This is what we’d do because we were broke. If we had money we’d go to bars and stuff, but otherwise we’d ask the supermarket for free fish ice and buy beers, then filled the bathtub with them.
As people came over they’d go drop the booze in the tub and pick up a cold one.
Many fun nights, though finding people using your bed, not so much.
Perfectly good for a loincloth.
Isn’t McConnell just the remains of Voldemort?
I’m not going to argue how such an event could affect a person’s psyche and if that changes how they’d perform as an FBI agent, but I don’t know that it should be dismissed that casually.
However, that’s just the part that caught the public’s attention, there were other sensible restrictions that have been removed:
Prior to the current administration, FBI policy was to bar applicants who had, among other things, hired sex workers, stolen from an employer, or engaged in bestiality. In August, CBS News reported that these standards had been relaxed and that multiple sources claimed “the FBI did so to facilitate hiring in some cases.”
Now you can have thieves in the FBI too.
FBI Director Kash Patel’s decision to remove bestiality as an automatic disqualifier for FBI job applicants drew bipartisan disbelief Tuesday after he said the change was intended to protect trafficking victims coerced into sexual acts with animals.
[Edit to cater to sensibilities]
Since we’re not allowed to call people by their names, let me hash out a couple of points that, in my humblest perspective, should be mandatory knowledge for humanity in general. First one is don’t talk about things you know nothing about, or if it that proves challenging to memorize, perhaps a well-known aphorism: “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”. The second lesson is that adults are responsible for their own education. People who proudly flaunt their ignorance and make it other’s job to educated them produce the same revulsion as a pig gleefully wallowing in its excrement. It’s dragging the rest of humanity down, it’s a burden.
Now as for the specific context here, on if banning specific journalists from the White House is a first amendment violation: most definitely yes in this case.
The first aspect to it is what’s known as the principle of “Viewpoint Discrimination”.
This is very well established by the Supreme Court: when the government suppresses or punishes a message just because it disagrees with the speaker’s point of view, it crosses the line into viewpoint discrimination. Extending this to the White House, from the moment you have a “public” event with an accreditation process, and you then proceed to ban access because of the “unfavourable coverage” (and this is a direct quote), this is clear cut viewpoint discrimination.
The second aspect is the argument that White House press conferences are akin to designated public forums.
While the President is not legally required to hold press conferences or call on specific reporters, if a public forum is established for the press corps, the administration cannot selectively expel certain journalists as a tool for censorship or intimidation.
The third aspect is existing case law and past rulings:
Sherrill v. Knight (1977): The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the White House cannot deny press credentials arbitrarily. It established that the White House must have clear, published, and consistent standards for granting or denying access, and must provide due process.
CNN v. Trump (2018): When the White House revoked Jim Acosta’s “hard pass” following a… rough press conference, CNN sued. A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order forcing the administration to restore his access, citing Fifth Amendment due process violations. Unfortunately the judge pussied out of also explicitly flagging First Amendment free speech rights on that one, but the White House folded and reinstated the credentials. Ultimately, the most important aspect here is that this is blatantly unacceptable behaviour.
If you do feel it is justified, apply a litmus test: would it still be acceptable if it was done by [insert someone you hate here]. For example, would it have been acceptable for Biden to ban a Fox reporter because of bad coverage?
The final conclusion is that this is not even something that the courts should have to rule on: people should be out in the streets shouting for their freedom and against the massive assault they’re under. Rights are something that need to be fought over, as they’re never granted freely, and relying on the Courts alone to uphold them will fail.
So basically crackers.
No salt is a bit crazy, and if you also add a touch of olive oil and some sesame seeds then roll the dough thinly, they’d be pretty good.