longer have the option of taking a more rigorous Honors Biology class. Instead, the district will have one “foundational” course.
The Palo Alto Unified School District voted in January to nix the advanced class after an hours-long debate with dozens of concerned members of the public in attendance. Honors English has already been sidelined.
Proponents argue that “de-laning” — removing different “lanes” for students based on achievement — will promote equity and encourage all kids to pursue science throughout their high school career.
One Biology teacher argued during the meeting, “We know that laning can lead to issues around students’ beliefs in themselves.”
But opponents — including one 8th grader who showed up to the vote in protest — argue it’s an assault on meritocracy.
“Please don’t hold students such as myself back from these wonderful opportunities to challenge ourselves and grow as individuals,” she told the board.
Nonetheless, the resolution, which has been under consideration since 2018, still passed with a narrow 3-to-2 margin.
Since when does everyone have to be the same? And why does one kid’s excellence threaten another’s “belief” in themselves? Must we all be handicapped in the name of equity?
Palo Alto dad Nan Zhong is furious about it. He says the school district is “approaching the achievement gap in the wrong way.”
“I think the move is really misguided, and it’s very polarizing,” Zhong, a software engineering manager at Google, told The Post. “The parents who are very involved in their kids’ education and really want to prepare the kids for success are very upset.”
His two sons, a 16-year-old sophomore at Gunn High School and a 19-year-old recent graduate, both took Honors Biology and, Zhong said, greatly benefited from the accelerated courses which were “stepping stones to AP courses” later in high school.
“The school of thought seems to be that we need to have equity and reduce students’ mental burden, so, therefore, let’s make the curriculum easier, and everybody can get an A,” he said.
The Post contacted the school district for comment but did not receive an answer.
The move has drawn widespread scrutiny, including from local Democratic congressman Ro Khanna.
“It is absurd that [the] Palo Alto School district just voted to remove honors biology for all students and already removed honors English. They call it de-laning. I call it an assault on excellence. I took many honors classes at Council Rock High in PA,” he tweeted on Monday.
Another X user joked, “Only in Palo Alto, where the school board’s been breathing rarefied air too long, do you get ‘de-laning’—an idea so open-minded, their brains fell out.”
They’re right. The district should be more interested in producing excellent alumni than in making sure nobody’s feelings are hurt because they couldn’t cut it in Honors Biology.
Notable graduates of public high schools in the district include 23andMe founder Anne Wojcicki, Stanford neuroscientist and podcaster Andrew Huberman, and Charles Brenner who is considered the creator of forensic mathematics.
Surely they’re not a product of a system that emphasized equity over excellence.
This is part of a much larger shift. Neighboring Fremont Unified School District and Sequoia Union High School Districts have also eliminated Honors courses in an effort to de-lane.
“It’s just part of the larger trend in California of watering down curriculum in public schools in the name of equity,” Zhong said. “But I really don’t think that’s progress because if we don’t teach kids anything and just give them an A, well, they got equity — but they get no knowledge and no skills to succeed.”
Since the great reckoning of 2020, there’s been an effort at schools across the country to promote equity, whether for the sake of racial justice or student self-esteem.
High schools abandoning Honors courses are waging the same war on excellence as specialized schools dumping entrance exams and colleges dropping standardized testing requirements.
Rather than concentrate efforts on lifting up underperforming students, just the opposite tends to occur. Champions of equity seem determined to bash down the kids who excel in the supposed interest of the greater good.
In the end, everyone is worse off, and nobody is special. How is that progress?
As Zhong put it: “The way to eliminate the achievement gap is not to take away the measure of the outcome. They’re basically saying if you don’t measure, then we don’t have any problem.”
Texas Rep. Crockett’s Comments On DEI Hiring Spark Debate: “You Should Hire Me…Because I’m Black”
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1907527116918251825
Texas Rep. Crockett’s Comments On DEI Hiring Spark Debate: “You Should Hire Me…Because I’m Black”
By Danielle Shockey
April 3, 2025
U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat from Texas, made remarks during a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Wednesday that have ignited a debate about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
Crockett recounted her experience being hired as a public defender despite having no prior criminal defense experience. She stated that she told her prospective boss, “Listen, you should hire me,” and when asked why, replied, “Because I’m Black.”
Crockett explained that she believed her presence would allow her to establish a level of rapport and understanding with certain clients that her colleagues might not be able to achieve. Her boss ultimately hired her.
Crockett’s comments, made during a discussion about diversity in law enforcement, drew significant attention and criticism on social media. Many users, particularly on X, accused Crockett of admitting to being a “DEI hire.”
The Libs of TikTok account posted, “INCREDIBLE. Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett publicly admits that she only got her job as a public defender because she was Black. Crockett is a DEI hire, CONFIRMED.”
During the hearing, Crockett defended the importance of DEI in the criminal justice system, arguing that victims of crime should see law enforcement officers who resemble them.
She emphasized the value of having law enforcement that “looks like me,” stating that it helps ensure that cases are investigated fairly, regardless of the race or gender of the victim.
She expressed concern about an administration that “is continuously railing against diversity, equity or inclusion.”
I have a question for DEI supporters: Is there any other job, besides air traffic controller, where you think a person’s college degree should be retroactively voided after they graduate? If not, why not?
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
February 7, 2025
I have a question for DEI supporters:
Is there any other job, besides air traffic controllers, where you think a person’s college degree should be retroactively voided after they graduate?
If not, why not?
https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1887924574412501350
https://twitter.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1887924574412501350
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigida_v._FAA
Brigida v. FAA
Brigida v. United States Department of Transportation et al, No. 1:2016cv02227, is a class action, racial discrimination lawsuit that was filed in the United States in November 2016. The lead plaintiff is Andrew Brigida. The plaintiffs, in total about 1,000, accused the Federal Aviation Administration of racially discriminating against them when they applied to be air-traffic controllers.
Background
In 2014, the Wall St. Journal and the Chicago Tribune published separate articles about what had been, until December 2013, a long standing program that the FAA had been using to recruit applicants for its air-traffic control trainee program. Under this long standing program, when the FAA had accepted applicants to be trained as air-traffic controllers, it had been giving preference to applicants who had taken air-traffic control classes at any of 36 FAA approved colleges and universities. Although this program involving the 36 colleges had been open to people of all races and all genders, the people who chose to take these college classes had been disproportionately white and male. The program was deemed to be racist and sexist, and it was canceled in December 2013. It was replaced with a personality test that was designed to achieve Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Because participants under the canceled policy had invested a substantial amount of time and money in taking these college classes, they felt that they had been betrayed, and they filed the class action lawsuit.
Renewed attention in 2025
In 2025, after the 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision, the lawsuit, as well as the general subject of diversity, equity, and inclusion as it relates to aviation, received renewed attention.
These pictures show the newly poured, DEI concrete at the Obama Presidential Center. The DEI contractor who did the defective work is now suing for racism, because someone complained about the cracks.
https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1886197018747429262
https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1886197018747429262
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-center-subcontractor-files-40m-011519969.html
Obama Center subcontractor files $40M discrimination lawsuit against engineering firm for overruns
By Michael Dorgan
February 1, 2025
A Chicago-based subcontractor is suing one of the firms involved in managing the construction of the Obama Presidential Center for $40 million, claiming racial discriminatory practices forced the firm to do extra work that left it at risk of bankruptcy, according to a lawsuit.
Robert McGee, the owner of II in One, which provided concrete and rebar services for the center starting in 2021, filed the lawsuit in federal court last month against New York-based Thornton Tomasetti, which oversees structural engineering and design services for the $830 million project.
McGee claims that Thornton Tomasetti changed standards and imposed new rules around rebar spacing and tolerance requirements that differed from the American Concrete Institute standards, which resulted in “excessively rigorous and unnecessary inspection” and massive overruns.
This, McGee, claims, incurred extensive paperwork that impacted productivity and resulted in millions in losses, according to the lawsuit.
However, Thornton Tomasetti defended its actions nearly a year ago, writing in a memo to the lawsuit that the subcontractors were “questionably qualified,” and the delays were due to their own shortcomings.
The Obama Presidential Center is being built near Jackson Park in Chicago, and will consist of a planned museum, library, community and conference facilities. The center will house the nonprofit Obama Foundation, which is overseeing the center’s development and operates a scholarship program through the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy.
McGee claims Thornton Tomasetti falsely accused II in One of lacking sufficient qualifications and experience to perform its work, while stating that non-minority-owned contractors were sufficiently qualified.
He is seeking to be paid back for roughly $40 million in construction costs the firm covered itself along with its joint venture partner, Concrete Collective.
“In a shocking and disheartening turn of events, the African American owner of a local construction company finds himself and his company on the brink of forced closure because of racial discrimination by the structural engineer,” the lawsuit reads.
“II in One and its joint venture partners… was subjected to baseless criticisms and defamatory and discriminatory accusations by the Obama Foundation’s structural engineer, Thornton Tomasetti.
However, Thornton Tomasetti claimed in an attached February 2024 memo that construction costs and delays “were all unequivocally driven by the underperformance and inexperience” of that subcontractor, II in One.
In a memo, Thornton Tomasetti shared images of cracked slab and exposed rebar.
In the memo, Thornton Tomasetti tells Obama Foundation leadership that it spent hundreds of hours reviewing, analyzing, re-designing and responding to corrective work and that contractors caused “a multitude of problems in the field.”
Thornton Tomasetti said the challenges with the concrete were due solely to the performance of the contractors.
“We cannot stand by while contractors attempt to blame their own shortcomings on the design team,” the memo states.
The memo goes on to state that Thornton Tomasetti and an architectural firm “bent over backwards to assist what everyone knows was a questionably qualified subcontractor team in areas where more qualified subcontractor would not have required it.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Calls Trump’s DEI Crackdown At FAA ‘Common Sense’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajunbb08dhw
Given how many people this pilot killed, it’s inexcusable that their name is being withheld.
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5281246/pentagon-jet-military-helicopter-collision
Army withholds name of Black Hawk helicopter crew in D.C. crash, 2 others identified
By Tom Bowman and Quil Lawrence
January 31, 2025
The Army has identified two of the three soldiers killed in Wednesday’s crash outside a busy Washington, D.C. airport. The three-person crew was on board a Black Hawk helicopter that collided with an American Airlines passenger jet carrying 64 people.
The soldiers identified are Staff Sgt. Ryan Austin O’Hara, 28, of Lilburn, Ga. and Chief Warrant Officer Andrew Loyd Eaves, 39, of Great Mills, Md.
The third crew member on the helicopter was a female pilot with 500 hours of flying experience, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation. The Army is withholding the pilot’s name at the request of her family.
The withholding of a name in instances like this is a highly unusual move. The identity of the third crew member has already drawn intense scrutiny online.
Misinformation on social media falsely claims she was a transgender pilot from the Virginia National Guard named Jo Ellis. Ellis has posted a “proof of life” video on Facebook, denouncing the rumors and offering condolences to those killed in the crash.
Illinois Democrat Sen. Tammy Duckworth, herself a decorated former Black Hawk pilot, told NPR she understood why the family declined to make their loved-one’s name public.
“ We should be respecting the family’s wishes at a time when they have suffered an unbelievable loss,” Duckworth said. “I think it is a perfectly legitimate request the family would make. And I’m glad that the Army is honoring that request.”
Duckworth condemned the online speculation about the third member of the crew and especially President Trump’s musings that the Army crew was to blame or was affected by diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) hiring.
“Every one of those troops that was in that aircraft earned their place there, and they are the most highly trained military aviators in the world,” Duckworth said. “And I am just sick to my stomach that we would have a president who would say such things about the heroic men and women who serve every single day.”
Despite President Trump saying the pilots of the Army helicopter bore responsibility for the crash, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the crew was “fairly experienced” and carrying out a “required annual night evaluation, they did have night vision goggles.”
There remain, however, many unanswered questions about the flight pattern of the Black Hawk helicopter and the exact nature of the training exercise it was on at the time of the crash.
“Initial indications suggest this may have been a checkride, or periodic evaluation by an experienced instructor pilot of a less experienced pilot,” said Brad Bowman, a military analyst with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former Black Hawk pilot.
“A checkride, as opposed to a normal training flight, creates some unique dynamics in the cockpit. In a checkride, the less experienced pilot can be nervous and eager to not make mistakes, while the instructor pilot is watching to see how the other pilot responds to different developments,” Bowman explained. “Sometimes an instructor pilot will test the less experienced aviator to see how they respond, but such a technique would have been unusual and inadvisable in that location given the reduced margin for error.”
Map showing the paths of the passenger jet and Army helicopter that collided over the Potomac near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DC).
Defense officials, who were not authorized to speak publicly, told NPR that the instructor pilot, now believed to be Chief Warrant Officer Eaves, had 1,000 hours of flight time, which is considered experienced. The co-pilot, whose name is being withheld, had 500 hours, which is considered normal.
Officials also tell NPR that the Black Hawk was supposed to be flying at a maximum of 200 feet, though sources say it was flying at least 100 feet higher. All requested anonymity given the sensitivity of the investigation.
On Thursday the National Transportation Safety Board says it recovered what are commonly called “black boxes” from the plane — the cockpit voice and flight data recorders. Federal safety investigators believe the Black Hawk helicopter also had its own recording devices, which they hope will help provide more clues on the cause of the crash.
In the hierarchy of wokeism, trans people outrank people with disabilities.
https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1884424359386767644
Second teenage footballer banned for asking if transgender opponents were men
Teenager with learning difficulties suspended for six matches for questioning referee about eligibility of ‘aggressive’ opponents
By Ben Rumsby
January 28, 2025
A second teenage footballer has been handed a six-match ban for asking whether adult transgender opponents she was playing were men.
An 18-year-old, whom Telegraph Sport has been told has both ADHD and learning difficulties, was sanctioned by a National Serious Case Panel in a case with parallels to that for which a 17-year-old girl with suspected autism was handed a similar suspension.
The second teen was charged by her county FA over comments she made to a referee during a match in September, the same month she turned 18. It was alleged she said: “Ref, have you checked if all of their players are eligible to play? Look at their ’keeper and for example their number 10 is obviously a man,” or something similar.
She was banned for six matches, two of which were suspended, after accepting the charge brought under national Football Association rules that allow those born male to play in women’s matches. The teen was also forced to undergo an “online education course”, while her club were handed seven disciplinary points.
An investigation into her comments required her to provide a written statement, which Telegraph Sport has been told she needed assistance in composing. In it she said she had sought guidance from the referee due to her trans opponents’ “extremely aggressive” style of play. She also said she had not taken her ADHD medication on the day in question because “another medical condition” had prevented her from doing so.
Referee threatened red card if complaints persisted
The disciplinary proceedings were triggered by a complaint made by the opposition club, which included the claim that she had said to their non-trans players: “This is a man.” She has admitted trying to ask those players if their team-mates were biologically male after failing to get clarity from the ref, who, she wrote in her statement, had threatened to send her off if she continued to quiz him on the matter.
Speaking to Telegraph Sport on condition of anonymity, the teenager said of her ban: “It kind of made me hate football.”
She also said she feared she had been gagged from asking questions or raising concerns about playing against those born male. “If I say anything else, I get another six-game ban,” she said. “So I can’t even stand up for myself at this point.”
The teen’s case has come to light three months after Telegraph Sport revealed a 17-year-old with suspected autism was facing a ban of up to 12 matches for asking an adult transgender opponent: “Are you a man?” She denied a discrimination charge but was banned for six games in November, four of them suspended.
The outcome was condemned in the House of Lords in November by former FA chairman Lord Triesman, who wrote to the FA about it and was invited to meet its leaders to discuss his concerns. It also sparked protests by campaigners outside England men’s and women’s matches at Wembley and Bramall Lane.
As with the ban imposed on the 17-year-old, the written reasons for the punishment imposed on the other teen have not been made public, even in a redacted form.
‘It’s disgraceful another teenage girl has been suspended’
Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at Sex Matters, said: “It’s disgraceful that another teenage girl has been suspended for daring to challenge the presence of a male player in a women’s game. The FA has punished her for asking a question that matters for her own safety, and for fairness for all girls. Sending her for mandatory ‘re-education’ won’t solve this.
“How many other cases are there like this? How long can the FA continue to claim that there is no problem? How can the FA say it supports the women’s game when girls are being suspended for pointing out there is a man on the pitch?
“Many sports have waited until a man is about to hit the big time in the women’s game before acting to protect the female category. A cynic might speculate that we won’t see fairness in football until a male player demands his place in the Lionesses.”
An FA spokesperson said: “This case was heard by an independent National Serious Case Panel in November 2024, and they issued a sanction for a breach of FA rules. The charges were immediately accepted by the player and the outcome was the minimum sanction that could be issued for a case of this nature. The player did not appeal the sanction.
“In order to protect the players involved, and to respect the confidential details included, we are not in a position to publish the written reasons of this case. We have previously said that cases of this nature are complex and that the information in the public domain is very limited, often to protect the individuals involved.
“We regularly review our processes in this area and we will always look to take the appropriate steps to challenge improper conduct in our game.”
Just over a year ago, 48 MPs and 27 peers signed a letter urging the FA to change its trans rules to “protect women and girls” in football. Its trans policy has long been under review but it has been waiting for Fifa and Uefa to complete reviews of their own policies before amending its own.
I support meritocracy because people like Gavin Newsom should never be put in charge of anything. It’s evil that he’s so happy – even rocking side to side in glee – as he talks about the people who died and lost their homes. Skip to 0:57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCt6fGmsTAk
The LA wildfires have left the diversity industry in ruins
The LA wildfires have left the diversity industry in ruins
This historic disaster has awoken countless Americans to the downsides of DEI
By Michael Deacon
January 14, 2025
Across the US, big businesses are quietly ditching their diversity programmes. Perhaps now the country’s public services will follow suit. Because the LA wildfires appear to have awoken the American public to the downsides of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – aka DEI.
For example, Fox News has reported that, while LA officials were cutting millions of dollars in funding from the local fire department, hundreds of thousands of dollars were allocated to initiatives promoting diversity. Such as a “queer choir” known as the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles, and something called the “Midnight Stroll Transgender Cafe”.
Almost as extraordinary is a video from 2019, in which the woman in charge of DEI at the Los Angeles Fire Department explains why the emergency services need a diverse workforce. And during this video, which is currently going viral online, Deputy Chief Kristine Larson makes two comments that are downright mind-boggling.
First, she airily dismisses those who worry that women aren’t physically strong enough to be firefighters. People, she sniffs, often say, “You couldn’t carry my husband out of a fire.” To which, apparently, she retorts: “He got himself in the wrong place if I have to carry him out of a fire.”
What’s that supposed to mean? That it’s your husband’s fault if a female firefighter is incapable of lifting him? What’s the poor man to do, if he finds himself trapped in a burning building? Embark on the world’s fastest ever crash diet, until he’s light enough for her to pop him under her arm like a Mulberry clutch?
Even more absurd, however, is Ms Larson’s other argument in favour of workforce diversity. Because she claims that, when a fire engine or an ambulance arrives at your home, “You want to see someone… that looks like you.”
Really? I don’t know about LA, but in Britain I doubt that anyone calling 999 says, “Oh, and by the way, I refuse to have my life saved by a white fireman. I insist on being rescued by a fireperson of colour. So, if you don’t have any currently on staff, I’m happy to wait till you’ve trained one up.”
That would be mad enough. But imagine if the caller were white. “When I get to hospital, I demand to be treated by staff that look like me. So white doctors and nurses only, please. None of these black or Asian ones…”
Most people, I suspect, would consider such a demand to be more than a touch racist. But in the Alice in Wonderland world of DEI, mere logic doesn’t get a look-in.
This proposal from five Connecticut Democrats would get rid of the requirement that firefighters be strong enough to carry their own safety equipment.
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
January 11, 2025
This proposal from five Connecticut Democrats would get rid of the requirement that firefighters be strong enough to carry their own safety equipment.
The bill is sponsored by:
Michael D’Agostino (Democrat – 91st district)
Josh Elliott (Democrat – 88th district)
Robyn Porter (Democrat – 94th district)
Martin Looney (Democrat -11th district)
Jorge Cabrera (Democrat – 17th district)
The bill is at this link:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/TOB/H/PDF/2023HB-05501-R00-HB.PDF
And here is the internet archive of that link:
The text of the bill states:
State of Connecticut
General Assembly
Proposed Bill No. 5501
January Session, 2023
LCO No. 259
Referred to Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY
Introduced by:
REP. D’AGOSTINO, 91st Dist.
REP. ELLIOTT, 88th Dist.
REP. PORTER, 94th Dist.
SEN. LOONEY, 11th Dist.
SEN. CABRERA, 17th Dist.
AN ACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE PHYSICAL ABILITY TESTING
REQUIREMENTS FOR FEMALE CANDIDATES FOR FIREFIGHTER
POSITIONS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:
That chapter 104 of the general statutes be amended to establish
physical ability test requirements for female candidates for firefighter
positions that provide an alternative to the fifty-pound simulated vest
test component of the Candidate Physical Ability Test.
Statement of Purpose:
To allow for a more diverse class of candidates for firefighter positions
at municipal and volunteer fire departments by recognizing that
additional female candidates would qualify for such positions based on
revised physical standards that offer an alternative to the fifty-pound
simulated vest test component of the Candidate Physical Ability Test.
LCO No. 2590
Here is a screenshot of the bill from that link:
This is how D.E.I. destroyed LA Fire Department’s ability to deal with the LA fires.
Elon Musk: Jess Phillips deserves to be in prison over Labour refusal to launch grooming inquiry
Elon Musk: Jess Phillips deserves to be in prison over Labour refusal to launch grooming inquiry
Kemi Badenoch joins widespread criticism of decision, saying rape gang investigation was ‘long overdue’
By Dominic Penna
January 2, 2025
Labour has come under fire after refusing to hold a public inquiry into historic sexual abuse by grooming gangs in Oldham.
Elon Musk attacked the decision as “disgraceful” and Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, said a full national inquiry into rape gangs was “long overdue”.
Jess Phillips, Labour’s safeguarding minister, insisted it was “for Oldham council alone” to decide whether to launch an investigation into alleged exploitation between 2011 and 2014.
A 2022 report found children in Oldham were failed by agencies that were meant to protect them amid alleged grooming by “predominantly Pakistani offenders” in council homes, shisha bars and by taxi drivers.
Oldham council’s Labour group last year agreed to support an independent inquiry, writing twice to Ms Phillips urging the Home Office to support this work.
The minister replied: “It is for Oldham Council alone to decide to commission an inquiry into child sexual exploitation locally, rather than for the Government to intervene…
“I welcome the council’s resolution to do so, as set out in your letter, and to continue its important work with victims and survivors.”
Responding to a report on Ms Phillip’s remarks on his social media platform X, Mr Musk claimed that she “deserves to be in prison”.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1874575303626174956
Mrs Badenoch also shared her view on the platform on Thursday and said: “The time is long overdue for a full national inquiry into the rape gangs scandal.
“Trials have taken place all over the country in recent years but no one in authority has joined the dots. 2025 must be the year that the victims start to get justice.”
Responding to Mrs Badenoch, Nigel Farage, the Reform leader, said: “Talk is cheap. The Conservatives had 14 years in government to launch an inquiry. The establishment has failed the victims of grooming gangs on every level.”
The time is long overdue for a full national inquiry into the rape gangs scandal.
Trials have taken place all over the country in recent years but no one in authority has joined the dots.
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1874749990842814606
The tech billionaire has emerged as a vocal critic of Sir Keir Starmer and his government in recent months and will have a major role in Donald Trump’s incoming administration.
In further posts, Mr Musk accused Ms Phillips of a “disgraceful” decision and suggested she had rejected an inquiry in order to shield Sir Keir from blame.
He continued: “In the UK, serious crimes such as rape require the Crown Prosecution Service’s approval for the police to charge suspects.
“Who was the head of the CPS when rape gangs were allowed to exploit young girls without facing justice? Keir Starmer, 2008–2013.
“Who is the boss of Jess Phillips right now? Keir Stamer [sic]. The real reason she’s refusing to investigate the rape gangs is that it would obviously lead to the blaming of Keir Starmer [head of the CPS at the time].”
In the UK, serious crimes such as rape require the Crown Prosecution Service’s approval for the police to charge suspects.
Who was the head of the CPS when rape gangs were allowed to exploit young girls without facing justice?
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1874664089894695221
Sir Keir ordered a comprehensive review of CPS guidelines on sexual exploitation as chief prosecutor in 2012, admitting the service had failed a generation of girls who were abused.
He said at the time that there was “clearly an issue of ethnicity” in a number of grooming cases and that prosecutors should not “shy away from that”.
Sir Keir added: “But if we’re honest it’s the approach to victims, the credibility issue, that caused these cases not to be prosecuted in the past. There was a lack of understanding.”
He went on to blame misleading “assumptions, myths and stereotypes” about sexual violence that led prosecuting lawyers to downplay the credibility of witnesses.
Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog 