DeSantis steadies de sinking ship

Anti free speech in Education, Anti equal custody in Divorce.

Readership: All;
Theme: Political Shenanigans
Author’s Note: Compiled by Jack with added input.
Length: 1,200 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Desantis on Divorce Custody [1]

Desantis just vetoed bill SB 1796 which would have erased permanent alimony and set up a formula based on the duration of the marriage.  Part of the bill would have required judges to begin with a “presumption” that children should split their time equally between parents.

When Rick Scott was governor, he also vetoed a new formula for custody.

Creating an alimony structure based on how long the marriage lasted makes sense and is just.

Other states like Arkansas have passed reforms to their custody laws, creating a presumption of 50/50 custody.

Allowing for permanent alimony, regardless of how short the marriage was, is insane and unjust.

The reason for the veto?

In his rejection letter, DeSantis wrote,

“If CS / CS / SB 1796 were to become law and be given retroactive effect as the Legislature intends, it would unconstitutionally impair vested rights under certain preexisting marital settment agreements.”

It’s a fake excuse.  He’s hiding behind the constitution to justify an unconstitutional position.

The Tampa Bay Times explains further.

“If signed into law, this legislation would have upended thousands upon thousands of settlements, backlogging the courts and throwing many Floridians’ lives into turmoil…”

So in his view, it’s better not to disturb the already broken system rather than to improve the system.

Why?

All because his constituency is afraid of change.

“As of Friday, the governor’s office had received 5,939 emails in support of the bill and 1,250 in opposition, along with 349 phone calls in favor and 289 against the measure.”

Yep, and I’ll bet that 100% of those opposing the overhaul are either divorced women or complementary Boomers sock puppeting the worn out gynocentric narrative for their wives.

DeSantis on Education [2]

Over the last 6 months or so, DeSantis has been pushing the Individual Freedom Act.

“The Individual Freedom Act prevents the teaching of content that could be deemed as racially divisive, or teaches that specific attributes compel discrimination at the K-12 and collegiate levels.”

I don’t see how such a law could be implemented in any meaningful way. It’s too subjective. What constitutes divisiveness? Slavery, holocaust, civil rights, internment camps? It’s a virtue signal that won’t have any real practical effect.

“Instead, the new law prompts American history to be taught on the foundation of individual freedom and choice.”

Entirely predictable, because it’s primarily females who care about education and curriculum, even though it’s a right wing issue right now.

“Students shall develop an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping on individual freedoms, and examine what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purpose of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions,” the bill reads.

Right now Republicans proclaim to be pro-democracy and pro-rights, but they’re still stuck on The Enlightenment (as is all of the West). They still want to outlaw certain political speech: Not only CRT, but also flag burning (a form of speech).  They have bills mandating education on communism (that will blow back for sure), forcing government contractors to not boycott Israel, and in many states they have a massive effort to eliminate the right to petition.

Opponents, however, argue that the bill restricts educators’ ability to teach in the classroom.

Yes, the arguments for censorship and restriction on speech are a two-pronged fork that both conservatives and liberals alike are wrestling with since Zuckerberg’s appearance before congress in 2019 and again in 2021.

  • If you open up free speech, then it’s like hanging a big sign on an industrial strength fan saying, “Throw ALL your $h!t HERE!”
  • If you close down free speech, then you get an altruistic hәll of political correctness subterfuged with all the annoying misleading lies typical of communist-style suppression.

Note that this is NOT a “choose your poison” scenario. Ultimately, the war over free speech all boils down to “Who’s version of the truth is going to be predominantly represented in free speech?”

This actually shows up in the arguments for and against this bill.

Protagonists say…

“The law protects students and workers from discriminatory indoctrination…”

“Nobody should be compelled to undergo trainings or lectures that stereotype individuals based on race or other innate characteristics.”

Antagonists say…

“United Faculty of Florida President Anthony Gothard accused the law of censoring professors to avoid offending conservative students, and warned that its enactment could have a “chilling” effect on speech.”

Translation: Chilling effect = Liberal code for inflicting well deserved shame on the unrighteous.

The cited article even comes out and says the bill is a stab at limiting speech.

“The nature of this law is designed to stop students and stop faculty from talking about subjects that conservative politicians dislike,” he stated, according to WUFT.”

Yes, exactly!  Liberals have already created a Politically Correct call-out culture of ressentimented shame and doxing.  It’s past time for a return to sanity.  But this bill is not the way to do it.  Instead, the whole educational system needs revamped.

Those of us who are Red Pill aware might be tempted to see this bill as a step away from racially charged Wokism.  But it’s a mistake to interpret this as Red Pilled or even a return to normalcy.  Instead, this should be seen as a hypocritical power grab that is not in accordance with constitutional and civil rights.

Republicans b!tch about taxes and big government.  Democrats b!tch about racism and equal opportunity.  All this rhetoric is composed of empty promises, and we’ve seen it again and again. It’s all a cathartic farce designed to appeal to their constituencies.  Behind all the posturing, of course, they just want control and the squishy benefits of power, but the problem is that they want to use the power of the government to control the people.  It’s time for us to see through the stage play.

We are prone to think of Progressives as being big bureaucracy, Big Brother™ socialists and are repelled from them as such.  But when the pendulum swings back in the next few years, conservatism will be the long arm of big oligarchy, Big Brother™ socialism.  And post-feminist Murica will fall for it in their fervor to take out the trash.

On a similar note, people think the Supreme Court is based because of the recent Dobbs v. Jackson decision, but they are fools.  The conservative majority has eviscerated the double jeopardy clause over the last few years.  Now you can be prosecuted for the same crime twice, so long as the prosecuting sovereign is different.  On guns, the court didn’t adopt a literal interpretation of the second amendment, but said restrictions are valid if they are historical.

Conclusions

Desantis has demonstrated how even the most “based” political leaders hate younger men and do nothing for us.  Instead, they cling to the more politically savvy move to placate geriatric Boomers and female voters, even at the harm of actual producers and men. It’s disgusting.

As far as the Red Pill, maybe we could say that politicians are using Machiavellian tactics, but the way they are going about getting elected is subversive and beta, and therefore very Blue Pilled and defeatist.

All in all, DeSantis is a product of his generation.  He doesn’t like Wokeness in education, but supports the debacle of women’s rights.  In essence, he’s trying to resurrect the whitewashed gynocratic American society of the 1980s.  A true cluckservative!

Sources

  1. Tampa Bay Times: DeSantis vetoes controversial alimony overhaul bill (2022-6-28)
  2. Campus Reform: DeSantis’ new anti-woke law survives legal challenge (2022-6-30)

Related

This entry was posted in Collective Strength, Culture Wars, Divorce, Education, Elite Cultural Influences, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, Models of Failure, News Critique, Politics, White Wash. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to DeSantis steadies de sinking ship

  1. Pingback: The U.S. Census Bureau sanctions Divorce | Σ Frame

  2. Jack says:

    Concerning the Supreme Court Justices, I found this interesting graph.

    Seems like most justices become more liberal over time.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Lifetime appointments in the DC metro area will do that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      These are Ivy League people who worked in big cities and prestigious firms and colleges all their lives. They never run into normal people. All of their friends and neighbors are left of center and never rock the boat so they can get invited to nice events.

      Even the most hardcore conservative justices aren’t pro freedom. They love government power, especially when it comes to the police and national security.

      They are mostly proceduralists (prescriptivists). Their abortion decision and gun decisions don’t do much other than outline how to perfect abortion laws and gun bans.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        This is a perfect summary of why those who work in the upper echelons of government are how they are. I would add only that they themselves aren’t “normal people” in that they are not themselves subject to the normal everyday experiences and pressures that “normal people” have. They don’t worry about money or personal safety or whether there will be enough to pay the bills. They don’t worry about their kids at school, or the car needing a new transmission, or taking care of elderly mother. They live lives isolated from those problems and pressures.

        Bill Clinton understood this and seized on it to great effect in defeating “out of touch” “elitist” GHWB, Bush 41. Clinton talked about the price of a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread, showing he “understood” the plight of, and “felt the pain of”, Joe Lunchpail and Jane Secretary. Meanwhile, video of Bush marveling at an automatic price scanner at a grocery store made the rounds to prove how “out of touch” and “heartless” and “aloof crusty rich old white man” Bush was.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. feeriker says:

    I’ve been warning people not to trust DeSantis. His educational pedigree alone (Yale, Skull and Bones) sets off bright red flags.

    Bottom line: NO elected officials in the U.S. –hell, in the entire western world— can be trusted. Electoral politics is the property of the Globalist Cabal, and nobody –NOBODY– gets elected to or keeps piblic office unless they play the Cabal’s game. DeSantis played the role of populist long enough to be able to gull the rubes into trusting him. Now that that has happened, he’s taking the mask off and showing us whose side he’s really on and who really owns him (i.e., people who live on the shore of the Eastetn Mediterranean Sea).

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Lexet Blog says:

    An irony about the mandatory teaching about communism is that they will rely on public school teachers to teach the curriculum.

    They are deferring the task to liberals. Guess what the result will be? A mandatory promotion of communism.

    Boomercons do this with religion too. “We should teach the Bible in public schools” is something I hear all the time from Boomers and older Gen Xers. They actually think left leaning atheists will teach Christian values.

    It’s amazing.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. okrahead says:

    Ex post facto law is indeed unconstitutional; however I thought that primarily applied to criminal offenses. (You can’t be charged for committing a crime if what you did was legal at the time and the law was later changed.) This is a matter of upending current contracts based on new statute, with the argument being that since people were already in these arrangements, and 50% of the people involved in the arrangements depended upon the current system, it would be too disruptive to change the system.

    Ironically, this utterly and completely ignores that the change from a fault to no fault divorce system can be proven to have already disrupted the system, that men who were already in marriages at the time had their lives upended, and 50% of the population (100% really, but that’s an argument for another day) were dependent on the (old) system.

    So the argument is we cannot go back to the old system, because it would upset all the parasitical activity taking place under the new system, which by the way, upset the old system when it came into being. It’s circular logic and also ignores the proven effects of each system for men, women and children, and substitutes supposition of what might happen above empirical evidence of what has happened.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Divorce law is whatever is in effect at the time of divorce. They can change at any time. Hence the stupidity of signing a legal document for your marriage.

      If the law changes after a divorce decree, you just petition for relief based on a change in the law.

      Alimony is antiquated. It was meant for the day when you wouldn’t have been able to remarry or make much income, and you wouldn’t become a harlot post divorce because that was illegal. Now it’s just a free vacation for hoes paid by gullible wealthy men.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Joe2 says:

        “If the law changes after a divorce decree, you just petition for relief based on a change in the law.”

        Are there any legal precedents you can reference which would support that the judge granted the relief requested under such circumstances?

        There is a problem too in situations where some aspects of the divorce law change which provides for greater support than under current law. A petition could then be filed for an increase in benefits and if granted such increase would place an even greater burden on an already flawed divorce decree.

        Thus, existing divorce decrees would then be continually “trued-up” to reflect current law, as necessary. Not saying that it doesn’t happen, but it may not be such a good idea because it’s a two way street.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        It happens all the time. People change jobs, income drops, and they go back to court to change the order (or attempt to). Goes for alimony and child support. Alimony is still common for wealthy folk. Like Florida retirees. This is the area where a prenup will come into play

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        A court retains jurisdiction to handle issues after the divorce. Most of the time, divorced people are back in court over alimony, child support, and child custody/visitation issues. Judges will at least hear petitions for modification but don’t always grant them. If a woman is in court demanding more money, though, those are often granted.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Joe2 says:

        “It happens all the time. People change jobs, income drops, and they go back to court to change the order (or attempt to). Goes for alimony and child support.”

        Yes, I’m aware of this and that it’s done all the time. I was focusing on the situation where there is a change in the law which is then used as the sole basis for the requested relief, e.g., current law requires alimony payment for 10 years and new law requires alimony payment for 5 years.

        I’m not sure judges would change existing divorce decrees with 10 year payments to 5 year payments for no reason other than to simply reflect the current 5 year payment law.

        Like

  6. okrahead says:

    BTW, I have a new post up…

    Okrahead: Hunger Yes, Games No — Part 1 (2022-7-4)

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Bwana Simba says:

    Why do so many old men hate young men? Why do they try and beat them down all the time? Is it envy, a weird need to beat down those who are younger than them? They are broken and whipped so everyone else has to be as well?

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Elspeth says:

    I haven’t heard of this bill, but taking this post at face value, it’s unfortunate. Very bad move on his part.

    DeSantis isn’t old though. So I would probably just chalk this up to a bad political decision rather than an old man hating young men.

    Alimony laws rarely affect young men. It most damages men older than DeSantis is right now.

    Like

  9. penumbrated says:

    Another recent smidgen in the right direction.

    “Defendants’ [the University’s] orders targeted the viewpoint of Plaintiffs’ [Christian students’] speech. Both students and professors expressed opposing viewpoints to the views expressed by Plaintiffs without any type of intervention, let alone punishment,” wrote [Judge] Nye.

    “The disparity in Defendants’ approach is what bothers the Court most about this case and leans towards a finding that Defendants’ actions were designed to repress specific speech.”

    Nye added that “the Court agrees Plaintiffs have a high likelihood of showing Defendants violated the First Amendment by issuing the no-contact orders based on the content and viewpoint of their speech.”

    “Some may disagree with Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. Such is each person’s prerogative and right. But none should disagree that Plaintiffs have a right to express their religious beliefs without fear of retribution. The Constitution makes that clear,” he added.

    The Christian Post: Judge stops Idaho university from punishing Christian students for opposing gay marriage (2022-7-5)

    Although I appreciated and benefited from reading Okrahead’s recent posts, I gotta say that I agree with thedeti and Lexet regarding the probability of our culture shifting back toward a more Christian etho. So many young people are militaristicly opposed to anything resembling Christian values that a few court verdicts and laws really won’t stop the downward trend. As already mentioned, if prayer were suddenly mandatory in schools we’d have to trust the leftist “young ladies” who are currently employed as educators to lead the prayer; just as we are currently trusting these chicks to teach both academics and values.

    If my son were still a juvenile attending public school I would pull him out, home school him, and try my darndest to meet other families doing the same for my son’s socialization needs. I was once a social worker and am a caring Christian man and father, so the crazy sh!t occurring in the schools really pisses me off.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Differences in eschatology at play. There are post millennialists who think we are in the kingdom and have the responsibility to bring it in, and those who pay attention to Christ and didn’t revolt to make him Caesar.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Also, political realities at play. We live in a society where the ruling class elites who claim to support us are in fact working against us and are actively hostile to our objectives.

        Liked by 3 people

      • penumbrated says:

        Post millennials believe Christ won’t return until we get this world sufficiently Christianized before His return. As a believer, this interpretation is so stupid! Obviously circumstances will get worse and worse even as we approach the seven years.

        I am certain we are approaching the end times. I suspect by 2035 this age will be wrapped up, so to speak.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Unfortunately post mil is incredibly popular right now

        Like

  10. thedeti says:

    “Creating an alimony structure based on how long the marriage lasted makes sense and is just.”

    Not so much anymore. I would cut alimony off at 5 years max, in all cases, regardless of marriage length. I would also reform laws regarding division of pension plans and making divorcing couples split them.

    Women are starting to outearn men, and I would reform divorce law and property division in divorces to reflect that. However, the only way this really will change is when women start having to pay lifetime alimony and lopsided property division awards to ex husbands. What I’m already seeing, though, is that judges simply find ways around this when the women breadwinners show up in court (1) crying poormouth; and (2) shaming men and telling them to get jobs. The judges go along with it and find reasons to “deviate from” the statute’s language as an “exercise of their discretion”. They employ this language because family courts are courts of equity where essential fairness, not slavish adherence to statutory text or even statutory intent, is the rule of the day. They also use that language to insulate them from reversal or modification on appeal.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Most of the time, women can win arguments in family court simply by wailing “but that’s not fair”, and “fundamental unfairness”, and “if I have to do that, then he should have to do that too”.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      I would require more than a 15 year marriage before alimony began. Have some formula for age + duration of marriage. I think it would make sense if you have been married 30+ years and are over retirement age.

      Like

    • feeriker says:

      “What I’m already seeing, though, is that judges simply find ways around this when the women breadwinners show up in court (1) crying poormouth; and (2) shaming men and telling them to get jobs. The judges go along with it and find reasons to “deviate from” the statute’s language as an “exercise of their discretion”. They employ this language because family courts are courts of equity where essential fairness, not slavish adherence to statutory text or even statutory intent, is the rule of the day. They also use that language to insulate them from reversal or modification on appeal.”

      Judges who deviate so widely from the law as written and intended should be subject to disciplinary actions.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. penumbrated says:

    The comment above at 2:46 am was me, Penumbrated. I hardly post, and hit the Post Comment icon without signing in first; hence anonymous. I’ll get better at this. Fortunately I’m retired.

    Jack, thank you for cleaning up my comment above.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Jack says:

    DeSantis is an interesting figure because he’s a saavy individual who takes some seemingly opposed stances. Red Pilled readers will be able to see the problem with his stance on divorce custody, but this will fly over the heads of the general public. The issue with education is not as clear. When I first read Lexet’s arguments about the Individual Freedom Act, I couldn’t figure out where he was coming from. It seemed like he was supporting liberal teaching in the classroom. But after studying the articles and thinking it through, I realized that the bill is like a Trojan horse. It appears to rein in the liberal propaganda, but (according to Lexet) it would also permit the teaching of cultural marxism and limit a well rounded coverage of the problems of democracy. Overall, the bill limits free speech and free thought, which are the foundations of western education and are absolutely necessary. Again, it’s a question of who’s version of the truth will be presented, or IOW, “ministry of truth” shenanigans. Hopefully, my additions to Lexet’s writings have brought this out and make these points clearer.

    “Here is my suggestion for the present. Dip your cup deftly in the river of System communication, since it is profoundly polluted and thickly afloat with turds. Stir the contents of your cup and examine the dregs that churn up from the bottom. It they appear not too deadly, apply thumb and forefinger to either side of your nose, sip cautiously, and then wait to see if you begin to suffer strange hallucinations.”

    The Orthosphere (J.M. Smith): Drink Cautiously from the River of Lies (2022-7-5)

    For further discussion, what sorts of actions should be taken, if not the bills mentioned here?

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      If no one here has any Political ambitions, the best we can do is spread the word and control what we spend in accordance with God’s Will.

      And Pray fervently. The Roe v. Wade ruling took 50 years to overturn. I suspect that the results of our prayer down through the generations even with our children carrying on the prayers and other possible actions is going to be the same.

      As God moves His pieces into place until victory is achieved in the fullness of time.

      Remember after God stopped talking to Israel for 400 years after Malachi. But He was moving the pieces into place for the coming of His Son.

      Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Exactly. Most people don’t see it because they aren’t lawyers who see the repercussions of politically expedient bills on a regular basis. They aren’t familiar with the concept of blowback, or unintended consequences. My main point, which I should have articulated better, is that when it comes to government speech, the real question is “Do I open up this door?” Because once it’s open, both sides get to play with what’s inside. Doors are being opened, and they aren’t thinking about what happens when they lose power, or when their political enemies (ntea) are responsible for implementing the bill.

      The same leftist teachers who are teaching about blm and the rainbow agenda are going to teach about the evils of communism? LoL!

      And from a legal standpoint, it’s not a neutral position, meaning it will be struck down by the courts.

      Like

      • info says:

        The undermining of the family and of the Father’s right to raise his children already started getting undermined in the 1800’s according to the video I shared and the documents referenced.

        So yes, this evil is centuries in the making. May we petition God to put a stop to this and uphold the family as he ordained it in regards to what the Church regards as right and wrong. And if possible to maintain their integrity. Even to overturn those hostile Laws and Courts.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Joe2 says:

      I think bills are written to be purposely confusing and to cause misdirection so any concerns that may arise are difficult to articulate and explain to the general public. And bills can be made to appear more palatable by including tidbits (such as references to religion) which Christians may find both acceptable and desirable when the time comes for a vote. Such may be the case with the following proposed amendment which enshrines abortion in a state constitution without ever mentioning the word abortion.

      “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state, proposed text, Classes protected by discrimination in the proposed amendment include race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed or religion, or sex — including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

      Like

  13. Pingback: Pandora’s Pendulum | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: Identity Politics | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Hexis Cathexis and Voodoo Catharsis | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: It’s too easy to blame everything on Feminism | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s