Sanders signed Senate Bill 10, which exempts records that “reflect the planning or provision of security services” provided to the governor and other cabinet members.

The bill is retroactive to June 1, 2022, which is before Sanders was elected.

  • Franklin
    link
    fedilink
    510 months ago

    No, I was talking specifically about teaching the theory of evolution in Florida and the law they passed which prevents theories from being taught if a parent complains about them and what’s the only theory that parents are going to complain about why the theory of evolution. In several republican-leaning states so many books have been banned with so much educational value that librarians have had death threats for for refusing to comply from right-wing voters.

    And the party routinely proposes and passes laws that give tax breaks to corporations bailouts you name it. All while repeatedly curtailing efforts to have any sort of safety nets for workers like better minimum wages, better access to food, better access to housing and better access to health care.

    And you can say it’s all in the name of fiscal responsibility but it’s not it’s been proven in front of them with their own numbers that socializing or health care system would not only increase quality but decrease cost. You know why it doesn’t get done because their donors come from the medical insurance industry and it would stop lining their pockets.

    • @sugar_in_your_tea
      link
      -1
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      teaching the theory of evolution

      Here’s an article that goes through how evolution is taught in schools across the US. In essence, no state bans evolution, and most states explicitly require teaching it.

      For Florida specifically (quote is from the above article, and here’s an article about the mentioned standards):

      On February 19, 2008, the Florida State Board of Education adopted new science standards that explicitly require the teaching of evolution in public schools. This is the first time this was required.

      I don’t know if the recent (this year?) curriculum changes touch on evolution, but the federal court system has consistently held that states and public school districts cannot require intelligent design to be taught (see others in the “see also” section).

      The most I’ve seen is that states can require mentioning alternatives to established theories, as in they need to demonstrate that there’s rarely complete consensus in science and that new evidence can change even very established theories. To me that sounds very reasonable, provided the alternatives also have actual, scientific evidence for them.

      fiscal responsibility

      Oh yeah, it’s never been about that, that’s just the excuse they give to sugarcoat it.

      What they’re actually interested in is stimulating the economy, meaning increasing stock valuations and reducing unemployment. Those look good and help them get reelected. If they focused on workers, that would reduce profits (and thus stock prices) and slow economic expansion (and this increase unemployment).

      Whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective. If you’re a small business owner, investor, or specialized employee, it’s great! If you’re a blue collar worker that can easily be replaced, it’s horrendous.

      The fiscal responsibility bit is just an excuse to get people on board.

      Democrats come at it from a different angle. They bill themselves as being socially responsible and protecting workers, but what this actually means is reducing corporate profits and consolidating workers into unions, because unions generally means votes. This means smaller businesses tend to suffer because the barrier to start a business gets higher (need to provide more benefits to workers), and they tend to cater to the interests of larger companies that want to entrench themselves. They do this by regulating industries, which again raises the barrier to entry for a new business. They also want the unemployed vote, hence all of the social programs for the poor. Unions don’t need universal healthcare, UBI, etc, so they’re not that motivated to reduce unemployment if they can cater to those displaced.

      At least that’s my perspective, but maybe I’m just jaded from years of disappointment from both sides of the aisle.