Friday, February 24, 2017
Washington State College Informs Students ‘American Grammar Is Racist’
By Melissa Mullins
Well, this is certainly something to put in the “are you kidding me” category.
The director, tutors, and staff of the University of Washington-Tacoma’s Writing Center have posted what they call an “anti-racist” poster, insisting that American grammar is in fact “racist” and an “unjust language structure,” promising to prioritize rhetoric over “grammatical correctness.”
The poster proclaims that “racism is the normal condition of things,” and infiltrates every aspect of society – including rules, expectations, schooling and systems. The writing center states:
Linguistic and writing research has shown clearly for many decades that there is no inherent ‘standard’ of English…Language is constantly changing. These two facts make it very difficult to justify placing people in hierarchies or restricting opportunities and privileges because of the way people communicate in particular versions of English.
The Tacoma Writing Center’s self-described goal is “listen and look carefully and compassionately for ways we may unintentionally perpetuate racism or social injustice, actively engaging in anti-racist practices.”
The poster also declares: “We promise to emphasize the importance of rhetorical situations over grammatical ‘correctness’ in the production of texts...We promise to challenge conventional word choices and writing explanations.”
Dr. Asao Inoue, director of the writing center, features a biography maintaining that he “researches and investigates racism in writing assignments.”
This isn’t the first time grammar has been hit with claims of racism. Last April, I wrote about The Guardian’s data editor, Mona Chalabi and her belief of having good grammar or correcting someone else’s grammar was racist and yet another form of “white privilege.”
Chalabi believed these were rules created by white people as a way to shut up minorities, and therefore minorities should be able to ignore such rules without facing criticism:
The people pointing out the mistakes are more likely to be older, wealthier, whiter, or just plain academic than the people they’re treating with condescension…All too often, it’s a way to silence people and that’s particularly offensive when it’s someone who might already be struggling to speak up…We should spend more time listening to what others have to say and less focusing on the grammar what they say it with.
I’m sure many would agree that certain words spoken or written could certainly be considered racist, but to insinuate grammar is an “unjust language structure” created to shut up minorities and therefore should be ignored isn’t racism – it’s more like ignorance, and for many, that ignorance is bliss.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
The following article was published on the Washington Examiner website on February 21st
Hundreds of campuses encourage students to turn in fellow students for offensive speech
By Adam Steinbaugh • 2/21/17 7:00 PM
Universities are the cradle of free speech, where ideologies and ideas clash, where academics and activists can agree, disagree, or be disagreeable. This is particularly true in the United States, where the First Amendment zealously guards against government surveillance and intrusion into free speech.
Yet at hundreds of campuses across the country, administrators encourage students to report one another, or their professors, for speech protected by the First Amendment, or even mere political disagreements. The so-called "Bias Response Teams" reviewing these (often anonymous) reports typically include police officers, student conduct administrators and public relations staff who scrutinize the speech of activists and academics.
This sounds like the stuff of Orwell, although even he might have found the name "Bias Response Team" to be over-the-top.
Over the past year, I surveyed more than 230 such reporting systems for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and asked dozens of schools for records about their Bias Response Teams. What I found is detailed in a new report describing how universities broadly define "bias" to include virtually any speech, protected or not, that subjectively offends anyone. On many campuses, administrators are called upon to referee whether speech is polite.
The threat to expressive rights isn't confined to speech from the Left or the Right. Bias reporting systems are being used to report all kinds of speech.
At Appalachian State University, students reported on one another for chalked messages that were pro-Trump as well as chalked messages calling Trump a "RACIST." The former were reported by students as "hate speech," the latter "politically biased slander" that was "unlawful."
While students at Ohio State University reported each other for comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler, students at Texas Tech were whispering to administrators that the Black Student Union's tweets in support of the Black Lives Matter movement offended them. Meanwhile, the University of Oregon saw it fit to dictate "community expectations" to students who had the audacity to complain about oppression.
Yes, complaining about oppression may bring the Bias Response Team to your dorm room to explain why your views were insufficiently polite, decent, and non-controversial.
The following piece was published on the Zerohedge.com website on February 21st.
Is James O'Keefe About To Smoke CNN? Tells Hannity He's Set To Release "Hundreds of Hours" Of Newsroom Footage "Wikileaks Style"
By ZeroPointNow 2/21
James O'Keefe of Project Veritas is set to unleash holy hell Thursday (Today) on #FakeNews network CNN. Well, he didn't exactly say it was CNN, but it was heavily implied. Apparently the network has a mole...
O'Keefe is known for undercover sting operations which have led to such bombshells as the DNC's paid agitator network, the outing of "DisruptJ20" / Antifa organizers which took place at comet ping pong - and netted three arrests (including a suspected pedophile), and most recently New Hampshire election fraud.
Yesterday, (Tuesday) O'Keefe was interviewed on Sean Hannity's radio show where he revealed that a major network has been "stung:"
O'Keefe: In the next 48 hours, Project Veritas, like Wikileaks, will be releasing hundreds of hours of tape from within the establishment media. Our next target is in fact, the media.
Hannity: How long have you been working on this?
O'Keefe: We've had people on the inside come to us. Just like Julian Assange has people come to him, we've had people, sources come to us and give us information and we're going to be releasing it "Wikileaks Style" this week.
Hannity: Can you give us a hint what organizations are going to be impacted by this?
O'Keefe: It's one that Trump has really been talking about, you can probably use your imagination.
Hannity: So, it's CNN...
In other words, a closeted Trump supporter working deep inside hyper-liberal CNN just gave O'Keefe a ton of behind the scenes footage of "The Most Trusted Name In News." My guess is we're about to hear a bunch of establishment media puppets revealing their extreme hatred for the sitting President of the United States.
Remember that time CNN employees were laughing about Trump's plane crashing? If O'Keefe's release is anything along these lines, popcorn sales are about to go through the roof...
O’Keefe & Co have rarely disappointed. This could turn into the story critics of liberal media bias have been waiting for. Ed.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
1) At lunch time, sit in your parked car with sunglasses on, point a hair dryer at passing cars and watch them slow down!
2) On all your check stubs, write, "For Sexual Favors"
3) Skip down the street rather than walk, and see how many looks you get.
4) With a serious face, order a Diet Water whenever you go out to eat.
5) Sing along at The Opera.
6) When the money comes out of the ATM, scream 'I Won! I Won!'
7) When leaving the Zoo, start running towards the car park, yelling, 'Run For Your Lives! They're Loose!'
8) Tell your children over dinner, 'Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go....'
9) Pick up a box of condoms at the pharmacy, go to the counter and ask where the fitting room is.
And The Final Way To Keep A Healthy Level Of Insanity: My Favorite...
10) Go to a large Department store's fitting room, drop your drawers to your ankles and yell out, "There's no paper in here!"
Now send this email to someone to make them SMILE...
it's called 'therapy'!
it's called 'therapy'!
Hat tip to Suzanne Eovaldi
By Mark Herr, Center for Self-Governance, Administrative Staff
During my middle and high school years, I found it strange to say a pledge to the United States flag “and to the republic for which it stands,” while in the same class being taught the United States was a democracy. The teacher would correct my inquisitive nature by stating, “It’s semantics. Democracy and republic are really the same thing. The United States is a democratic republic.” Not satisfied with that justification of semantics and nuance, I continued to explore and discover the difference between U.S. republic and democracy and I’m still exploring it today.
From whom did the Framers derive the plan for America’s unique, republican form of government?
|Language of Liberty|
In his book Republic (Greek: Politeia), Plato argues the definition of justice and the role of the city and the individual in discovering the definition of justice (Book I & II). He defends educating the ‘Guardians’ of a just city (the collective) at an early age (Book III & IV). And in his ‘just city’, no distinction exists between man or woman, families, marriage, private property and he proclaims the best form of government consists of philosopher kings (i.e. truth seekers, incorruptible, just men, etc.) who are the best rulers for this “good city” (Book VI-X).
Cicero, in his work Of Republic (Latin: De Re Publica), defined republic as ‘property of the public’ (Book 1: 39). He surmised that the ideal form of government was to mix monarchy, aristocracy and democracy together (Book 1: 53). In Cicero’s view, leadership of this ‘ideal’ form of government was best left to nobility (the aristocracy/the Senate) to govern the perfect republic.
John Adams, in his 1786 effort A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, explores republican forms of government throughout world history. During the 1787 U.S. Constitutional convention, his work heavily influenced the delegates’ consideration of different forms of government.
Today, republic may be defined by SIRI and Google on your Smartphone as a ‘representative democracy.’ During the Center for Self-Governance Level 1 in-class exercises, trainees give several of their own definitions for republic. Some would suggest that republic means ‘rule of law’ or ‘rule by elected representatives.’ Others believe it means ‘rule by the people’ or ‘rule by all.’ Ironically, by the end of Level 1 they often ask, “Have we (the U.S. governed) ever functioned as the U.S. republic was designed?”
Given that no single, agreed upon definition of ‘U.S. republic’ exists, it is no less surprising that conflating the U.S. republic with democracy dominates the modern narrative in schools, the media, among political figures and in the U.S. culture at large. The Latin word ‘res publica,’ literally means ‘the public thing.’ And in Greek, the word ‘democracy’ is ‘demos kratos’ or ‘people power.’ Do the two meanings, ‘of the public’ and ‘people power’ mean the U.S. is supposed to be a democratic-republic fusion?
Let’s consider the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) otherwise known as North Korea. Is it republican in form because it is ‘of the people?’ It has a constitution and separate legislative, executive and judicial branches – so does it have checks and balances? The people vote for representation – so is rule by the people a democratic function? The parliament passes laws – so does it have rule by law? It has all the so-called structural elements of ‘republic.’ So, if democracy and republic are semantically the same thing, then the United States--being similarly structured--is like the North Korean government, right?
Most Americans would say North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship and not a republic, because the people live under the tyranny of their “god,” the one ‘Dear Leader’ – Kim Jung Un. I wonder, after the recent elections, how many Americans would say the current president is a totalitarian dictator too? It might also be said that North Koreans are oppressed and live in slavery. The irony is that the constitution of each country guarantees the rights of suffrage, freedom of speech, equality, private property, various human rights and so on.
Some suggest that the difference between the two so-called ‘democratic republics’ may be the peaceful transfer of power after a U.S. presidential election. Considering the recent election, define peaceful transfer. The U.S. is a nation based on the social ideals of its founding leaders (Christianity), while North Korea is a nation based on the social ideals of its founding leaders (Juche). Depending on your perspective and worldview, the origins and outcomes are very different but the governance structure is still fundamentally the same.
So then, what makes the U.S. republican structure with its hint of democracy at election time different from the North Korean democratic republic? Ask yourself: can a North Korean or an American maintain any and every political boundary within their republican structure? And if they tried, what would be the end-result? The North Korean, if they attempted to maintain or steer the DPRK, would end up either executed or imprisoned. The American could similarly face execution like Lavoy Finicum at the Malheur Refuge, Oregon, or imprisonment like Ammon Bundy in Bunkerville, Nevada.
This is the important difference: The governed (that’s us, regardless of voting status) have the right to maintain the political boundaries of our republican structure. Unlike our North Korean counterparts, U.S. citizens (the governed) are free to become the keepers of their government. Americans must merely sacrifice their time to learn the system and maintain their U.S. republic daily, while periodically using a democratic control (voting). For Americans, learning the system is the key.
Throughout human history, the idea that the governed could maintain, let alone steer, their structure of government in shared cooperation with the governors was laughable, if not contemptible – until the creation of the unique, experimental U.S. republic.
In his first inaugural address, George Washington stated, “…the destiny of the republican model of government…is staked on an experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people”
Is the destiny of North Korea in the hands of the North Korean people? Of course not. But you can take the destiny of our republic into your hands by learning the system and applying that knowledge. The question is whether the American people are ready to start keeping their republic.
Mark Herr, Co-founder and President of Center for Self-Governance, was born in England to a military father and was raised in South Korea. He is a retired Air Force veteran who served his entire career in Tokyo, Japan. Herr holds a BS in marketing & management and a MBA in finance & information systems. As a social and political scientist, Mark devotes 289 days per year, nationwide, to studying and teaching State Constitution, Regional government, City-County government, training citizens and legislators in applied civics, and teaching high school students foundational civics. He is co-authoring the book "Speaking the Language of Liberty”.
The Language of Liberty series is a collaborative effort of the Center for Self Governance (CSG) Administrative Team. The authors include administrative staff, selected students, and guest columnists. The views expressed by the authors are their own and may not reflect the views of CSG. Contact them at firstname.lastname@example.org. To learn more, go to CenterForSelfGovernance.com.