https://t.co/PtU69Touv6
Resignations in the news 12/21/2020 thru 12/25/2020
From Anon
Longtime executive at Maine Public retiring after 40
https://t.co/Vq4IBTHE9j
https://t.co/PnEtmHe3RN
https://t.co/C8YrtZnIjb
https://t.co/nQ4lRwbn9U
https://t.co/H6f2ivrb1b
https://t.co/LBONH7Z0Y9
https://t.co/rcSnBW07wt
https://t.co/HxdqhnqRnK
https://t.co/7TIteZcCPl
https://t.co/4bBrwtp4EN
https://t.co/QpWO11Rxf5
https://t.co/1rQo2WuNpV
https://t.co/vlCtGhNeEJ
More from News
Could it be the MSM played a hoax on us? What if the inauguration was prior filmed and aired as “live TV”? Why was sun shining in some while snow/non sun shining falling in some shots? Why bright lights in front of WH? What if CGI was used? Would our media do that? Why?
The “stage” is still there last night👇🏻👀
Why was BiDEn sworn in before noon? The Constitution(Supreme Law of the Land) says noon is time of swearing in.... why did BiDEn sign “17” Executive Orders” which were only blank pieces of paper?
Can a new POTUS be sworn in during time of war? NO! We are at war! Remember Emergency Act in Spring of 2020 signed due to China Bioweapon? Then, EO signed and China election interference. THESE are ACTS of WAR!
Did POTUS Trump sign the Insurrection Act allowing Military to take the reigns of Government control? By law, POTUS does not have to announce it...but if HE does, then he has to physically SHOW the document signed. Could this be why we hear he signed it but have not seen it?
7:11 1/21/21 what is this in front of the White House this morning? Could it be the remains of the fake inauguration set up!?? pic.twitter.com/rSYidKoAmX
— AngelaFaith (@AngelaF86527788) January 21, 2021
The “stage” is still there last night👇🏻👀
Why was BiDEn sworn in before noon? The Constitution(Supreme Law of the Land) says noon is time of swearing in.... why did BiDEn sign “17” Executive Orders” which were only blank pieces of paper?
Can a new POTUS be sworn in during time of war? NO! We are at war! Remember Emergency Act in Spring of 2020 signed due to China Bioweapon? Then, EO signed and China election interference. THESE are ACTS of WAR!
Did POTUS Trump sign the Insurrection Act allowing Military to take the reigns of Government control? By law, POTUS does not have to announce it...but if HE does, then he has to physically SHOW the document signed. Could this be why we hear he signed it but have not seen it?
You want to know about Barockschloss Ludwigsburg? Too bad, I'm going to tell you some stuff about it, as it's my 'local'...
It all came about because Eberhard Ludwig, Duke of Württe.berg, decided in 1704 that he wanted a big old palace from which to be an absolutist Duke, and do absolutist things. So, picking an old hunting lodge, he started to extend it...
Thing is, though, to build a residential palace, you need a workforce. To gain a workforce, they needed somewhere to live. So, alongside the palace, he founded the town of Ludwigsburg, now adjacent to Stuttgart.
Ludwig resided at Ludwigsburg until 1733, when, childless, he kicked the bucket. Then Carl-Eugen, a relative, became Duke, and that's when things became lit.
See Carl Eugen had been raised in the court of Frederick the Great, and had been deprived of fun and female company - they were banned from the Prussian court.
So, he was essentially a big fat party animal from the get-go.
Ludwigsburg Residential Palace is often nicknamed the \u2018Versailles of Swabia\u2019! Take with our #DailyDrone a bird\u2019s-eye view of one of the largest Baroque palaces in Germany. pic.twitter.com/9nn8oY34HG
— DW Culture (@dw_culture) December 21, 2020
It all came about because Eberhard Ludwig, Duke of Württe.berg, decided in 1704 that he wanted a big old palace from which to be an absolutist Duke, and do absolutist things. So, picking an old hunting lodge, he started to extend it...
Thing is, though, to build a residential palace, you need a workforce. To gain a workforce, they needed somewhere to live. So, alongside the palace, he founded the town of Ludwigsburg, now adjacent to Stuttgart.
Ludwig resided at Ludwigsburg until 1733, when, childless, he kicked the bucket. Then Carl-Eugen, a relative, became Duke, and that's when things became lit.
See Carl Eugen had been raised in the court of Frederick the Great, and had been deprived of fun and female company - they were banned from the Prussian court.
So, he was essentially a big fat party animal from the get-go.
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
