Guest Commentary: The Absurd Popularity of Trump vs. the College Board

college-board-logoby Jeff Boone

This last month, the College Board, the nonprofit corporation that controls all the high-school Advanced Placement courses and exams, published new guidelines for the AP U.S. history test.  The new guidelines replace those published only a year earlier.

The AP history framework is organized into concepts and codings.

Previous key concepts included:

“Students should be able to explain how various identities, cultures, and values have been preserved or changed in different contexts of U.S. history, with special attention given to the formation of gender, class, racial, and ethnic identities.”

“Many Europeans developed a belief in white superiority to justify their subjugation of Africans and American Indians, using several different rationales.” 

“Native peoples and Africans in the Americas strove to maintain their political and cultural autonomy in the face of European challenges to their independence and core beliefs.”

“Explain how arguments about market capitalism, the growth of corporate power, and government policies influenced economic policies from the late 18th century through the early 20th century.”

The codings were explained:

“This coding helps teachers make thematic connections across the chronology of the concept outline. The codes are as follows: ID—Identity; WXT—Work, exchange, and technology; PEO—Peopling; POL—Politics and power; WOR—America in the world; ENV—Environment and geography—physical and human; CUL—Ideas, beliefs, and culture.”

What happened to cause the College Board to change much of this?

The 2014 framework caused a bit of an uproar after it was published.  Although, as expected, many academics voiced support for the new guidelines, a large group of historians published a petition on the website of the National Association of Scholars, voicing strong opposition to it.  Also, pushback against the framework emerged in several states.

The basis of these complaints was that the new framework pushed a one-sided ideological view over accepted and well-known historical facts.

It is clear that the College Board was concerned that its lucrative nationwide testing franchise would be at risk, with so much opposition and the probability that states would begin to reject the guidelines and develop their own.  Self-preservation overruled ideological bent, and the College Board agreed to revise the guidelines to be more “balanced.”

The revised framework includes, for example:

“The effort for American independence was energized by colonial leaders such as Benjamin Franklin, as well as by popular movements that included the political activism of laborers, artisans, and women.”

The previous critics of the framework report satisfaction that the newly published framework is sufficiently balanced as the College Board had promised it would be.

What does this have to do with the popularity of Trump?

The old framework reflected the tireless work of social justice activists and the political left to inject identity politics and political correctness into the education curriculum.   It was just one example of many causing a growing tide of resentment and anger over the indoctrination of students into a more liberal worldview where American history is reloaded from a modern perspective of “microagression”, “macroaggression”, “racism”, “sexism” and “white privilege.”

These then become the trigger warnings to “keep your mouth shut, or else.”

And it largely has worked.

No student with any sense of self-preservation would ever raise her hand to contest these things.  Even politicians run terrified of uttering that one word that is pounced upon by the political and media speech code enforcers.

Except for Donald Trump.

Trump is egotistical, loud, and sometimes childishly combative.  But Trump is effectively sticking a justified finger in the eye of those believing that they have succeeded in their Orwellian effort at national speech control.  This along with his policy ideas have excited voters, and not just conservatives, besought with simmering anger over what has been happening to their country and the erosion of cherished freedoms to speak freely and not be persecuted for it.

There is a line for civility where we treat others with dignity and respect.  Trump has clearly crossed that line many times.  But Trump has also injected valuable debate about freedom of speech and political correctness run amok.

It connects with the problems of our education system practicing ideological group-ism indoctrination instead of simply educating using historical facts.

This nation needs to heal.  It will not heal while we continue to filter history and life through the four lenses of class, gender, race and identity.  It will also not heal if we fail to treat those with ideas in opposition to our ideas with dignity and respect.

Can we heal?

The revised AP history framework from the College Board is a step in the right direction. Regardless of what the motivation is, the College Board listened to the critics and responded in a respectful and dignified manner.   We should all be pleased with the revised framework.  We want our students to be the best creative thinkers; drawing their own conclusions from the factual teachings of history.  We absolutely do not want them to fear raising their hands and asking questions about things they don’t understand and things they don’t agree with.

Also, we should value politicians that speak plainly and honestly… not those that read from prepared text as scripted attorneys navigating the risk of reprisal from those hypersensitive to react to over a growing list of restricted words.  Trump’s message, if not his delivery, is also a good sign that we have elevated our acceptance of discussing important issues previously blocked by politicos and activists benefiting from speech code enforcement.

On the surface, Trump’s popularity as a candidate for President is as absurd as is Democrat Bernie Sander’s.  However, it is likely that the trustees of the College Board understand why both are popular these days.

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

155 thoughts on “Guest Commentary: The Absurd Popularity of Trump vs. the College Board”

  1. Barack Palin

    Although I believe Trump is unelectable because of some of his stances on illegal aliens and his comments toward Megyn Kelly he has indeed struck a chord with those that find it refreshing to have a candidate speaking his mind and not worried about being PC.  The recent incident with Jorge Ramos is a good example.  Ramos was rude and out of line when he tried to make the press conference about him and not Trump.  Ramos spoke out of turn, tried to talk over Trump and the other reporters and wasn’t there to ask questions, he was there to push his agenda and make a scene.  Even though the press tried to spin it as Trump being a bully in actuality it was Ramos who was being confrontational.  I loved it when Trump put Ramos in his place.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      Trump has tempered his language in regards to illegal immigrants, and I think the reason his numbers are so high is that he has taken a firm stand on this issue.

      Americans for decades have wanted the border sealed, and the politicians continued to play games. Trump needs to define how this has hurt our lower classes of all ethnic groups, but especially Mexican-Americans and African Americans.

  2. Tia Will

    Jeff

    Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing. A few reflections on your comments

    the tireless work of social justice activists and the political left to inject identity politics “

    Identity politics is not unique to the left. When conservatives frequently fail to note when describing the left as divisive is that the conservatives consider anything that does not fit their narrow view of values as Christian conservative as being an attack on our nation and inherently divisive. Never mind that slavery, Jim Crow, the decimation of the Native American Nations, the internment of the Japanese Americans during WWII, Senator J. MeCarthy’s attacks on “communists” ( some of whom were and some of whom were not) were inherently divisive. Now some of this is historical, but today we have Sarah Palin saying that she is “taken aback” by the liberalism of the Pope, and Megyn Kelly explaining the “War on Christmas” and you saying that there is discrimination against boys in our schools, completely ignoring the long standing history of discrimination against girls in the maths and sciences. What you see as one sided divisiveness, I see as a polarization of view points with each side advocating for their own ideas.

    We want our students to be the best creative thinkers; drawing their own conclusions from the factual teachings of history.”

    I am in complete agreement with this. And a factual teaching of history would not gloss over the actions of our government that I included above. My teaching of history certainly did gloss over the “warts”, as Anon called them, of our past. The history that I was taught which portrayed America as invariably heroic does not bear a close resemblance to the “facts”. And in my view, the “facts” would include an accurate teaching of science as opposed to encouraging only a faith based model of reality.

    As for “Orwellian” the left again has no monopoly. How about “mission accomplished”. Or my favorite the “Department of Defense” used to complete pre-emptive strikes on Iraq which was of no conceivable threat to the US.

     

      1. hpierce

        Yeah, right up there with Geo Bush’s (“shrub”) assertion of “Mission accomplished” dressed up in his “fighter pilot” costume on a deck of an aircraft carrier whose personnel had actually been at risk, and continued to be.  Republicans of the right, Democrats of the left, neither can be trusted to be truth tellers.  Get a clue.

    1. Jeff Boone

      When conservatives frequently fail to note when describing the left as divisive is that the conservatives consider anything that does not fit their narrow view of values as Christian conservative as being an attack on our nation and inherently divisive.

      From a recent Gallop poll, only 34% of Republicans said they were conservative and “highly religious”.  That leaves 66% that are either more liberal and/or are moderately or not religious.

      But that 34% hasn’t won a thing for some time.  What we typically read in continued political and media criticism of religious conservatives are historical references as you provided.  That history has serves as a productive basis for the social justice activist agenda.  The point here is that people are starting to reject that basis as they should.

      Most conservatives want there to be one identity: American.  And they would like everyone here to subscribe to American values no matter what group they want to say they belong to.

      And freedom of speech is one of the key American values that has been eroded.

      1. Don Shor

        And they would like everyone here to subscribe to American values

        And they would like to define those values in conservative terms, and dismiss any values that don’t correspond to theirs as being “un-American.”
        I happen to think birthright citizenship is a fundamentally American value. I think it is one of the things that makes us exceptional. Just as one example.

      2. wdf1

        JB:  Most conservatives want there to be one identity: American.  And they would like everyone here to subscribe to American values no matter what group they want to say they belong to.

        And freedom of speech is one of the key American values that has been eroded.

        Do you find some contradiction in those two statements?  That “freedom of speech is one of the key American values that has been eroded” and yet, “Most conservatives want there to be one identity: American”?

        As a conservative, would you permit freedom of expression to someone whose identity you might characterize as being not American enough for your tastes? Do you think Donald Trump would?

      3. TrueBlueDevil

        There are fiscal conservatives, many Independent (like myself), who voted for Perot. They also see the $7 Trillion added to the debt by Obama, and know we can’t continue down that path. The numbers don’t add up.

        Reagan won the three types of conservatives and the Reagan Democrats. I think Trump has a shot at this group, but he will shoot himself in the foot first.

    1. Miwok

      This is similar to UCD  people who have made their peace with their fellow workers and the problems and ignorance they might have grown up with, makes you apologize just for being white.

      In the 90’s they started changing the balance of white power due to nepotism by faculty and staff and forcing them to hire minorities and women, and the new employees went out and did the same thing, with hatred to whites that were still there, even though they were being put in charge. I just had another episode like that this spring, and now that I am out of it, I will never go back there.  I worked for both types, and management had trained them better to not show their bias. And the campus lives in fear about their dirty little secret, and students are in some fantasy world, which puts a lot of stress on them.

      The clip that came up after this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU84iMESj7c

      The article is well balanced, something not always apparent at first glance on the Vanguard.

  3. Don Shor

    It’s not that hard to find historical examples of “politically incorrect” politicians who appealed to voters “besot with simmering anger.” Huey Long and George Wallace come to mine. Of the latter:

    He won almost 10 million popular votes, carried five Southern states, 45 electoral votes plus one vote from a faithless elector, came fairly close to receiving enough votes to throw the election to the House of Representatives…” [Wikipedia]

    I see much of Trump’s base as similar to Wallace’s. And he is actively destroying the Republican Party.

    1. Jeff Boone

      I think you are missing a lot with this assessment.  Ironically you seem to be focuses solely on the same identity politics conflict that the article addresses.

      There are other important considerations.

      Here are a couple of quotes from a recent Peggy Noonan opinion piece: http://www.wsj.com/articles/america-is-so-in-play-1440715262

      “The elite have different notions from the grass-roots working people.”

      “On the subject of elites, I spoke to Scott Miller, co-founder of the Sawyer Miller political-consulting firm, who is now a corporate consultant. He worked on the Ross Perot campaign in 1992 and knows something about outside challenges. He views the key political fact of our time as this: “Over 80% of the American people, across the board, believe an elite group of political incumbents, plus big business, big media, big banks, big unions and big special interests—the whole Washington political class—have rigged the system for the wealthy and connected.  It is a remarkable moment, More than half of the American people believe something has changed, our democracy is not like it used to be, people feel they no longer have a voice.”

      The way I see it there is a new binary “class” war brewing and it does not bode well for either party.  It is the connected-elites vs. the regular folk.  It crosses party lines.  There are a lot of these regular folk people that voted for Obama expecting things to be different.  And what they got instead is much more of the same.  And now their choices on the Democrat side are the same aging Washington insiders they have grown disgusted with.

      My sense here is that the success of Trump is going to embolden other GOP candidates to speak more freely about topics that they have previously attempted to dodge.  And more of Trump supporters will bail to other more electable candidates when it becomes clear that Trump cannot win.   Trump might then try to run as an independent and that would tend to hurt the GOP candidate more than the Dem candidate.  But then again, the Dem candidates are a mess right now and it is not going to improve before the primaries.  This isn’t a Ross Perot repeat.  It also is not a George Wallace similarity.  The south today is that that same south.

      The bottom line for me and the reason I wrote this article is that there are signs that the regular people are fed up with the actions and behaviors of these connected-elites and they are more often demanding corrections, and they are supporting leaders that directly challenge the powerful protectors of the largely corrupt status quo.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        I know GOPers who are waiting for Trump to shoot himself in the foot too many times, and hope to then see Cruz or Dr. Carson emerge.

        BTW, interesting to see how the mainstream liberal press no longer talks about the “diversity” issue when the GOP has two Latinos, an African-American doctor, an East Indian American, and a woman running for the White House. The Democrats counter with 4 or 5 white folks.

  4. Tia Will

    they are supporting leaders that directly challenge the powerful protectors of the largely corrupt status quo.”

    And that would seem to me apply to Bernie Sanders as much as to Donald Trump. Except that one of them seems to be able to commuicate without the crass, rude and insulting tone.

     

    1. Sam

      No matter what you think of both candidates, their view and attitudes, at least if we had Sanders vs. Trump in the national election whoever won would actually do whatever they campaigned for because they actually believe what they are saying. That has not happened in a long time!

      1. David Greenwald Post author

        This is not a correct statement. One of the chief reasons that presidents don’t do what they campaigned for is because they underestimate the difficulty of getting basic laws through congress – Trump and Sanders would be no better and possibly worse than other Presidents in that regard.

        1. Jeff Boone

          I think this narrative has a problem.  People in congress demonstrate four primary motivations:

          1. Do what their majority constituents want.

          2. Do what they think they need to do to get re-elected.

          3. Do what they think they need to do to keep or return their Party to power.

          4. Enrich themselves.

          The one missing… and the one we all desire is simply the motivation to do the right things for the country.

          The increased dysfunction of Congress over the last six years sits directly on the shoulders of Harry Reid and Barack Obama.  Because they have focused almost exclusively on the middle two… thus making everything that happened in Washington a partisan political battle.  Harry Reid is the most hated Senate Majority Leader since Master of the Senate LBJ.   The difference is that LBJ was a vote influencer.  He would push and pull both sides of the aisle to get things done.   Reid and Obama are somewhat cut from the same cloth… passive-aggressive bullies that have perfected an image of being caring by just mouthing the expected and accepted words… while they keep sticking their finger in the eye of all that disagree with them and that pose a risk to their political power.

          What has Obama done to overcome his opposition in the Senate?  He enlisted Reid to prevent any politically inconvenient bill from coming to the floor for a vote.  Then he passed more executive orders that any other President past or present.  He likely has broken the law doing so… and I would expect much of what he has done to be overturned if we have a Republican President.

          Nobody having succeeded in the level of business success that Trump has achieved can do so without significant abilities to forge productive relationships with others.  Trump is playing the primary game well.  In the unlikely event that he wins the Presidency, I expect him to be much more successful working with Congress than has been Barack Obama… the most partisan President to ever be elected to this great, but declining, country.

          1. Don Shor

            The one missing… and the one we all desire is simply the motivation to do the right things for the country.

            I’m sure our congressman feels he is doing what is right for the country. I’d guess most of them feel that way. A few may be venal and self-enriching, but I’d bet most aren’t. Congress reflects the polarization and division of the public.

        2. Sam

          I find it very hard to believe that they would be worse, since currently nothing is being done. Neither candidate will be constrained by the desires of their National Party offices or “Major” donors when they make decisions.

          I am surprised that you think Trump who negotiates for a living would not be able to get more things done than the current administration. Also, Sanders speaking from the heart after a big win over the appointed frontrunner would be tough to block.

          This is not Obama saying he will close Gitmo day one and then realizing that he has nowhere else to put the prisoners. There are a lot items that with a little compromise can get done.

          1. Don Shor

            Clinton could negotiate with Congressional Republicans. In fact, I’d say that’s why a lot of liberals don’t trust her and are looking elsewhere. She’s known to be a little fungible with her principles.

        3. TrueBlueDevil

          There are actually a variety of reasons why Presidents / politicians change their minds / don’t complete their pledges.

          President Obama has actually bypassed Congress and simply taken “executive action” to fulfill his own desires. He has even re-written Constitutional trade laws / procedures to nab more power. See Iran travesty, his changing laws / procedures for illegal immigrants, etc.

          For their part, the GOP ran on stopping Obama’s policies, stopping ObamaCare, won the 2014 and 2010 elections, and then failed to enact the change they promised. That’s why many think the GOP and Democratic leaders are both power hungry and have their own agenda that isn’t the agenda of the American people.

          Hillary flip flopped on her stance on illegal immigration, many feel because she wants the Latino votes.

  5. Robb Davis

    These then become the trigger warnings to “keep your mouth shut, or else.”

    Or you could go the legal scholarship route to make warnings about keeping one’s mouth shut.  The attempt to restrain/control speech is not limited to “social justice activists.”  (You do realize that those who, for example, are fighting to end human trafficking consider themselves “social justice activists.”  Are you actually accusing people like them of trying to limit someone else’s speech Jeff?)

    I remember 1968 very well. Like 1968 people are tired of being afraid.  They are tired of war and its false justifications.  And the fatigue and fear make many easy targets of blowhard demagogues.

    My dad attended his rallies and voted for Wallace.  Trump is eerily like him in terms of the anger and fear he has tapped into and his willingness to vilify ordinary people to ramp up that anger.  Wallace was a racist who scapegoated a variety of groups–making them responsible for all of America’s woes.  Trump is doing the same.  His crude nativism is nearly as old as the nation itself.  He preaches hate and appeals to people’s basest instincts.

    There is nothing new here.  There is nothing to see here but poisoned spittle flying from a mouth attached to a simplistic, angry and self-absorbed mind.  Trump and and the Republicans (don’t call them conservatives) running against him seek to silence Americans in their own way (ask any “anchor baby” how safe they feel right about now–hell, ask someone who works for Planned Parenthood).

    1. Jeff Boone

      There is nothing new here.

      We will have to agree to disagree on that point…strongly.

      Note, it is not 1968.  It appears some people are just stuck in the 60s and unable to differentiate history and present.  I’m thinking this might be the result of the the identity politics injected into the education curriculum.

      Trump is nothing like Wallace, but those race-war political tactics are hard to let go of.

      The attempt to restrain/control speech is not limited to “social justice activists.”

      I do agree with this.  But maybe you can help me understand this from a modern perspective.  Do you have examples of any recent court decision, or government policy, or campus decision… or, or, or… that were indicative of any conservative-driven, or right-ideological-based reduction in free speech?  Or do we always have to go back to 1968 to make the case?

      1. Don Shor

        Note, it is not 1968. It appears some people are just stuck in the 60s and unable to differentiate history and present.

        “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

        I’m thinking this might be the result of the the identity politics injected into the education curriculum.

        I guarantee that Robb Davis and I, and probably you, predate that stuff. In fact, many of my teachers were very conservative. I grew up in one of the most conservative parts of California at the time. Not sure about Robb.

        Trump is nothing like Wallace

        Actually, the parallels are eerie.

      2. Robb Davis

        How about a future article on the history of attempts to ban books?  That would answer your last question.

        BTW, I was not going back to 1968 to make an argument about limiting speech.  I was going back to 1968 to try to make the case that Trump is not a new phenomenon but is the latest in a long line of nativist demagogues.

        And, yes, Trump has much in common with Wallace in terms of the essence of his blame and his manipulation of anxiety and fear.

        And to Don’s point… I grew up in a conservative Christian family, in the Bible belt, in a county that always returned Republicans to office (locally and nationally).  Identity politics WERE important to us however: if you were white, middle class and Republican you were “us.”  If you were anything else you were them.  I knew my identity and that of everyone else.  It was pretty dichotomous and absolutely crystal clear who you were.

        1. hpierce

          Remember, Mr Wallace went thru an arguably true “epiphany” after he was shot and nearly killed (and confined to a wheelchair).  He died pretty much a ‘moderate’, and respected by many that he had railed against in the 60’s.  I despised him when I was young, but came ‘of age’ around the time he “grew up”, and he pretty much “repented”.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace#Final_years

          He was no saint/hero, but he was not, ultimately, the devil incarnate either.  Too bad it was a would-be assassin’s bullet for him to see clearly.

          Wallace was a complex person, and to me became “real” once he pretty much stopped being in ‘politics’.  Not sure Trump is capable of such an “epiphany”.

        2. TrueBlueDevil

          Trump is a nativist demagogue? Maybe he can just read crime statistics (those that the government and press try so hard to conceal from us.)

          If we were to believe the Federal government figure of 12 million illegal immigrants (I don’t), that means they are 4% of the population. Yet when I click on the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) website for their “Most Wanted” list for San Francisco, it appears to be almost 100% Mexican nationals. It is well known that the Mexican drug cartels, who have murdered tens of thousands in Mexico, play a huge role in bringing hard drugs into America.

          The highly respected Dr. Ben Carson has also noted that we have lost operational control over our southern border, and there are even hilltop lookouts 50-70 miles inside our border, spotters … directing coyotes and altering them to police movements.

          Hillary Clinton also made similar comments to Mr. Trump’s as a senator before changing her political strategy. Is she a nativist demagogue too?

      3. Frankly

        “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

        Remember it?  Some of you are stuck in it I think.

        I asked for modern examples and there is nothing.  Only more references to the past.

        I have family members with this problem.  Constantly filtering current relationships and events through their historical filter.   It is like they crave drama and cannot find enough in their present life and constantly go back in their minds to re-live it.

        Let’s go back the Dark Ages if we REALLY want to complain about bad human behavior.

        It is not 1968, Trump is not Wallace, civil rights have advanced, discimination is illegal… and we have gone way too far indocrinating students and persecuting people that simply speak their minds.  There is no slipperly slope returning to 1968.  The slipperly slope is far over on the other side and many people are fed up with it.

        1. hpierce

          Your tone Frankly, frankly, ignores Wallace’s transformation a few years after he was shot.  I believe that people can change and be judged accordingly.  Comparing Trump to Wallace, in Wallace’s final years, degrades Wallace.  No matter how you view it, Wallace is neither a clear nor present danger.

        2. Don Shor

          https://www.thefire.org/cases/south-carolina-legislature-punishes-state-universities-for-assigning-lgbt-themed-books/

          On June 12, 2014, in a deeply disappointing development, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley approved a provision in the state’s budget that punished two state universities—the College of Charleston and the University of South Carolina Upstate—for including LGBT-themed books as required reading for freshmen. The troublesome provision required the two institutions to spend the same amount of funds allocated in 2013 on the LGBT-themed books to instead teach the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Federalist Papers, “including the study of and devotion to American institutions and ideals.” 

          1. Don Shor

            Conservative Christians seek to ban books from school reading lists.
            Example from a blog post (news link expired): http://stupidevilbastard.com/2004/03/conservative_christians_in_georgia_seek_to_ban_books_from_school/

            WSBTV.com – Education – Christians Try To Censor Georgia School’s Reading List

            Three parents with the group Crusaders for Christ told members of the Bartow County Board of Education that several books are too offensive for students to be reading.
            The group’s leader, the Rev. Dwight Holcomb, told board members, “You’re going to answer to God Almighty for your decision.”
            Among the books the Crusaders for Christ want banned are “Of Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck, “The Martian Chronicles” by Ray Bradbury and “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee.

        3. TrueBlueDevil

          The Left is already trying to smear Trump while an officer was just ambushed outside Houston, Texas, with speculation that it was a hate crime incited by the rhetoric of the Left.

          1. Don Shor

            The Left is already trying to smear Trump

            “The Left” (whatever you mean by that) doesn’t have to “smear” Trump. He does a fine job of it himself. Do you support him?

        4. Jim Frame

          The Left is already trying to smear Trump

           

          Why would anyone on the left want to smear Donald Trump?  His candidacy is tearing the GOP apart from the inside, and he’s far too nutty ever to get elected, so why ruin a good thing?

        5. Jeff Boone

          Ok Don Shor.  Thank you for some modern examples.

          First, today any Christian Group’s attempt to push faith-based books into the curriculum would be shot down in the courts.

          Ironically though these are examples of states and people demanding a ban of certain books that put an end to the identity politics indoctrination of students.   I fail to see how these represent 1968 or anything close to it.

          And the left bans books all the time that they claim are too offensive…

          http://www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks

          The education establishment is largely secular and left and has dominated the selection of curriculum and book content for decades.  And they have way over-shot their power by injecting one-sided political content and speech code rules that serve to indoctrinate students into a left ideology.  How about just supporting more balance instead of holding this extreme position that protected groups are only a micro-step away from materially harmful oppression and discrimination primarily for political reasons?  How about just demanding we teach history instead of identity politics?

          Based on your posts, it seems you are a bit hateful of conservative religious people and want them subjugated.

          1. Don Shor

            it seems you are a bit hateful of conservative religious people and want them subjugated.

            That is a flat-out asinine statement.
            I answered your demand for examples.

        6. Jeff Boone

          I answered your demand for examples.

          It was very very weak, and lacking any effort at objectivity given the long list of books that liberals demand we remove from the shelves of schools and curriculum because some protected group is offended by some word written.

          If this is all you have for modern examples to back your claim that conservatives would take us back to 1968 without so much identity politics injected into our school standards, and without political correctness speech code rules and enforcement in the media and campuses… well you have failed significantly to make that case with these few examples.

          1. Don Shor

            If this is all you have

            No, Jeff, it was what I found in a about a minute and a half with Google.
            You demanded examples. I gave them. I don’t feel like giving you more because I don’t feel like trying to keep up with your straw man arguments, your insults, and your ever-shifting goal posts.
            Simply put: conservatives, especially religious ones, have a long history of wanting to ban books and various forms of speech and behavior. Modern campus liberals have a relatively shorter, though certainly intense, history of wanting to ban various forms of speech and behavior. Your assertion seemed to be that conservatives don’t do that any more, and liberals do it all the time, or something. Well, that’s a false assertion.
            If you don’t want your kid subjected to political correctness at college, there are colleges your kid can go to that don’t do that. They are private and usually religious colleges. There are whole fields of study where it won’t even be an issue, such as sciences and engineering.
            In fact, college is entirely optional.

    2. TrueBlueDevil

      Robb, I guess these “ordinary people” that Trump villifies include the 7-time felon who illegally snuck into our country 5 times, eventually killing a young woman named Kate in San Francisco.

      Maybe you meant the illegal immigrant who executed two sheriffs last year in Sacramento? Ordinary in your book?

      What you refer to as “crude nativism” may simply be Trump being able to recognize the ugly truth of MS13, the Nortenos, Sorenos, and Mexican drug cartels who operate within our borders.

      The media and liberals had done a thorough job of hiding the crime statistics of illegal immigrants from average Americans, but they still watch the news and read news reports. They see the gangs which have moved into their cities. They see the graffiti.

      I have heard reports that those locked up in our prisons are between 1/4 and 1/3 illegal immigrants. So if they are just 4% of our population (12 million), they are vastly over-represented in the crime numbers. (Several individuals and groups have pegged the number of illegal immigrants here between 20 and 35 million, far higher than the federal government figure of 12 million, which has remained a static number for years.)

      Besides, Hillary Clinton said similar things as a Senator. Is she a nativist?

      Hillary 2003: ‘I Am, You Know, Adamantly Against Illegal Immigration”

      “We’ve got to do several things and I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants. I made this exception basically on humanitarian grounds because of the individual story but certainlywe’ve got to do more at our bordersAnd people have to stop employing illegal immigrants. Come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx – you’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.””

      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/05/07/hillary-2003-i-am-you-know-adamantly-against-illegal-immigrants-n1995826

      1. Don Shor

        I have heard reports that those locked up in our prisons are between 1/4 and 1/3 illegal immigrants.

        About 20%+ of our FEDERAL prisoners at any given time are non-citizens. Because the federal government enforces immigration law. The vast majority of people IN PRISON are in state prisons.
        Lou Dobbs was the source of that figure you cite, and that was over a decade ago.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          David, do you have some FBI sources to confirm your claim? Have you read this FBI report?

          “According to the FBI, criminal gangs – in some regions comprised significantly of illegal aliens – are wreaking havoc in the U.S., with 65 jurisdictions nationwide reporting gang-related offenses committed with firearms account for at least 95 percent of crime in those areas.
          The FBI further documented gangs in Southwestern border regions consisting of up to 80 percent illegal aliens were committing a multitude of crimes in America, “including drug-related crimes, weapons trafficking, alien smuggling, human trafficking, prostitution, extortion, robbery, auto theft, assault, homicide, racketeering, and money laundering.”
          “The FBI’s latest National Gang Report extensively documents criminal gangs, some comprised in large part of illegal aliens, are indeed importing drugs and committing a high percentage of violent crimes throughout the U.S.
          One section of the 79-page report details “Gangs and the U.S. Border.” It documents gangs, “especially national-level Hispanic gangs, such as MS-13, the Eme, Sureños, and TB, continue to pose a significant threat to the Southwest border region.”

          Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/fbi-data-backs-up-trump-claims-on-illegals-and-crime/#VjKmMpz3Hl3zuPky.99

        2. TrueBlueDevil

          Don, there is a large amount of violent crime committed by illegal immigrants who are in state or local jails / prisons, even when the liberal mainstream media tries to bury the issues. Violent crime, even murder, is highly disproportionate, according to our government’s GAO report.

          “Conclusion: criminal and illegal aliens commit murder at much higher rates than all inhabitants of the U.S. – at least 3 to 10 times higher.”

          Here are some of the facts / the logic.

          ““The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico….”

          Let’s take homicide as an example. The GAO estimates “criminal aliens” were arrested, convicted and incarcerated for 25,064 homicides. If non-citizens committed them over seven years, the annual rate would be 14.2 per 100,000 non-citizens. If illegal aliens committed them over four years, the annual rate would be 58.0 per 100,000 illegal aliens. Either way you compute, those are high rates….”

          “Here are the numbers of crimes per day committed by illegal aliens in just a few crime categories, based on those GAO numbers and the 90% figure for SCAAP persons over four years.

          Kidnappings:  9
          Murders:         15
          Sex offenses:   43
          Burglaries:       71
          Assaults:         131 ”

          Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/illegal_aliens_murder_at_a_much_higher_rate_than_us_citizens_do.html#ixzz3kQXv0mdp
          Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

        3. Davis Progressive

          that report is very inaccurate.  if you look at the prison population, you find that noncitizens have a slightly higher incarceration rate than citizens, but the largest population of incarcerated individuals are there for immigration crimes.  i think it’s time you stop quoting from right wing sources without fact checking it.

        4. Barack Palin

          but the largest population of incarcerated individuals are there for immigration crimes

          You’re saying the same thing David is, no surprise there, can you provide proof?  It may be factual but I find it hard to believe.  And likewise, no left wing sources unless they’ve been fact checked.

        5. TrueBlueDevil

          They are referring to Federal crimes, not state and local crimes. I guess Davis Progressive thinks those 5,000 homicides a year committed by illegal immigrants never happened. The GAO must have dreamed it up.

          My guess has always been this was driven by the Mexican drug cartels and Mexican gangs, but David and DP always avoid those discussions. They probably consider them misguided youths like the gang members in the movie Training Day with Denzel Washington.

        6. TrueBlueDevil

          Respectfully, this writer at the WashPo did not give a “full analysis”, but a small, slanted analysis. Her claims were actually debunked by the American Thinker article I posted above.

          As is often typical today, a review of the comments section is often more enlightening (and humorous) than the article itself. (If one can ignore the snarky or ignorant feedback.) I also found that one of the questionable graphs that was thin-slicing the data was an advocacy group for illegal immigration that even Jorge Ramos uses.

          There are a lot of games the far Left uses in their quest, like lumping legal immigrants with illegal immigrants. They are two completely different cohorts.

          The Washington Times article linked in that comment section notes that 121 illegal immigrants who were released by ICE / Obama Administration between 2010-14 were involved in “homicide-related offenses”.

        7. Davis Progressive

          the claims were not debunked – you’re just accepting one set of numbers over the other without any real argument or analysis on your part.

          “The Washington Times article linked in that comment section notes that 121 illegal immigrants who were released by ICE / Obama Administration between 2010-14 were involved in “homicide-related offenses”.”

          even if true, that’s a tiny fraction of those in the system.  how many people released from prison who were citizens were involved in homicide related offenses over the same period of time.

        8. TrueBlueDevil

          DP, that number I don’t know.

          I believe the GAO (Government Accountability Office) linked above notes approximately 5,000 murders per year committed by illegal immigrants, which is highly disproportionate to their representation in our society.

          My gut tells me these numbers are driven by the drug trade, the Mexican cartels, and the MS13 / Nortenos /Soreno gang members who make America their home. These are not my Latino brothers and sisters I grew up with who went to church, worked hard, and were (are) part of the fabric of our community.

          The media and liberal hide these numbers from us.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          I don’t consider selling hard drugs to young people, maybe even high school kids, to be a “non-violent” crime, but I guess you raise an interesting question about terminology.

          It seems like there are a whole litany of crimes which the Left (Democrats, Socialists, Anarchists, etc.) wants to sweep away or downplay.

  6. MrsW

    I think the message ensconced in politically correct language is “think before you speak”  and another one is “words matter.” If you pay a little bit of attention to how you use your words, you can be a more a more effective communicator.  Whether you want to be kind to or insult another person, you choose your words. Literature is full of examples, where an author uses a stereotype to convey an idea. Shakespeare’s Shylock for example.  I would wager that every word Trump says has been selected with thought to frame his vision in a particular way.  Framing having bad manners as “free speech” is as common as dirt.

    Jeff Boone said: The way I see it there is a new binary “class” war brewing and it does not bode well for either party.  It is the connected-elites vs. the regular folk.  It crosses party lines.  

    This would be an interesting discussion.  In the past, speaking well and thoughtfully, with complete sentences,  has been associated with the upper classes.

     

  7. Jeff Boone

    I think the message ensconced in politically correct language is “think before you speak”

    That would be a very generous explanation of political correctness and it would completely ignore the silencing and persecution of people for speaking “out of line.”

    In the past, speaking well and thoughtfully, with complete sentences,  has been associated with the upper classes.

    Again, that would be fine if not for the upper classes (the elites) silencing and persecuting people for speaking out of line.

     I would wager that every word Trump says has been selected with thought to frame his vision in a particular way.

    I think 95% of those remarks that set the politically-correct speech code enforcers hair on fire, are absolutely well thought out.  Trump’s popularity is largely due to so many fed up with it and gleeful that someone is finally combating it.

  8. MrsW

    That would be a very generous explanation of political correctness and it would completely ignore the silencing and persecution of people for speaking “out of line.”

    Perhaps worth hearing again?  George Carlin’s 7 words you cannot say on TV. In some work-places, at some times, and in some families, people are disciplined pretty severely for speaking “out of line.”  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyBH5oNQOS0

    Here is where I think we’ve failed.  Language that is not politically correct has been given the status of “bad words” and the people who use them are naughty.  The people being corrected, don’t “get it”; the people correcting them, don’t “get it.”  At some point, no one pointed out to the people who are being corrected that language is dynamic and certain words are dropping out of favor for good reasons.  Part of creating a respectful inclusive multi-cultural society, is developing its language.  At the same time, no one pointed out to the people who are doing the correcting that generally speaking Americans don’t like being told what to do and that, once you get your way, you should have a plan to avoid being a hypocrite.  Becoming part of the establishment includes taking responsibility for walking-the-walk, as well as talking-the-talk.

     

    1. wdf1

      The reason “anchor baby” is offensive is that implies that the undocumented immigrant couple did not have a baby for authentic reasons — love, a serious commitment to being a parent.  That maybe those immigrants don’t really love their kids and are just irresponsible as parents.  That the only reason they had a baby in this country to achieve legal residency status, and that assumption probably suggests that the rest of the parents’ values are equally suspect.  Trump responds that there is no other term available and implies that he doesn’t have time to be reflective on why it’s offensive or think of another term.  It symbolizes his boorish personality, and that of other public personalities who unashamedly use the phrase.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        It is possible that individuals consider several factors when making major life decisions, right?

        Some or many could be opportunists who see a baby as a way of securing their movement from a modest or poor country to one of the wealthiest nations on earth with “free” health care, education, and jobs that pay 10x as much as their home country. Right?

    2. Jeff Boone

      MrsW – You make good points but seemingly from a vision of reasonableness that does not exist today.   It is like you fail to see the other side of the damage caused by political correctness.

      wdf1 does not like “anchor baby” and would like the term put on the speech code restriction book.  He would like people that use this term to be maligned and persecuted.  Think about that.  Is it that the term is offensive, or that he would prefer we stamp out any mention of the subject that the term is related to?  You know it is the latter.  You know that wdf1 and others with this hypersensitive chip on their shoulder are really trying to ban one side of a debate.

      Because if someone says: “immigrants that come here to give birth to take advantage of the most lax immigration rules in the industrialized world so that the baby will have US citizenship and eventually serve as a basis to allow other family members to cut in front of the legal immigration line to get their green cards.” it would be no different in meaning and response.  wdf1 would still dislike that side of the argument and want to prevent others from talking or thinking about it.  So his claim that it is just a problem with the term “anchor baby” is a bunch of BS.

      That is what you are missing.

      It isn’t that the words are insensitive, it is that one side of politics has learned that they can move their utopia social engineering vision forward by shutting down one side of debate by eliminating words and terms that can be used over claims of “hate” and insensitivity.  It is Orwellian.  It is not based on our American principles of free speech and open debate.

      1. Don Shor

        wdf1 does not like “anchor baby”

        Correct.

        and would like the term put on the speech code restriction book.

        Did wdf1 say that?

        He would like people that use this term to be maligned and persecuted.

        Did wdf1 say that? No.

        wdf1 would still dislike that side of the argument and want to prevent others from talking or thinking about it.

        Did wdf1 say that he would like to prevent others from talking or thinking about it? About anything?
        That is what we are talking about when we refer to your straw man arguments and your logical and rhetorical fallacies. I dislike the term anchor babies because it is demeaning and simplistic. In fact, there are hardly any “anchor babies” and many —including you— have taken to using the term incorrectly to refer to immigrants. In your case, you used it in reference to the Boston Marathon bomber. Incorrectly and presumably with intent to be demeaning.
        The appropriate response to someone’s use of a demeaning term is to call it demeaning. The appropriate response to someone’s misuse or inaccurate use of a term is to provide the correct usage or definition. I have seen nothing in wdf’s comments that suggests he wishes to go any further than that. You have taken his position to a ridiculous extreme, which is your usual pattern.

        1. Jeff Boone

          Ok Mr. always right and probably never conceded a point in his life…

          With yet another word/term eliminated from use because of hypersensitivity… how about:

          “Immigrants that come here to give birth to take advantage of the most lax immigration rules in the industrialized world so that the baby will have US citizenship and eventually serve as a basis to allow other family members to cut in front of the legal immigration line to get their green cards.”

          How does that work for you? Is that “complex” enough?

          1. Don Shor

            American-born babies of immigrants.
            Quiz time: how long do the family members have to wait before the baby can help them get their green cards?
            About how many such babies are born here every year?
            This is basically a trivial issue being magnified for political purposes.

            With yet another word/term eliminated from use because of hypersensitivity

            You’re welcome to use the word. Just expect to be corrected if you use it wrong, and maybe stop whining about it.

        2. Jeff Boone

          You’re welcome to use the word.

          Thanks.  Planned to even without your permission.

          Just expect to be corrected if you use it wrong,

          Sure.  You too.  And expect any demonstrations of hypersensitivity and destructive political correctness to be pointed out too.

          and maybe stop whining about it.

          “whining”?  You know what is interesting about you?… you are one of the most pejorative-loaded posters on the VG but you sit so high on your own horse, the words you use must fall beneath your ability to recognize them.

          1. Don Shor

            Sometimes illegal. In some cases, at least according to the News Hour story on the subject that I saw recently, they are born to people who come here expressly for that purpose, on tourist visas.

        3. tribeUSA

          I don’t see anything negative or demeaning about the term ‘anchor baby’, it is simply a term for babies that fall within a certain familial citizenship class. For example, myself and my siblings might be considered anchor babies, as my Mom was still a Canadian citizen married to an American (anchor husband) when we were born in the USA; I’m sure her marriage status and the citizenship status of her children both helped her to attain her american citizenship when she applied.

          I agree with Jeff Boone that the term ‘anchor baby’ is being vilified in order to help discredit any notion and help silence debate that the policy on native-soil-birth based citizenship  rights might warrant re-examination; as was done in Canada and is being considered in many of those nasty racist european countries (most of the nasty racist countries in the world do not have any such policy of guaranteeing citizenship to anyone born in their country, including tourists and those there illegally).

      2. wdf1

        JB:  It is like you fail to see the other side of the damage caused by political correctness.

        As you seem to be a gainfully employed, reasonably successful professional, I’m betting that you don’t openly call your African-American co-workers, “n*****r.”  (or maybe you do?  if so please explain)  Why is that?  Is it because you are concerned about political correctness?  Is your life cramped or your personal freedoms substantially damaged because you have to use other words besides that one?  Do you live in an Orwellian hell because you can’t freely use that word?  There are also plenty of other obscenities that would reflect poorly on you as a person if you were to use them in public.  Where are your limits of self-censorship, and why do you set them where you do?

        I wouldn’t have you arrested if you used the N-word, but I would likelier limit what social contact I had with you.  Same with liberal use of obscenities.

        I use the N-word as an example because you are probably old enough to remember when it was more socially acceptable to use that word.  What do you think happened?  Do you think that the PC-police scored a win?

        JB:  Trump’s popularity is largely due to so many fed up with it and gleeful that someone is finally combating it.

        And because he’s rich and can get away with it (he is capable of self-financing his campaign), and as a result his supporters feel a certain amount of cover and validation because of it.

        1. Barack Palin

          Who draws the line on what is considered offensive speech?  If a white conservatives consider being call “privileged whites” as offensive should those words be taboo? How about “rednecks?

        2. TrueBlueDevil

          Hillary Clinton, who raked in $220 Million through government influence peddling (she is no genius, not an inventor, scientist, or even sharp lawyer) sometimes affects a Southern accent when she speaks to predominantly black crowds.

        3. Jeff Boone

          How about a “one percenter”?   How about “white privilege”?  How about “racist”?… thrown around with lose abandon directly and with inference.  Those Republicans “cling to their guns and religion”  It is a “war against women.”  “Black lives matter” (inferring the derogatory point that some or many people think black lives don’t matter).  I am “xenophobic” because I want the border sealed and to stop importing more poor and uneducated non-English speaking people.

          There is a bottomless pit of derogatory words and terms used by the left in their side of political discourse.

          When it is just name-calling you have a point.

          When it is a term connected with valuable dialog it should be off limits for you or any other person to demand be added to the growing book of speech code rules.

          Speech is not free when it is sanitized to be only things you agree with.   But that is what has happened… people of certain protected groups and their educated elite overlords have gone off the rails with speech code rules based on one-sided word and term hypersensitivity… and the regular folk are fed up with it.

          Please keep it up… it will help Donald Trump get elected.

          1. Don Shor

            Please keep it up… it will help Donald Trump get elected.

            So you support Donald Trump for president?

  9. wdf1

    Here’s an amazing program that might make Don Shor’s job much easier around here.  Perhaps there’s a way to set it up as a pre-filter before commenters finally post?  Sort of an electronic social filter.  Donald Trump would probably struggle with it, as would some folks who decry “PC culture.”

  10. Jeff Boone

    Read this…

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/02/political-correctness

    But that’s not quite how freedom of expression works. Exercising judgment over what one says or does makes some common sense, but this is a matter of personal desire, not public command. Rights are not about civility or manners or being sensitive; they’re about unbending individual freedoms. What is the worth of a right if people feel obliged (or subtly compelled) to not exercise it in practice? It’s disturbing, only a month after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, to hear the leader of the free world advocate what is essentially a kind of self-censorship. Yet Mr Obama’s statements reflect an increasingly popular sentiment: that diversity of culture, instead of increasing diversity of expression, should actually constrain it. The objective, it would seem, is not to become more tolerant of opposing ideas but more wary about how we discuss them.

    Another term for this might be “political correctness”. As Jonathan Chait recently outlined in New York magazine, political correctness is a style of politics, generally wielded by leftists, that attempts to regulate public discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. “P.C.” disciples make it their business to call out perceived racial, religious and gender biases in the service of forging a more equal society. A central tenet of the P.C. movement, Mr Chait notes, is that people should be expected to treat faintly unpleasant ideas as full-scale offenses; that the threat to civil society isn’t angry mobs out to crush opposing ideas but rather the ideas themselves. This is the “Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie” crowd—those who accused the newspaper of racism (though it satirised all races and religions) and deemed the cartoons hate speech.

    It wasn’t wrong for people to criticise Charlie Hebdo. These critics have the same right to free expression as the cartoonists. But it is wrong if those criticisms lead to calls for censorship. Indeed, this was the force of their argument: that Charlie Hebdo shouldn’t have published those cartoons, and that the journalists, in some sense, got what was coming to them.

    In this way, the P.C. movement is essentially a programme of censorship. It undermines a fundamental democratic right to free expression—a right that should extend to everyone, regardless of how contentious, bigoted or prejudiced these views might be—in order to advance a perception of decency and social harmony. But is it really harmony we win when we back down from satirising religious radicals? Or when we attack people for wishing “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays”? This seems more like a way to cultivate social anxieties; a fear of forgetting the proper code words. Flemming Rose, editor of the Danish paper that published the controversial Mohammed cartoons in 2005, calls this approach a “tyranny of silence.”

    1. wdf1

      JB’s article quote: political correctness is a style of politics, generally wielded by leftists

      Just to be clear, there are Republicans who have been offended by the term “anchor baby.”

      From an article about immigration policy discussion in Utah:

      The attorney general said he hopes the national debate can be elevated to the point that leaders recognize the issues are foremost about people and human dignity.

      For example, Shurtleff said, “The use of the word ‘anchor baby’ when we’re talking about a child of God is offensive.”

      Unfortunately, the first casualty of the national immigration debate “has been the truth,” he said.

      “The only way you pass Arizona-style laws is misinformation and flat-out lies,” Shurtleff said.

      To give you cover, JB, perhaps when you used the term, you were really referring to a rock band that you particularly despise.

      1. Jeff Boone

        The religious right is also prone to attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of expression.  I am not defending this from a partisan position, I would oppose any and all attacks on meaningful freedom of speech and expression.

        political correctness is a style of politics, generally wielded by leftists, that attempts to regulate public discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate.

        Remember the topic of the article.  It was an attempt to explain part of the absurd popularity of Trump.  I think those on the left of politics that fear a politician more like Trump being elected, might want to consider how their “progress” limiting free speech might be responsible.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Is Trump any worse than community organizer Barack Obama? “The White Man’s greed runs a world in need.” Talk about absurd.

          Obama is more polished and careful, but Trump has actually accomplished goals in business. Obama has had a cakewalk.

        2. wdf1

          JB:  I think those on the left of politics that fear a politician more like Trump being elected, might want to consider how their “progress” limiting free speech might be responsible.

          I don’t think I’m limiting free speech by pointing out to you why “anchor baby” is offensive to many and why it matters.  If no one bothered to tell you, you might not know.  But you are referring people, typically of limited means and education, who have only their dignity to their name.

          Do you personally know any “anchor babies”?  I have, at least the way Trump used the term (Jeb Bush seemed to refer to the term in relation to “maternity tourism,” and I don’t know anyone born under those circumstances).  So it’s a little sickening to hear of it in connection to someone I’ve tutored, taught to throw a baseball, a traded jokes with.

          It’s a democratic discussion, which you minimize by saying that it’s PC garbage, and wave the threat of President Trump to suggest people shut up.  There’s nothing keeping you from continuing on with terms offensive to others.  You have Donald Trump as a role model.

          If you are offended by the terms “white privilege” or “one-percenter,” then make a case for your grievance.

        3. Jeff Boone

          So it’s a little sickening to hear of it in connection to someone I’ve tutored, taught to throw a baseball, a traded jokes with.

          You did all this with an anchor baby?  That would be some baby!

          Just like referring to a parent-less child as an orphan, it does not follow the child to adulthood.

          I do get your point, I just think you are over the top in sensitivity over this.

          It is estimated that another 2 million illegal immigrants have come to the US since Obama took office.  How many babies were born to those people?  The US is $18 trillion dollars in debt. We need to be able to discuss this problem… and yes, it is a problem.  And you absolutely know that many of the people immigrating here illegally absolutely know that if they give birth their kids become a potential anchor for them and the rest their family.

          I don’t have a problem with all the words and terms against me and my ideas as long as they are used in a context of debating real issues and not just name calling.

           

          1. Don Shor

            We need to be able to discuss this problem

            What is there to discuss? Comprehensive immigration reform will include border security and a path to citizenship. Anything that doesn’t have those two things will not pass. We had the debate in 2013. Apparently opponents on both sides prefer the status quo to any kind of deal. If it is truly, to you, an issue involving our debt and our deficits, then figure out a way to collect taxes from the working immigrants more effectively. That probably means bringing more of them in out of the cold and into legal status. It doesn’t mean mass deportations of whole families, which is what the leading contender for the GOP nomination currently advocates.

  11. TrueBlueDevil

    Dr. Ben Carson is now tied with Donald Trump in Iowa polls. I quickly came to admire him after his White House breakfast speech. Dr. Carson is also an “outsider” and would be our first African American president (not biracial).

    Quite interesting now that the GOP has an extremely diverse presidential group – two Latinos*, an African American doctor, an East Indian and a woman – the talking heads rarely bring the topic up as the Left offers as a non-diverse group.

    *Jeb Bush has claimed he is Latino, but I haven’t counted him here.

    1. Barack Palin

      *Jeb Bush has claimed he is Latino, but I haven’t counted him here.

      Just as I wouldn’t count Liz Warren as being an Indian.

      The GOP candidates are very diverse this year.  The lame stream media has been very quiet about that.

      How about a card of Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina with either running for Pres or VP?

       

  12. WesC

    David….”And to clarify, the majority of non-citizens that are in federal prison are there for immigration crimes.”

    The federal prison system currently holds 206,760 inmates of which 49% are there for drug crimes, 16% for weapons/explosives/arson crimes, and 9% for immigration crimes.  US citizens account for 78% of the population and Mexico 16%.

    Entry into the IS by a previously deported alien within 5 yrs is a criminal offense.

    Of the 1,450  inmates convicted of a immigration crime in 1994,  55% had a prior criminal conviction including drug offenses but not an aggravate felony, and 24% had a prior conviction of a aggravated felony.

    They typical profile of an alien in a federal prison for a immigration crime is NOT a sweet little mother who brought her 2 darling children across the Rio Grande so they might have a better education.  The typical profile would probably be more like a young male member of the MS13/Nortenos/Surenos, or the Sinaloa drug cartel who was convicted for drug trafficking or a weapons charge involving violence, was deported after he did his time in prison here in the land of milk and honey, and subsequently returned.

  13. WesC

    Correction………Entry into the US by a previously deported alien within 5yrs is a criminal offense.

    (The IS would probably be more than happy to accept you!)

    1. Don Shor

      The U.S. is one of the few nations where simply being born on its soil confers citizenship on a newborn.

      Yes. It’s one of the things that makes us exceptional. Also, the 14th Amendment is one of the least ambiguous ones.

      Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

      1. Barack Palin

        “least ambiguous”?  Says you.  That’s up in the air, how are illegal aliens “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” when they cross our borders just to have an anchor baby?

        The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. In the case of illegal aliens who are temporarily or unlawfully in the United States, because their native country has a claim of allegiance to the child, the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship.
        “Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
        Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

        http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/anchorbaby_FAIR.html

      2. tribeUSA

        Tut tut Don, you posted an incomplete qoute; leading the reader to wonder whether there may be an attempt to mislead somewhere (not necessarily by you, but whereever you got the quote from). BP; thank you for supplying a complete quote by the co-author.

        It is my understanding that this issue is being looked at carefully by the federal courts (? maybe attorney generals office as well?); seems to me it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to adjucate the matter with a clear interpretation (currently, unfortunately, about the same set of supremes who gifted us with ‘citizens united’).

    1. hpierce

      Got interrupted… remember Finch’s character gained much acclaim and viewership with his “I’m mad as hell and am not going to take it anymore” spiel.  Trump has been ahead in the polls.

  14. tribeUSA

    There’s rumors that Hulk Hogan might make a bid to get in the ring as VP candidate with Trump! The competition will get squashed and steamrolled! Who can stand up to The Hulkster and The Donald; and how can you lose when you’re on the same side as them! Candidates that many, including I, can feel affection for and would like to slosh a beer with and talk politics! Thumbs down on the other coifed corporate K-street crony crooks (with the exception of Carson)! Hillary and her crutch (whoever that might turn out to be) will get sandbagged by this duo when they win the nomination and face-off with her.

    1. Jim Frame

      There’s rumors that Hulk Hogan might make a bid to get in the ring as VP candidate with Trump! The competition will get squashed and steamrolled! Who can stand up to The Hulkster and The Donald; and how can you lose when you’re on the same side as them! Candidates that many, including I, can feel affection for and would like to slosh a beer with and talk politics! Thumbs down on the other coifed corporate K-street crony crooks (with the exception of Carson)! Hillary and her crutch (whoever that might turn out to be) will get sandbagged by this duo when they win the nomination and face-off with her.

       

      You forgot to add the sarcasm tags.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        And the radio host who is dubbed “The Pimp with the Limp” in South Florida – a radio program who Obama visited when he was running for the White House – may be a VP choice for Hillary to make sure she snags the sunshine state.

  15. tribeUSA

    In response to MrsW (Aug 31 6:05 am)

    Re: “At some point, no one pointed out to the people who are being corrected that language is dynamic and certain words are dropping out of favor for good reasons.”

    Yes, we can all agree that language is dynamic, that new words come in, old words go out, and the meaning of existing words changes. However, there is more than one mode by which language evolves. One is by a grass roots mode, wherein the word introduced (as new or with modified meaning) is spread among the community, across different communities, and across entire countries by common consent, and without any official authority promoting or mandating the change in language. Another way, which is the way the PC lexicon has been spreading, is by official authority promoting and all but mandating the change in language–from high government officials, politicos, school superintendants, college professors,  corporate boards and others behind the scenes by means of their editorial control over news media and other media, hollywood movies, etc. With the sophisticated and slick scientific marketing employed by such powerful interests, it seems to me that there is a real “1984”-ish type influence on language that has been starting to emerge.

    Re: “Part of creating a respectful inclusive multi-cultural society, is developing its language.”

    Ah here is an example of the implicit assumption. The implicit assumption here is that we are or should be on the course of developing a multi-cultural society. By what means has and will such a ‘multi-cultural’ society be developing, and by whose consent? Is it something that has been presented to the American people as an option that they can have a voice in, or is this a mandate? Where did this mandate come from? Might there be some opposition to this mandate, and to moderate it? Furthermore, what is meant by ‘multi-cultural’. Is there such a thing as a united multicultural society, and can you point out many successful examples of such a society from history? How is membership achieved in a multi-cultural society; are you a member of one of the cultures or all of the cultures? If you are a member of all these cultures, in what sense are these different cultures distinct, if people can claim membership in all of them? Will members of only one of the cultures feel more loyalty to their own particular culture than other cultures; and how might opportunities for cultural politics arise from this? How might politicians from one culture interact with those of others, and how do they maintain their stature and position within their own culture? Could it be that there are some down sides to multi-cultural societies as compared to ‘melting pot’ societies, and should we encourage more cultural diversity or more cultural unity? Can we agree that such questions are at least legitimate topics for debate; or should we be obliged to just swallow the mandate being forced on us (surely by those that know better and have only the welfare of the people in their minds and hearts?)

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      tribeUSA asks some good questions here in the second portion of his / her response. I heard a discussion recently where a commenter noted we weren’t a nation formed from people all over the world… most of our new immigrants were from Western Europe, with some from other countries, plus time for them to assimilate.

      Some argue we are now bringing in a lot of people from countries where they don’t have a history of democracy, women’s rights, education, etc., and that they aren’t assimilating to our way of life.

        1. Jeff Boone

          When you were traveling through those smokey places in Europe, did you think to challenge the people living there… asking them “who get’s to decide?” or did you just accept that they owned a way of life?

          You make this challenge and then turn around and strongly point out that Davis has a DNA and “way of life” that we should honor.  Maybe we should bring in to Davis some of those poor boys from the south that like big pickup trucks… oh wait, that would not fit with your preferred Davis bike and environmental-correct way of life!

          What defines a way of life is generally clear, subtle and nuanced all at the same time.  A way of life can evolve safely over time… but generally not the basis unless you want to inject cultural instability.  My sense is that you and others that pose this question absolutely know that there is a base American way of life, but you reject it for some reason and are willing to accept a level of cultural instability because it tends to favor your ideological views and power in politics.  And when challenged about what you don’t like about our American way of life, you tend to go all historical… stuck in some time warp as if civil rights and laws have not advanced to better support our way of life.

          The basis of our American way of life is identified though a basis of American values we live by.  These have been our predominant base values through out the last century at least.  And they are under attack from the leftward march of identity politics and multiculturalism.

          http://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/alee/extra/American_values.html

          Culture matters.  And not all cultures are equal.  For example, if Mexican culture was as strong and good as US culture, we would not have millions of people from Mexico coming here illegally for a better life.  If Syria’s culture was as good as Italy’s they would not have hundreds of thousands of refugees trying to cross the Italian border.   But just like if you opened the flood gates moving in thousands of poor and uneducated people to Davis, it would impact our local way of live… the flood of people from south of the border is impacting our American way of life.   There is a limit to how many people we can allow in without eroding our way of life because they don’t assimilate into American culture.  They don’t learn and adopt the base American values we live by.

          1. Don Shor

            Mr. Kohl’s list is NOT a list of American values. It is a list of American characteristics or traits, intended primarily for foreigners coming to this country. It has some accurate and some less accurate observations about Americans. I replied long ago to your umpteenth posting of this list as follows.

            1. PERSONAL CONTROL OVER THE ENVIRONMENT
xxx Americans no longer believe in the power of Fate, and they have come to look at people who do as being backward, primitive, or hopelessly naïve.

            I disagree that this is an accurate description of Americans. If you are deeply religious, you believe in the power of Fate. Many Americans are deeply religious and very fatalistic.

            2. CHANGE
xxx In the American mind, change is seen as an indisputably good condition.

            This thread about immigration clearly disproves this observation.

            3. TIME AND ITS CONTROL
xxx Time is, for the average American, of utmost importance. …Schedules, for the American, are meant to be planned and then followed in the smallest detail.


            I believe this is more important in some urban centers than in other parts of the U.S. Certainly people from New York would probably say it isn’t true of Californians.

            4. EQUALITY/EGALITARIANISM 
Equality is, for Americans, one of their most cherished values. This concept is so important for Americans that they have even given it a religious basis. They say all people have been “created equal.”
            5. INDIVIDUAL AND PRIVACY
xxx Privacy, the ultimate result of individualism is perhaps even more difficult for the foreigner to comprehend.

            As noted, I agree these are strong American values.

            6. SELF-HELP CONTROL
xxx In the United States, a person can take credit only for what he or she has accomplished by himself or herself. Americans get no credit whatsoever for having been born into a rich family.

            I’m not sure I agree with this description. But it does reflect our egalitarian values.

            7. COMPETITION AND FREE ENTERPRISE
xxx Americans believe that competition brings out the best in any individual.

            Probably most Americans do agree. I don’t.

            xxx Americans, valuing competition, have devised an economic system to go with it—free enterprise. Americans feel strongly that a highly competitive economy will bring out the best in its people…

            Except that we strongly support a mixed economy, not a free enterprise system.

            8. FUTURE ORIENTATION
xxx Valuing the future and the improvements Americans are sure the future will bring means that they devalue that past and are, to a large extent, unconscious of the present.

            I think this is arguable as a description, but perhaps applies to Americans more than, say, old Europe.

            x If you come from a culture such as those in the traditional Moslem world, where talking about or actively planning the future is felt to be a futile, even sinful, activity, you will have not only philosophical problems with this very American characteristic but religious objections as well.

            If you are an apocalyptic evangelical Christian, you would presumably also have this problem.

            9. ACTION/WORK ORIENTATION
xxx … action—any action—is seen to be superior to inaction.
xxx Americans routinely plan and schedule an extremely active day. Any relaxation must be limited in time, pre-planned, and aimed at “recreating” their ability to work harder and more productively once the recreation is over. Americans believe leisure activities should assume a relatively small portion of one’s total life.

            True, but I don’t see this as necessarily a desirable value. Especially since my income derives from people using their leisure time…

            10. INFORMALITY
xxx If you come from a more formal society, you will likely find Americans to be extremely informal, and will probably feel that they are even disrespectful of those in authority.

            I agree with this description and wholeheartedly embrace it.

            11. DIRECTNESS, OPENNESS AND HONESTY
xxx Many other countries have developed subtle, sometimes highly ritualistic, ways of informing other people of unpleasant information. Americans, however, have always preferred the first approach.

            I think there are significant regional differences in this respect, and don’t consider it something Americans necessarily value. In the West, and mid-Atlantic states, yes.

            12. PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY
xxx Americans have a reputation of being an extremely realistic, practical and efficient people. The practical consideration is likely to be given highest priority in making any important decision in the United States. Americans pride themselves in not being very philosophically or theoretically oriented.

            Yes. Except for that religion thing again.

            13. MATERIALISM/ACQUISITIVENESS
xxx Foreigners generally consider Americans much more materialistic than Americans are likely to consider themselves.

            Certainly accurate as a description. I think most immigrants happily assimilate in this regard.

          2. Don Shor

            There is a very short list of things that most Americans value:
            Liberty, freedom, democracy, self-determination as a people.
            Equality: no caste or class system.
            Americans admire individualism and hard work.
            Americas favor the right to be left alone (right to privacy).

            Historically Americans have generally favored expansionism and overall have supported our role as the dominant power in the world.

            But there are significant regional differences.
            Within different communities, centered in different regions, there are other values:
            Community: helping others who are less fortunate through community effort.
            Conservation: protecting natural resources from exploitation.
            Faith and secularism: each very strong in some regions, much less so in others; each with a long history.
            Tribal identity: the desire to stay together among ethnic peers, to preserve the old traditions and values, even while appreciating the material goods and freedoms of this country.

            There is no consensus (and has never been) about some values:
            The role of religion in the public sphere.
            The appropriate limits of government.
            The regulation of free enterprise.

            Obviously, many of these values are in conflict with each other. But it is common to have second- and third-generation conflicts about, for example, retaining ethnic identity while accepting the benefits of freedom and our materialistic economy and lifestyle. I think that is true in the newer ethnic groups that conservatives seem to fear most, just as it was before.

        2. TrueBlueDevil

          Good points. When we had the great migration of Italian, Irish, Jewish and other peoples from Western Europe, at some point we greatly slowed the migration. We wanted them to work, thrive, and assimilate.

          I’m told when we considered and then decided to have tens of thousands of Ethiopian citizens immigrate, we knew they had values and cultural attributes that were similar to ours, they just needed opportunity. They value family, work hard, education, and many are also Christian.

          Yet the Somali immigrants we had immigrate, many to Minnesota (a very liberal state), are reportedly not assimilating, and the area is now a recruiting zone for ISIS / ISIL and I’ve heard reports of high welfare use and various illegal scams. Should we be surprised?

        3. Jim Frame

          that like big pickup trucks… oh wait, that would not fit with your preferred Davis bike and environmental-correct way of life!

           

          Tell that to my Toyota Tundra, the one with about 1,000 lbs. of equipment in it.

          or did you just accept that they owned a way of life?

          As a visitor to those countries, I thought, “Whew — I’m glad I don’t have to live here!”  (It’s a nice place to visit, etc.)  Were I to become a resident, I might work to change things more to my liking.  But I’m not likely to move to Europe.

           

          if Mexican culture was as strong and good as US culture

          You mean like the good ol’ American culture on display in Kentucky today?  Acting under God’s authority and all?

          “Mexican culture” isn’t a boogeyman on the border, it’s an endemic part of U.S. life, especially in California and the southwest.  “Minority majority” is a real phenomenon; better to adapt to it than to pretend that it doesn’t exist just because it’s not what you saw as around you as a child.

           

           

        4. Jim Frame

          These have been our predominant base values through out the last century at least.  And they are under attack from the leftward march of identity politics and multiculturalism.

           

          The plaintive lament of the change-averse…

        5. Jeff Boone

          I replied long ago to your umpteenth posting of this list as follows.

          You keep replying like your opinion is the word, but are wrong on the most important counts.

          I disagree that this is an accurate description of Americans. If you are deeply religious, you believe in the power of Fate. Many Americans are deeply religious and very fatalistic.

          You don’t understand religion and religious people very well.  They don’t believe in fate, they believe in faith.

          This thread about immigration clearly disproves this observation [about Change].

          Not at all… this isn’t change that is being conducted.  It is uncontrolled impacts. And it breaks the first one “Personal Control Over the Environment”.  You took the low road on this one.

          I believe this [Time And Its Control] is more important in some urban centers than in other parts of the U.S. Certainly people from New York would probably say it isn’t true of Californians.

          LOL.  Yes, unemployed, underemployed and many government workers in CA… please some of artist-type hippies will report that California is more laid back than the rest of the world.  But then they are out of the mainstream of people working for a living.  I think this might be one of the areas where liberals would LIKE to see a change in our core values… which is fearful given what the economy of Greece and France look like with their 30-hour work weeks, mandated 6 week vacations, 12 month maternity and paternity leave rules, and early full-pension retirements.  There seems to be a growing ideological divide of experience and demands relative to time and its control and it accounts for some of our ideological differences.  I have said it before, hard work makes a person a victim in a liberal view.  That is a severely destructive view.   From my perspective it is the matriarchy pull of an easier life of less struggle versus the patriarchy push of going to get things done to reap the rewards.  The American Way of Life has been the patriarchy model and it is the reason you and I are typing this stuff on those marvelous machines. A lot of people work their asses off to give us the good life.  Leisure time has to be earned, it is not a right.

          I’m not sure I agree with this description [ SELF-HELP CONTROL
xxx In the United States, a person can take credit only for what he or she has accomplished by himself or herself.]

          Of course you don’t and that is why your views are dangerous to the country that built its success on this value as well as others.

          Probably most Americans do agree. I don’t [COMPETITION AND FREE ENTERPRISE
xxx Americans believe that competition brings out the best in any individual]

          Of course you don’t and that is why your views are dangerous to the country that built its success on this value as well as others. The erosion of this long-standing (paternal) competition value to be replaced by the (maternal) value of being taken care of by a nanny socialist system is, in fact, one of the key indicators that we are flooding the nation with too many people that are not assimilating.

          Except that we strongly support a mixed economy, not a free enterprise system

           

          Again, more of the evidence of erosion of our values.  We have always as a nation honored and supported free enterprise.  Ours is a democratic free enterprise system that is being torn down and made into a permission economy that is the model of Europe that is collapsing from a lack of sustainability.

          True, but I don’t see this [ACTION/WORK ORIENTATION] as necessarily a desirable value. Especially since my income derives from people using their leisure time…

          Of course you don’t and that is why your views are dangerous to the country that built its success on this value as well as others.  Thank God there are those that work harder to provide the jobs to provide the money that your customers use to buy your products.  Does their money just grow on trees? (pun intended).

          I thank you for responding in this way, because it is indicative of the problems.   One bit of evidence for assimilation is immigrant political orientation.  It is clear that liberals and progressives like you do not like and do not support some of these American values and want to reform the culture of the country to be more like socialist Europe…. less competition, less hard work, more leisure time, more social services, larger safety nets, earlier and better retirement, etc., etc., etc.,  And when first generation immigrants come here poor, uneducated and insecure… they obviously would be attracted to the same.  And with the massive numbers of these poor and uneducated immigrants impacted by a crappy education system and a shrunken industrial economy that used to be the path to the middle class and with it a better appreciation for conservative principles and these values, these liberal ideas are sticking into the second and third generations… and they are helping people like you get your way.

          But it is a false bill of goods that we don’t have the resources to pay for.  18 Trillion in debt.

          As Ayn Rand labeled the actors in her novel Atlas Shrugged… it is Looters and Moochers overwhelming the producers and destroying the system.  As Margaret Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend.”

          What we need is to reinvigorate these old and successful American values not trade them in for the proven failed values of Europe.

          1. Don Shor

            Of course you don’t and that is why your views are dangerous

            I believe your views are dangerous. And there the discussion ends.

        6. Jim Frame

          I have said it before, hard work makes a person a victim in a liberal view.

           

          Hmmm…I work hard, I *thought* I was a liberal, but I don’t feel like a victim, nor do I feel that my employee is a victim.  Where did I go wrong?

           

          As Ayn Rand labeled the actors in her novel Atlas Shrugged…

           

          Seriously?  Holding up a simplistic novel, by a woman embittered by her father’s financial ruin at the hands of the Bolsheviks, in support of an opinion?

          When we were in Norway recently we stayed with a childhood friend of my wife, who’s lived there with her husband, a native Norwegian orthopedic surgeon who works for the national health service.  I asked him about the mix of democracy and socialism they have there, how well it worked and what its future looks like.  We’ve heard for years how the “socialist” countries of Scandinavia are on the verge of collapse, but Svein explained that Norway went from a poor country in the mid-60s to a rich country with the discovery of the North Sea oil fields.  The government-owned oil company has, since 1968 or so, been setting aside a portion of the profits in what amounts to an endowment to pay for the social safety net for the time when the oil is gone (or its worth diminished below economic practicality).  He’s comfortable that the system works very well and is in no foreseeable danger of breaking down.  He could make multiples of his annual income were he to practice in the States, but has no interest in leaving Norway.  They live very well, own a nice-but-not-ostentations house on a horse farm and a mountain cabin, and have what for me would be a wonderful life — were it not for the fact that the place is so dang cold!  I haven’t attempted to fact-check anything he told me, but I have no reason to think he was being disingenuous.

        7. wdf1

          JB:  The basis of our American way of life is identified though a basis of American values we live by.  These have been our predominant base values through out the last century at least.  And they are under attack from the leftward march of identity politics and multiculturalism.

          Cutting edge Silicon Valley tech companies seem to be buying into multiculturalism and unconscious racial bias.

          How Startups Are Using Tech To Mitigate Workplace Bias

          So when Pete Sinclair, who’s chief of operations at the cybersecurity firm RedSeal, realized that — like many other Silicon Valley companies — his company had very few female engineers and few employees who weren’t white, Chinese or Indian, he wanted to do something about it.

          “I was trying to figure out, ‘How do I expand my employment base to include those under-represented groups?’ Because if we do appeal to those, we’ll have more candidates to hire from,” he says.

          Sinclair figured the company was either turning off or turning down these minorities, so he turned to another software startup called Unitive which helps companies develop job postings that attract a range of candidates, and helps structure job interviews to focus on specific qualifications and mitigate the effect of the interviews’ biases.

          Companies often err by using phrases like “fast-paced” and “work hard, play hard,” which telegraph mainstream male, says Unitive CEO Laura Mather. Instead, she encourages firms to use of terms like “support” and “teamwork” in job descriptions, which tend to attract minorities.

          Such adjustments seem to have worked for RedSeal: Sinclair says job applications shot up 30 percent, and the company’s percentage of women among three dozen engineers has doubled.”Our last hire was a Middle Eastern woman who would’ve frankly, in the past, never applied for the job much less gotten hired just because she didn’t fit the mould of people we hired,” he says. “And she’s turned out to be one of our top team members.”

          Sinclair says the motivation to diversify wasn’t altruism. His company competes with Facebook and Google for talent, so it had to look off the beaten path and draw from a more diverse pool.

          The idea that everyone makes automatic, subconscious associations about people is not new. But recently companies — especially tech firms — have been trying to reduce the impact of such biases in the workplace.

          Unitive’s Mather says companies realize group-think is harmful to the bottom line.
          And research shows that getting in different perspectives into your company makes your company more innovative, more profitable, more productive,” Mather says. “All kinds of really great things happen when you stop making decisions based on how much you like the person’s personality.”

        8. TrueBlueDevil

          Jim – Norway: interesting comments, but you know it’s almost impossible to compare Norway to the US. Still largely native Norwegians, Wikipedia says they had 100% literacy in 2007. No large ethnic group of people with historical struggles / grievances.

          Two homes isn’t bad, horses too. If you ever have additional contact with him can you ask how many of the new medical devices / drugs they use come from Norway, the UK, France, or the US? I’m guessing the US is high.

          Smart that they saved their excess revenues, we seem to piss it away. We should have salted away trillions when the baby boomers were working and paying into Social Security, but we spent it all.

        9. Jeff Boone

          Tell that to my Toyota Tundra, the one with about 1,000 lbs. of equipment in it.

          As a visitor to those countries, I thought, “Whew — I’m glad I don’t have to live here!”

          Hmmm…I work hard, I *thought* I was a liberal, but I don’t feel like a victim, nor do I feel that my employee is a victim.

          Jim Frame – You are a unique and exceptional Davis liberal.  I will give you that.

          I also appreciate your points of view as I do most others on this topic.  I think the debate about American culture and American values is the most important one we should be having.

          But I do note how you and Don and others have not really responded to the point for how there is such strong demand to recognize and honor Davis’s unique “DNA” while rejecting anything other than complete cultural dynamism in the country.   Don Shor for example demands that Davis be recognized as a perpetual small rural agriculture-based city.  He rejects the idea that Davis should evolve in a more dynamic mode to be something else.  He is very definitive on this point and stance.  He supports locking up most of the ag land around the city into permanent ag easements just so it remains so.  I think you agree with him on most if not all of these things.  But then you and Don reject the concept that this nation gets to do the same.  You say there is no definitive boundary of American DNA.   You say that nothing less than full multiculturalism and social dynamism should be the norm. Everyone gets to subscribe to any belief system and cultural framework and we should celebrate it and protect their rights to do so.

          It is this dichotomy of position that leads me to the conclusion that your views are not so much principled as they are politically convenient.

          When I asks liberals what model they would point to for what they think the US should transform to there is usually crickets except for those Scandinavian countries.  Then I point out that Norway has the same population of Vermont and is 80% ethnically homogeneous.  Also, they are all flush with oil money and from a money per capita perspective they can afford their socialism approach.

          The US is the third most populated country on the planet and it is by far the most diverse.  It is silly to point to Scandinavia as a model.

          It is my opinion that much of the problems in the US are the lack of understanding and appreciation for the binding force of cultural cohesion.  The US Great Experiment has been successful because of a unique set of values that bound the different tribes of people together in a common mindset.  American liberals have always fought against that set of values for reasons I both understand and will never understand.  But thankfully they previously not been unable to make much progress on their desired reforms… until now.  And they are destructive reforms.

          A simple analogy is professional team sports.  Consider a group of hard working individual athletes cooperating with a common goal and common behavior/performance framework to increase their chance of winning.  That common behavior/performance framework is being dismantled by the political left at the same time that globalism should be demanding we increase our commitment to it.  And what we are seeing is the individual players (the multicultural groups and other self-interest groups) lose cohesion and begin to compete with each other to “win”.

          4% economic growth and a commitment to our core values should provide the right framework and enough opportunity to minimize the fighting between groups.  But we don’t have the growth because of our asinine tax and regulatory climate combined with globalism… and then we have liberals dismantling the framework while also flooding the country with more people more likely to retain their own tribal ways.  We are destroying this country from within because we are destroying the adhesion.  We are heading toward a future where there will be more conflict and I expect much more of it will be violent.  We are already seeing that occur.

          IMO

          1. Don Shor

            Don Shor for example demands that Davis be recognized as a perpetual small rural agriculture-based city. He rejects the idea that Davis should evolve in a more dynamic mode to be something else. He is very definitive on this point and stance. He supports locking up most of the ag land around the city into permanent ag easements just so it remains so.

            Interestingly, that is a completely false portrayal of my positions.

          2. Don Shor

            But then you and Don reject the concept that this nation gets to do the same. You say there is no definitive boundary of American DNA. You say that nothing less than full multiculturalism and social dynamism should be the norm. Everyone gets to subscribe to any belief system and cultural framework and we should celebrate it and protect their rights to do so.

            Not speaking for Jim here, but since you’ve roped me into this same herd I will reply.
            I say that you define “American DNA” very narrowly, as defined basically by White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male terms. I say your definitions of American values are distorted in that they fail to recognize that we have always had more diverse and regional differences in values. I don’t care if we “celebrate” how Hmong or Mexican immigrants believe, but we do accept it and we certainly protect their rights to do so. That is a core American value.
            I also say that you impugn the Americanism of those of us who don’t share your particular narrow set of values, and I think that do so is not merely insulting but is fundamentally un-American.

          3. Don Shor

            In case you missed it, here are what I think Americans value. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are equally American, equally patriotic.
            ——-
            Liberty, freedom, democracy, self-determination as a people.

            Equality: no caste or class system.

            Americans admire individualism and hard work.

            Americas favor the right to be left alone (right to privacy).

            Americans have generally favored expansionism and overall have supported our role as the dominant power in the world.

            Within different communities, centered in different regions, there are other values:
            Community: helping others who are less fortunate through community effort.
            Conservation: protecting natural resources from exploitation.
            Faith and secularism: each very strong in some regions, much less so in others; each with a long history.
            Tribal identity: the desire to stay together among ethnic peers, to preserve the old traditions and values, even while appreciating the material goods and freedoms of this country.

            There is no consensus (and has never been) about some values:
            The role of religion in the public sphere.
            The appropriate limits of government.
            The regulation of free enterprise.

            Obviously, many of these values are in conflict with each other. But it is common to have second- and third-generation conflicts about, for example, retaining ethnic identity while accepting the benefits of freedom and our materialistic economy and lifestyle. I think that is true in the newer ethnic groups that conservatives seem to fear most, just as it was before.

        10. MrsW

          A note on American Christians and whether “fate” or “faith” best describes their religious perspective.  There is a huge diversity between denominations and both can be found.  The Calvinist Chuch’s teachings are more fatalistic, for example.  The Pentacostals are all about faith.  Here is an article with links.

          http://churchrelevance.com/qa-list-of-all-christian-denominations-and-their-beliefs/

          If I was to travel to the United States and was interested in understanding “American culture”, I think this would be important to  know.  It also makes Americans interesting!

        11. wdf1

          1. PERSONAL CONTROL OVER THE ENVIRONMENT
xxx Americans no longer believe in the power of Fate, and they have come to look at people who do as being backward, primitive, or hopelessly naïve.

          Don Shor:  I disagree that this is an accurate description of Americans. If you are deeply religious, you believe in the power of Fate. Many Americans are deeply religious and very fatalistic.

          I wouldn’t make that kind of strong connection between being deeply religious and the power of Fate.  A belief in impending end times does reflect a certain kind of fatalism that is common among some Americans.

          But I also see a number of instances in which a deeply religious person may not be focused on the concept of end times, but in a strong assertion that a higher power will help them get through challenges.

        12. wdf1

          Jeff Boone:  And with the massive numbers of these poor and uneducated immigrants impacted by a crappy education system and a shrunken industrial economy that used to be the path to the middle class and with it a better appreciation for conservative principles and these values, these liberal ideas are sticking into the second and third generations… and they are helping people like you get your way.

           

          Here’s some meat for you to consider.

          A free documentary, about an hour-long: Defies Measurement

          Interesting quote by Jeb Bush early in the documentary.

        13. Jim Frame

          But then you and Don reject the concept that this nation gets to do the same.

          Of course the nation gets to do the same — that’s why we have elections and courts.  But the notion that a country as large and diverse as the U.S. will ever think with one mind is unrealistic.  The dynamic tension will always be present, but the system is designed to accommodate that.

           

        14. Jeff Boone

          but in a strong assertion that a higher power will help them get through challenges.

          You mean liberals and Barack Obama, right?

          Of course I am trying to be funny, but also making a point here.

          While there are certainly some religious folk that think or believe or feel that God is actually responsible for everything that happens to them, and when it is bad stuff that God has a plan, the majority of Christians believe in God’s power as being transcendent… and that in this life they are steered by their faith and belief in him and their understanding of his word.

          Said another way, they don’t believe God will give them a free cell phone, but that by living life as a good Christian they would more likely make the good life decisions that lead to them being able to purchase their own cell phone.

          1. Don Shor

            Here’s what I said exactly:

            Many Americans are deeply religious and very fatalistic.

            I didn’t say a majority.
            I didn’t say that I think religious people are all or even mostly fatalistic.
            I didn’t even mention Christianity, for that matter.
            I said: “Many Americans are deeply religious and very fatalistic.” Therefore, I disagree with the assertion from your list of purported American values.
            Ok?
            I also do, in fact, know a lot about religion.

          2. Don Shor

            To be more accurate, Christians who actually care about theology mostly believe God to be both transcendent and immanent. The degree to which people ascribe the one or the other varies, and I doubt (since those characteristics are somewhat in conflict) you can accurately say that “the majority of Christians believe in God’s power as being transcendent” as a predominant characteristic of God’s interaction with mankind. Many people consider that God is, in fact, involved in their day to day lives and is making things happen. And most people who are religious probably don’t actually think about the theology of it at all. Your assertion is neither provable nor falsifiable, so it’s just speculation on your part.
            The point is: many people are fatalistic, and their religious views are part of the reason (or maybe vice versa). That condition is certainly not unique to Christianity. It is not unique to Americans. If you are saying that more Americans are less fatalistic than people from other cultures, you might be right. Maybe. I would say, though, that the more religious you are, the more likely you are to be fatalistic. Probably.

        15. Jeff Boone

          The dynamic tension will always be present, but the system is designed to accommodate that.

          I appreciate that optimism. Unfortunately I think the “system” is much more fragile than you and others think.  I think we have never been challenged like this before.  $18 Trillion in the hole, and if another recession would hit at this point we would crash in to a depression like never seen before.  And we would be vulnerable from a national security perspective, and the free world would also face challenges it hasn’t faced since the great wars.

          Do you understand the business/financial term “fully leveraged”?

          Student loan debt.

          Personal debt.

          Another real estate bubble.

          A stock market bubble.

          And massive numbers of new poor and uneducated to take care of.

          Highest discourage worker numbers in 40+ years.

          And less cultural adhesion and more group conflict.

          And then all we hear from the left is that we need to let more of these poor people in and allow them to stay, and we should not demand that they assimilate and we should honor and support their culture, and we should increase taxes and take on more debt, and there is nothing more important that global warming… which supports a business-hostile, anti-industrial worldview that causes us to plunge even further down the financial rat hole.

          I really don’t care too much about me or you.  I care about the American children and young people that have had their futures destroyed by the locust generation of Baby Boomers… that are largely liberal and continuing their consumption of everything good only so they can keep feeling good and not have to for once face their unresolved childhood trauma of being their parent’s greatest embarrassment.

          I don’t think the system was designed to accommodate that.

        16. Jim Frame

          so they can keep feeling good and not have to for once face their unresolved childhood trauma of being their parent’s greatest embarrassment.

          You lost me there.  The boomers are certainly a demographic phenomenon to be reckoned with, simply because of the size of the group, but I don’t see any indication that boomers (of which I am one) are homogeneous in perspective.  And the psychoanalysis looks like a non-sequitur to me.

           

        17. TrueBlueDevil

          Jeff Boone makes good points. If you add in our legal and illegal (vastly under-counted) immigration, this recent immigration seems to possibly dwarf earlier numbers. On DrudgeReport today it claimed that 70% of UN refugees come to the United States.

          After previous large immigration numbers, we had decades of smaller immigration. In addition, we didn’t have the vast safety net. DrudgeReport today also notes that 50% of immigrants use welfare programs, compared to 30% for the native population. Immigrants with children use welfare programs at a 70% clip (at present).

          We also had WWI, WWII, and the Depression which brought people together.

          Mr. Boone correctly notes many of our deferred costs (bills), but doesn’t give an estimate. I’ve heard $200 Trillion when you count the “unfunded mandates”, and the Baby Boomers are retiring as we speak. Not the best time to be adding more under-educated workers into out system. I was glad to hear that Bernie Sanders is against illegal immigration as it hurts Americans and lowers wages! This, from a Socialist!

           

        18. Jeff Boone

          Don, I think you missed your calling to be a trial attorney.

          You said:

          I disagree that this is an accurate description of Americans. If you are deeply religious, you believe in the power of Fate. Many Americans are deeply religious and very fatalistic.

          You said you disagree because many Americans are deeply religious and very fatalistic.

          Now you are back peddling.

          If only a small minority of religious people are fatalistic, your assertion falls apart.

          1. PERSONAL CONTROL OVER THE ENVIRONMENT
xxx Americans no longer believe in the power of Fate, and they have come to look at people who do as being backward, primitive, or hopelessly naïve.

          Want to try again?

          It is a common base value of Americans to believe that they can just make things happen.  And then they go make things happen.

          This is very important, because many cultures, like the Mexican culture, believe they don’t have control or power over their environment and they are more prone to expect the environment to be what it is… or to be controlled by others with more power than them.   And since this is exactly what liberals strive to do in their push for a permission economy and socialist system, they get along well with these immigrants. But then we lose this value of “just do it” and “get it done.”  And that, my friend, is a dangerous change for this country.

      1. Don Shor

        I heard a discussion recently where a commenter noted we weren’t a nation formed from people all over the world… most of our new immigrants were from Western Europe

        There were various waves of immigration, from western Europe, southern Europe, and Asia, and of course much of our own state and the southwest were settled first by people from Spain with large later waves of immigration from Asia as well.

          1. Don Shor

            Interesting article. It certainly describes the path of part of my family. My grandfather’s solution to the obstacles described was to stop being Jewish. And again, I think that is largely a description of immigration to the east and midwest, not our experience in California.

        1. hpierce

          True blue….. good point… unless you count all those “immigrants” brought from Africa who were here before 1860.  i guess your “out” is ‘largely composed’.  Yet in 1860 what percent of those living in the states were from (or descended from) Africa?  Wonder how large is “largely”?

  16. TrueBlueDevil

    Public Policy Polling, Wikipedia: “PPP is described as one of the “most accurate” polling companies[3][4] and also as a “Democratic-leaning”[5] polling company because it polls only for Democratic and progressive campaigns and organizations on a private basis.”

    They’re tweeting today they’re going to do a poll on whether Kanye West can become President, and they still say Hillary is up 35 points. *chuckle*

  17. MrsW

    TribeUSA said:

    Ah here is an example of the implicit assumption. The implicit assumption here is that we are or should be on the course of developing a multi-cultural society. By what means has and will such a ‘multi-cultural’ society be developing, and by whose consent? Is it something that has been presented to the American people as an option that they can have a voice in, or is this a mandate? Where did this mandate come from? 

    I think the term “melting pot” was used to describe American culture in the history books I was taught with.  Even before the Gold Rush, California, in particular, has consistently attracted immigrants from elsewhere in the world, as well as other states.  California’s place names reflect the origins of people who populate our state–Kanaka Creek, Dutch Flat, Chili Bar….. One of the best expressions of California’s “melting pot” is our food.  Our city, Davis, is a restaurant destination and the food served in those restaurants has been influenced by local fresh ingredients and traditions from around the world…it’s new, but not new.

    So, is it a “mandate” to be multi-cultural?  I don’t think so.  I think it’s a phenomenon.

    Might there be some opposition to this mandate, and to moderate it?

    That’s the challenge, isn’t it?  There is an opportunity to encourage and adopt “the best” of each culture–shouldn’t we take it?  And there are absolutely things about our American culture right now that we should ferociously protect–like woman are citizens and their husbands will be prosecuted if they abuse them, even if their birth culture finds it acceptable.

     Is there such a thing as a united multicultural society, and can you point out many successful examples of such a society from history? 

    On a large scale, I think California is the example of the most successful multi-cultural society and we are a very young culture, still forming.  I expect many port cities would be examples of a successful multi-cultural societies on a smaller scale.

    Here is a question for you–Can you point out successful democracies in history?

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      I’ve never heard of Davis as a restaurant destination point. What happens when we have people immigrate who don’t hold women in such high esteem, or mandate that they were say, a burka? We’ve had two local priests from the same culture have sexual relations with girls under 18, possibly an outgrowth of those different cultural values.

      Marseilles, France is a “port city” next to muslim North Africa, and I’ve read it is a disaster.

      1. MrsW

        Below, I’ve excerpted a couple of paragraphs from a thoughtful essay published in Aljazeera. “What the World Can Learn From Canadian Multiculturalism”.  I note that on the same page, there are links to articles on Canada tightening its immigration rules and most people know that conflict between English speaking and French speaking Canadians.  Nevertheless, I would be proud of our city/state/country, if these words were written about us.  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/2013915111722311111.html

        Canada ….. is a nation with a full awareness of the amorphous and fluid nature of its own culture. Canadians are bound together by a set of values and beliefs which are able to accommodate a broad range of cultural expressions and do not demand any strict homogeneity. All that is asked of immigrants is what is asked of any members of society: respect for the laws and institutions of the country, social amiability, and contribution to the maintenance and improvement of public works.

        Given such an easygoing attitude, it is not surprising that many immigrant Canadians on their own tend to naturally adopt “traditional” Canadian attitudes and mores. Today hockey games are often broadcast in Punjabias as well as French and English, and Canadians of every ethnicity and religion come together in enjoyment of the same foods, pastimes and holidays.

        Further, polls have repeatedly shown that immigrants are in fact among the proudest of Canadians. All this is compelling evidence that “integration” tends to work on its own when it is not being forcibly compelled, and when it is not a zero-sum game where newcomers are expected to conform but not create.

         
        Canadian port cities: Vancouver, Toronto

         

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          I’m told even uber-liberal Canada outlawed anchor baby’s (something our 14th Amendment may not really cover, it was written to protect freed slaves, not opportunists).

          Yes, Vancouver has a large Asian population.

        2. Jeff Boone

          Suddenly liberals are strict constitutionalists when it suits their agenda.

          TBD is correct about the original intent.  I’m sure the founders would agree that what we have going on now is not good and not what was intended.

          1. Don Shor

            TBD is correct about the original intent.

            Evidence?

            Original meaning
            During the original debate over the 14th Amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes American Indians who maintain their tribal ties and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”[46] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[47][48] However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion.[49][50][51]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#Original_meaning

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for