Category Archives: Political Correctness

People are beginning to call out racism, sexist and insensitive comments, and cultural appropriation, leading some people to believe that society is becoming too sensitive.

If you truly believe that society is becoming too sensitive, ask yourself why. Is it because people are choosing to question things more, rather than blindly following societal norms? Are people being sensitive or have you not educated yourself enough on cultures other than your own?

In 2015, during a rally in South Carolina, presidential candidate Donald Trump mocked disabled reporter Serge Kovaleski on live TV, by mimicking Kovaleskis small hand, a common side effect of his Arthrogryposis, a condition that affects the joints. If a man who is running for President of the United States is comfortable enough to behave that way, we as a country need to look inward and see where weve gone wrong.

It was clear that the main reason people believed the world was becoming overly sensitive was because their ideas of humor, the way they talked about others, and their belief systems was being challenged. It is important to recognize that America is not far removed from a very oppressive time in its history. We have not reached some utopic, peaceful place in time where the idea of oppression, and racism is so far-fetched, that people can look back and laugh about it.

Lets talk about jokes. Society is not becoming soft because people cant take a joke anymore. People are now beginning to consider the implications, and underlying message of these so-called jokes. In 2014, Fox News host Eric Bolling was crucified after making a boobs on the ground remark, a poorly done wordplay for boots on the ground, in reference to Mariam Al Mansouri, the first female Emirati Air Force fighter pilot. Not only does that comment reek of misogyny, but it sexualizes her and reduces her accomplishments to nothing. So of course women are not dying to hear more oppressive, sexist jokes that set them back. Of course, people could laugh at these jokes and not take them too seriously, but no longer are the days where we accept ignorance and misogyny as the norm.

Some people in this country fail to realize that racism and ignorance about racism has, and will continue to have considerable negative implications in society. Blackface, for example, is completely unacceptable. Jimmy Kimmel and several other comedians learned this the hard way, as they ended up on the chopping block in 2020, for using blackface as a comedic tool. Let me tell you, I know a good joke when I see one, and that doesnt hit the mark. Insensitivity and plain stupidity put these people in the spotlight for incidents like this. Calling these celebrities out and watching them squirm as they have to explain themselves, is 100% necessary in creating a cultural change.

A math teacher in Riverside, CA came under fire when she was caught on camera wearing a makeshift headdress and jumping around her classroom, pretending to pray to the rock god, and doing tomahawk chops, a reference to scalping, in front of her high school class. She clearly did not see anything wrong with what she did, and thats exactly the problem. It was insensitive, it was ridiculous, it was unnecessary and mostly it was profoundly ignorant. She made a mockery of a group of people who have suffered tremendously on this very land we stand on today, and a rich history that should be respected.

Another major reason for the divide between people who believe the world is becoming sensitive, and everyone else, is education, or lack thereof. People are seeing this cultural shift as a personal attack on them and their beliefs, which in some cases it may be. There is an unspoken social contract among people, and everyone has the responsibility to want to do better. We are all cohabitating on this planet, and in this country specifically, and the key to harmony is respect. The goal of this social movement is to ensure that everyone, especially ones who have suffered through oppression, prejudice and systemic disadvantages, are being treated equally and with respect and dignity.

See original here:

Too sensitive or too ignorant? The rise of political correctness in the US - Mesa Press

All that we seek from art, from literature, from all our endeavours is merely a reflection of our deepest desires that we are aware cannot be fulfilled. Kashmir for me has been that reflection ever since it entered my imagination. As a young girl of 14, I dreamt of living the hard life of snowy winters. It was a wish to embrace beauty with all its cruelty. In my teens, I often travelled to Kashmir in my imagination. Fourteen years later, I made my first visit to Kashmir for real, to forge my bond with the land of mystics and fanatics. No, I dont wish to be politically correct. Possibilities of a better tomorrow rot under the rock of political correctness. Kashmir is a classic case.

I was invited to participate in the Gulmarg Literature Festival that took place on 27 October. To me, it was nothing short of a dream come true. Kashmir is the ground of my creative pursuits, my karmabhoomi, and rangabhoomi, too. We make sense of what is inside of us by trying to understand what is outside. We attempt to look at the atomic structure and the solar system alike. I tried making sense of myself by trying to understand the complex saga that was Kashmir. Hesitantly, I wrote my first novella in 2019, and of course, it had to be about Kashmir.

Read more from the original source:

On Kashmir, Literature, and the Shroud of Political Correctness - The Quint

Kyle Zedaker/Tampa Bay Buccaneers

I wonder how many comments with clever quips about Washingtons lack of a mascot this article will get? Or how the commenter misses the good ol days before cancel culture and political correctness ruined their ability to openly spew racial slurs?

Sorry to start out like that, but nowadays you have to whenever mentioning the Washington Football Teamits a preventative measure.

Lets get onto the game.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers hit the road Sunday afternoon to take on the aforementioned team from Washington, as the GOAT and the Bucs look to get back in the W column after losing to Trevor Siemian and the Saints on Halloween.

TB12 and the squad will likely be without a lot of key guys. As usual, Carlton Davis, Sean Murphy-Bunting, Gronk and AB are all going to be on the bench, but Chris Godwin is a newcomer to that list, as hes listed on the injury report with a foot injury.

Former Bucs wideout Breshad Perriman (pictured) and veteran tight end Darren Fells were both signed to the practice squad in response to the multitude of injuries suffered by the defending Super Bowl champs, and with Perriman having played for Bruce Arians and this Bucs offense in 2019 he could see the field in Sundays game if needed.

The former UCF standout last played in an NFL game for the New York Jets in 2020, and bounced around the NFC North this season, signing contracts with the Lions and the Bears. He didnt record a reception with either team.

Fells is a former Arizona Cardinal and thus has a solid connection with BA. Fells started his professional sports career playing basketball overseas, eventually making his way to the NFL by way of the Seattle Seahawks.

However, despite all of the injuries and the lackluster performance against the Saints, the Bucs shouldnt have many problems in this Wild Card rematch from last season.

Washingtons offense, led by former XFL backup quarterback Taylor Heinicke, has been middle-of-the-road both on the ground and through the air, and when you look at how talented this team is defensively youd think thatd be enough for Washington to be a pretty solid team.

Unfortunately for both of my fantasy football teams, Washingtons defense is in the bottom 5 in every major statistical category except rushing yards (I mean, it makes the Bucs banged up secondary look like the Legion of Boom).

Tom Brady could be throwing to me and you and would probably manage to scrape together a 300-yard, 3 touchdown performance against this abysmal Washington secondary, so regardless of whether AB and Godwin are available, Brady is going to have some fun.

The Bucs should win handily, 35-13.Well see if theyre able to fulfill that prediction Sunday afternoon.

Follow @CTBrantley12 on Twitter, and support Carters straightforward, unfiltered takes on the best team in professional football and CLs continued commitment to provide sports coverage free to Tampa Bay. Please consider making a one time or monthly donation to help support our staff. Every little bit helps.

Subscribe to our newsletter and follow @cl_tampabay on Twitter.

See original here:

Despite laundry list of injuries, the Bucs should beat Washington 35-13 on Sunday - Creative Loafing Tampa

National pundits have waxed eloquently on the earthshaking political events of early November: The Virginia/New Jersey elections, vaccination mandate, infrastructure legislation, climate summit, etc. We have been suffering a serious case of FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), so to relieve our symptoms we opine on how these issues will impact Utah politics. In other words, we get in on the fun.

Much analysis has focused on how Virginia/New Jersey gubernatorial elections sent a signal that Democrats are in trouble. Their control of the House and Senate may be at risk in the 2022 elections. But what about the impact on Utahs elections?

Pignanelli: Democrats are coming across in ways that are annoying, offensive and seem out of touch. Van Jones, liberal commentator, CNN

Frequently, American elections reflect the famous Greek tragedies written millennia ago filled with flawed characters, hubris and catastrophic events. Thus, this Novembers outcome will be a long-remembered classic.

The ripple effect in Utah will be subtle but real. National Democratic organizations will conserve resources to protect incumbents, limiting funds for local challengers. This extends to coordinated efforts between congressional and legislative campaigns. In addition, unless the trajectory changes, a predicted GOP wave will influence down-ballot races in numerous positions.

Republican candidates that were moderate in tone and established distance from the former president performed well, especially in demographics won by Joe Biden in 2020. This experience could flavor inter-party battles in Utah at the convention and primary levels.

Innocent Utah politicos will be positively or negatively impacted by faraway events fostered by arrogance and cluelessness. Ancient lessons in Greek plays still resonate in modern Americana.

Webb: It wasnt just Virginia and a much-better-than-expected GOP showing in New Jersey that should worry Democrats. They lost numerous local races all across the country. Democrats have been trying to push America far left, but we are simply not a left-wing nation.

The razor-thin Democratic win in the 2020 election was a rebellion in the suburbs against Donald Trump. It wasnt an endorsement of big government, high taxes, left-leaning ideology and racial and identity politics. Americans are fed up with victimhood and over-the-top political correctness.

Even more discouraging for Democrats, Republicans learned how to win races, and put together coalitions, despite former President Trump hovering over the political landscape. Glenn Youngkin was brilliant in Virginia in supporting Trump and his policies, while also keeping him at arms length.

Walking this tightrope required Trump himself to exercise some restraint and not help Democrats turn the race into a referendum on him. When President Joe Biden campaigned for Terry McAuliffe, he mentioned Trump 24 times. Democrats desperately tried to make the campaign about Trump but failed, because Youngkin was able to maintain some distance. But Youngkin didnt have to disavow Trump and managed to turn out the Trump base.

Thats a lesson for Sen. Mitt Romney, although its probably too late. Rather than ignore Trump, Romney has trashed him at every opportunity. As a result, Romney probably faces a tough battle for the GOP nomination.

Lawsuits have been filed by states and businesses to prevent implementation of mandatory vaccinations as ordered by Biden. Legislatures, including Utah, are attempting to prevent mandate enforcement in Utah. Could this be an election issue for 2022?

Pignanelli: State officials are reflecting constituents frustrations with overreaching government by creating obstacles to federal implementation. Many employers believe compliance with OSHA will create employment vacuums. However, other businesses are frustrated with being forced to choose to violate state or federal law. Emotions on either side will drive voting patterns, campaign contributions and internal party contests. A sour economy and a lingering pandemic guarantee mandatory vaccinations will creep into the 2022 elections.

Webb: My wife and I are both vaccinated and have even received our booster shots. We encourage everyone eligible to become fully vaccinated. But I dont believe the president has the authority to order businesses with 100 or more employees to fire everyone who refuses to get vaccinated. Its a typical big-government coercive approach to force compliance and its going to hurt Biden and Democrats in the long run. It gives a rabble-rouser like Trump an issue to run on.

The $1.2 trillion infrastructure package was finally passed by Congress. How will this bill impact political deliberations, especially since Sen. Romney was the only member of Utahs delegation to vote for it?

Pignanelli: Utah will garner $3 billion or more from this legislation. The contemplated projects promise to touch every Utahn whether through transportation, broadband expansion, water resources, etc. Should Romney run for reelection in 2024, he can take credit for the assistance to the state. In the meantime, the acrimony over the multitrillion social infrastructure (Build Back Better) bill could blemish any federal stimulus and capital improvements. The lousy messaging and funding concerns deliver superior talking points to GOP candidates. Democrats will spend time explaining which is never helpful.

Webb: Utah can use the money and will spend it wisely. But theres a lot of waste in the legislation, and a lot more debt. Its not paid for, as proponents claim. Utah should use the windfall for one-time projects and not build it into long-term budgets because when its gone its gone.

Republican LaVarr Webb is a former journalist and a semi-retired small farmer and political consultant. Email: lwebb@exoro.com. Frank Pignanelli is a Salt Lake attorney, lobbyist and political adviser who served as a Democrat in the Utah Legislature. Email: frankp@xmission.com.

Read the original:

How will Eastern election results affect Utah? |Opinion - Deseret News

Andrew Sullivan has been an influential and controversial voice for more than 30 years. He's a conservative author, editor and blogger. As a British-American, his style combines the perception of an outsider with the devotion of a native son. When we met, at his home on Cape Cod, we found Sullivan anxious about the future of the republic. Too many Americans, he told us, are no longer the citizens that the founders were counting on.

Andrew Sullivan: The American Constitution was set up for people who can reason and argue and aren't afraid of it, and then reach compromises, the whole thing is designed that way. Well, if you're in a tribe, and all that matters is the victory of your tribe, and you have all the truth, and your other tribe has none of it. And you have all the virtue, and the other side has none of it, you can't behave that way. You can't make it work. This country came to the point where we had violence in the usual peaceful transfer of power. That is a huge warning to how unstable our system can be if we remain tribalists in a system that's supposed to be designed for reasonable citizens.

Scott Pelley: You know, we wring our hands about the strident nature of politics today. But hasn't it always been that way?

Andrew Sullivan: Oh, yeah. There's a lot of what you might call rough and tumble, sharp rhetoric. And that's healthy. What's not healthy is when that isn't just retained and kept in the political area but becomes personal, becomes something you bring to the supermarket, becomes something you bring to Thanksgiving dinner, becomes something the permeates everything. And that separation between politics and life is what we're losing. And that's a terrible thing to lose.

Andrew Sullivan, 58, grew up in East Grinstead in rural, southern England. He won a scholarship to Oxford which led to Harvard and a Ph.D. in political science inspired by British conservative Michael Oakeshott.

Andrew Sullivan: And he defined conservatism as really a defense of what is. A love of what you already have. And fear that it could all disappear. A sense of the fragility of the world. And the importance of being pragmatic. Not having some ideological abstraction you wanna force onto reality. But understanding reality as something that can give you occasions for change, which we do need. But also warnings for excessive change and excessive radicalism.

Scott Pelley: In 2006, you wrote a book called "The Conservative Soul." What were you saying?

Andrew Sullivan: I was saying that conservatism had lost its way. Because it had become too sure of itself. It was full of hubris. It believed it had the answer, the truth, became intolerant of liberals and of liberalism. And it became hardened by religious fundamentalism. Which brooks no compromise either. So, it broke the conservative virtues of humility, skepticism, doubt.

Scott Pelley: In the book you talk about rescuing conservatism. How do you go about that?

Andrew Sullivan: You wait for these terrible passions and the current cult worship of a human-- individual human being, Donald Trump. You wait and hope that will pass. So that we can get back to the pragmatic process of governing reality. And that's not what we're engaged in now. We're flying from reality. We're inventing abstractions and ideologies. We're fighting each other. We're demonizing each other. The system can still work. It's we who are broken.

The ideas of tolerance, reason and debate came to sullivan early in life when he realized he was conservative, catholic and gay.

Scott Pelley: You have written that you first acknowledged being gay while taking communion.

Andrew Sullivan: Yeah, I always, as a kid, had an intense spirituality. And as it welled up in me that I wasn't like other boys, the only person I thought I could take it to was God. So, he was the first person I came out to. Just, "Please god," I didn't even have the word for it. But just, "Help me with that." That's why when people ask me, you know, "How can you be openly gay and Catholic?" My response is, "I'm openly gay because I'm a Catholic. Because I know God loves me. And I know that God would want me to tell the truth about myself."

Scott Pelley: Is that dichotomy, Catholicism and homosexuality, the reason that you can hold two competing ideas in your head at the same time?

Andrew Sullivan: Well, I think it helps. One thing about coming out early and being honest about that, is that seeking truth and clarity becomes a habit. And you get a liberation from that. So, I said the truth. I thought the worst would happen. And I'm okay. So why can't I tell the truth about other things or why can't I just ferret it out?

Andrew Sullivan began 'seeking truth' in America in 1986. He needed a job and the left-leaning New Republic magazine offered him an internship. In five years, he was the editor. Sullivan was in a hurry because he expected to die. He was diagnosed with HIV in 1993.

Andrew Sullivan: The thing about that experience, was that, as you took care of people you loved who were dying very young in-- and this is what people forget, in really horrible circumstances. Medieval tortures. Blindness, sores, lesions, neuropathy. The humiliation of it. And you know as I was doing that, that that's gonna be me. That's why I wrote the book "Virtually Normal, The Case for Gay Marriage," because I thought I only had a few years left. And if I wanted to contribute something I would try and nail down the ironclad argument for marriage equality before I died.

Scott Pelley: But your argument at the time was that same-sex marriage should be a conservative goal.

Andrew Sullivan: Well, it should be, shouldn't it? Why would supporting gay men in relationships not be conservative? Why would helping foster responsibility to take care of each other not be conservative? Of course, these are conservative values.

Sullivan married his husband, Aaron Tone, in 2007.

There have been six books including "I Was Wrong," a compilation of his full-throated campaign for war in Iraq which he now regrets. Recently, in his blog "The Weekly Dish" and on his podcast, Sullivan's weighed in on black lives matter and on critical race theory which says racism is systemic and perpetuates inequality to this day.

Andrew Sullivan: Here's what I think is good about it. I think we should be absolutely vigilant about police abuse. And we've seen it. We've proven it to be racially targeted in some places, not all places. I think we've also too often whitewashed our past; whitewashed the true horrors of what it was to live in the segregated gulags of the South during' slavery. In another sense, however, one of its key arguments is that the oppression of non-white people is the true, core meaning of this country. Now, I think it's one important part to understand this country. But I don't think it's the most important part. And I don't believe that it's an accurate description of America today, I do think we've made enormous strides. I do think our racial panorama is much more complex and dynamic than it used to be. And I don't believe this country's fundamentally evil and needs to be dismantled.

Another controversy about race has followed Sullivan for nearly 30 years. Back in 1994, as editor of the New Republic, he ran an excerpt of the book "The Bell Curve," which implied African Americans, genetically, have lower IQs. The excerpt ran 10,000 words. Sullivan printed rebuttals that ran 19,000 words. But he's criticized for airing the debate at all. Scholars have since discredited the book. Sullivan has defended it.

Scott Pelley: You have written that the book has "held up," that the book was "brilliant."

Andrew Sullivan: The data is still there. We don't know. And I think it's been unfairly presented. The book is agnostic about the mix of genes and environment in terms of intelligence. And that goes for everyone. We don't know.

Scott Pelley: But this raises a question in the viewer's mind: Does he believe that African Americans are inherently less intelligent than white people?

Andrew Sullivan: Absolutely not. There's no evidence for that.

Scott Pelley: Why was this an important debate to have

Andrew Sullivan: That's a very good point, Scott. I'm not sure we should, to be honest with you. The debate was gonna happen, regardless. And I thought it would be helpful to have it put out in-- in all its form; both the case for and then all the cases against. I thought that was a responsible way to respond to the emergence of this book and this piece. And I may have made the wrong call but I did it-- I did it in good faith and I did it because I think it is always better to air this stuff than to suppress it, however feelings may be harmed. But I think if I were presented with that thing today, I wouldn't. I'll be perfectly honest with you, I wouldn't. I think the harm outweighs the good.

He doesn't mean he's giving up on debate. He told us too many newsrooms, these days, pander to the left and right and are intimidated by political correctness.

Andrew Sullivan: When I ran The New Republic, it was a constant internal war. People felt passionate about subjects. One would write one week in one position. Another one would write the next week against it. And people would be fascinated by this internal struggle. I love that. I hate this feeling. I'm reading the church encyclical every week or every day and it's telling me how I need to be perfectly woke or how I need to be perfectly 'Trumpy.'

If the stakes for America seem personal in Sullivan, it helps to know he had to fight to be American. For 22 years, the U.S. banned citizenship to those with HIV. He argued against the ban which was lifted in 2010. Proof again, he says, of what can come of patience and reason.

Andrew Sullivan: We can fight over arguments but not debate each other's good faith or character or dismiss people because of their race or sex or whatever. We can leave all that behind and be citizens, arguing, reasoning. Deliberation is what the founders called it. If we're not like that, this system will fail as it is already failing.

Scott Pelley: So, what gives you hope?

Andrew Sullivan: Well, I would say there's a difference between optimism and hope. I'm not particularly optimistic, given the trends that we're seeing. But hope's different. Hope is a sense that grace can happen. You never know what's around the corner. Maybe there'll be something in the future, a leader, a figure or there must be a sorta groundswell of people saying enough of this. Enough of this. The noise, the rage, it's deafening and we're better than this.

Produced by Aaron Weisz. Associate producer, Ian Flickinger. Broadcast associate, Michelle Karim. Edited by Matt Richman.

Read more:

Andrew Sullivan on American political discourse and rescuing conservatism in 2021 - 60 Minutes - CBS News

DEANNA: Hi. This is Deanna from New York, and I am making breakfast with my 2 1/2-year-old daughter while we listen to the NPR POLITICS PODCAST. This podcast was recorded at...

SCOTT DETROW, HOST:

Well, that is a nice image. It is 1:07 Eastern on Friday, November 12.

DEANNA: Things may have changed by the time you hear this. All right. Say, enjoy the show.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: (Unintelligible) the show.

(SOUNDBITE OF THE BIGTOP ORCHESTRA'S "TEETER BOARD: FOLIES BERGERE (MARCH AND TWO-STEP)")

DEIRDRE WALSH, BYLINE: Oh, that's so cute.

DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: My daughter had her first sleepover on Saturday, and I cooked breakfast for her and her friend. We made tater tot casseroles. And they - so it was fun.

DETROW: Oh, man. That is a big moment for everybody.

MONTANARO: Yeah.

DETROW: Hey there. It's the NPR POLITICS PODCAST, scotch (ph) version. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover the White House.

WALSH: I'm Deirdre Walsh. I cover Congress.

MONTANARO: And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent.

DETROW: Look. Let's just be honest. It has not been an uplifting week here on the NPR POLITICS PODCAST. We have talked about the precarious place of American democracy. We have talked about investigations into January 6. Today, I think it's - it makes sense to provide some big-picture context to a lot of these storylines, and that is the increasingly divided partisan nature of the United States.

Domenico, you really dug into interesting new data from the Pew Research Center that looked at the different ways that Americans are divided. And on one hand, the top line's kind of obvious, but when you go down beyond it, it's really interesting. This is not a, you know, a down-the-middle split. There are a lot of different subgroups right now, and a lot of those subgroups are really distrustful of the other ones.

MONTANARO: Yeah. Look. I think that we all know inherently that the country is more complicated than right or left, you know, blue and red, liberal, conservative. But that's kind of how things get reduced when we talk about our politics because we have two major political parties, because winning is all about forming alliances. So, you know, the Pew Research Center did a massive study, big survey of more than 10,000 interviews. And for context, you know, most good national polls do about a thousand interviews with a randomized sample and weighting and all of that. But Pew did about - more than 10,000 interviews, and they found that we were actually able to be sorted into more like nine distinct ideological political categories.

DETROW: It's like a really depressing sorting hat.

(LAUGHTER)

MONTANARO: Well, you know, it depends on how you look at it, but I do think that there's a lot of overlap, you know, with some of these groups. But I think it basically runs the spectrum, gives us a much clearer view of the fuller spectrum of American political ideology, which ranges from what Pew calls faith and flag conservatives on the most conservative end to the progressive left. And there's been so much attention, you know, over these past few months because Democrats control Congress. On the things that divide Democrats, between these four categories that Pew found, the outsider left, Democratic mainstays, establishment liberals and the progressive left, and it gets boiled down to moderate versus progressive.

But what Pew actually found is that Democrats, for the most part, actually agree more so on the issues, which is a change from past years from, like, say, 25 years ago, when Democrats didn't always agree on things like abortion, gun rights on pot legalization. The right is more divided, actually, by the issues, although that's not what you seem to hear covered over and over again because of their unified opposition to President Biden at this point.

WALSH: Yeah, that seems like a really under-covered story, right? We've spent so much time because Democrats control Congress, but we haven't - if you look at the Republicans, their divisions seem almost more pronounced.

DETROW: And the interesting thing - and, Deirdre, you certainly see this in Congress - and if Republicans retake control of the House next year, we will see it even more. Domenico pointed out there's really hardly any overarching-policy-uniting themes among these Republican camps, and increasingly from lawmakers in Congress, you hardly hear about policy at all. Like, what specific policies are House Republicans pushing for? It seems to more be about, like, the whole cultural attitude that Trumpism has fostered.

WALSH: Yeah. I mean, I talked to a strategist yesterday for another story who talked about how more and more people are electing activists to Congress sort of on both sides and not as much legislators. And you sort of see this in this typology, right? I mean, it's just sort of the types of people that appeal to the different factions inside the party. And that will definitely affect how, you know, well or not Congress can function.

MONTANARO: And I think the bright line in American politics is still the role of government. Do you believe that the government should do more, or do you think the government should do less? And that's sort of like the first door of this choose your own adventure when it comes to, where do you fit? Because Republicans, when we talk about some of those divisions on some specific issues, culture is what you hit on. That is one major area where Republicans are united. They believe that government's doing too much, everyone has the ability to succeed, obstacles that once made it harder for women and non-whites to get ahead are now gone, that white people largely don't benefit from societal advances over Blacks, that political correctness is a major problem, and military might is key to keeping the U.S. a superpower. Clearly, on the other side with Democrats, there are other things that stitch them together, but almost polar opposite of what we just laid out there for Republicans.

DETROW: I want to ask one thing about independents and this research because, you know, we have seen both parties increasingly try to appeal to their bases in a lot of elections and a lot of policies. And there's been all this conversation of, is this a moment for an independent, a third party to materialize? And the answer continues to be no.

MONTANARO: (Laughter).

DETROW: There was some good context for why that is here in that, you know, a lot of people feel like they don't fit into either of these parties, but they don't really have much in common with each other.

MONTANARO: Oh, my goodness. This is one of the areas that always continues to drive close watchers of politics, aka people like me, nuts - because there is no magic middle in this country, and the data here bears that out. There are definitely some, you know, overarching things that unite the people who believe there should be more than two parties. And that's basically a feeling that there aren't people speaking for them, that politics is just, you know, corrupt, and people are jaded toward it, right? And I get that.

But when - underneath the surface, when you ask people, their attitudes, their beliefs, they believe very different things. The groups that have the largest share who identify as independents in this massive survey are three groups - the ambivalent right, stressed side-liners and the outsider left. They believe very, very different things. They have very little in common politically. The outsider left - much younger. They're very socially liberal. The ambivalent right? Not so much. They're much more conservative socially. And if you were to get those three groups in the same room, they, I think, would have a very hard time, you know, puffing some white smoke and picking a new pope.

WALSH: I also think what Domenico raises just shows you, like, what the makeup of the sort of current elected lawmakers looks like in Congress, right? There are - like, the ranks of the moderate lawmakers who - from both parties who could possibly put together sort of bipartisan deals on things that they have in common have just shrunk incredibly. I mean, there used to be, you know, 10 years ago, there was this sort of moderate democratic group called Blue Dogs. There used to be about 60 of them. Now there's like 22. And they are the most endangered Democrats who face the strongest headwinds going into the 2022 midterms.

On the Republican side, there used to be a fairly sizable group of - I think they used to call them the Tuesday group and the Main Street Republican group that, you know, met every Tuesday to talk about, like, what are things we could work across the aisle on? They've retired or been voted out, and there are very few of them left.

And just the example of an infrastructure vote last week. Last Friday, only 13 House Republicans voted for a bipartisan infrastructure bill. I mean, back in the day of, like, big infrastructure debates, these were bills that got passed with like over 300 votes. I mean, these were things that everybody wanted to brag about.

MONTANARO: And I'll just say, I just want to make one other point about political power and who wields it and who's able to sort of drive the narrative on a lot of policy decisions. And those are the people who are most engaged politically. And when you look at the three core Republican groups and the three core Democratic groups, those are the groups that are the most fired up for the 2022 midterm elections. They're the ones who say in the highest numbers that who controls Congress after the 2022 midterms really matters.

When you look at those three middle groups, they are the least politically engaged. They are the least likely to say that the 2022 elections really matter and are the least likely to vote in those elections. So you wind up with this sense - if you feel this sense that the loudest voices and the staunchest advocates are the ones who are directing the process and have all the power, you're right, because they're the ones who actually vote.

WALSH: Democrats looking at this should have some red alarms going off because I think this underscores the enthusiasm that Republicans have for what's at stake in the midterm elections in a way that's probably, you know, more fired up than those on the left.

DETROW: All right. We are going to take a quick break. Domenico, stick around. Deirdre, we will call you back when it's time for Can't Let It Go. But coming up next, we are going to hear from NPR correspondent Tim Mak and some new reporting he has on the National Rifle Association.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

DETROW: And we are back. And joining us, our old friend, Tim Mak. Tim, it is nice to talk to you again.

TIM MAK, BYLINE: It's always good to be on the pod.

DETROW: So you do a lot of reporting on the National Rifle Association, and you had a pretty big story this week about a really important moment in American gun culture, in the NRA and a lot of things. And that was tapes of their internal reaction after the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, which killed 13 people at a Colorado high school. And I feel like in a way that's hard to explain because there have been so many horrible, similar shootings since then was just this seismic moment of pure horror that something like this could happen. And, of course, the NRA had to respond. And you have new exclusive reporting about what they were saying and thinking.

MAK: Well, that's right. Basically, the NRA, the day after Columbine, scrambles onto a conference call. These are senior executives and officials and lobbyists and advisers. And they have a huge problem. Not only did this tragedy occur, but in just over a week, they had planned a annual convention in Denver, not far away from the site of the shooting. So it's a serious crisis for the organization.

And so what we got was 2 1/2 hours of these officials all trying to strategize and figure out how the NRA would react and respond to this to these shootings. And it really sets the tone and the basis for the NRA's response to school shootings in the era to come, in the 20-plus years since. You kind of see how this strategy is developed in real time as they're discussing their options.

At one point, there's this discussion between Wayne LaPierre, who's the head of the NRA, and Marion Hammer, who's a top lobbyist and longtime official in the organization. And they're arguing about whether they can cancel this convention.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

WAYNE LAPIERRE: We have meeting insurance.

MARION HAMMER: Screw the insurance. The message that it will send is that even the NRA was brought to its knees, and the media will have a field day with it.

MAK: And you can really hear in some of this audio just how much the lobbyists and officials are concerned about how the media will portray the NRA going through with its annual meeting in Denver.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

JIM BAKER: This is the same concern, obviously, that everybody has is that at the same period where they're going to be burying these children, we're going to be having media within 10 miles of our convention center, the world's media trying to run through the exhibit hall looking at kids fondling firearms, which is going to be a horrible, horrible, horrible juxtaposition.

MAK: That voice you heard there was Jim Baker. He was the NRA's top lobbyist at the time.

MONTANARO: Yeah. I mean, look. I think it's really interesting how obviously the NRA and any other, frankly, big organization or corporation is going to look at how they come across optically in the face of something that really involves, you know, their culture, their materials. And we've seen the playbook that the NRA has used, you know, since Columbine. And, you know, I think for a lot of us, having covered Sandy Hook, for example, in Newtown, Conn., you know, listening to members of the NRA and Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, saying things like there should be more guns in schools, kind of leaning into that message and using it against people, I think, has laid the basis and foundation for, you know, not just the NRA's response to things that put them in a corner, but a lot of the Republican right, frankly, when they feel backed into a corner, they find a way to hit back using the thing that they see as a vulnerability. And no one did that better than former President Trump.

MAK: What's really interesting in these tapes - right? - is that you hear NRA officials taking a look and considering a different option, a softer message, maybe canceling their convention or conceding some sort of responsibility, even the idea of setting up this million-dollar victims fund that they talk about on the call. But instead, they back away from that. They're really consumed by this idea or they land on this notion that if they concede anything, that that will be as if they're accepting responsibility or accepting that they're complicit in this shooting. And this is a message that once they land on, they don't move away from - not after Columbine, not after Sandy Hook, not after a Parkland. It really begins to get baked in to the NRA's playbook in the years ahead.

DETROW: Do you think there's an alternate world where, if they had taken a different approach in that particular moment since it was such a big cultural moment where they stick to that tone, or do you think there were so many factors that they would have kind of ended up on that hard-line tone that we're so used to in the decade since?

MAK: I think they could have. They could have taken a different tone. But I think they're always thinking about the pressures they're under from their own membership. You know, they've got a lot of very activist ideological members who would have created a lot of problems for them if they had been too conciliatory with people who wanted gun legislation at the time, for example.

MONTANARO: Well, but what's interesting now is that how much the tide has changed a little bit with gun restrictions groups really kind of growing in a degree of prominence while the NRA has struggled. I wonder if back then there were alternative voices within the NRA who said, you know, maybe this isn't the best approach. I mean, I think it's interesting to think about what we've talked about earlier in the podcast with the Pew typology that's out and how Democrats have now changed from, you know, where there was a disagreement 30 years ago, frankly, among some Democrats who were more pro-gun rights, that doesn't exist anymore, that wing. And everyone sort of sorted them right or left. And it's way less of a bipartisan organization now.

MAK: Right. I mean, at the time of Columbine, their greatest strategic allies are moderate Democrats, right? And that continues to be the case for the next 15 years or so up until Sandy Hook. But at the time, you know, the NRA really prided prided itself in being able to reach out to some number of moderate Democrats. And moderate Democrats really did reach out to the NRA as cover, especially in rural areas for political support. The thing is, though, that the NRA has undoubtedly changed over the last 20-plus years. I mean, after Columbine, the NRA does support expanded background checks. But, of course, they reject that idea in the years to come and really strongly reject it after Sandy Hook.

DETROW: And if you are interested in that storyline and many things that happen next, you are in luck because Tim, in fact, has a brand new book about that called "Misfire." Tim, it was nice to hang out with you for a little bit. And great reporting.

MONTANARO: Thanks so much.

DETROW: We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, it is time for Can't Let It Go.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

DETROW: We are back. And it is time to end the show like we do every week with Can't Let It Go, the part of the show where we talk about things from the week we cannot stop talking about, politics or otherwise. First of all, Deirdre, welcome back. We missed you terribly over the last 10 minutes or so.

WALSH: Glad to be here.

DETROW: Domenico, why don't you go first?

MONTANARO: Well, the thing that I can't let go of this week is a Louisiana hurricane, and not one that, you know, may have touched down on the coast or any of that. I'm talking about Julia 'Hurricane' Hawkins, the 105-year-old former Louisiana teacher who was the first female track and field athlete in the world to run in the 105-plus age bracket and to clock a time in the 100-meter dash this week.

DETROW: Whoa.

WALSH: Wow. There's a 105 age bracket for this?

MONTANARO: She created it (laughter). She had the record from 100 to 104. And, you know, track and field - and my dad's a track and field coach - and it's all about personal bests, you know. And I think that what she was able to do, you know, is just sort of remind people that, you know, you might be sitting there on the couch lazily thinking I don't have time, I can't get up - there's a 105-year-old lady out there who just finished a 100-meter dash. She also has a world record for her age group in the 200-meter dash and a record for the javelin.

DETROW: What was her time?

MONTANARO: Well, you know, her time was one minute, two seconds.

DETROW: That's - OK.

MONTANARO: You know, but she's able to do it.

WALSH: That's impressive, man, for 105.

MONTANARO: What I love about her is her competitive spirit. You know, she said that it was wonderful to see so many family members and friends. But she said, I wanted to do it in less than a minute. And when someone in the crowd asked whether it made her feel any better to realize that her time was less than her age, she simply said no.

(LAUGHTER)

DETROW: Got to keep working, you know.

WALSH: I bet she beats the time next time. She's going to run again.

MONTANARO: The best part about this is that she said that she was a lifelong cyclist who just gave it up late in life because of the lack of competition. Just go get them, girl. That's all I got to say.

(LAUGHTER)

DETROW: Deirdre, what about you?

WALSH: Well, the thing I can't let go of this week is political, but it's also because I like it when politicians are accountable and transparent for their actions. And this is a story about the attorney general of Michigan who overserved herself at a tailgate recently. This is the big rivalry game in the Big Ten - Michigan, Michigan State. So obviously, if you're an elected official of the state, you go to that game. So it turns out she had two Bloody Marys on an empty stomach and was a bit of a mess at the game.

DETROW: I mean, that's a baseline for a lot of people at a college football game, but probably not attorneys general at a college football game.

WALSH: Yeah. The thing that was fascinating to me was that she owned up to the fact that things didn't go so well for her in a post on her Facebook page. And she called it, quote, "tailgate gate." I don't know why she felt the need to post this, but I give her a lot of credit because it's a lot of personal information, including that, she said she - there was no food, so it seemed like a good idea to have two Bloody Marys since if you put enough vegetables in them, they amount to a salad. I don't really know that that's the best idea.

DETROW: I've heard that argument.

MONTANARO: Do we have the badum-tish (ph) symbol for that one?

(SOUNDBITE OF SPLASH CYMBAL)

MONTANARO: That sounds like a joke I would make.

WALSH: So she went to the game, and there was a picture of her sort of slumped over in a seat. It looked like she was essentially passed out. And she basically just said, look, I'm human. Sometimes I screw up. This wasn't my best. And I apologize to the state of Michigan and to people. And I learned my lesson - no more Bloody Marys for me. I guess this way she figured, I'm just going to get it out, and I'm going to get out the story in my own words and own it, and she did.

MONTANARO: Know your limits. That's the moral of the story.

DETROW: (Laughter).

WALSH: So, Scott, what is it that you can't let go of this week?

DETROW: I began the morning really proud of myself and thinking I was on it, and it turned out I was very much not on it. And I'm embarrassed, but I'm going to talk about that. So we I think we have touched on this before. The producer of this podcast, Barton Girdwood, is a Taylor Swift superfan and keeps up with pop culture in a way that at times I do not. And back when we used to sit next to each other in an office, he would often marvel at my total lack of awareness of, like, really big pop culture moments.

He loved Taylor Swift. We played this moment on the podcast a few years ago. We will play it again. This is audio from the moment that the tickets open for the Tiny Desk concert at NPR when Taylor Swift played at NPR. This is Ayesha and me explaining Barton's legitimate freakout as that moment happened because I thought to roll on it.

Four, three, two, one.

BARTON GIRDWOOD, BYLINE: What? An error occurred? What's happening?

DETROW: And that's Barton. And it continued like this because the site was just overwhelmed. And it started to - it wasn't processing the applications. So I'm clicking, I'm clicking. Barton's clicking and clicking. And the tension really escalates.

Oh, no. It's frozen.

GIRDWOOD: Error with the submission? No. Yes. Yes.

DETROW: And this is Barton celebrating his success.

In my head, that was like nine years ago. I think it was maybe two years ago. I truly don't even remember. He went to the concert. I stood next to him at the concert. He had a great time. I think I'm like, you know, I listen to Taylor Swift music, but a big moment in Barton and my relationship was that for several months he would say every day to me, you need to calm down. And I was like, what's wrong with you? Why do you keep saying that to me? And then one day I was like, Barton, I just realized that that is a song that was released four months ago. And he was like, OK, good for you.

MONTANARO: I was going to say, I didn't sit too far from you guys. And I knew the joke. And this went on for months.

Excerpt from:

A Look At The Diversity Of Political Ideology In The United States : The NPR Politics Podcast - NPR

Maybe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should have skipped the lecture, and just tweeted OK, boomer.

In case you missed it, AOC responded to James Carvilles blaming stupid wokeness for Democratic electoral losses and clapped back by saying wokeness is a term almost exclusively used by older people these days, adding that the average audience for people seriously using the word woke in a 2021 political discussion are James Carville and Fox News pundits[,] so that should tell you all you need to know.

Rather than confronting Carvilles actual argumentthat left-wing political correctness is turning off a lot of Americans and hurting Democrats at the ballot boxshes smearing him by association and suggesting hes out of touch with todays youth.

Guess what? He is!

But Carville is in touch with the broader electorate, which is not representative of AOCs New York district.

Rather than grapple with the substance of his critique, AOC made it personal. Carville is old, so obviously he has no wisdom to share with his party. This tells you much about our youth-centric culture that has little respect, let alone, reverence for its elders, from the Ragin Cajun all the way back to The Pen of the Revolution.

In fairness, I can understand why AOC and other progressives are unhappy with the way woke has been co-opted. Over the years, a lot of Black slang has been absorbed into the mainstream. And usually, thats all good. But with woke, the term is now being weaponized against the people who coined it.

Still, its not just old, white Republicans who are using woke in a derogatory waynor is it just older white Democrats like James Carville.

Its a lose-lose: Conservatives keep losing the culture, and Democrats keep losing elections.

Its even Barack Obama.

This idea of purity and youre never compromised and youre always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly, Obama warned two years ago.

Sure, hes a codger, too, but progressives might want to listen to the transformational African American leader who won the presidency twice. When it comes to Democrats winning the presidency, it would be impossible to find better living experts than Carville and Obama, yet the congresswoman who won her House district with about 16,000 votes thinks she knows better than both.

Imagine you were a Virginian who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Glenn Youngkin in 2021. Now, you are being told that the latters use of the term Critical Race Theory was itself an act of white supremacy and a coded dog whistle. The only problem? Glenn Youngkins actual comments were entirely anodyneif not salutary. What he basically said was that systemic racism exists. Racism has plagued our history. But it does not define us as Americans.

At this point, you might be thinking the Republican Party is your new home.

Still, I can understand why progressives have a problem with the newer, broader, more colloquial definition of CRT. First, CRT, properly defined, specifically has to do with academic scholarship and law schools. Second, the term was intentionally demonized by an activist who bragged about it.

Personally, I thought it was splitting hairs for progressives to hold everyone to the literal definition of CRT, although I concede what we really meant to say was woke.

Except, now thats out of bounds too.

In fact, on the heels of AOC saying its uncool and problematic to use the term, we are now being told its out-and-out racism. If youre not black and started using woke pejoratively sometime post-2018 or so (or worse, dont know anything about the earlier iteration of the term), I think its fair to consider it a racial slur, wrote Slates Joel D. Anderson.

Anderson then took things one step further, adding: And it doesn't mean Im gonna do anything to you, or that anyone else will. But it doesnt mean I wont either.

There are a couple problems with this. First, Andersons tweet only reinforces suspicions about the authoritarian tendencies of the left. Second, what should we call this phenomenon if we cant say woke? Words matter, and I dont think political correctness (which sounds positive) is strong enoughnor does it capture the radical nature the left has adopted in recent decades.

Conservatives, who are already being told to refer to their mothers as birthing persons, have just been given a new list of naughty words that could result in cancelation (or an ass-kicking).

What we are left with is a lose-lose for everybody. Conservatives keep losing the culture, and Democrats keep losing elections.

Maybe its time for everyone to come to their senses.

See more here:

AOC's 'Woke' Whine Is Why the Dems Can't Stop Losing - The Daily Beast

Editors note: We received more than 100 letters about the papers decision to stop running Mallard Fillmore. Here are a few of them.

I have disagreed with just about every opinion put forth in the Doonesbury strip since its inception. At the same time, I thoroughly enjoy reading it for the clever satirical style in which it is written. It would never have occurred to me to try to ban its existence because that political view is different from my own.

The Mallard Fillmore decision mystifies me. I have to wonder how many woke reactions to the strip from the left side of the street constitute enough reader feedback to make such a decision. I doubt we will ever know. But you have to ask yourself how hard it would be to surpass that number in Dallas with reader feedback to eliminate Doonesbury. Wake up, guys. Bad decision.

Ken Kelley, Pottsboro

You stated that in response to reader feedback you will no longer publish Mallard Fillmore. Did I miss an opportunity to weigh in with reader feedback? There have been opportunities in the past to vote for comic strips; I did not see one regarding Mallard Fillmore. Although I may not have always agreed with the cartoonist, I enjoyed reading the strip each week and will miss it. Any chance youll bring it back to present both sides of the story?

Ann Fleming, Dallas/Lake Highlands

So sorry you decided to cancel Mallard Fillmore. Your left-leaning censorship has finally prompted me to cancel my subscription. It amazes me that you have increasingly, over the years, become so biased. If I dont like something I just ignore it or, in your case, dont read it.

Left-thinkers whine and want anything they dont agree with banished. Your paper has completely forgotten that you are in a blue county surrounded by red counties. You have at least five comics that continually spew liberal messages every day. I will seek my daily periodical elsewhere. You canceled the duck, so I will cancel you.

Doug Mazey, Allen

I didnt always find Mallard Fillmore funny. Sometimes it made me uncomfortable. It did make me think, which is why I read anything. First it was Non Sequitur. Now Mallard Fillmore. Watch out, Doonesbury. People might complain about your take on retirees from a recent strip, and youll be gone. Watch out Zits. There might be complaints about the portrayal of a well-meaning, protective, helicoptering mom.

And then theres LuAnn, who, to some, might seem like a daily dose of blond jokes. Is this censorship? Is this political correctness? I have no answers, but in a week where a legislator wants to know what books are in school libraries, it scares the heck out of me.

Cynthia Stock, Garland

I and others I have spoken with very much believe the removal of Mallard Fillmore was a mistake. (Pardon, your liberal bias is showing.) I saw the replacement today and all I have to say is, are you serious? I strongly suggest that you reverse your decision.

Robert Smith, North Dallas

To be fair, bring back Mallard Fillmore or doom the Doonesbury. What about Judge Parker. Where does that belong?

John Jeffry Green, Hickory Creek

I am experiencing fremdschmen for you after reading your brief notice that your comics page will no longer carry Mallard Fillmore. Like watching an old friend cave in to the neighborhood bullies.

Buist Fanning, Irving

After perusing the recent letters concerning Rep. Matt Krauses attempts at library book screening and/or removal, I feel compelled to point out that the cancel culture is apparently alive and well at The Dallas Morning News as well. Your claim that the cancellation and replacement of Mallard Fillmore was the result of reader feedback is every bit as scary as the actions of Krause.

I am occasionally offended by the disrespect shown to our seniors with minor dementia by Pickles as well as by the condescension shown to Latinos and Blacks by Baldo and Curtis, respectively. Your readers either need to develop better senses of humor or just stick with the sports pages.

Henry Benedict, San Angelo

Re: Lefty defends Mallard Fillmore, by John G. Irvin, Nov. 6 letters.

What gives other readers the right to choose what I can read and enjoy, just because they dont like it? I am a true conservative and I enjoy reading comics that make me laugh and sometimes pause to reflect. I may not agree with the content of Mallard Fillmore or Doonesbury, but they express opposing views that I enjoy reading every Sunday.

Im sure many, many people have asked for the removal of Doonesbury over the years, but its still in there every Sunday. What gives?

Rene Wimmer, Aubrey

Re: Choice to read comic revoked, by Sally Weiss, Nov. 6 letters.

After reading both Irwins and Sally Weiss letters, I feel the need to put in my 2 cents worth. Please bring back the comic Mallard Fillmore. My liberal children tell me that I am a moderate. I enjoy both Doonesbury and Mallard Fillmore.

As Weiss said, if someone doesnt like Mallard Fillmore, they dont have to read it. Now that you have removed it, I cant read it. I actually think the last Mallard Fillmore comic before you pulled it saying the scariest thing on Halloween was an unvaccinated person was spot on.

Frances C. Wilson, McKinney

I guess I dont get it. Why is everyone these days so sensitive and so demanding that whatever they dont like must be censored/removed from public view?

Ive been reading your paper for years and I dont care for the Doonesbury left-wing agenda. However, it never entered my mind that it should be removed from the paper. I dont like it so I just dont read it.

It seems ridiculous to censor/remove items that we quiet readers enjoy because a few squeaky wheels complain. Newspapers are supposed to be unbiased in their content. In your attempts to present to everyone, I would consider numerous complaints as a testament that youre probably doing it right.

Benjamin Franklin said, If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed. Why dont we all calm down and not be so afraid of what the opposition prints? Let your readers choose what theyll read or not read, but at least print it.

The truth is often painful to those who dont want to hear the truth. We can all find and follow our own truth without having to deny others that opportunity.

Jerry Janway, Waxahachie

I was sorry to hear that you have canceled another political type cartoon. I understand why the previous one was canceled. I have looked forward to reading the letters about Mallard Fillmore. I remember the fuss over Doonesbury, but it finally made its way back to the comics.

Im wondering if this action is an ongoing outcome of falling prey to the cancellation groups and the political animosity that is so prevalent. Your paper has become smaller and smaller over the years, and I hope somewhere along the way you will make it back to more reporting and investigation.

Phyllis Fosdick, Plano

You said that you are canceling Mallard Fillmore due to reader feedback. Well, here is my feedback do not cancel Mallard Fillmore. I cannot believe that you would cancel Mallard Fillmore but continue to print Doonesbury.

George Bannerman Dealey must be spinning in his grave. You have now removed every conservative voice from your so-called newspaper and your bias is obvious for everyone to see.

Robert Chambers, North Dallas

Im disappointed in The Dallas Morning News for dropping Mallard Fillmore. I viewed it as the conservative counterpoint to Doonesbury, a blatantly leftist strip. In dropping Mallard Fillmore, you are abandoning George B. Dealeys admonition that the paper, Acknowledge the right of the people to get from the newspaper both sides of every important question.

Your embracing the cancel culture leads me to embrace it as well: I will be canceling my subscription to The DMN (after about 40 years).

Dale Crane, Southlake

Mallard Fillmore, goodbye. I shall miss you, as you gave me something to think about. Like B.C., The Wizard of Id and Peanuts, you have a lesson for all of us.

Donald N. Wright, Garland

Cancel culture is alive and well at The Dallas Morning News. I am a bit surprised, as I was under the impression that The News at least tried to present opinions and news in a fair and balanced manner. Guess I was mistaken. After all, we cant have one single comic that presents a conservative point of view even though its perfectly acceptable to have the screamingly left-wing comic Doonesbury as well as other strips that occasionally venture into the political arena and present a non-conservative opinion.

In a state where the vast majority of the people are conservative, I find the excuse used to cancel Mallard Fillmore, which was user input, to be lacking in credibility.

Im greatly disappointed in The News. The comic Mallard Fillmore is intelligent, clever and entertaining. I will miss it greatly.

Olan Knight, Murphy

I dont understand why you are ending a decent comic like a Mallard Fillmore when you allow Judge Parker to run daily in the comics section. Judge Parker is an absolute waste of space. Its not funny or entertaining at all. How it has managed to be in the comics for such a long time is mind boggling.

While Im at it, why the heck does Aces on Bridge regularly publish? I dont read the paper to learn how to play bridge. All that is is a waste of valuable real estate in the paper as well. Instead of removing a decent subject, how about removing the true wastes of space?

Seth Morgan, Mesquite

Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Be sure to include sources.

More here:

Letters to the Editor Many readers will miss Mallard Fillmore - The Dallas Morning News

Perhaps the saddest aspect of the sexual assault scandal that has cast a pall over the NHLs Chicago Blackhawks in recent weeks is the familiarity of it all, coming after predators such as Larry Nassar, Jerry Sandusky and Richard Strauss were similarly allowed to make young athletes their victims under a culture of impunity.

The Hockey Hall of Fame this week covered former Blackhawks assistant coach Brad Aldrichs name on the Stanley Cup with Xs, leaving a scar that the storied Original Six franchise will forever have to explain, a more fitting damnation than removing his name altogether. Aldrich sexually assaulted rookie forward Kyle Beach during the 2010 season, an incident the franchise swept under the rug in pursuit of its first championship since 1961. Then-coach Joel Quenneville was fired by his new team this week for his role, along with general manager Stan Bowman.

Beach testified that when he attempted to resist Aldrich, the assistant coach wielded a baseball bat and warned Beach that by pulling strings, he could permanently destroy Beachs pro career. The team kept Aldrich on staff until after winning the Stanley Cup, then quietly parted ways with him without warning anyone else. Miami (Ohio) University later hired Aldrich without a warning from the Blackhawks; he allegedly found more victims on campus.

When Aldrich gloated over the sort of unquestioned power he claimed over Beachs life, he likely wasnt kidding. Sports culture, from the professionals down to high school, has long valued unquestioning, militant obedience toward coaches and others who dont need such absolute authority. Its part of a win-at-all-costs mentality that assumes if a coach has to explain himself, his all-important ability to coax victory out of the team will somehow be undermined.

Consider ex-Baylor football coach Art Briles, who brought a once-moribund program to national prominence, but was fired after his players were accused of 53 rapes between 2011 and 2014. Rather than being scorned as an enabler of monstrous behavior, students and alumni rallied around Briles as a purported victim of political correctness, urging Baylors administration to retain him. Ex-Indiana basketball coach Bobby Knight received a similar outpouring of support after being ousted for hotheaded behavior that wouldnt be tolerated from a man in any other occupation.

It isnt clear why anyone would want to invest former Oakland Raiders head coach Jon Gruden with this sort of power, given his mediocre 117-112 career win-loss record. But star-struck Raiders owner Mark Davis gave Gruden a 10-year, $100 million contract in 2018 nonetheless.

Gruden was ousted last month after leaked emails revealed his neanderthal-like attitudes toward women and people of other races. Among the more disturbing revelations was that Gruden, who had control over the Raiders personnel decisions, thought San Francisco 49ers safety Eric Reid should be fired for his support of the Black Lives Matter movement. Turns out Reid was onto something when he reached a settlement with the league in 2019 over claims that he and ex-teammate Colin Kaepernick were being blacklisted for their political views.

The power-mad archetype coach was once considered necessary for winning, but ex-NFL players who won Super Bowls under mild-mannered coaches Dick Vermeil, Pete Carroll and Doug Pederson have insisted that a more modest coach can achieve success too. Perhaps a change is in order.

Change is clearly needed in the NHL. Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews seemed more annoyed than sympathetic toward Beach, defending those involved in the coverup and claiming hindsight is 20/20. Boston Bruins forward Taylor Hall, the leagues 2018 MVP, gave a more sensible view that resonates beyond the hockey world.

Every culture needs to keep getting better, and hockey is no different, Hall said of the Blackhawks scandal. There need to be changes and, unfortunately, people need to be held accountable.

Oneonta Daily Star

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read more:

GUEST VIEW: Dictatorial coaching should be in the past - Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

BILLY HOLLAND| Religion columnist

In Luke 10:30-37, a certain lawyer approaches Jesus with a spiritual question: What shall I do to inherit eternal life?

How fitting that a legal expert would ask Jesus about a subject he was trained to understand.

Jesus points this man and the rest of us to the law of heaven, Whoever loves God with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind, and whoever loves their neighbor as themselves will have eternal life.

This arrogant attorney was only pretending to make sure he understood clearly whom he is obligated to love, and continued another attempt to justify his prejudice.

And who is my neighbor? Jesus responds to this second query with the story of the Good Samaritan.

The Good Samaritan was obviously a sensitive and caring person who at significant cost to himself, stopped to help a wounded stranger that had been beaten and robbed and was being ignored by everyone passing by. Making his rescue attempt even more remarkable is the fact that he was a Samaritan and the man who was hurt was his Jewish neighbor.

You see, traditionally Jews and Samaritans despised each other. Its true the Samaritan is the hero of the story and a model of Biblical compassion, but his actions should not be seen as extraordinary.

This is the standard attitude of Christian love that God expects or more accurately He demands from all of His followers as a normal lifestyle. Some of the villains in this true account are surprisingly the religious leaders who turned their heads and their hearts away and acted as if they did not see the crisis.

Its easy to heap scorn on such callous disregard, but there is also a good chance we may have fared no better. These respected figures within the community might have felt pity for the victim and may have even said a silent prayer for him as they passed by, however, refusing to become involved was sadly based on racial bigotry and political correctness.

We have also driven past those who hold signs begging for help which leaves us with countless opinions. Weve heard stories about those who are professional scammers and how they play on peoples emotions. There are always reasons and excuses why we do not pick up hitchhikers or help those who sleep under bridges and mostly its because we would rather not be involved.

We know its critical to use our spiritual discernment, but should we try to help everyone? We can imagine what the people in our story were thinking for example, Im not comfortable or trained to treat wounds, and Im afraid he might have a disease. What if he dies, I will be blamed. Maybe they justified their decision with the idea they should not be expected to be responsible for everyone elses problems.

Others might have been suspicious this person was a criminal and deserved what happened and this was his punishment. Or maybe they were just really busy that day or were late for a lunch date or an important meeting. Whatever reasons these individuals deemed it either too costly or insignificant, Jesus condemns them.

To love their neighbor at that moment required stopping what they were focused on and deciding to do what was right.

Jesus continues to teach these spiritual principles as He declares in Matthew chapter 25, that whatever we refuse to do for others, we are also ignoring to consider Him. This includes our love. So, how crucial is it to be sensitive to the voice of the Holy Spirit and be ready to serve? The people in this Matthew passage are sent into eternal damnation because they failed to care for the needy. Remember the rich man and Lazarus. Romans chapter 12 speaks directly to believers about the practical and often painful ministry of being a living sacrifice.

This means we should be prepared to act when a divine appointment presents itself as having a higher level of spiritual discernment is why we talk so much about walking in the awareness of Gods presence. Being sympathetic is not enough as James says in 2:15-16, If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, go in peace, be warmed and filled, without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? How is feeling sorry for someone helping anything? Until our minds are renewed to resist our carnal selfish nature, we will never be like Jesus.

Read more about the Christian life at billyhollandministries.com.

Read more here:

Making the effort to do what is right - The Jackson Sun