political correctness

Early snowfall stokes Colorado skiers, clouds climate debate

A heavy autumn snowfall has ski resorts across Colorado holding some of their earliest opening days in a decade or more, stoking skiers and fueling another snowball fight over climate change. Vail Mountain and Beaver Creek plan to open this week, shaving several days off their anticipated starts to the ski season and marking the first time that both resorts have launched ahead of time in 10 years, said Vail chief operating officer Doug Lovell. The resorts credited a “combination of some of the best early-November snowmaking conditions and more than four feet of natural snowfall last week.” Ski Cooper plans to open Nov. 23, 10 days earlier than scheduled, while Monarch Mountain in Salida announced Monday that it would invite skiers and snowboarders Friday, its earliest first-day-of-the-ski-season since 1996, after receiving a hefty 34 inches of powder. “We couldn’t be more thrilled for an early opening this year,” said Randy Stroud, general manager of Monarch Mountain, in a Monday press release. “We did our snow dances and Mother Nature delivered.” The state’s snowpack sat Thursday at 124 percent of average, according to the Colorado Snow Survey, after a Veteran’s Day weekend storm that dropped more than a foot of snow on areas of the Front Range. Some resorts have already opened after receiving double-digit snowfall. Eldora Mountain began operating a week ago, nine days earlier than scheduled, while Arapahoe Basin, Wolf Creek and Loveland celebrated their first days of the season last month. “The early season snowfall has created momentum and excitement for the opening of the ski season here in Colorado,” said Melanie Mills, president and CEO of Colorado Ski Country USA, in an Oct. 18 statement. “Winter has arrived in the Colorado mountains and it’s great to see winter sports enthusiasts out in force!” Klaus Wolter, climate scientist with the NOAA-ESRL Physical Science Division and University of Colorado Boulder, attributed the early snow to several factors, including the weak El Nino, which “tends to make it wetter in the fall over Colorado.” “Below-normal temperatures mean that (a) most of the precipitation fell as snow, even at lower elevations, and (b) snow-making conditions were in place for the last four weeks or so,” Mr. Wolter said in an email. The rush to the slopes comes as a welcome change from last year’s disappointing Colorado ski season. Last year, environmentalists cited the drier-than-average 2017 winter, the state’s 14th driest on record, as evidence of global warming’s threat to snow. “The whole state is having its worst opening in 20 years,” Auden Schendler, vice president of sustainability for Aspen Snowmass, told the Coloradoan in December. “This is the weather and climate we fear. It’s already here.” Mr. Schendler serves on the board of Protect Our Winters, a Boulder-based climate advocacy group that has pushed to recruit skiers and snowboards by warning that “climate change is threatening winter as we know it.” “In the last decade, we have begun to see and feel climate change’s devastating impacts,” said Protect Our Winters. “Ski seasons are becoming shorter, more extreme, and less reliable.” Climate Depot’s Marc Morano compared such warnings to the infamous pronouncement of former University of East Anglia climate scientist David Viner, who warned that winter snowfall would soon become “a very rare and exciting event.” “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” Mr. Viner said in an article for the [U.K.] Independent headlined, “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” That was in 2000. “Climate activists and scientists claimed for years that snow was ‘a thing of the past’ due to ‘global warming,’ but snow has not cooperated,” said Mr. Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” “How do the activists explain away the record snows of recent years?” he asked. “Easy, by ignoring the current reality and predicting less snow in the future due to ‘climate change.’ Rest assured, snow is a thing of the present—just ask the autumn skiers enjoying the slopes.” Then again, climate change may actually be causing more snow. The EPA’s snowfall map showed that the white stuff decreased at 57 percent of its stations from 1930-2007, but not everywhere. Total snow increased during that period in some regions, including the Great Lakes and parts of Colorado. Snowfall in south-central Alaska has doubled in the last two years, while the East Coast has been socked with a series of snowstorms. Why? “Global warming means hotter air, and hotter air can hold more moisture,” said the Union of Concerned Scientists in a post. “This translates into heavier precipitation in the form of more intense rain or snow, simply because more moisture is available to storms.” Not surprisingly, Mr. Morano was skeptical. “So no matter what happens, the activists can claim with confidence the event was a predicted consequence of global warming,” he said. “There is now no way to ever falsify global warming claims.” For those trying to decide whether to buy a season ski pass, the best advice may be that there’s no predicting weather. “Just because it started snowing in November is no guarantee that it’s going to keep snowing,” said Jeffrey Deems, National Snow and Ice Data Center research scientist. “So get out there, get your days in, and take advantage of when the skiing’s good.”


COMCAST Fires Employee Targeted Over Reported Ties to Hate Group

COMCAST on Wednesday fired Andrew Kovalic, a 10-year employee who earlier this week became the target of a viral petition alleging that he is a member of a hate group. The petition that called for Kovalic’s termination, which had garnered 373 signatures by Wednesday morning, was created and sponsored by the Philadelphia-based nonprofit Media Mobilizing Project, which often scrutinizes media and telecommunications companies like COMCAST. The petition directly addressed COMCAST CEO Brian Roberts: “Employing Andrew Kovalic, a member of the hate group the Proud Boys, is an embarrassment and an insult to the communities of Philadelphia and the country. […] Comcast should terminate his employment immediately, and state clearly and publicly that it will not tolerate racist and fascist speech, organizing and actions from its employees.” In a statement to Philadelphia magazine, COMCAST said, “There’s no place for disrespectful, offensive behavior in our culture. The individual is no longer employed by COMCAST.” When asked how COMCAST made its determination to fire Kovalic and what specific behavior led to the company’s decision, a spokesperson said they could not comment on the situation beyond the statement. Calls made to a cell phone number associated with Kovalic, whose since-deleted LinkedIn profile said he had been working for Comcast as a communications technician since 2008, were not immediately returned.

COMCAST has, of course, the right to hire and fire anyone it wants.  It’s a private company.  And, we don’t condone any organization, like Proud Boys,  that supports violence.  That being said..  There are certainly some First Amendment freedom of assembly eyebrow-raising questions that need to be asked.  After all, Black Lives Matter calls for violence against cops.  Just Google some YouTube videos if you don’t believe that.  And, I’m sure there are BLM members that work at COMCAST.  Would they be fired if they were identified by the Media Mobilizing Project, or some other liberal rabble-rousing activist group?  Probably not.  And, that’s where COMCAST could potentially find itself in a sticky legal situation.  We’ll keep an eye on this developing story..  For more, click on the text above.

Tucker Carlson: Independent counsels are a handy way to settle political scores

CBS News reported Tuesday that special counsel Robert Mueller may soon issue new indictments. It’s not clear who will be charged, but there are indications of it. Some suggest that political consultant Roger Stone may be on the list. Another possible target is a man called Jerome Corsi, a 72-year-old author and Harvard-trained political scientist, who is an associate of Stone’s. Of course, he has said he expects charges soon. What for? Well, apparently for perjury. Corsi says he was manipulated into making false statements to Mueller’s lawyers. And if that’s true, well, obviously, it’s not good. But let’s put this into some perspective. False statements are everywhere in Washington. That’s what the city specializes in. And not small statements about small things. Barack Obama told you your premiums would go down and you could keep your doctor. James Clapper told Congress that the NSA was not spying on you. Clapper said that under oath. It was an outright lie. He was never charged. So the obvious lesson is, as long as you’re powerful and your lie is big enough, you are never, ever charged in Washington. No one is. You can wreck an entire health system, you can take an entire country to war under false pretenses. You can kill American citizens with drone strikes. And you can lie about all of it. Nobody will ever think, for a moment, about prosecuting you. But give the finger to the establishment? Mock the people in power? That is dangerous and they’ll get you for that. — Jerome Corsi is learning that lesson the hard way, just as Mike Flynn learned it, just as George Papadopoulos learned it. All three – and others – have been bankrupted and destroyed by Robert Mueller for doing something that virtually everyone does in Washington every day with impunity – lying. So what was the point of all this? Why are we destroying all these people? What’s the justification for it? It was supposed to be about Russia! Remember? There were foreign spies afoot, there were dark forces sent by Vladimir Putin to destroy our democracy here in America. That’s what they told us again and again on cable news. That’s how we were sold on the Mueller investigation in the first place. Well, two years later we learn it was all fake. There’s no evidence that any of that was real. No plot has ever been uncovered. All we’ve really learned is that independent counsels are a handy way to settle political scores and that a lot of people on the left don’t really believe in the tenets of Western justice. One of the resident geniuses on MSNBC on Tuesday explained the new legal standard for guilt in this country. “When Mueller indicted those Russian military intelligence officers, there was a very big hint in the indictment that there was an American deeply involved,” said former U.S. Atttorney Chuck Rosenberg. “It talked about an American playing a role in that Russian interference scheme.” MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace laughed and responded with this comment: “I remember the keystroke intelligence and remember thinking anyone emailing with Russians – you’re going to be in trouble!” Emailing with Russians. That’s all it takes now to destroy a life. It’s been enough to destroy Carter Page’s life. Remember Carter Page? Page graduated at the top of his class from the Naval Academy and served this country for five years as an intelligence officer. Then he made a fateful mistake. He backed the wrong presidential campaign. Page soon found himself accused of being a Russian spy. There was never any evidence that he actually was a Russian spy. Page was never charged with spying. He was never charged with anything. It didn’t matter. The ghouls on cable news kept up the drumbeat: Carter Page, Russia! Carter Page, Russia! Before long, Carter Page’s life was over, his reputation gone. Who would hire him now? Nobody. Ever. But the ghouls don’t care. They’re on to the next victim. So is Mueller. Maybe it’ll be Jerome Corsi this time, facing a criminal perjury count. Maybe someday it will be you. They’ll make up some official-sounding charge, but don’t fool yourself. What they’re really punishing is disobedience.

Well said, Tucker.  Nothing really you can add to that.  Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET).      🙂

Guardian: White Women Who Vote Republican Embrace ‘Racist Sadism’

Trump supporters are not only deplorable, they also exhibit a “peevish, racist cruelty,” declares the Guardian newspaper Friday, which makes white women who vote Republican especially guilty. The 53 percent of white women who voted for Trump in 2016 bear out “the conventional wisdom that white women would rather choose the racism espoused by the Republican party than join in the moral coalition represented by men of color and other women,” writes Guardian columnist Moira Donegan in an over-the-top essay. While white men “support Republicans at alarming rates,” she states, white women should know better since they are themselves victims of sexism. The reason that no decent, intelligent woman should vote Republican, especially in the present context, is the “sadistic racism that is Donald Trump’s stock and trade” as well as the “peevish, racist cruelty” embraced by his supporters, Ms. Donegan confidently proclaims. White women need to “break with their historical loyalty to white supremacy and embrace a kinder, more sustainable model for the future,” she states, meaning, of course, a shift to the Democrat party. “But white women are not leaving the Republican party as fast as one might hope,” she continues, evidence of which is that white women in Texas supported “the reptilian Ted Cruz” by 59 percent in midterm elections. “What is wrong with white women?” she asks rhetorically. “Why do half of them so consistently vote for Republicans, even as the Republican party morphs into a monstrously ugly organization that is increasingly indistinguishable from a hate group?” The astonishing conclusion Donegan comes up with is that white women must themselves be racist. They have embraced the opportunity to “savor the pleasures of being cruel.” “It is likely that the white women who voted for him in 2016, and who will vote for him again in 2020, find this racist sadism gratifying. It is fun for them,” she states. The “persistent sexism” of the Republican Party can be seen in their dislike of Hillary Clinton as well as in “the mocking and hounding of Dr Christine Blasey Ford, and in the theatrical sexism that Brett Kavanaugh displayed at his confirmation hearing,” she proclaims, while conveniently forgetting that Judy Munro-Leighton publicly admitted that she had invented claims that Kavanaugh had raped her “several times,” saying that in fact she had never even met Kavanaugh. There is, of course, another possibility that Ms. Donegan does not explore. Some people — white women included — may just prefer to think for themselves rather than be told how they are supposed to think as members of a certain demographic. Some white women may indeed find the Democrats’ full-bore support for abortion-on-demand and its marriage to abortion giant Planned Parenthood to be distasteful, if not despicable. Others may think that it is good for Americans to have jobs and want to see the economy booming, rather than sucked dry by bloated government programs demanding more and more tax dollars. Still others may reject the Democrats’ identity politics, preferring instead to live in a country where people are not judged “by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Whatever the reason, a sneering, condescending article suggesting that there must be “something wrong” with white women who vote Republican may just galvanize them in their intentions to keep doing so.

Moira Donegan is a pathological nut-case, and being a white female, also a hypocrite.  She cannot stand white women who actually think for themselves, and dismiss the silliness of the extreme-liberal, socialist, Democrat Party, MoveOn.org, #MeToo nonsense.  So, she went off on this silly diatribe, and made herself look like a complete idiot.  Thanks to Thomas D. Williams, PhD, for bringing us this story.

Opinion/Analysis: Revenge of the White Woman

Amid the inevitable outrage fest touched off by the election results, hardcore partisans on the left solidified around one particular angry narrative: If and when Democrats lose, it is because white women remain insufficiently woke. The Usual Suspects crafted this argument around exit polls of the Senate race in Texas, which revealed that white women broke for Republican incumbent Ted Cruz by a significant margin — 60 percent cast ballots for him rather than for Robert Francis O’Rourke (“Beto” to you), who received just 39 percent of their support. This 20-point margin in the Lone Star State was enough evidence for commentators to lob a variety of creative slurs at white women as a class, who make up about a third of all Americans. Feminists raced to label white women “footsoldiers of the patriarchy,” and left-wing pundits piled on. White female progressives didn’t feel the need to defend their own: “White women we are so gross it’s f***ing embarrassing and we need to f***ing stop,” one feminist warrior tweeted. Rolling Stone writer Jamil Smith lamented white women’s betrayal, wondering “when they will understand the damage that they do, and not just to themselves.” Others helpfully pointed out that white women who support conservatives can’t really be blamed — after all, in many parts of the country, helpless, backwards females are still in thrall to their misogynistic husbands, who force them to vote Republican. If this doesn’t sound like feminism, that’s because it isn’t. The Left’s newfound obsession with identity politics — which has given succor and some success to their progressive revolution in recent years — is in inherent tension with feminism’s longstanding belief that female agency is a fundamental good. Autonomous women are all well and good, it seems, until they autonomously turn out to support Ted Cruz. The Texas Senate race was just about the only competitive national race last night in which white women voted largely for the GOP, with the notable exception of Georgia’s gubernatorial contest, in which 75 percent of white women chose Republican Brian Kemp over Stacey Abrams. This inflammatory rhetoric, then, isn’t only unhelpful and un-feminist; it also happens to be wrong. In House races, white women split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, 49–49 percent. In swing-state Senate races in which GOP challengers unseated Democrats, the splits were fairly narrow: White women in North Dakota divided evenly between Kevin Cramer and Heidi Heitkamp; in Missouri, they broke for Josh Hawley over Claire McCaskill by only six points; and in Indiana, they preferred Mike Braun slightly to Joe Donnelly, 51–43 percent. Exit-poll data from Florida, meanwhile, reveal even further inaccuracies in the left-wing vendetta against white women. Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis bested Andrew Gillum among white women by just a four-point margin and also managed to win 40 percent of Hispanic women. Governor Rick Scott, challenging Democratic senator Bill Nelson, won white women by six points and likewise nabbed 40 percent of Hispanic women in the state. Democrats have conveniently ignored the latter part of these statistics; it’s safe to erase minority women, after all, when their voting habits don’t serve the narrative. This immediate pivot to scolding white women, based on the outcome of a mere two races, exemplifies the progressive tendency to justify every setback with a narrative about unavoidable racial bias and the blinding effect of white privilege. Our political divisions are complicated by race and sex, of course, but these factors don’t themselves explain, for example, why some women, white or otherwise, are conservative. The answer to that riddle — Hint: Women aren’t required by their chromosomes to form a monolithic progressive voting bloc — is one that Democrats appear uninterested in discovering, if they believe an answer other than “self-interested racism” exists at all. It’s a continuation of the blind spot progressives exhibited in the debate over Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Feminists insisted after his confirmation that “women will not forget,” that women “see a little more clearly how much we don’t matter to the people in charge,” that women’s rage “burns so brightly.” White women who refused to conform to the anti-Kavanaugh frenzy of the moment were alternately disregarded or labeled gender traitors. In its sudden embrace of identity politics, the hardcore Left needs Americans to believe that feminism and progressivism are intertwined, and thus that every woman is intrinsically wired to embrace left-wing orthodoxy. The success of their political movement increasingly depends on it. As a result, when the existence of conservative women is revealed — as it was on election night — they dismiss our views and our votes as being the result of ignorance, malice, or insufficient independence from the sway of the misogynistic patriarchy. In doing so, the Left undercuts the definitional core of feminism itself: Women can be trusted to think for themselves.

Well said, Alexandra!  Alexandra DeSanctis is the author of that spot-on op-ed, and absolutely nails it!  Please consider this your “Read of the Day.”  If you read only one article here at The Daily Buzz today, then READ THIS!!  …and then forward it on to all of your friends and family members..especially those who voted Democrat on Tuesday.  Excellent!!       🙂


Girl Scouts’ lawsuit accuses Boy Scouts of trademark infringement

The Girl Scouts filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Boy Scouts, accusing the latter group of violating trademarks as it now lets girls into its programs. In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA) accused the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) of trademark infringement, unfair competition and dilution. The Girl Scouts noted in the suit that while the word “scouts” is used in both youth organizations’ trademarks, the two groups are “distinct, with one offering leadership programming developed for and aimed at girls, and the other offering programming developed for and aimed at boys.” “However, that core gender distinction between the two organizations and their use of the term SCOUTS and variations thereof has been altered by BSA’s recent decision to offer all of its services to both boys and girls of all ages for the first time in its long history,” the lawsuit said. “Indeed, even though GSUSA and BSA have congressional charters and separate grants of intellectual property rights that are specific to girls and boys, respectively, BSA is now using its trademarks in a manner that is both new and uniquely damaging to GSUSA, its trademarks and their underlying goodwill.” Following the move to allow girls into its programs, the Boy Scout organization has attempted to swing its “core brand identity” toward the simple designation “scouts.” By the Girl Scouts’ reckoning, the Boy Scout organization has no authority to do, according to the lawsuit. “BSA does not have the right under either federal or New York law to use terms like SCOUTS or SCOUTING by themselves in connection with services offered to girls, or to rebrand itself as ‘the Scouts’ and thereby falsely communicate to the American public that it is now the organization exclusively associated with leadership development services offered under that mark to girls. The change would spur public confusion, tarnish the Girl Scouts’ trademarks, erode the group’s persona and “marginalize” its “movement by causing the public to believe that GSUSA’s extraordinarily successful services are not true or official ‘scouting’ programs,” the lawsuit said. The lawsuit charged that misinformation has spread through parts of the country, including that the two organizations have joined forces and that the Girl Scouts have dissolved. Families have since “mistakenly” registered girls up for the new programs from the Boy Scouts. “BSA regional councils and troops have used the GIRL SCOUTS trademarks in their advertising and marketing materials since BSA’s announcement occurred,” the lawsuit said. “BSA is even using quotations from GSUSA’s founder, Juliette Gordon Low, about the value of GIRL SCOUTS programs to promote BSA’s newly launched services.” And despite the Girl Scouts efforts make the Boy Scouts aware of the “instances of actual confusion,” the lawsuit claimed that “the unauthorized uses of GSUSA’s intellectual property, they keep recurring.” “Only GSUSA has the right to use the GIRL SCOUTS and SCOUTS trademarks with leadership development services for girls,” the lawsuit said. “To the extent BSA wishes to open its programs to girls, it cannot do so using GSUSA’s intellectual property without authorization, in a manner that causes confusion among the public and harms the goodwill of the GIRL SCOUTS trademarks.”

Just when you thought you’d heard it all…  Kudos to the Girl Scouts for slapping the leadership of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) with this lawsuit.  That’s what they get for making that disastrous decision to allow girls in.  Thank God I was in Boy Scouts decades before it went to hell..

Trump chides reporter for ‘racist’ question: ‘So insulting to me’

President Trump said Wednesday that a reporter’s question about whether he foments white nationalism was a “racist” question. “To say that is so insulting to me,” Mr. Trump told a NPR NewsHour reporter Yamiche Alcindo during a a press conference at the White House. She had questioned Mr. Trump about whether his calling himself a nationalist was a dog whistle for white nationalists, an often repeated charge in the news media. She said using the word makes people think the Republican Party is aligned with white nationalists. “That’s such a racist question,” responded the president, who noted his high approval rating among black Americans. Mr. Trump said there as no connection between nationalism and white nationalism. “You know what the word is, I love our country,” Mr. Trump said.

Isn’t it great seeing a president actually punch back against these obnoxious, race-baiting liberal reporters trying to gin up fake news?  Excellent!!      🙂