2012.02.14
Pistol-packin’ Ariz. lawmaker wants to ban classroom cursing
AP Photo
Meet Arizona Sen. Lori Klein. She’s the latest example of how it’s becoming apparent that RWer nuttery knows no boundaries.
She’s the prime sponsor of a poorly worded bill that would ban cursing by public schoolteachers or public college professors. And not necessarily just in the classroom, either. From The Washington Times:
Making the bill even more controversial is the fact that it technically applies to teachers and professors even when they are outside the classroom. The measure states that “a person who provides classroom instruction in a public school” would be subject to penalties, but never says that the profanities must be uttered in the classroom.
The curse words, under the bill, consist of any that are banned by the Federal Communication Commission. First offense: a week’s suspension. Second: two weeks. Third: termination. Doesn’t have to happen in a classroom. Aggrieved/estranged spouses of schoolteachers across the state must be salivating.
Who is Lori Klein? Well for starters she’s the state lawmaker who at one time pointed her laser-sighted pink pistol at a reporter for The Arizona Republic.
She’s also the former chair of the Arizona Herman Cain campaign. And earlier this year, when Cain was under fire for alleged sexual harassment, she “proved” to CBS New why those allegations must be untrue. From Huffington Post:
Lori Klein, an Arizona state Senator, told CBS News that she has known him for 12 years and he’s “never been anything but a gentleman — and I am not an unattractive woman.”
And of course, because she’s in Arizona, she’s an anti-immigration darling.
You can’t make this stuff up!
I’m sure the obviously left wing reporter did something to provoke Ms. Klein Dan. Maybe she questioned her about her stance on immigration and incensed her by saying, “I’m sorry, could you repeat that statement?”. The nerve…
Can anyone explain why in the GOP world the only females who make any noise are those who are impressed by their own looks? There have got to be at least a few female Republican politicians with brains. Right?
Comment by scott whitaker — February 14, 2012 @ 4:40 pm
Dan, a code of conduct that extends outside of the classroom is nothing new for those in the teaching profession. Because they are public servants they are held to a higher standard as to how that act and conduct themselves not just in but outside of the classroom. Everything is subject to scrutiny from the public and they are to be examples to their pupils (Lord knows parents go batty when it’s found that some teacher was boozing it up hitting on women at a local bar! Would the public care if they were in any other profession? Probably not, but it is what it is).
A friend of mine teaches at a local high school and the adminstration has strong rules against the use of Facebook for teachers as well. Though I understand WHY these restrictions are in place, I do feel that it’s encroaching on one’s own rights. But governing personal behavior outside of the professional setting is nothing new for educators.
Comment by Jessie — February 14, 2012 @ 4:43 pm
It’s not that I don’t agree that classrooms should be free from foul language, or that educators ought to control themselves at work, but how in the world is this an example of small government?
Comment by tass — February 14, 2012 @ 5:08 pm
#1 occasionally Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins…but no real
“looks” there…
Comment by Hillary — February 14, 2012 @ 5:20 pm
She becomes totally “unattractive” as soon as she opens her mouth. With no brain to engage she simply becomes another Republican empty head.
Wonder why she doesn’t include Arizona legislators in her no profanity bill if it bothers her that much. Certain so-called Republicans on this blog are among the most potty-mouthed individuals I have encountered lately.
Comment by dave — February 14, 2012 @ 5:51 pm
We are not guaranteed our 1st Amendment rights (or any other for that matter) from our employers…only government. See, once you start putting limits on one right, it starts leeching into others. The defense of rights applies across the board.
Teachers, Police Officers, and even Financial Executives get fired all the time for stuff they post on Social Media Networks that has nothing to do with work. A picture of a school teacher on a cruise with an alcoholic beverage in her hand: Fired. The company I work for has a strict social media network policy. You may have free speech, but they are free to fire you also.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but once the camel got his nose under the tent by infringing on some rights it was only a matter of time until he got his hind end inside of it too.
For what it is worth, I don’t think school teachers should be cursing in school. When I was in school the students got punished for cursing…you would think it would apply to teachers also.
I think what a person does on their own time shouldn’t be governed by their employer. It feels a little to much like that movie “The Firm.” But in today’s era of MyFace and SpaceBook when you put your business out there for the world to see don’t be surprised when they stick their nose in it.
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — February 14, 2012 @ 7:19 pm
Ahh. Another classic piece in the left wing view of Dan Casey. Did you pick this up off Media Matters?
I hope you all enjoy reading this lib nonsense. Everyone has an opinion…some people just get to print the spin!
Comment by Eva — February 14, 2012 @ 9:17 pm
#3 tass, many right wingers are in favor of small government only when it suits them.
Comment by gdad — February 14, 2012 @ 9:48 pm
Apparently Virginia is hoping to become the first state to outlaw contraception, thereby forcing Catholicism on all. We have elected the absolutely nuttiest legislature in the nation. I’m embarrassed to tell people I’m a native Virginian.
Comment by gdad — February 14, 2012 @ 9:57 pm
@9 – Where are they outlawing contraception? Did I miss this?
Comment by Uptheriver — February 15, 2012 @ 8:27 am
#10 I didn’t say they HAD, UTR, but you are aware, aren’t you, that some folks will argue that this bill covers certain types of contraception, such as the pill? You are aware that getting rid of the pill is the ultimate goal of some anti-choice folks?
Comment by gdad — February 15, 2012 @ 8:40 am
UTR,
They’re not outlawing contraception, yet. They can’t do that in one fell swoop. It’s an incremental approach, same as with concealed carry permits. At one time you had to have classroom training to get one. No more, they did away with that requirement. At one time, the law barred CC permit holders from taking their guns into bars. It doesn’t any more. Currently, it’s against the law for permit holders to drink in a bar while carrying. But the VCDL is intent on changing that, too, and the ban CC on state college campuses, airport terminals and some other places. (In fact, they don’t believe there should be any permit necessary for CC at all). Whether you agree or disagree with these efforts, it’s a fact they exist.
Personhood is an attack on abortion. The long-term plan is to stuff the Supreme Court with judges who will overturn Roe v Wade. When and if that happens, the “personhood” bill would effectively render abortion illegal in the state. That’s when they’ll go after birth control. Certain posters on this blog, who have termed certain methods of birth control “evil” and criticized barrier methods as “thwarting God’s will” (is that not “evil” as well?) have indicated as much.
The proof is that the House on Monday rejected an amendment saying that it would not apply to “lawful contraception.”
Comment by Dan Casey — February 15, 2012 @ 8:41 am
#12 Thank you for more detail, Dan. UTR, I was NOT exaggerating. These are the kind of fanatics Virginians have elected to run the nuthouse. Bob Marshall and Dick Black used to be rightly considered the lunatic fringe, even by most Repubs. Note that even Bobby McD is hesitant about the “personhood” insanity.
Comment by gdad — February 15, 2012 @ 8:53 am
The point here is that the same people who are “for” small government are also “for” the incremental “big brother” tactics and the twain cannot be separated. If you want rights and privacy, stop meddling in people’s lives. You want to invade a woman’s womb and yet whine about “MyFace and SpaceBook” or gun control? No, it does not work like that. Once a spigot is turned on at a dam, it does not turn off so easily. You can whine that it was those “dirty liberals” who brought you all of this invasion, but a cursory look at actual history says otherwise. The idea of “for your own good” laws is not all liberal and not something only liberals brought to you, offer up and support. People really need to read a little more.
The first gun control was not liberals. The first discrimination was not liberals. The first government spying on citizens was not liberals. The first abuse of rights was not liberals. In other words, “the camel” was not a liberal.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 15, 2012 @ 9:05 am
Apparently Virginia is hoping to become the first state to outlaw contraception,
They’re not outlawing contraception, yet. They can’t do that in one fell swoop. It’s an incremental approach
Oh man. Did Suzie predict this or WHAT? The official leftwing talking point has been to shift the debate from abortion (which they’ve lost) to contraception. You wait. The big big talking point yet to come will be that Santorum wants to make birth control illegal, and it will have been made up out of thin air. Its coming. Mark my words.
Comment by Suzie — February 15, 2012 @ 9:13 am
#15 Ummm, suzie, I’ve been saying this for WEEKS, even months. Great job “predicting” what you’ve already been reading and what we’ve believed for a long time. I guess that’s a lot like declaring that two people who post 8 hours apart are doing it “at the same time” or that painters tape caused $7 million in damage to marble.
Speaking of which, I noticed that some marble in my in-laws’ new condo was marked with painters tape and they didn’t believe me when I told then that they were causing untold damage. So Now I REALLY need that proof of your claim that union members nearly leveled the Wisconsin capitol with painters tape. The last link you gave us turned out to be completely debunked long before you even linked to it, but I’m sure you have something better. Right?
Comment by gdad — February 15, 2012 @ 11:27 am
abortion, ‘global warming’, 1% tax on all banking transactions, trying to mandate everything, this flaccid little monkey boy is trouble. but libbie coms will support anything that gives them cradle to grave nipple to suck on for free. pathetic little jealous people, its really a sad statement of the dem party, but it IS funny too.
Comment by pammala — February 15, 2012 @ 11:33 am
Suzie, why would anyone have to make things up “out of thin air” when we can go straight to the source (Santorum’s mouth)? Here’s his quote from last October:
“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
Comment by Say What? — February 15, 2012 @ 12:08 pm
#18 Thanks, Say What?. I had forgotten that Santorum said in his own words that he wants to demonize contraception.
Comment by gdad — February 15, 2012 @ 2:47 pm
14. Sandi, I could care less about social media networks…I don’t participate in them. Employers now hire firms to mine the internet for information about candidates as well as existing employees and give them reports of information they obtain. They use information like your e-mail address and any other personal information you provide (hobbies, etc.). Right or wrong, it is reality and they are free to hire and fire because something may not be consistent with their perceived company image.
As for the camel, just ask yourself who is pushing it under the tent. You are quick to want limits on certain rights that aren’t important to you then dare someone to question another that is. Whether I personally agree with others choices, I will fight to defend their right to make them. Please allow me to take a little bit of creative liberty with a quote that is attributed to Martin Niemoller:
“First they came for my right to bear arms,
and I didn’t speak out because I didn’t like guns.
Then they came for my freedom of religion,
and I didn’t speak out because I didn’t like religion.
Then they came for my right against unlawful search and seizure,
and I didn’t speak up becuase I had nothing to hide.
Then they came for my right to free speech,
and I wasn’t allowed to speak up.”
Chew on that for a little while and let me know if it makes any sense to you.
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — February 15, 2012 @ 8:07 pm