Liberal who started #Walkaway Campaign was Shocked to Discover the Media Lied to Him — PUMABydesign001’s Blog

A little more than a decade ago, after coming to grips with suspicions and newfound revelations that the Democratic Party had betrayed Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, middle class Americans, I became angry and then I became a blogger. My earlier posts reflect the outrage that I felt by the betrayal of Democratic leaders, in particular, […]

via Liberal who started #Walkaway Campaign was Shocked to Discover the Media Lied to Him — PUMABydesign001’s Blog

A Gun in the Home is more Likely…: A Blast from the Past

A claim always in need of rebuttal…

The Writer in Black

People keep making the claim that a gun in the home is more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than it is to be used in self defense.

This all derives by a “study” by Arthur Kellerman which has long since been debunked but its fake statistics nevertheless continue to be cited by anti-gun propagandists.

Here are a few of the debunkings:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/william-c-montgomery/editorial-deconstructing-kellermann/
http://www.guns.com/2015/08/24/kellermanns-gun-ownership-studies-after-two-decades/
http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/doctors-epidemic.htm
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-43.html

Some of its flaws:
On the one side: He only counts as “defenses” dead criminals when in truth in most cases where a gun is used in self defense merely presenting a gun is sufficient to end the threat. When the gun is fired, most of the times the person shot survives. This is even more the case in defensive shootings because when a person means harm, they are more likely to keep shooting until the target is…

View original post 655 more words

Progressives hysterically protest article telling them to be less hysterical

Enjoy the lack of self-awareness found in the most popular Progressive comments to a Times op-ed warning against the dangers of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Source: Progressives hysterically protest article telling them to be less hysterical

They hate you. They really, really hate you.

The above are representative of the top “reader picks” articles, each claiming that Alexander is out of his ever-loving mind because Trump supporters are so utterly vile and so entirely outside the pale that it is impossible (or, as Biden would say, “literally impossible”) to speak to them in any but the most demeaning, insulting, offensive terms. Only in such a way can these self-defined “liberals” preserve the space between their own dignified, respectful, open-minded, intelligent, and truly decent selves, on the one hand, and the utter evil that walks the land in Trump’s America, on the other hand.

If you want a video microcosm of the type of thinking New York Times Progressives are displaying here, I urge you to check out this video. Also I urge you to read Paul Mirengoff’s two articles pointing out that, for all the rhetoric about Trump’s alleged hatred and fascism, he’s been a completely controlled, constitutional president. What the Progressives mean when they speak of hate and fascism are policies that were normative just ten or twelve years ago, before Obama took his pen and phone and unilaterally tried to rewrite the Constitution.

Mirengoff’s articles are especially sweet because, back in 2016 and early 2017, he did not support and was very worried about Trump. Mirengoff represents what happens when a president keeps his promises, acts in a manner consistent with America’s Constitution and laws, and loves his country and its values. Moreover, Mirengoff is not alone. Ordinary Americans are noticing that the racial obsession, lawlessness, and hate are emanating, not from the White House, but from the mean streets of America’s Leftist cities and political enclaves.

Profs Deem Scholar’s Work Centrist – Didn’t Know it Was Written by Charles Murray

Source: Profs Deem Scholar’s Work Centrist – Didn’t Know it Was Written by Charles Murray

We sent this transcript to 68 faculty members in the United States and Canada. … We did not tell these faculty that the transcription was a talk by Murray nor that it was connected to the disturbance at Middlebury College. We asked them to rate it on a 9-point scale (1 = strongly liberal, 5 = middle-of-the-road, 9 = strongly conservative). Fifty-seven of the 68 faculty members responded (plus two spouses, one of whom we included because she is also a professor). Their median rating of Murray’s talk was 5 (mean = 5.02, SD = 1.34). The most liberal rating was 2.5, and the most conservative rating was 8; of the 58 faculty ratings, 37 were between 4 and 6, or middle of the road. Thus, faculty in this convenience sample did not view Murray’s comments as dangerously conservative, and none of their written comments suggested anything remotely oriented toward hate speech.

… Of the 58 faculty members who were unaware that the talk was by Murray, 26 accompanied their ratings with comments. They frequently viewed the talk as a list of descriptive facts that were neither controversial nor conservative but mainly centrist or liberal:

“I see it as mostly apolitical (apart from a couple of opinionated words). I would rate it a 5”;

“If the author is taking an ideological position, I can’t see it. I see nothing pro/anti rich/capitalism, there is no ‘signaling’ that I can see. And the person does not even take a stand on whether the development described is good, bad, or some mix. It’s just descriptive of a social phenomenon”;

“I’d have to say 5 non-partisan. He or she is not talking politics or policy”;

“5. It seems more a series of observations than a political statement of any kind”;

“Mostly just using data to make a set of observations. 5”;

“A 5. It is more or less a recitation of well-known trends in education and the economy; nothing very controversial there”;

“I give it a 4. Mostly because I associate the topic with liberals. But the passage is rather descriptive. I don’t see an action agenda that could be more revealing.”

When Williams and Ceci conducted their experiment using a different set of peers — this time telling fellow scholars the transcript came from Murray — many, but not all, found itright-of-center. And a group of random nonacademics found it centrist.

We also asked another group of 68 faculty to do the same rating, with one difference: We told them the text was from a speech by Charles Murray. This information made a statistical difference. The 44 who responded knowing it was written by Murray rated it as more conservative than did their blinded counterparts (M = 5.74, SD = 1.21), two-tailed t(96) = 2.74, p = .007. However, even this group’s mean was close to middle of the road. In sum, neither faculty group saw anything about Murray’s talk that deserved to be banned.

… In light of social psychologists’ liberal tendency, it was of interest to determine how a nonacademic sample would view Murray’s talk. Would they share the faculty belief that it was middle-of-the-road? To find out, we paid 200 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers (mean age = 32 years) to do the rating. They rated their own political orientation on the 9-point scale, and the mean was 4.22, slightly to the liberal side of the scale. To insure they carefully read the transcript of Murray’s talk, we included two factual questions related to the talk at the end of the MTurk survey that they had to answer correctly. Their mean rating of the Murray text was 5.22 (SD 1.17), which is squarely centrist. Thus, all three groups of adults rated the Murray talk as centrist, ranging from 5.02 to 5.74 on a 9-point scale.