ONE of the great intellectual and moral epiphanies of our time is the realization that human diversity is a blessing. It has become conventional wisdom that being around those unlike ourselves makes us better people — and more productive to boot.
Scholarly studies have piled up showing that race and gender diversity in the workplace can increase creative thinking and improve performance. Meanwhile, excessive homogeneity can lead to stagnation and poor problem-solving.
Unfortunately, new research also shows that academia has itself stopped short in both the understanding and practice of true diversity — the diversity of ideas — and that the problem is taking a toll on the quality and accuracy of scholarly work. This year, a team of scholars from six universities studying ideological diversity in the behavioral sciences published a paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences that details a shocking level of political groupthink in academia. The authors show that for every politically conservative social psychologist in academia there are about 14 liberal social psychologists.
Why the imbalance? The researchers found evidence of discrimination and hostility within academia toward conservative researchers and their viewpoints. In one survey cited, 79 percent of social psychologists admitted they would be less likely to support hiring a conservative colleague than a liberal scholar with equivalent qualifications.
This has consequences well beyond fairness. It damages accuracy and quality. As the authors write, “Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking.”
One of the study’s authors, Philip E. Tetlock of the University of Pennsylvania, put it to me more bluntly. Expecting trustworthy results on politically charged topics from an “ideologically incestuous community,” he explained, is “downright delusional.”
Do you remember when the liberal media and their supporters warned that if Charlotte loses the NBA All-Star game because of HB2, it will cost the city and state $100 million in lost revenue? Well, that was back in the spring and they’re still clamoring. Could they have nothing else to complain about because things are going well for North Carolina?
Over the last five years North Carolina has become one of the most attractive places in the country to do business, invest, live, raise a family, and retire. Republicans took control of the state legislature in 2010, and since then North Carolina legislators and Gov. Pat McCrory, who was elected in 2012, have enacted an impressive collection of policy and tax reforms. Major economic indicators show North Carolina’s strong economic performance both before and after HB2. The state’s pro-growth policies have led to the creation of 300,000 net new jobs since 2013.
According to Andrew Heath, State Budget Director, the following are some relevant facts since HB2 took effect:
- Nearly 5,000 new jobs have been announced since March.
- Moody’s reported that North Carolina’s 2016 year-to-date revenue growth has outpaced the 20 largest states’ average by more than 2-to-1.
- North Carolina’s unemployment rate returned to pre-recession levels at 4.9 percent and is down in all 100 counties since 2013.
- S&P, Moody’s and Fitch affirmed North Carolina’s AAA credit rating, citing the state’s continued diverse economic expansion.
- CNBC moved North Carolina from #9 to #5 in the ranking of best states for business.
- North Carolina ended the fiscal year with a $425 million revenue surplus.
And thanks to Jim Tynen of NC Civitas, we now know why losing one basketball game is no big deal! This is definitely worth the read for all you skeptics out there. I encourage you to do so and then pass it on, especially to Unaffiliated Voters and liberal friends!
DePaul University has rejected a student group’s request to host a speech by conservative pundit Ben Shapiro. The request was submitted by the university’s chapter of Young American for Liberty.
“DePaul University’s Office of Public Safety determined, after observing events at previous institutions at which Mr. Shapiro has spoken, that it was not in a position to provide the type of security that would be required to properly host this event,” said Carol Hughes, executive director of news and integrated content for DePaul, in an email. The university also denied a request to bring back conservative journalist Milo Yiannopoulos for the same reasons, she said.
Read more via: Inside Higher Education
I believe in and support the Second Amendment. But, it’s about more than guns. It’s about our freedom, and this is why Hillary Clinton must not become the next president.
Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment.
On September 24, 2015, Clinton made her views quite clear. An audio recording captured her saying, “….the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
On April 21, 2016, Chelsea Clinton reiterated her mother’s opposition to the Supreme Court’s individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. Chelsea said, “It matters to me that my mom recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control. Sometimes the Court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment, and sometimes the Court struck them down.”
Clinton and her daughter are referring to recent court cases that have determined the meaning of the Second Amendment, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. In both these cases, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, independent of service in an organized “militia,” and that the right also includes possessing a handgun at home for self-defense. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller. The decision of who replaces Justice Scalia is probably the most important consideration of this presidential election. Do you want the choice to be made by Hillary Clinton?
Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away
On October 16, 2015 in Keene, N.H., an audience member asked Clinton, “Recently Australia managed to get away, take away, tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. And in one year, they were all gone. Can we do that, and why if we can’t, why can’t we?” This is reference to Australia’s forced ban, confiscation, and destruction of at least 640,000 registered semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns in 1996.
Clinton replied, “I think that’s worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.” Do you want Hillary Clinton confiscating your guns?
Hillary Clinton attempts to hoodwink the public into believing that the gun is to blame
According to Clinton’s campaign website, “Military-style assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. Hillary will work to keep assault weapons off our streets and supports reinstating the assault weapons ban.”
The term “assault weapon” is a contrived term that she applies to all semi-automatic firearms. Semi-automatic firearms used by criminals are branded as “assault weapons,” two words linked with fully automatic “machine guns.” What the general public doesn’t seem to know is that automatic rifles have been banned outside of military use by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Semi-automatic firearms have been around for over a hundred years and are owned and used by millions of law-abiding people.
The confusion about semi-automatic vs. fully-automatic firearms started when the appearance of firearms began to change in the late 1960’s. Woods used for gun stocks became expensive, and plastics made it possible to produce replicas of wood stocks and keep costs down. However, the color, shape, grip, and barrel shroud gave rise to the “assault weapon” and “automatic rifle” description. This new style of gun making has come to denote criminal intent and tragedy to the uninformed.
And, “reinstating the assault weapons ban” refers to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and expired in 2004. Since 2004, AR-15s and similar semi-automatics have become the hottest-selling rifles in America. Will Hillary Clinton be satisfied with just a ban on the manufacture or sale of new semi-automatic rifles? Or if that proves ineffective, will she then seek to eliminate the rifles already privately owned?
Clinton’s Background Checks
According to Clinton’s campaign website, she wants to “increase the number of gun sales subject to background checks.” Clinton wants us to believe that “universal” background checks are sensible and not threatening, but the Obama administration has already publically stated that “universal” background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.” And, we all know what gun registration can lead to: CONFISCATION (think Australia).
In 2013 the Obama administration and some Democrats killed a bipartisan effort to reform the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The “NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013” would have clarified “circumstances under which a person loses the right to receive or possess firearms based on mental illness.” The legislation would have required states and federal entities to add to NICS people who were found by a federal court to be “an imminent danger to themselves or others,” “found guilty but mentally ill in a criminal case,” or found to be “incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case.” Unfortunately, some Democrats quietly killed the legislation in a senate committee.
I think that Clinton’s real goal, like other anti-Second Amendment supporters, is to control, limit and prohibit gun ownership by everyone, not just criminals or the mentally ill.
Clinton's record shows that she is NOT moderate on Gun Control
Clinton’s nearly 25-year public record of supporting extreme gun restrictions suggests she is NOT moderate on Gun Control. The following are some examples:
In 1993, the Clinton-chaired President's Task Force on National Health Care Reform (a.k.a. HillaryCare) considered a sin tax on firearms to offset the cost of her husband’s universal healthcare plan and endorsed a suggested 25-percent tax on firearms. She stated, “I'm all for that.”
In 2000 during her first senatorial campaign, Clinton stated, “I'm the only candidate in this race who supports federal legislation to license handgun owners and register handguns.” She also described her gun control agenda at the Newspaper Association of America's Annual Convention which included licensing of all handgun owners, a national registry of all handgun sales or transfers, a national ballistics fingerprinting database, a ban on affordable handguns, handgun rationing, and granting the Consumer Product Safety Commission the power to regulate firearms.
In 2004, the then Senator Clinton opposed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects firearm manufacturers and dealers from liability arising from the unlawful actions of a third party. According to Clinton’s campaign website she seeks to repeal this act if elected.
In 2014, at the National Council for Behavioral Health Conference, Clinton attacked the Right-to-Carry and told the audience, “I think that we've got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.”
Does Hillary Clinton sound “moderate” to you?
With Clinton’s history of supporting radical types of gun control, and her positions on the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, and Australia’s gun control measures, the decision of who replaces Justice Scalia—and possibly three or more other Supreme Court justices—is probably the most important consideration of this presidential election. The Constitution specifies that the use of firearms to defend myself is the cornerstone of my individual rights. If gun banners successfully erode this basic right, then all other individual rights will fall.
"In Wealth, Poverty, and Politics, Thomas Sowell, one of the foremost conservative public intellectuals in this country, argues that political and ideological struggles have led to dangerous confusion about income inequality in America. Pundits and politically motivated economists trumpet ambiguous statistics and sensational theories while ignoring the true determinant of income inequality: the production of wealth. We cannot properly understand inequality if we focus exclusively on the distribution of wealth and ignore wealth production factors such as geography, demography, and culture.
Sowell contends that liberals have a particular interest in misreading the data and chastises them for using income inequality as an argument for the welfare state. Refuting Thomas Piketty, Paul Krugman, and others on the left, Sowell draws on accurate empirical data to show that the inequality is not nearly as extreme or sensational as we have been led to believe.
Transcending partisanship through a careful examination of data, Wealth, Poverty, and Politics reveals the truth about the most explosive political issue of our time."