Life in Post Democracy Era: The Trump 2/Elon Dictatatorship
-
88Commanders00
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2024 12:44 am
- Reactions score: 264
- Location: Palm Bay, Florida
-
TK
- Site Admin
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2025 3:17 pm
- Reactions score: 227
- Location: In a galaxy far, far away...
https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.c ... LAry3EXp7w
‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections
Published on May 6, 2025 at 03:18 PM ETBy David Badash
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon is facing criticism for a hyper-partisan letter she sent to Harvard University, riddled with grammatical errors and dubious claims.
In the 979-word statement, the Trump administration—through Secretary McMahon—condemned Harvard’s admissions policies, staffing decisions, and institutional leadership, and informed the nation’s oldest university, a 388-year-old private Ivy League institution, that it will not receive new federal research grants.
“Harvard is engaging in a systemic pattern of violating federal law. Where do many of these ‘students’ come from, who are they, how do they get into Harvard, or even into our country—and why is there so much HATE?” Secretary McMahon asked in the opening paragraph of her three-page letter.
“Harvard University has made a mockery of this country’s higher education system. It has invited foreign students, who engage in violent behavior and show contempt for the United States of America, to its campus,” McMahon claimed.
“This year Harvard was forced to adopt an embarrassing ‘remedial math’ program for undergraduates,” the Education Secretary declared. “Why is it, we ask, that Harvard has to teach simple and basic mathematics, when it is supposedly so hard to get into this ‘acclaimed university’? Who is getting in under such a low standard when others, with fabulous grades and a great understanding of the highest levels of mathematics, are being rejected?”
The Harvard Crimson last September reported that “the Covid-19 pandemic led to gaps in students’ math skills and learning abilities, prompting the need for a new introductory course.”
“Much of Harvard’s hateful discrimination was revealed, last year,” McMahon charged, “by the great work of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, and her Committee. As if it were trying to embarrass itself even further, Harvard hired failed Mayors Bill De Blasio and Lori Lightfoot, perhaps the worst mayors ever to preside over major cities in our country’s history, to supposedly teach ‘leadership’ at their School of Public Health. This is like hiring the captain of the Titanic to teach navigation to future captains of the sea.”
McMahon also took issue with “strongly left-leaning Obama political appointee Penny Pritzker, a Democrat operative,” being elected to lead the Harvard Corporation. She described the former Obama Cabinet secretary as “catastrophic and running the institution in a totally chaotic way.”
The Education Secretary also blasted Harvard for allegedly failing “to abide by the United States Supreme Court’s ruling demanding that it end its racial preferencing [sic],” and for allegedly continuing “to engage in ugly racism in its undergraduate and graduate schools, and even within the Harvard Law Review itself. Our universities should be bastions of merit that reward and celebrate excellence and achievement. They should not be incubators of discrimination that encourage resentment and instill grievance and racism into our wonderful young Americans.”
McMahon also demanded Harvard’s “cooperation with Law Enforcement, and reporting compliance with the Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal Agencies.”
She ended the angry missive in a very Trumpian fashion: “Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Critics blasted McMahon.
“Did you use A1 to write this,” asked investigative reporter Roger Sollenberger, mocking the Education Secretary’s embarrassing remarks confusing artificial intelligence (AI) with the popular steak sauce (A1).
“Whoever wrote this is barely literate,” declared The Independent’s White House correspondent Andrew Feinberg.
“Did a high school kid write this?” asked veterans’ activist and podcaster Fred Wellman. “You’re the Secretary of ‘Education’ and this is a chaotic mess of bad grammar and illiterate rambling. You poked the bear and you’re too stupid to even know it.”
Maya Sen, a professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, wrote:
“Informing a private entity it will no longer be eligible for government contracts in part because a Democrat sits on its board.”
She added, “what’s terrible is that the administration had many natural allies in academia – professors who wanted more diversity in thought, fewer regulations governing research funding, higher & consistent academic standards, and better protections of academic speech,” and noted: “But not like this!”
“It may be wise for a private institution to have wide ideological diversity in its membership and leadership,” She also noted. “But the government may not mandate it, nor make it a requirement for applying for unrelated funding.”
Journalist John Harwood wrote simply, “this letter is deranged.”
In addition to criticism of the content, some offered red-inked corrections that appear to be major:
See the social media posts above or at this link.
‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections
Published on May 6, 2025 at 03:18 PM ETBy David Badash
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon is facing criticism for a hyper-partisan letter she sent to Harvard University, riddled with grammatical errors and dubious claims.
In the 979-word statement, the Trump administration—through Secretary McMahon—condemned Harvard’s admissions policies, staffing decisions, and institutional leadership, and informed the nation’s oldest university, a 388-year-old private Ivy League institution, that it will not receive new federal research grants.
“Harvard is engaging in a systemic pattern of violating federal law. Where do many of these ‘students’ come from, who are they, how do they get into Harvard, or even into our country—and why is there so much HATE?” Secretary McMahon asked in the opening paragraph of her three-page letter.
“Harvard University has made a mockery of this country’s higher education system. It has invited foreign students, who engage in violent behavior and show contempt for the United States of America, to its campus,” McMahon claimed.
“This year Harvard was forced to adopt an embarrassing ‘remedial math’ program for undergraduates,” the Education Secretary declared. “Why is it, we ask, that Harvard has to teach simple and basic mathematics, when it is supposedly so hard to get into this ‘acclaimed university’? Who is getting in under such a low standard when others, with fabulous grades and a great understanding of the highest levels of mathematics, are being rejected?”
The Harvard Crimson last September reported that “the Covid-19 pandemic led to gaps in students’ math skills and learning abilities, prompting the need for a new introductory course.”
“Much of Harvard’s hateful discrimination was revealed, last year,” McMahon charged, “by the great work of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, and her Committee. As if it were trying to embarrass itself even further, Harvard hired failed Mayors Bill De Blasio and Lori Lightfoot, perhaps the worst mayors ever to preside over major cities in our country’s history, to supposedly teach ‘leadership’ at their School of Public Health. This is like hiring the captain of the Titanic to teach navigation to future captains of the sea.”
McMahon also took issue with “strongly left-leaning Obama political appointee Penny Pritzker, a Democrat operative,” being elected to lead the Harvard Corporation. She described the former Obama Cabinet secretary as “catastrophic and running the institution in a totally chaotic way.”
The Education Secretary also blasted Harvard for allegedly failing “to abide by the United States Supreme Court’s ruling demanding that it end its racial preferencing [sic],” and for allegedly continuing “to engage in ugly racism in its undergraduate and graduate schools, and even within the Harvard Law Review itself. Our universities should be bastions of merit that reward and celebrate excellence and achievement. They should not be incubators of discrimination that encourage resentment and instill grievance and racism into our wonderful young Americans.”
McMahon also demanded Harvard’s “cooperation with Law Enforcement, and reporting compliance with the Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal Agencies.”
She ended the angry missive in a very Trumpian fashion: “Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Critics blasted McMahon.
“Did you use A1 to write this,” asked investigative reporter Roger Sollenberger, mocking the Education Secretary’s embarrassing remarks confusing artificial intelligence (AI) with the popular steak sauce (A1).
“Whoever wrote this is barely literate,” declared The Independent’s White House correspondent Andrew Feinberg.
“Did a high school kid write this?” asked veterans’ activist and podcaster Fred Wellman. “You’re the Secretary of ‘Education’ and this is a chaotic mess of bad grammar and illiterate rambling. You poked the bear and you’re too stupid to even know it.”
Maya Sen, a professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, wrote:
“Informing a private entity it will no longer be eligible for government contracts in part because a Democrat sits on its board.”
She added, “what’s terrible is that the administration had many natural allies in academia – professors who wanted more diversity in thought, fewer regulations governing research funding, higher & consistent academic standards, and better protections of academic speech,” and noted: “But not like this!”
“It may be wise for a private institution to have wide ideological diversity in its membership and leadership,” She also noted. “But the government may not mandate it, nor make it a requirement for applying for unrelated funding.”
Journalist John Harwood wrote simply, “this letter is deranged.”
In addition to criticism of the content, some offered red-inked corrections that appear to be major:
See the social media posts above or at this link.
Trump admin picks COVID critic to be top FDA vaccine regulator
Oncologist Vinay Prasad, a divisive critic of COVID-19 responses, will be the next top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, agency Commissioner Martin Makary announced on social media Tuesday.
Prasad will head the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which is in charge of approving and regulating vaccines and other biologics products, such as gene therapies and blood products.
"Dr. Prasad brings the kind of scientific rigor, independence, and transparency we need at CBER—a significant step forward," Makary wrote on social media.
Prasad, a professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, is perhaps best known for his combative social media postings and criticism of the mainstream medical community. He gained notoriety amid the COVID-19 pandemic for assailing public health responses, such as masking and vaccine mandates.
In an October 2021 newsletter, titled "How Democracy Ends," Prasad compared the country's pandemic responses to the rise of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. The post led New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan to rebuke Prasad, writing in The Cancer Letter that the comparison is "ludicrous, dangerous, and offensive," before adding "imbecilic."
Prasad has also criticized the FDA for approving COVID-19 booster vaccines. Last year, he accused his predecessor as the head of the CBER, Peter Marks, of being "either incompetent or corrupt" for allowing the approvals.
“Absurd”
More recently, Prasad has heaped praise on new FDA Commissioner Makary, while continuing to criticize Marks. In early March, Prasad called Makary "smart, thoughtful, and disciplined" and "exactly what we need at the FDA." Later in the month, he continued to take shots at Marks, writing: "You could replace Peter Marks with a bobblehead doll that just stamps approval and you would have the same outcome at FDA with lower administrative fees. Maybe something DOGE should consider."
The next week, Marks was pushed out of the FDA. In a resignation letter, Marks wrote: "It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the [health] secretary, [anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.], but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies."
Click on the link for the full article
Glad I'm no longer in Regulatory Affairs putting in submissions to CBER. With that douchebag in charge, science doesn't seem to matter. I bet there will be a lot of FDA folks "retiring" and moving into consulting work. It will be another brain drain from government.
Oncologist Vinay Prasad, a divisive critic of COVID-19 responses, will be the next top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, agency Commissioner Martin Makary announced on social media Tuesday.
Prasad will head the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which is in charge of approving and regulating vaccines and other biologics products, such as gene therapies and blood products.
"Dr. Prasad brings the kind of scientific rigor, independence, and transparency we need at CBER—a significant step forward," Makary wrote on social media.
Prasad, a professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, is perhaps best known for his combative social media postings and criticism of the mainstream medical community. He gained notoriety amid the COVID-19 pandemic for assailing public health responses, such as masking and vaccine mandates.
In an October 2021 newsletter, titled "How Democracy Ends," Prasad compared the country's pandemic responses to the rise of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. The post led New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan to rebuke Prasad, writing in The Cancer Letter that the comparison is "ludicrous, dangerous, and offensive," before adding "imbecilic."
Prasad has also criticized the FDA for approving COVID-19 booster vaccines. Last year, he accused his predecessor as the head of the CBER, Peter Marks, of being "either incompetent or corrupt" for allowing the approvals.
“Absurd”
More recently, Prasad has heaped praise on new FDA Commissioner Makary, while continuing to criticize Marks. In early March, Prasad called Makary "smart, thoughtful, and disciplined" and "exactly what we need at the FDA." Later in the month, he continued to take shots at Marks, writing: "You could replace Peter Marks with a bobblehead doll that just stamps approval and you would have the same outcome at FDA with lower administrative fees. Maybe something DOGE should consider."
The next week, Marks was pushed out of the FDA. In a resignation letter, Marks wrote: "It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the [health] secretary, [anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.], but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies."
Click on the link for the full article
Glad I'm no longer in Regulatory Affairs putting in submissions to CBER. With that douchebag in charge, science doesn't seem to matter. I bet there will be a lot of FDA folks "retiring" and moving into consulting work. It will be another brain drain from government.
Trump admin plans to shut down money-saving Energy Star program soon, sources say
The Trump administration is preparing to eliminate two key Environmental Protection Agency divisions focused on climate change and energy efficiency, including its consumer-facing Energy Star program, according to two sources familiar with the plan.
The agency is planning to shutter its climate change division and climate protection partnership division, both of which sit within the agency’s office of air and radiation, the sources said. The moves will impact several climate programs including the greenhouse gas reporting program and EPA’s partnerships on methane – a super-polluting, planet-warming gas emitted from oil and gas, agriculture and landfills.
The agency is also planning to close its Energy Star program, a longstanding public-private partnership certifying energy efficient appliances and helping consumers find products and tax credits to bring down the cost of energy efficient appliances like air conditioners, heat pumps, refrigerators and washing machines.
President Donald Trump floated dismantling or privatizing Energy Star in his first term, but the fate of the program has been unclear so far in his second term. Bipartisan groups have been urging the administration to save it.
“Eliminating the Energy Star program would directly contradict this administration’s promise to reduce household energy costs,” said Paula Glover, president of the nonprofit coalition Alliance to Save Energy, in a statement to CNN. “For just $32 million a year, Energy Star helps American families save over $40 billion in annual energy costs. That’s a return of $350 for every federal dollar invested.”
Click on the link for the full article
The Trump administration is preparing to eliminate two key Environmental Protection Agency divisions focused on climate change and energy efficiency, including its consumer-facing Energy Star program, according to two sources familiar with the plan.
The agency is planning to shutter its climate change division and climate protection partnership division, both of which sit within the agency’s office of air and radiation, the sources said. The moves will impact several climate programs including the greenhouse gas reporting program and EPA’s partnerships on methane – a super-polluting, planet-warming gas emitted from oil and gas, agriculture and landfills.
The agency is also planning to close its Energy Star program, a longstanding public-private partnership certifying energy efficient appliances and helping consumers find products and tax credits to bring down the cost of energy efficient appliances like air conditioners, heat pumps, refrigerators and washing machines.
President Donald Trump floated dismantling or privatizing Energy Star in his first term, but the fate of the program has been unclear so far in his second term. Bipartisan groups have been urging the administration to save it.
“Eliminating the Energy Star program would directly contradict this administration’s promise to reduce household energy costs,” said Paula Glover, president of the nonprofit coalition Alliance to Save Energy, in a statement to CNN. “For just $32 million a year, Energy Star helps American families save over $40 billion in annual energy costs. That’s a return of $350 for every federal dollar invested.”
Click on the link for the full article
-
The Evil Genius
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2025 4:03 pm
- Reactions score: 266
- Location: Gallifery
I like that I don't know everything.
Today I learned about something I probably should've already known and that's the Bastille Day military parade in France.
I hate we're doing a military parade for this bammas birthday.
I'm not against the idea of us having an annual military parade, especially since one of our closest allies has been doing it since at least the late 1800s.
Those are two different things.
Today I learned about something I probably should've already known and that's the Bastille Day military parade in France.
I hate we're doing a military parade for this bammas birthday.
I'm not against the idea of us having an annual military parade, especially since one of our closest allies has been doing it since at least the late 1800s.
Those are two different things.
We don't know what we think...
We don't know what we know...
All we have to go on is what we say and what we show...
We don't know what we know...
All we have to go on is what we say and what we show...
-
The Evil Genius
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2025 4:03 pm
- Reactions score: 266
- Location: Gallifery
-
The Evil Genius
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2025 4:03 pm
- Reactions score: 266
- Location: Gallifery