Author name: LifeZette

GEICO has introduced a new mandatory training policy requiring employees to state their pronouns during customer interactions, a move that is part of the company’s larger diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiative.

The policy, which was rolled out in November 2024, aims to promote inclusivity and gender diversity in the workplace.

Under the new guidelines, employees are instructed to introduce themselves by sharing their pronouns during customer communications.

For example, an employee might say, “I use he/him pronouns.” The company views this as an essential step in fostering a more respectful and equitable environment for employees and customers alike.

GEICO, a leading provider of auto insurance, has positioned this policy as part of its ongoing commitment to DEI efforts, which include a broader focus on supporting marginalized groups and promoting gender diversity within the company.

According to GEICO, the training and pronoun usage will help create a more inclusive and supportive environment for both employees and customers, encouraging respect for gender identities.

However, the initiative has been met with criticism from some quarters. Critics argue that the policy is unnecessary and intrusive, with many questioning whether it truly contributes to a positive work culture or whether it is merely another layer of corporate bureaucracy.

Concerns have been raised about the requirement for employees to correct customers who may misgender them during interactions.

Some employees have expressed discomfort, noting that this could lead to uncomfortable and potentially confrontational situations in customer service.

While the company maintains that the policy aligns with its mission of equity and inclusivity, the backlash highlights a significant divide on how DEI initiatives are perceived in the workplace.

Some see the policy as a necessary step toward ensuring all individuals, regardless of their gender identity, are treated with respect.

Others view it as a forced imposition on personal expression, arguing that it could disrupt workplace dynamics and customer interactions.

Despite the company’s commitment to the policy, it is clear that the implementation has sparked a broader debate about the role of DEI initiatives in corporate culture and customer service.

Many are questioning whether these initiatives, which focus on issues like gender identity and pronouns, are becoming increasingly pervasive and if they are truly beneficial to the work environment or if they could have unintended consequences.

As GEICO moves forward with its pronoun training, it remains to be seen how the policy will be received long-term, both by employees and customers.

The company has emphasized that the initiative is part of its broader mission to enhance diversity and support marginalized groups, but with some employees speaking out, it is clear that not all are fully on board with the new mandates.

For now, GEICO is standing by its decision, touting it as a necessary step toward building a more inclusive and respectful workplace.

Read More at LifeZette

Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana confronted Benjamin J. Cheeks, a nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, over his past writings on controversial topics during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Cheeks, currently a U.S. Magistrate Judge and criminal defense attorney, was nominated by President Joe Biden on October 23.

Kennedy questioned Cheeks about his past commentary on topics such as Black Lives Matter and the police.

During the hearing, Kennedy noted that Cheeks claimed earlier to Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois that he avoided taking positions in his writings.

“I see you’re quite a prolific writer and … you said you don’t — you don’t take a position in these articles,” Kennedy stated. Cheeks responded, “I said I tried not to take a position in most of my articles.”

Kennedy then referenced specific articles by Cheeks, including one written in the wake of George Floyd’s death. Quoting from one article, Kennedy read, “‘Needless to say I have a guarded opinion about the police. How do I teach my sons to respect them and fear them at the same time? There can be no question that police officers have some of these same internal or external biases.’” Kennedy emphasized Cheeks’ statement, “There can be no question that police officers, not some police, all police officers have some of these same internal or external biases.”

After reading the quote, Kennedy asked, “Did I read that correctly?” Cheeks confirmed he had.

Kennedy then shifted to a 2018 article in which Cheeks commented on the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry into the United States.

Quoting from the article, Kennedy read, “‘Technically the law was broken, but these particular defendants, poor, hungry, hard-working and not dangerous, deserve a pass from prosecution.’”

Kennedy pressed Cheeks, asking, “Saying that illegal immigration should not be criminalized is a position, is it not?” Cheeks acknowledged that it was, but added, “Everything that I wrote, I wrote while I was an advocate, not a sitting judge.”

Cheeks emphasized that his role as a sitting magistrate judge required impartiality. “I no longer advocate,” he said.

Kennedy questioned Cheeks’ ability to separate his advocacy from his judicial role. “So you’re — so — so you — you don’t tell the truth when you’re an advocate, but you do when you’re not? Is it OK to lie if you’re an advocate?” Kennedy asked. Cheeks replied that he didn’t understand the question.

“I think it’s pretty clear and I think you follow it,” Kennedy said. He concluded the exchange by stating, “You’ve taken a lot of radical positions judge, and you can’t make this cat walk backwards. Now you can’t make this cat walk backwards.”

Read  More at LifeZette

MSNBC host Joy Reid announced her departure from X, formerly known as Twitter, by posting a video on social media in which she detailed her decision to delete her account.

Reid, who had 1.9 million followers on the platform, cited her lack of recent activity and ownership concerns as reasons for leaving the platform, which is now under Elon Musk’s control.

“Today, I finally did something I’ve been meaning to do for a while,” Reid stated, showing screenshots of the account deletion process. “The reason for doing it and kissing goodbye my 1.9 million followers over there is because I haven’t been posting for a long time. I just didn’t want to contribute content once it was purchased by its present owner.”

Reid went on to say that she had initially kept the account to prevent someone else from taking her username and “using it for nefarious purposes.”

Her exit from X sparked questions about potential future issues, given that she had previously faced controversy over past blog posts on her personal blog, which contained allegedly antisemitic and homophobic content.

At the time, Reid claimed her blog was hacked, an investigation that reportedly did not yield a definitive culprit.

The move to delete her account comes just days after former Fox News host Megyn Kelly speculated that MSNBC might consider letting Reid go.

In her podcast, Kelly stated that “MSNBC is allowing her [Reid] to spew this racist hate on their channel,” adding, “It’s a tick-tock situation until her a– is fired.”

Kelly’s remarks follow Reid’s recent controversial commentary, where she suggested that Black and Hispanic Trump voters were “identifying with whiteness” by supporting the former president.

Ratings for MSNBC have shown a notable decline since Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election.

Since Election Day, the network has experienced a 53% drop in prime-time viewership, while Fox News has reported a 21% increase in prime-time viewership.

Read More at LifeZette

George Clooney, the Oscar-winning actor who once dismissed Donald Trump’s chances at the presidency, now finds himself under fire from his own party’s supporters after Kamala Harris’ disappointing 2024 election defeat, as reported by Daily Fetched.

Clooney’s vocal support for alternatives to President Joe Biden, especially in a critical op-ed published in The New York Times, has stirred up a hornet’s nest among liberals, who are now pointing fingers his way for the recent loss.

At 63, Clooney has been a dedicated advocate for the Democratic Party, contributing both time and money. In fact, he helped raise a staggering $30 million for Biden’s re-election campaign, only to openly question Biden’s viability shortly after.

His call for new Democratic leadership just months before the election is now being widely blamed for sparking doubts within the party. An insider close to Clooney revealed, “George feels that the backlash he is getting for Kamala losing is not at all warranted. He thinks it’s completely unfair to try and make him a scapegoat for her loss.”

Clooney’s recent struggles with the party have left him contemplating a step back from political involvement. According to the same source, he’s feeling “very disheartened,” particularly after investing so heavily in the party’s goals and witnessing the swift backlash after the election.

Speculation around Clooney’s op-ed further heightened when rumors suggested that former President Barack Obama might have ghostwritten or heavily influenced his words.

While Politico noted that Obama didn’t explicitly encourage Clooney to speak out, he reportedly did nothing to stop it, creating an air of suspicion around their partnership. But whether or not Obama was involved, the larger story is clear: Hollywood’s political clout is rapidly fading.

This incident has forced a spotlight on the effectiveness of celebrity endorsements. Even paying high-profile figures like Oprah Winfrey millions to endorse candidates seems increasingly futile when core policy issues—such as gun rights, free speech, and economic concerns—hold much greater sway over voters.

As Clooney prepares to pull back from his once-enthusiastic political role, he faces the reality that Hollywood’s sway over politics may not be as powerful as it once was.

Despite the millions spent and the famous faces brought forward, the loss of Harris in the 2024 race seems to have spotlighted a deeper disconnect between the entertainment industry’s values and the everyday concerns of American voters.

Read More at LifeZette

A California teacher recently found herself in hot water after a video surfaced showing her controversial approach to a school mock election, as reported by The Gateway Pundit.

In the clip, a parent confronts the teacher for reportedly offering a pizza party reward only to students who voted for Kamala Harris, while denying it to those who picked Donald Trump. The video, which has since gone viral, was posted by the LibsofTikTok account, a popular source for exposing what it sees as left-leaning bias in schools.

The footage opens with a mother discussing a California mock election ballot with her daughter, who explains that students who “voted” for Harris in the school activity would receive beauty products and a pizza party, while those who chose Trump would be left out.

Watch:

According to the parent’s interaction, the classroom wasn’t just about politics on paper but also came with a notable reward for students who aligned with the teacher’s chosen candidate.

In the video, the teacher is heard defending the decision, stating that “Democrats are more for feeding the hungry” and suggesting that’s why she was willing to buy pizza for the students who picked Harris.

She justified her stance further, noting that Democrats supposedly prioritize free medical care and social services, implying that only students who “paid their dues” in voting for Harris would benefit.

In contrast, the teacher maintained that students voting for Trump would need to go without, as “they just do what the conservatives do — which is pay for yourself.”

The confrontation took an interesting turn when the mother offered to pay for pizza for her child’s class, effectively calling the teacher’s bluff.

Read More at LifeZette

A staffer working for the campaigns of two Ohio Democrats, Senator Sherrod Brown, and Congresswoman Emilia Sykes, was recorded making controversial remarks on immigration, sparking backlash from Republicans and conservative groups.

In a video first reported by Ohio.news, the staffer, identified as Kevin Oyakawa, called for open borders and referred to those advocating for stricter immigration policies as “racist.”

“Open the f—ing border, I don’t give a s— who comes in here,” Oyakawa reportedly stated in a conversation with a volunteer earlier this month.

He went on to argue that discussing immigration reform is a “losing issue” for Democrats in Ohio solely due to “people’s pure racism.”

Watch: 

According to Oyakawa’s since-deleted LinkedIn profile, he was serving as a regional organizing director with the Ohio Democratic Party, supporting Brown’s and Sykes’ campaigns in Summit and Stark counties.

Read More at LifeZette