James McKinney speaks with Automattic CEO and WordPress Co-Founder Matt Mullenweg on how to start a business with remote workers.
And you’ll even do some good with the purchase, as a portion of the sale will go to a community youth foundation.
A continuing frustration for conservatives, especially those with school-aged children, is that most of the worst ideas in education policy are bipartisan.
Having trouble with a puzzle? Use this Maquette walkthrough for tips and to get direct solutions.
The iPad isn’t just a tablet for play, with the right iPad keyboard you can get into some serious work.
One in three conservative academics has been threatened with disciplinary action for expressing their beliefs, according to a new study that quantifies academia’s liberal bias.
Research from the Center for the Study of Partnership and Ideology released Monday shows that conservative professors and graduate students are “guaranteed” to face discrimination in academia. University of London politics professor Eric Kaufmann conducted the study, which he says is the first to focus on how academic authoritarianism threatens conservatives on campus.
Kaufmann analyzed eight surveys of graduate-level professors and doctoral students, the majority of whom said they would not oppose discriminating against their right-leaning peers in some form. Ten percent of academics support outright cancelling or firing conservative professors who express their views.
The study adds a new dimension to recent stories of harassment and intimidation of conservative voices in academia. Conservatives have long been a minority in American universities, but only recently has so-called cancel culture led to a rise in what Kaufmann calls the “chilling” effect of self-censorship.
“The discriminatory impact is huge,” Kaufmann told the Washington Free Beacon.
Even without “punishment mechanisms,” widespread opposition to conservative views leads to “powerful conformist pressures that make people keep their mouths shut.”
Those pressures are clearly effective. Seventy percent of conservative academics reported that their department created a hostile environment for conservative ideas, according to the study. Nine in 10 Trump-supporting academics reported that they would not feel comfortable expressing their views to a colleague. And more than half of conservative academics surveyed admitted to self-censoring their research and teaching.
Kaufmann told the Free Beacon that the trend is likely to get worse. Twenty percent of academics under 30 support “dismissing” peers deemed controversial, Kaufmann said. Thirty percent of doctoral students say they would discriminate against grant bids from right-leaning researchers or decline to promote a conservative peer.
Such discrimination is not limited to universities, Kaufmann observed. “It’s become quite pervasive across the U.S., Britain, and Canada. There is now a certain level of discrimination on the basis of ideology and politics.”
The post Majority of Academics Support Discriminating Against Conservatives, Study Shows appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
Joe Biden broke with a long-standing norm and weighed in on the fight to unionize Amazon in Alabama. But rather than portray this as too controversial, CBS This Morning on Tuesday cheered the “historic” move and demonstration that, when it comes to workers, the President is “on their side.” At least CBS covered it though. ABC and NBC on Monday night and Tuesday skipped the unusual move.
Co-host Gayle King hyped, “There is a historic labor showdown taking place in Alabama involving the world’s largest online retailer. And now it’s drawing the attention of the White House…. This is a historic challenge to the internet giant at a time when Amazon is hires tens of thousands of people every month.”
The only talking head guest in the segment was Stuart Applebaum, the President of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. Regarding a video released by the White House issuing support for Amazon workers unionizing, he underlined the Democratic/CBS talking point of Biden on your side:
The importance of the video is that it’s telling workers no matter how much your employer is trying to intimidate you, no matter how powerful the employer may be, the President of the United States has your back.
Reporter Nancy Cordes went back to Applebaum. He hailed, “For the workers at the warehouse in Alabama, there was no question that President Biden was speaking to them.” She somewhat blandly noted what should be controversial: “While many Democrats are pro-union, presidents from both parties typically steer clear of specific labor disputes, particularly when they involve one of the nation’s largest companies.”
Finally, Cordes allowed a moment of cynicism, noting that this all is happening as Biden’s planned $15 minimum wage falls apart. Still, she described it as showing workers that “he’s on their side.”
One important note on the timing of all of this, this is the week when the President’s proposed minimum wage hike is officially falling apart on Capitol Hill, at least for now. And he is facing some frustration from progressives who wanted him to fight harder. So it may be part of the reason why he chose to come out and show solidarity with workers to remind them that he’s on their side.
The Democratic propaganda on CBS was sponsored by Colgate. Click on the link to let them know what you think.
A transcript of the segment is below. Click “expand” to read more.
CBS This Morning
7:41 AM ET
GAYLE KING: There is a historic labor showdown taking place in Alabama involving the world’s largest online retailer. And now it’s drawing the attention of the White House. Thousands of workers at an Amazon warehouse outside of Birmingham are voting on whether to form the company’s first labor union in the U.S. This is a historic challenge to the internet giant at a time when Amazon is hires tens of thousands of people every month. Amazon is pushing its employees to vote no. But in a video message, President Biden is urging management to back off and let the workers decide for themselves. Nancy Cordes is at the White House with more on the story. Nancy, good morning. Why is this so significant?
NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Gayle. It’s significant because while many Democrats are pro-unions, presidents from both parties typically steer clear of specific labor disputes, particularly when they involve one of the nation’s largest companies.
JOE BIDEN: The choice to join a union is up to the workers, full stop.
CORDES: In the two-minute video, there was only one state president Biden mentioned by name.
BIDEN: Workers in Alabama and all across America are voting whether to organize a union in their workplace.
CORDES: Bessemer, Alabama, is home to an Amazon warehouse where about 6,000 employees are voting right now on whether to perform the internet giant’s first union in the U.S. It’s a bitter battle.
JENNIFER BATES: Amazon doesn’t treat their employees like people. We’re treated like we’re robots.
CORDES: Warehouse employees like Jennifer Bates constantly get texts from Amazon, warning that union dues could leave them with less money than they already have. Anti-union flyers are even posted inside warehouse bathroom stalls.
BIDEN: There should be no intimidation no coercion, no threats, no anti-union propaganda.
CORDES: Amazon didn’t respond to a request for a comment, but in a previous statement to Reuters, it said, “We don’t believe the union represents the majority of our employees’ views. Our employees chose to work at Amazon because we offer some of the best jobs available.” But more than 2,000 workers indicated they were interested in joining a union, which is what triggered this vote. The White House suggests the President was simply showing support for all unions.
JEN PSAKI: We don’t comment on specific cases.
CORDES: But union officials say his message was clear.
STUART APPELBAUM (The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union President): For the workers at the warehouse in Alabama, there was no question that President Biden was speaking to them.
CORDES: Stuart Applebaum is the president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union
APPELBAUM: The importance of the video is that it’s telling workers no matter how much your employer is trying to intimidate you, no matter how powerful the employer may be, the President of the United States has your back.
CORDES: Presidents traditionally take pains not to weigh into union disputes, but Mr. Biden campaigned on a very clear platform.
BIDEN: I stated it clear to corporate leaders. I said, “I want you to know I’m a union guy. “
CORDES: One important note on the timing of all of this, this is the week when the President’s proposed minimum wage hike is officially falling apart on Capitol Hill, at least for now. And he is facing some frustration from progressives who wanted him to fight harder. So it may be part of the reason why he chose to come out and show solidarity with workers to remind them that he’s on their side. Anthony?
Nearly 2 million workers with unescorted access to security restricted areas at airports throughout the U.S. could pose an “insider threat,” according to a new federal audit, yet the government is still studying how to effectively curb the risk. Congress has tasked the famously inefficient Transportation Security Administration (TSA), created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to protect the nation’s transportation system, with submitting a plan examining the cost and feasibility of enhanced worker screening measures at American airports, but it seems that the agency cannot handle the task. The assignment was embedded in a 2018 law, TSA Modernization Act, that aims to improve the agency’s screening technologies, streamline its passenger screening process and mandate more rigorous background checks of airport workers, among other things.
A provision of the law requires TSA to produce a study within one year determining the cost and feasibility of implementing enhanced airport worker inspection measures at all access points between non-secured and security-restricted areas at a significant number of airports. The screening measures include the use of equipment, such as walk-through metal detectors and explosives trace detection equipment to vet all employees, and access controls, such as closed-circuit television cameras and secure doors. The study is also supposed to include assessments and comparisons of the security effectiveness and operational efficiency of different screening measures and technologies. The TSA submitted its findings to several congressional committees at the end of September 2020 and the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), inspected the information and issued a report trashing the TSA for conducting a faulty analysis.
The TSA determined that enhanced airport worker screening would cost American taxpayers between $2.9 and $3.6 billion, with ongoing annual costs of $2.5 to $3.1 billion. The estimates include four possible methods, including the TSA providing screening officers, third-party entities performing the screening at private industry rates and a combination of both. Congressional investigators found that the TSA “used incomplete information to assess the feasibility of implementing enhanced airport worker screening.” For starters, the TSA failed to consider local airport constraints, such as availability of space for screening operations, that it stated could influence feasibility. The Homeland Security agency’s assessment also relied on the perspectives of and experiences at large airports, which may not be applicable to smaller airports, the GAO found. The report diplomatically slams the TSA, stating that its “inconsistency could be, in part, because the agency does not have formal guidance for staff to follow.”
This is a critical issue because the TSA estimates that more than 1.8 million workers have unescorted access to security restricted areas of airports nationwide. The employees may wittingly or unwittingly misuse or allow others to misuse their access to sensitive areas or knowledge of security procedures to exploit vulnerabilities and potentially cause harm, the GAO report states. “For example, in July 2019, an aircraft mechanic was charged with willfully attempting to damage an aircraft,” congressional investigators write. “Additionally, in August 2018, a ground services agent commandeered a small aircraft, which subsequently crashed.” TSA has tried to curb these types of “insider threats” by conducting random physical screening of employees at larger airports and requiring most airport operators to perform random worker screening. Apparently, it is not enough. “The aviation industry faces a consistent threat posed by workers and other insiders who have used their access privileges and knowledge to commit criminal acts, such as drug smuggling, gun smuggling, theft, and attempted suicide bombing,” the GAO report says.
The TSA’s inability to provide Congress with an accurate assessment involving a vital security matter is hardly surprising. The agency’s transgressions have been well documented since it was created after the 2001 terrorist attacks to secure transportation by adequately screening luggage, passengers and properly vetting foreign flight students. Instead, it is best known for its shameful security lapses and efforts to cover them up. For nearly a decade Judicial Watch has reported extensively—and uncovered records—involving the TSA’s failure to adequately fulfill its mission. This includes missing guns and bombs during covert exercises known as “red team tests,” TSA agents literally sleeping on the job and stealing from passengers, the failure to properly screen luggage and a number of other violations that have risked the nation’s safety. Records obtained by Judicial Watch a few years ago show hundreds of badges that allow agents to access secure areas of airports went missing along with uniforms and other devices used to control entry. In 2018 a bipartisan congressional investigation found that persistent misconduct by TSA managers often goes unpunished and whistleblowers who report it as well as airport safety risks are penalized by senior officials.
The post Nearly 2 Million Airport Workers May Pose Security Threat as U.S. Studies Cost of Screening Them appeared first on Judicial Watch.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.