I've often said that the most discrimination that occurs in employment is against "ugly people."* Ask yourself: Why are all the pharma reps so gorgeous? Recruiters? Yup. nypost.com/2021/07/09/job… *ugly is shorthand for not beautiful. And I can say this because 1/
2/ In second grade, Tom Cashman stole a detection slip of Miss Morrissey's desk and gave me a detention for "being ugly." I actually didn't remember this AT ALL until 20 years later, by happenstance, when I worked in a law firm in Chicago, guess who joins as a "summer associate."
3/ Yup, Tom Cashman. And over pratice lunch one day, Tom told my good friend at the firm that story. David would later repeat it to me, adding that apparently Tom's mom made him call me up to apologize. It all sounded vaguely familiar then....Oh & then there was time 8th grade
4/ basketball team made a song up about me w/ refrain, how are you, how are you, very very ugly, very very ugly....
5/ So, yup, employers discriminate against people based on how "cute" they are, but that's not a protected class & thus not illegal. And for the record, that girl was likely lovely.
6/6 There also was a 60 minutes episode or 20/20 that did a hidden camera in kindergarten showing teachers focusing on the "cute kids." I'll save you the first grade Sister Clarentine stories! ha.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've dug into GA election law more to see where @MattBraynard pulled point 1. Statute is clear you must live in county to vote in county, whether for national or local election w/ 30 day safe harbor. 1/
2/ Provisional voting law does not change that: law.justia.com/codes/georgia/… It does speak of out of precinct voting which prior to 2021 amendments, were allowed. BUT it does not make an illegal vote in old county legal. It appears GA counted provisional ballots in 2020.
3/ But those were in the wrong precinct, not in wrong county per all the reporting. That is entirely different issue than my article & data. ajc.com/politics/georg…
Thanks to my follower who tagged me on this so I could respond to @MattBraynard. I am open to being corrected on the law, but I cited the expressed provisions that make out of county voting illegal. Please provide statutory support for your provisional ballot claim. 1/
2/ Second, calling Mark Davis "an unqualified, incompetent individual who knows how to use EXCEL or whatever," speaks poorly of you. Davis has testified in 5 cases as an expert which is only allowed if a court find him qualified. And he did't run some Excel spreadsheet.
3/ Also, I didn't just "pick it up." I spent hours drilling Davis and seeking responses from SOS and analyzing data and law myself.
THREADETTE: DS had his annual exam at his "normal" doctor whom I adore. This Dr. is trustworty in every sense of word. He's in his mid-60s & when anyone asks for ped. recommendations, whether nextdoor or church groups, etc. everyone says this doctor. When DS was 2 months 1/
2/ or gosh, maybe just 1 month, during normal check-up Dr. heard issue w/ his heart. Mind you, 2 weeks prior we had just gotten DS's cystic fibrosis diagnosis. Dr. told us DS needed to see a cardo, said he wasn't hip on local one & called in favor from specialist at UofM Mott's
3/ who then saw DS on his lunch hour later in the week. Dr. knew we were already overwhelmed with CF diagnosis. Dr. ALWAYS gives amazing insights on things that I've asked his CF team and frankly have more faith in DR. SO, that's the backdrop for what I'm going to say.
THREAD on Brnovich Voting Rights Act case. Today’s opinion was a huge victory for voting integrity. While initially I was disappointed that the court did not set forth a clear standard the court’s analysis was just as important 1/
2/ The guideposts the court laid out make clear most of the left’s complaints about time place and manner regulation of voting are bunk
3/ Properly applied it is unlikely any prevalent voting integrity restrictions would be illegal under section 2 under the supreme court to guideposts
Re-reading BLM complaint against Trump, Barr, et. al., following IG report on Lafayette Square clearing was amusing--more humorous was reading transcript from oral argument. Rule 11 will now make for some interesting choices. @FDRLST 1/ thefederalist.com/2021/06/25/aft…
2/ And after studying transcript (link included), D.C. police did not admit during oral argument to tearing gasing protestors. That came later.