it good or bad that Fox News did not put restrictions on charitable giving? It's good. It's good. It's not bad that the outcomes in this case would be sub-optimal to most people or some people at least. The satanic temple people you know be objectionable to most people but it doesn't really matter. That double donation from Fox News you're probably talking about two hundred dollars. Do you think you're talking about millions? You know that it would have been a flag if there was even one donation to any of these entities.

So am I angry that there's somebody at Fox News who's donating to Planned Parenthood? No. All that tells me is that Fox News is willing to hire people who have different opinions than some of them do. How is that even a problem? Now I get that there are customers and most of the hosts would be on one side of that issue but the fact that they're willing to hire you if you're on the other side of that issue is not a weakness. Does that feel like a weakness? It's totally a strength. So I'm going to back Fox News on this. I think Blaze Media is a little over their competitive skis. It's just a summer story again. It's a summersity. Nobody cares. Literally nobody cares.

All right here's another one. Did you know that DEI which had been diversity equity and inclusion now has an A at the end. They're sort of going the LGBTQ plus direction where you keep having to add letters. So they've added A to the end for accessibility. So that's DEIA anyway. The Wall Street Journal editorial board was talking about California community colleges are required to take into consideration you know the principles of DEI. And here are the bullet points from The Wall Street Journal of these specific things that these community colleges should do.

All right this is how seriously they take it. So the bullet points are promotes and incorporates DEI and anti-racist pedagogy. Pedagogy. Literally have never said that word out loud. Do you know why I've never said pedagogy? Pedagogy. Do you know I have never said that out loud? Because it's a douchebag word and I'm not a douchebag. Well maybe I am but I don't use that word. I had to correct myself. Maybe I am. I'm a bit of a douchebag but never use that word. Who are you writing for? Do you think that half of the readers of The Wall Street Journal know what that means? Pedagogy. They're probably no more than half. I'd guess 25 percent anyway.

So they're gonna promote and incorporate it. So promoting and incorporating so far so good, right? Because we knew that was happening. Promoting and incorporating. But let's see if it goes further. Develops and influences a pedagogy or a curriculum that promotes a race conscious and intersectional lens. That's bad. A race conscious teaching that should be exactly what you don't do. So that should be illegal but it so that would be illegal in Florida, right? The thing that's being recommended or actually required, the thing that's being required in California is literally illegal in Florida. Is that true? Is required here and illegal there? Can you think of any other law that's required in one state and illegal in another? Give me another example. Required in one state and illegal in another. Go.

Now guns are not required. Looting. Abortion is not required. Well I suppose it would be required to offer. You might be right about that. Income tax. Well you know state tax that's reaching. License to drive. No it's required everywhere. Pre-arranged crapping. Photo ID. It's not illegal to have photo ID. It's not illegal to put on a seat belt. It's not. Pot is not required anywhere. Yeah there's no other example is there, right? There are lots of examples of things that are legal in one and not legal in another but you can't come up with an example of something that is required, government required in one state and government illegal in another state. I want to see if you now voter ID. If you walk into the voter ID place and show your ID nobody's going to arrest you if it's not required. I think this is unique. That is required in one state and illegal in another but that should tell you something.

Contributes to DEI and anti-racism research and scholarship. Contributes to it. You have to contribute to the research and scholarship. What's that mean? You have to contribute to it like financially or you have to work toward it? A big deal. Advocates for and advances it. Most of these bullet points are just saying you got to work on it in different ways. I assume these bullet points were written by an unqualified person. Participates in a continuous cycle of self-assessment of one's growth and commitment to DEI and an acknowledgment of any internalized personal biases and racial superiority or inferiority. It's literally just mind control.

Based on this I would recommend that nobody go to college in California. Like you should just skip community college. This is the most absurdly inappropriate thing you could ever put in a college. Absurdl