political correctness

Educators reject censorship, encourage student exploration of ‘problematic’ literature of the past

From Confederate memorials to “problematic” literature in schools, communities across the country are wrestling with how to acknowledge the past and its imperfections without offending the sensibilities of modern schoolchildren and their teachers, with most solutions employing one of the three R’s: remove, rename, revise. But some educators are encouraging another way. They are engaging with children in an exploration of values and culture to better understand the mores of the past and the present. “Why is Ma so scared of Native Americans? Where does prejudice come from in pioneers? What prejudices do we still have today?” Melissa Scholes Young, an associate professor in the writing studies program at American University, offers as questions to explore the cultural landscape and significance of the “Little House on the Prairie” series of children’s books by Laura Ingalls Wilder. The Association for Library Service to Children last month voted unanimously to remove Wilder’s name from its children’s book award because the “Little House” series “includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values.” The association said specifically that her writing displays “anti-Native and anti-Black sentiments,” and it renamed the award as the Children’s Literature Legacy Award. Wilder, who won the group’s first award in 1954, is still read widely, but her complex legacy is “not universally embraced,” the association said. Wilder was born in 1867 and died in 1957 at age 90. Ms. Scholes Young said she often pairs classic literature with work from more modern authors as a way to compare and contrast how cultural issues are reflected in the stories. Not every parent has the wisdom and training professors possess, she said, but that shouldn’t stop parents from pursuing this angle. “It’s perfectly fine as a parent to say, ‘Sometimes I don’t know. … Let’s look for it together,’” she said. “It’s not hard to pair a historical text with almost anything happening in our world today.” The tack is supported by Deborah Gilboa, a Pittsburgh-based family physician who, using the pseudonym “Dr. G,” has written a number of books about teaching children social and cultural standards such as respect and responsibility. Dr. Gilboa said it’s wrong to censor authors for “accurately reflecting their time and history” even when their prose clashes with the ideals of the modern enlightened age. A far better response, she said, is to talk directly to children about the issues in question with the proper values and context. “Our own pivot is to say, ‘Oh, that author held a really warm place in my heart. … I associate them with positive memories.’ Now, I have to go back and make sure they don’t shape my ideas toward something I don’t think is ethical,” said Dr. Gilboa, a blogger and author of “Get the Behavior You Want … Without Being the Parent You Hate.” Of course, Laura Ingalls Wilder is only the latest target for cultural or historical scrubbing for modern audiences. Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” sporadically comes under fire and scrutiny for its liberal use of a racial slur, even though Twain portrays the escaped adult slave Jim as the story’s most noble and sensible figure. Meanwhile, Theodor Geisel, aka Dr. Seuss, now is considered a peddler of racist imagery in some circles. Early in his career, Geisel worked as an illustrator of corporate ad campaigns, drawing caricatures of blacks and Asians that have been deemed offensive and stereotypical by those who uphold today’s standards. Across the country, officials are moving with deliberate speed to remove Confederate memorials from public places and rename schools bearing the monikers of famed Confederates…

For more, click on the text above..

Opinion/Analysis: Just how much federal waste, duplication and weird or unnecessary spending are your tax dollars funding?

The ever-rising federal debt just surpassed $21 trillion last month – at least $65,000 for every person in the U.S. Just how much federal waste, duplication, and weird or unnecessary spending are your tax dollars funding? It’s hard to know where to begin, but here are some starters. Delving into the trillions of dollars in annual spending, our government transparency organization, OpenTheBooks.com, recently examined Washington’s discretionary grants system – beyond such big-ticket items as health, welfare and defense. We found that the feds doled out 560,771 grants totaling $583 billion during fiscal year 2016, the most recent year on record. This means, on average, each grant exceeded $1 million. Not every federal grant is wasteful, but there are plenty that are highly questionable. Consider these outlandish examples from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the final year of the Obama Administration. (We’ve included the names of the congressional representatives for the zip codes where the grant was received.). Click here to see the list..

Wow..  You really need to see this.  And no, you’re not reading The Onion..

CNN’s Mudd: Trump Is a White, Rich Guy Saying ‘I Don’t Like People Coming In Who Don’t Look Like Us’

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” network counterterrorism analyst Philip Mudd reacted to President Donald Trump criticizing Europe’s immigration policies. During an interview with British tabloid The Sun, Trump said, “I think what’s happened to Europe is a shame. I think the immigration allowing the immigration to take place in Europe is a shame. I think it changed the fabric of Europe. And unless you act very quickly, it’s never going to be what it was, and I don’t mean that in a positive way. I think you’re losing your culture.” Mudd answered, “This is not about culture. This is about race. I guess if we don’t want immigration in the united states we get rid of little Italy and Irish out of Boston, Mexicans out of the Southwest and rid of Asian americans out of the west coast and my hometown which was revitalized by Cubans, they’ve got to go home too.” He continued, “The difference he’s talking about, and I see this as a white guy, it’s brown people and black people going into Europe, people from embattled states in Africa and people form the Syria conflict. If we want to talk about this straight, we shouldn’t talk about culture. We ought to talk about race. It’s a white guy who is a rich guy from Manhattan saying I don’t like people coming in who don’t look like us.”

No, you stupid tool..  That’s NOT what he said at all, you race-baiting, agenda-driven, liberal hypocrite!  He said Europe has a certain culture.  That’s true!  And, when you import in vast numbers people from other cultures, it changes that culture.  That’s simply a FACT.  Ask the poor women and young girls who were preyed upon, and raped, on New Year’s eve in Germany (Berlin, Munich, etc) by Muslim males who came from Syria and elsewhere.  Germany is the poster child of what has happened to Europe when Muslims from northern Africa and the Middle East (who aren’t even vetted) suddenly show up in large numbers.  Look at the 44% rise in homicides in London in 2017 thanks, in large part, to the same.  Trump is 100% correct in saying that mass immigration to Europe from these predominantly Muslim nations is changing the culture of Europe.  He just doesn’t give a damn about political correctness, and is the only one honest to just say it…probably knowing that self-righteous, tools like Philip will use the opportunity to play the race card.  Nice try.  Your name is Mudd.  How appropriate..  And people still wonder why Trump calls CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and others “fake news.”..

University of Wyoming’s ‘cowboy’ slogan rustles up some controversy

“The world needs more cowboys,” the University of Wyoming says in a new marketing slogan. But apparently not everyone agrees. The slogan has drawn backlash from critics, including faculty members and Native American groups, who call the catchphrase sexist, racist and counterproductive to university recruitment — because it excludes women and people of color, Reuters reported. “Honestly, I thought it was a joke at first,” associate professor Ellen Currano told the Chronicle of Higher Education. “I thought it was a joke. And then I looked it up on the university web page and saw that no, this was, in fact, serious.” The university’s mascot is a “cowboy” riding a bucking horse with hat in hand. But Darrell Hutchinson, a cultural specialist, told Reuters that people who do not fit the stereotypical image of a cowboy – “a white man with a wide-brimmed hat riding the range on horseback” – are not made to feel welcome. “If you’re not a white person, and especially if you’re an Indian, it would make you feel out of place — it wouldn’t make you feel too good about yourself,” said Hutchinson, a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe in Wyoming. But university officials in Laramie defended the tagline, which they said was created by a Colorado-based marketing firm. “In a vacuum, the term ‘cowboy’ appears gender- and perhaps race-specific, but in the context of the branding campaign it is connected to images and words that show our cowboys are diverse, of every sex and background,” university spokesman Chad Baldwin said, according to Reuters. He said the university wants to “throw away” the stereotype of cowboys, updating what it means and looks like to be one. “A cowboy is not what you are, but who you are,” Baldwin said. The campaign cost $500,000 and is part of a more than $1.4 million investment to advertise the university, located around 50 miles northwest of Cheyenne. Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, said ranchers are worried the dispute may cast “aspersions on a time-honored way of life and work,” according to Reuters. “We are proud of the true image of the real cowboy or cowgirl, often of very diverse race or ethnicity, riding the range on a well-groomed horse while sporting a cowboy hat, chaps, spurs and a rope,” he said in a statement. Wyoming, the so-called Cowboy State, hosts the university’s sports teams, also called the Cowboys; a cowboy mascot named Pistol Pete also appears at games.

The whole controversy is beyond silly..  This is what happens when bed-wetting, whining, liberals are out looking to find some reason to feel victimized.  It’s political correctness gone crazy.  Clearly these idiots who are whining about this haven’t been to Cheyenne Frontier Days; one of the biggest rodeo events in the country.  There are people of all ages, genders, and yes…ethnicities.  Good on the folks at the Univ of Wyoming for sticking to their guns, and blowing these idiots off..  Unreal..

Dems who drafted bill to abolish ICE now say they’ll vote against it

Democrats who drafted a bill to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] suddenly announced Thursday night that they would vote against it if the legislation went to the floor, after House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Fox News he intended to call their bluff. “We know Speaker [Paul] Ryan is not serious about passing our ‘Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act,’ so members of Congress, advocacy groups, and impacted communities will not engage in this political stunt,” Reps. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Adriano Espaillat of New York told The Hill and other news outlets. “If Speaker Ryan puts our bill on the floor, we plan to vote no and will instead use the opportunity to force an urgently needed and long-overdue conversation on the House floor.” McCarthy, R-Calif., said earlier Thursday he would place a bill to abolish ICE on the House floor later this month. Democrats have long pushed back on the administration’s immigration policies but tensions have escalated in the past month over family separations at the border. Calls from some far-left lawmakers to abolish ICE have grown ahead of the November elections. Former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., last week slammed the federal agency as being a part of a “cruel, dysfunctional immigration system” that needs “comprehensive” reform. One of the first senators to push for eradicating ICE was Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who said last month that ICE “has become a deportation force” which should be abolished. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio echoed Gillibrand, calling the agency “broken” and “divisive.” “It should be abolished,” he tweeted. As analysts point out, if Democrats vote against the proposal and kill it, it undermines their word. If they earn enough “yes” votes, Republicans could turn the issue and tie all Democrats to the crisis at the border. Perhaps sensing trouble ahead of the primaries, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California have called instead for the agency to be restructured.

Either way, Republicans win with this.  Kudos to House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) for calling their bluff and putting the issue up for a vote to get these self-righteous, self-serving, anti-law enforcement, Democrat hypocrites on record either way.  HAHAHA!!  Excellent!!    🙂

Coulter: Kavanaugh Threatens The Left’s Right to Cheat

The fact that the media responded to the nomination of a Supreme Court justice by obsessively covering Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Russia and NATO proves that Trump has checkmated them with Brett Kavanaugh. Liberals know they can’t stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation, so they’d just as soon not hear any news about it at all. Please cheer us up with stories about Paul Manafort’s solitary confinement! But there was one very peculiar reaction to the nomination. The nut wing of the Democratic Party instantly denounced Kavanaugh by claiming that his elevation to the high court would threaten all sorts of “rights.” Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted: “Our next justice should be a champion for protecting & advancing rights, not rolling them back — but Kavanaugh has a long history of demonstrating hostility toward defending the rights of everyday Americans.” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted: “If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court it will have a profoundly negative effect on workers’ rights, women’s rights and voting rights for decades to come. We must do everything we can to stop this nomination.” If only these guys could get themselves elected to some sort of legislative body, they could pass laws protecting these rights! Wait, I’m sorry. These are elected United States senators. Of all people, why are they carrying on about “rights”? If senators can’t protect these alleged “rights,” it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be “rights.” That’s exactly why the left is so hysterical about the Supreme Court. They run to the courts to win their most unpopular policy ideas, gift-wrapped and handed to them as “constitutional rights.” What liberals call “rights” are legislative proposals that they can’t pass through normal democratic processes — at least outside of the states they’ve already flipped with immigration, like California. Realizing how widely reviled their ideas are, several decades ago the left figured out a procedural scam to give them whatever they wanted without ever having to pass a law. Hey! You can’t review a Supreme Court decision! Instead of persuading a majority of their fellow citizens, they’d need to persuade only five justices to invent any rights they pleased. They didn’t have to ask twice. Apparently, justices find it much funner to be all-powerful despots than boring technocrats interpreting written law. Soon the court was creating “rights” promoting all the left’s favorite causes — abortion, criminals, busing, pornography, stamping out religion, forcing military academies to admit girls and so on. There was nothing America could do about it. OK, liberals, you cheated and got all your demented policy ideas declared “constitutional rights.” But it’s very strange having elected legislators act as if they are helpless serfs, with no capacity to protect “rights.” It’s stranger still for politicians to pretend that these putative “rights” are supported by a majority of Americans. By definition, the majority does not support them. Otherwise, they’d already be protected by law and not by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s latest newsletter. On MSNBC, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said people storming into the streets and making their voices heard about Kavanaugh is “the remarkable part about a democracy.” Actually, that isn’t democracy at all. Liberals don’t do well at democracy. Why don’t politicians run for office promising to ban the death penalty, spring criminals from prison or enshrine late-term abortion? Hmmm … I wonder why those “I (heart) partial-birth abortion!” T-shirts aren’t selling? Unless the Constitution forbids it — and there are very few things proscribed by the Constitution — democracy entails persuading a majority of your fellow Americans or state citizens to support something, and then either putting it on the ballot or electing representatives who will write it into law — perhaps even a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, these “rights” whereof you speak are no more real than the Beastie Boys’ assertion of THE RIGHT TO PARTEEEEEEEE! Gay marriage, for example, was foisted on the country not through ballot initiatives, persuasion, public acceptance, lobbying or politicians winning elections by promising to legalize it. No, what happened was, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right to gay marriage lurking in the state’s 223-year-old Constitution — written by the very religious John Adams. (Surprise!) After that, the people rose up and banned gay marriage in state after state, even in liberal bastions like Oregon and California. The year after the Massachusetts court’s remarkable discovery, gay marriage lost in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. Everywhere gay marriage was submitted to a popular vote, it lost. (Only one state’s voters briefly seemed to approve of gay marriage — Arizona, in 2006 — but that was evidently a problem with the wording of the initiative, because two years later, the voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.) Inasmuch as allowing people to vote resulted in a resounding “NO!” on gay marriage, liberals ran back to the courts. Still, the public rebelled. The year after the Iowa Supreme Court concocted a right to gay marriage, voters recalled three of the court’s seven justices. A handful of blue state legislatures passed gay marriage laws, but even in the Soviet Republic of New York, a gay marriage bill failed in 2009. And then the U.S. Supreme Court decided that was quite enough democracy on the question of gay marriage! It turned out that — just like the Massachusetts Constitution — a gay marriage clause had been hiding in our Constitution all along! Conservatives could never dream of victories like this from the judiciary. Even nine Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court are never going to discover a “constitutional right” to a border wall, mass deportations, a flat tax, publicly funded churches and gun ranges, the “right” to smoke or to consume 24-ounce sugary sodas. These are “constitutional rights” every bit as much as the alleged “constitutional rights” to abortion, pornography, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, the exclusionary rule and on and on and on. The only rights conservatives ever seek under the Constitution are the ones that are written in black and white, such as the freedom of speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Mostly, we sit trembling, waiting to see what new nonexistent rights the court will impose on us, contravening everything we believe. So when you hear liberals carrying on about all the “rights” threatened by Kavanaugh, remember that by “rights,” they mean “policy ideas so unpopular that we can’t pass a law creating such rights.”

Exactly!!  And well said, Ann.  Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter is responsible for that spot-on op/ed.  Please consider this your Read of the Day.  If you read just one article here at The Daily Buzz (and who would do such a silly thing?!), then READ THIS!!!  Then, please forward on to all of your friends and family members, especially those who are liberals or Dems…and watch their heads explode.    🙂

Vermont Church Slams America, Desecrates “God Bless The USA”

There is outrage from the lakes of Minnesota to the hills of Tennessee after a Methodist church in Vermont rewrote the lyrics to Lee Greenwood’s beloved song, “God Bless the USA,” and turned it into a “bash America” anthem. “I look around this America but not everybody’s free. And I won’t forget all those who died beneath our fear and greed,” a singer crooned during Sunday “worship” at the First United Methodist Church in Burlington. “God forgive the USA.” The singer went on to ask forgiveness for ripping families apart at the border and taking land from the Native Americans and the way we treat LGBT citizens. “For the native tribes we conquered – Sioux, Lakota, Cherokee – for the slaves we beat and tortured for the interned Japanese,” the singer warbled. “For the women and the children for the lesbian, gay.” The confession of America’s alleged sins went on and on and on and on. “Mr. Greenwood’s song is emblematic of pride in and prayer for blessing of our country,” Pastor Mark Demers told me. “Changing the words to make it also a prayer for forgiveness and healing served to expand the meaning, thus reflecting with the anthem the theme of our worship service.” He did not seem at all bothered that the church had desecrated a beloved patriotic anthem. “Confession is a central part of Christian worship, as is prayer for healing. The lectionary text and sermon for the day told of two healings requested of Jesus – one a person of power in the community and the other a person impoverished by her illness,” the pastor told me. “The text lends itself to the idea that all, of every station in life, individuals and communities alike – including churches – stand in need of forgiveness and healing.” I reached out to Mr. Greenwood’s publicist who told me the church did not seek permission to alter the copyrighted song. Nor did the church let Mr. Greenwood know in advance they would be taking great liberties with the lyrics. “It’s illegal to do that,” Greenwood told One America News. However, the United Methodist Church pastor defended the atrocities they committed against Mr. Greenwood’s song. “A change of lyrics such as was done does not violate copyright law, falling under the category of parody,” he said.

Perhaps..   Perhaps not.  Mr. Greenwood should seek the advice of counsel, and if they think a copyright law was infringed upon, then he should sue this UMC in court.  Either way, what this idiot pastor did was at best hugely offensive.  Shame on him.  Thanks to veteran culture warrior Todd Starnes for sharing this head-shaking story with us.