Orwell Goes To College

Good God:

What happens when members of a university community allege that they were victims of a “bias” incident? A team of administrators intervene—no matter how petty the complaint.

An annual report on the activities of University of Oregon’s Bias Response Team provides a frightening yet fascinating glimpse into the practices of these organizations, which are common on college campuses. Students, faculty, and staff who feel threatened, harassed, intimidated, triggered, microaggressed, offended, ignored, under-valued, or objectified because of their race, gender, gender identity, sexuality, disability status, mental health, religion, political affiliation, or size are encouraged to contact the BRT.

The team is composed of seven administrators, which include Oregon’s “multicultural inclusion support specialist,” LGBT director, and “Native American Retention Specialist.” The BRT’s goal is to eradicate bias on campus, making Oregon a safer place. Bias is defined as “any physical, spoken, or written act” that targets another person, even unintentionally. The team’s posters propose examples of bias incidents: statements like “Thanks, sweetie,” and “I don’t see color,” apparently qualify. (The former is patronizing, the latter is simply wrongthink, I guess.)

The Reason piece includes several examples of reports filed by Oregeon’s secret police.

A student reported a culturally appropriative themed party.

Bias Type: Ethnicity, Race

Location: Student Programs

Response: A BRT Advocate reached out to the reporter. A BRT Case Manager met with the president of the student program to discuss the incident.

An anonymous student reported that a newspaper gave less press coverage to trans students and students of color.

Bias Type: Ethnicity, Race, Political Affi liation

Location: Online

Response: A BRT Case Manager held an educational conversation with the newspaper reporter and editor.

There’s a lot more at the link. I defy anyone to read it and not be reminded of the East German Stasi. Change but a bit of verbiage and this could be reports on “counter-revolutionary thinking” or “bourgeois sympathies”. No incident is considered too minor. Anonymous reporting is encouraged. Third party reporting — that is where the “victim” doesn’t think anything bad happened but somebody else does — is encouraged. And students or faculty who are guilty of wrongthink don’t get a hearing or anything. An administrator has a “conversation” with them where they are told how wrong they are. Anyone who has been on a college campus can tell you just how intimidating such interventions can be.

How bad is this getting? We’re getting students kicked off campus for raping students who say they weren’t raped. It’s gotten so bad that President Obama, speaking at Howard, gave what I must admit was a very good defense of free speech.

So don’t try to shut folks out, don’t try to shut them down, no matter how much you might disagree with them. There’s been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view, or disrupt a politician’s rally. Don’t do that — no matter how ridiculous or offensive you might find the things that come out of their mouths. Because as my grandmother used to tell me, every time a fool speaks, they are just advertising their own ignorance. Let them talk. Let them talk. If you don’t, you just make them a victim, and then they can avoid accountability.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t challenge them. Have the confidence to challenge them, the confidence in the rightness of your position. There will be times when you shouldn’t compromise your core values, your integrity, and you will have the responsibility to speak up in the face of injustice. But listen. Engage. If the other side has a point, learn from them. If they’re wrong, rebut them. Teach them. Beat them on the battlefield of ideas. And you might as well start practicing now, because one thing I can guarantee you — you will have to deal with ignorance, hatred, racism, foolishness, trifling folks. (Laughter.) I promise you, you will have to deal with all that at every stage of your life. That may not seem fair, but life has never been completely fair. Nobody promised you a crystal stair. And if you want to make life fair, then you’ve got to start with the world as it is.

Yeah, that’s how bad things have gotten. The President who at least partially responsible for this mess (having coerced colleges into things like “preponderance of evidence” standards for sexual assault investigations) is now saying we’ve gone too far.

Look, I’m not saying we should let people run around college campuses spewing racist … no, wait, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I would rather have Nazis marching outside my office every day than have our campuses become fascist police states complete with secret reports, re-education and suppression of incorrect views. We’re inuring a generation of students to the idea that they are always being watched, always subject to discipline for ideas and speech, never to step outside the lines or challenge orthodoxy. What kind of adults are these students going to grow up into?

Why is everyone acting as if this was not expected?

Blazing headline: “WEST VIRGINIA PRIMARY RESULTS

As I expected, Shillary lost. What I didn’t expect was all the hand wrining.

This was West Virginia. A state that has an economy with a heavy reliance on the coal industry. The other Clinton, stealing a page from Obama’s playbook, talked about how she would destroy the coal industry to appease the usual collectivist Gaia worshipers. Why would anyone think that the majority of democrats in that state would vote against their own interests, and cast a vote for Shillary? I certainly don’t know if she is unraveling or not, but I am loving the freak show.

This win was all but a given for the Bern-minator, and while it is a boon for those of us that enjoy the left eating itself up, there is a far juicier story, one of real criminal activity, to investigate.

Yeah, I know, wishful thinking. The DNC mouth pieces will never actually investigate anything unless they can use it to help democrats and hurt everyone else, so we are not going to see any justice here it looks like. Ain’t the fundamentally transformed America Obama promised us great?

That idiotic pay gap thingy..

Want to see an article that should have stopped after the third paragraph? Well, here is a “Science Daily” article titled Young women in STEM fields earn up to one-third less than men which says exactly the opposite of the title’s claim. From the article:

One year after they graduate, women with Ph.D.s in science and engineering fields earn 31 percent less than do men, according to a new study using previously unavailable data.

The pay gap dropped to 11 percent when researchers took into account that women tended to graduate with degrees in fields that generally pay less than fields in which men got their degrees.

The rest of the pay gap disappeared when the researchers controlled for whether women were married and had children.

Seriously, you should have ended the article right here and the title correct title would have been that gender pay gap, at least according to this study, is a myth. But of course, since there is no money to be gotten by finding that this myth the SJW types in government fork over oodles of money for is bunk, they decide to contradict their own findings with politically motivated clap-trap.

“There’s a dramatic difference in how much early career men and women in the sciences are paid,” said Bruce Weinberg, co-author of the study and professor of economics at The Ohio State University.

“We can get a sense of some of the reasons behind the pay gap, but our study can’t speak to whether any of the gap is due to discrimination. Our results do suggest some lack of family-friendliness for women in these careers.”

WTF? Your first three paragraphs make it plenty clear that when you try to do an apple to apple comparison and control for type of degree and for choices related to family life, that there is no gap. It is fairly obvious to anyone that applies statistical methodology to any analysis of these claims that when you account for the types of careers women favor or life choices they make, that the entire gap argument vanishes. So then, why are we still getting a long winded article if it is obvious there really isn’t any nefarious reasons for this difference? Well here it is:

The importance of helpful family policies is supported by the fact that single and childless women tended to have less of a pay gap than those who were married and those who had children. About equal percentages of men and women were married or partnered. And more men than women in the study (24 versus 19 percent) had children. But it was the married women with children who saw the lower pay.

“Our results show a larger child-gap in salary among women Ph.D.s than among men,” Weinberg said.

Reading between the lines it is obvious that the study’s authors seem to feel that making the choice to focus on family and children shouldn’t impact women’s earning potential. Sure you can think this is quite noble since family units, and especially the children, are so important, but to me it is ludicrous. Lets start out by noting that these crusaders are currently only asking that employers pay women for less productivity than men. I wonder if they would demand the same for men that decide to stay at home and be the one dealing with the children. Somehow I don’t believe that is the priority of these SJW types, but it could well be that the end goal isn’t to make employers just pay more for less productive women, but to pay more for less productive people in general. The laws of economics and human nature be damned.

Look, like I told the crazy SJW type from the HR department of my company a few weeks ago during her rant about how unfair it was that the guys in the IT department made so much more money than she did, the reason is in the details. While she felt here women’s studies major and political history (WTF is this even) minor at an expensive school should earn her the same as the guys that got real engineering or computer science degrees at whatever institutions, employers who pay for the work obviously felt it was not worth the same. Similarly, if she took time of to spend it with her cats while these guys were totally career oriented, it wouldn’t be fair for either the employer or the guys that she ended up being paid more simply because of her plumbing.

Of course, she really didn’t like that reality and got all huffy at me and even insinuated I needed some PC reeducation, at which point I simply told her that I had no problem saying what I just said to her, even though she was in HR, because the value of the work I did was so important to my employer that I doubted they would make a fuss about it. After all, if they did, I could pack up and head somewhere else, because my particular skills, especially when combined with my work ethics and track record of producing results, were in very high demand.

My advice to people that feel they are not getting compensated enough was always to see how valuable the employer really felt about what they did and how quickly they could find somewhere else to work. In most cases, when you add value, they will pay you for that value. if not, someone else will. The gap comes when your productivity factors in, both because of your learned skills (degree and work experience) and the effort they get from you (are you there and working hard, or are you in need of taking time off too often).

This shit ain’t that complicated man. Of course, you factor in the government meddling, and everything goes out the window…

SJW………………Not

It really is a crazy world we live in. We have the president touting the legitimacy of the hate group BLM, we have the left bitching about the violent tendencies of the Trumperistas (yet, as witnessed just last week in the Bay Area, the only folks getting beaten are Trump supporters trying to exercise their 1st Amendment rights), and we have that new retched disgusting spawning of fascism known as the Social Justice Warrior. Too bad they are all a contradiction in terms, as witnessed by;

Loud mouthed liberty hating psychopaths would better describe this group. Much like the flowery acronyms hatched by progressive 503(c)(3) corporations that purposely deceive donors, this latest batch of cry babies are not social, pursue injustice, and have no stomach for conflict or legitimate confrontation so they could hardly be called warriors. Resorting to violence, shouting down contrary opinions, shutting down public forums by pulling fire alarms, disrupting events and fomenting agitation, clearly not good manners or accommodating to social harmony. But it does speak to their mindset, that all words and actions must pass muster with their point of view or it is hate speech and must be purged from the public forum. Crowder was right, what a bunch of pussies.

Austin Votes for Worse Cab Service

Uber and Lyft have been challenging what amount to taxi service monopolies in most cities. Naturally, the monopolies are pushing back. And naturally, liberal Democrats, who always stand up for the little guy, are falling over themselves to service the cab companies.

Austin is now the latest city where the shoe has dropped:

After voters in Austin, Texas, rejected a proposal for loosened regulations on ride-hailing apps, both Uber and Lyft have announced they will be “pausing” operations in the city.

In late 2015, Austin’s City Council approved an ordinance requiring companies like Uber and Lyft to be regulated like taxis. That meant, among other things, drivers would have to be fingerprinted as part of a background check.

Uber and Lyft, in response, pushed a ballot proposal asking voters to choose between that city ordinance and a looser statewide law.

NPR’s John Burnett reports that the two companies dropped $8 million to promote their stance on Proposal 1 — a record for Austin ballot proposals. “Despite spending what amounted to $200 on each vote in their favor, Uber and Lyft lost by 44 to 56,” John says.

Before the vote on Saturday, Uber and Lyft had threatened to pull out of Austin, a market John describes as “lucrative.”

Since the decision, both companies have said they intend to follow through on their threats, Austin-based member station KUT reports.

The result of this is not hard to predict: worse cab service, more expensive cab service, more drunk drivers, more people being left in the cold because a cab decided to ignore them.

I suspect the ride-sharing companies will work out a deal like they did with San Antonio.

Supporters of the fingerprint requirement are saying it is a public safety issue, despite no evidence that Uber and Lyft are particularly dangerous or that fingerprinting makes traditional cabs safer. But don’t be fooled. This isn’t about public safety. This is yet another example of supposed liberals, who supposedly stand with the little guy, standing on top of the little guy to make it impossible for him to get up. Glenn Reynolds:

The single best anti-poverty program is a job. So why does government at all levels make it so hard to get one?

In my home state of Tennessee, for example, it takes 300 hours of training to be licensed to shampoo hair. That’s right: 300 hours. That training covers things like applying shampoo, rinsing and conditioning and answering the phone and taking appointments. Shampoo hair without a license, and you can get six months in jail.

I think I could teach everything you need to know about shampooing in under an hour: Don’t get it in people’s eyes, keep a sharp lookout for lice and rinse thoroughly when you’re done. Answering the phone is something you can learn on your own.

This is just a small example of the larger problem of restrictive occupational licensing, a problem so bad that even the usually regulation-friendly Obama White House has complained.

One quarter of the jobs in America require a license. And this isn’t like licensing things like medicine or law. This is licensing things like hair braiding and interior decorating. Radley Balko, during an investigation of police abuses in South Carolina, discovered that while the state considers 12 weeks of training sufficient for police, it will only grant a barber’s license after a year of training. The license requirements are specifically designed to create closed cartels that can keep outsiders out and maintain an inflated restricted market.

Taxis have long been a huge racket in major cities. Taxi licenses or medallions cost enormous amounts of money. Monopoly taxi companies can swing that but individuals or startups can’t. This was the entire reason Uber and Lyft got started: to break up the monopolies created by “regulations” passed for “our safety”.

I get what people in Austin are saying: it’s not fair that the cab companies have onerous regulations while Uber and Lyft don’t. Fine. Lift those regulations. There is no evidence that they actually make people safer. But there is plenty of evidence that they close out the market from competition.

One might almost say … that was the point.

Update: Iowahawk above pointed out: just before mandating criminal background checks for Uber and Lyft, Austin had outlawed them for everyone else, claiming that criminal background checks were discrimination.

The Price of Socialism

Holy cow:

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ tax and spending proposals would provide new levels of health and education benefits for American families, but they’d also blow an $18-trillion hole in federal deficits, piling on so much debt they would damage the economy.

That sobering assessment comes from a joint analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the Urban Institute Health Policy Center, well-known Washington think tanks.

The bottom line: Democratic presidential candidate Sanders would raise taxes by more than $15 trillion over 10 years, with most of that paid by upper-income earners. But that wouldn’t be enough to cover the cost of his proposed government-run health care system, along with free undergraduate college, enhanced Social Security, family and medical leave, among other new programs.

As a result, Sanders would add $18 trillion to federal debt over a decade.

The Sanders campaign is trying to wriggle out of this, claiming that their healthcare plan will save lots of money because … because … well, because they want it to. But I am totally unsurprised by this. I have said it in this space a million times: you can’t pay for a social welfare state just by taxing “the rich”. There’s not enough money. Every European welfare state pays for itself with heavy taxes on the middle class — VATs, sales taxes, excise taxes, income taxes. Their tax systems are way less progressive than our because they have to be. In the end, you have to go where the money is.

This is the big problem with Sanders’ promises. You have to raise taxes on everyone to pay for them. And people don’t want higher taxes even if they supposedly come with Awesome Government Benefits. Sanders’ own state rejected socialized medicine because it was too expensive.

I’d say this would be the nail in the coffin of the Sanders campaign except that (1) many of his supporters don’t care about math; (2) I’m sure Clinton will find a way to bungle this incredibly easy and salient talking point.

The Criminalization of Foolishness

This story evolved a little too fast for my slow blogging pace over the last few weeks. But it’s a great illustration of how far down the rabbit hole our society has gone:

Mesa police announced late Wednesday afternoon that the case against a Red Mountain High School student accused of indecent exposure was closed because “all parties involved no longer desire prosecution.”

The announcement came hours after a Maricopa County Attorney’s Office representative announced the office had decided against prosecuting the student. He had been booked on a felony charge related to exposing himself in a team photo that appeared in the school’s yearbook and in programs sold at football games.

Osborn was arrested Saturday. Officers said he told authorities he was dared by a Red Mountain High School teammate to do the stunt when the photo was taken on the school bleachers in August. It shows a smiling Osborn, then 18, standing in the second row; his penis was exposed through the top of the waistband of his football uniform.

Police said Wednesday the school’s principal reported the incident in compliance with Arizona’s mandatory reporting laws.

Mesa police booked Osborn on one count of furnishing obscene material to minors, a felony, and 69 misdemeanor counts of indecent exposure. Ten faculty members and 59 students were present when Osborn exposed himself and are considered victims, according to police and court documents.

So, let’s sum up. Kid does stupid prank on a dare. No one notices for a long time. Then someone does notice and hides behind “mandatory reporting laws” for turning the case over to police. The police then do what police do: arrest him and charge the shit out of him. Only a social media campaign and the refusal of his teammates to press charges kept him out prison and off a sex offender registry.

Set aside the issue of whether the principal had a choice or not. Mandatory reporting laws are tricky and it’s possible that he had to turn this over, no matter what his personal views on the subject. The general point stands: our schools have adopted the mentality of routinely calling the police to handle issues that could be handled with internal discipline. And then they always act shocked when this results in massive criminal charges against a kid for exposing his pecker or a girl being bodyslammed or kids being expelled/charged for stuff that isn’t even a crime.

Angry loser being a douche

Whether you like the republican nominee Trump or the more than likely democrat that has rigged they system in her favor Clinton, I bet if you are like me you are happy that this asshole got crushed. Sure he is right on about Clinton being a crime boss, and if you are part of the establishment that liked the status quo and didn’t want Trump, you are going to say what he said about Trump, but we are lucky he isn’t the nominee either. And I am sure this bitter douche doesn’t even get it. The fact is that things have gotten so bad that we need to tear the establishment down if we want to give this country a chance.

It’s All The Republicans Fault. Or Not.

One of the worst things that happens after an unexpected political event is that the media scrounges around for someone who predicted it. With thousands of pundits making millions of predictions, you’re bound to find someone who predicted anything. They then proclaim this person to be a genius and hang on his every word.

The rise of Donald Trump was unexpected. Many of the wise Washington insiders proclaimed that that it could never happen. So now they are scrounging around, trying to find out why it happened.

For me, there is no one reason. It’s a combination of many factors. Here are a just a few I think contributed:

  • A general dissatisfaction with political system and the economy. Specifically, a government that keeps expanding its role while unable to handle the duties it already has assumed. And an economy that seems to be making a lot of people at the top rich while the middle class stagnates.
  • A conservative field that was weaker and more divided than expected. Trump jumped on the one issue that made him stand out: immigration.
  • Trump’s celebrity status gave him an instant advantage over a bunch of guys most people had never heard of.
  • The GOP front-runners didn’t recognize the danger and spent more time fighting each other and supporting weak candidates than stopping Trump.
  • A conservative pundit class that has demonized Obama, blasted Republicans as enablers and portrayed compromise as surrender.
  • A GOP leadership that was happy to sow that whirlwind.
  • A liberal punditsphere that has portrayed almost every conservative as an uncaring, incompetent vileness. So when a truly bad GOP candidate came around, they were the boy who cried wolf.

Even then, I’m not sure I’m right. Sometimes … things just happen. There isn’t a really compelling reason. Only a small fraction of voters vote in primaries and they are somewhat subject to whims and bandwagons. I always leave open the possibility that this is just one of those things.

Still, it’s food for thought for the next few months. But Vox has decided to scrounge around and find one of the few pundits who did see it coming. And, for someone who correctly predicted the rise of Trump, I have to say … he’s really full of shit. He starts with having met New Gingrich.

And over the next 16 years, [Gingrich] put that plan into action. He delegitimized the Congress and the Democratic leadership, convincing people that they were arrogant and corrupt and that the process was so bad that anything would be better than this. He tribalized the political process. He went out and recruited the candidates, and gave them the language to use about how disgusting and despicable and horrible and immoral and unpatriotic the Democrats were. That swept in the Republican majority in 1994.

The problem is that all the people he recruited to come in really believed that shit. They all came in believing that Washington was a cesspool. So what followed has been a very deliberate attempt to blow up and delegitimize government, not just the president but the actions of government itself in Washington.

This is garbage. The reason Newt portrayed the Democratic Congress and leadership as corrupt and arrogant is because they were. They had exempted Congress from numerous laws that applied to the rest of the country. Their speaker, Jim Wright, was using his garbage “book” to rake in millions of dollars under the table from special interests. The powerful head of their ways and means committee, Dan Rostenkowski, wound up serving 17 months in prison for mail fraud.

When the Republicans swept into power in 1994, they didn’t try to tear down everything government did. They tried to tear down things they didn’t think government should be doing in the first place. They instituted spending restraint, they passed government reform laws and they worked with Clinton to balance the budget. This is a very weird alternate version of history.

Then, there’s a more radical conservative ideology that has been a dominant force out there in Washington and in a lot of states. That’s the Freedom Caucus and Cruz, and that’s what we wrote about in the book. This is a radical set of beliefs. They want to blow up all of government, and are willing to use more radical tactics. They don’t much care about shutting down the government or breaching the debt ceiling, or any of those things.

There’s some element of truth to this in that there is a faction of the GOP that sees Washington as irreparable and shutdowns/defaults/debt ceiling crashes as acceptable. I’ve railed against it myself. But to say that there is something new and awful in the way the Republicans oppose Obama is to elide huge chunks of recent history:

  • Government shutdowns are not new. The first government shutdown was in 1976, when Democrats opposed President Ford. When Reagan was President, the Democrats shut down the government seven times (albeit usuaully for short periods.)
  • The GOP has used the filibuster a lot and won’t consider Obama’s SCOTUS nominee. But this has been building for a while. The Democrats filibustered Bush all the time and specifically filibustered numerous Bush judicial nominees. Early on in Bush’s presidency, the Democrats warned that they would filibuster any Bush SCOTUS nominee for up to four years if necessary.
  • Under the Democrats, the budget process basically stopped, at one point going more than three years without passing an actual budget. One of the few things the GOP has done right in the last year is to return to a normal budget process.
  • Under both Democrats and Republicans, the federal bureaucracy has basically run unhindered, passings thousands of regulations without any oversight that cost the United States at least a couple of trillion in lost economic activity. In fact, Obama’s big achievements — financial reform and Obamacare — specifically left parts of the bill to be written by the bureaucracies.
  • The few Republicans trying to get control of the process and make government work — e.g. Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell — have been relentlessly demonized by the liberal pundit class.
  • A huge amount of government dysfunction can be traced to how the Democrats treated President Bush, whom they proclaimed to be “selected not elected” and often simply refuse to work with.

In short, this isn’t just a Republican thing. The dysfunction of Washington has been building for a long time. It’s been a tit-for-tat political tribalism that places party loyalty and beating the other side over anything else.

Where the Republicans worse? Probably. They reflexive opposition and demonization of everything Obama does has been a big problem. And Republicans, because they value smaller government, have less of a problem with government not being able to do the things Democrats want it to do.

However, it is foolish to say Republicans want to “blow the whole thing up”. They simply want government to do fewer things. No Republican is talking about dismantling the military or abolishing police. No one is going to end highway spending or Social Security. It is the height of hyperbole (and part of the problem) when wanting to end the staggering expensive dysfunction that is Obamacare is portrayed as “blowing up the government”.

Moreover, the Democrats have more than played their role in creating this problem. They have expanded government power in every direction. They have completely sold out to unions, racking up huge retirement obligations that no one can pay and raising the minimum wage to economy-killing levels. They have ignored the critical need for regulatory and tax reform. They’ve dragged their heels on criminal justice reform. They’ve made a lot of noise about special interests but done nothing to actually stop them (big part of stopping them: reduce the need to peddle influence by shrinking government power). The Democrats had completed unfettered control of the federal government for two years and mainly used that window to shovel money at their interests and layer on thousands of new regulations in the service of the big banks and insurance companies.

I do think the system has gotten to a critical juncture. We’re facing trillions in future debt and a hamstrung economy. We need a functional Congress and a competent President to fix this. That’s absolutely not Trump, who recently talked about “negotiating our debt” and causing a global financial crisis. But I’m not sure there’s anyone on the national scene right now — except maybe Paul Ryan — who both grasps what needs to be done and has the political acumen to get it done.

Study makes the wrong conclusion.

I was quite baffled when I saw the title for a study posted on science daily that reported that “Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy” because while I am certain that in good economic times people are less resistant to government fleecing, I still have a hard time believing people would buy the AGW lies. from the article I see the following declaration:

Americans may be more likely to accept the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change and its potentially devastating effects if they believe the economy is strong and stable, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

I could not fathom any study that would produce these results, and immediately suspected some kind of bullshit. My first inclination was that they very likely had loaded questions designed to illicit responses that would allow them to make this ludicrous claim. After all, there is a historical precedent that most people are willing to tolerate a heavier hand from Uncle Sam, the one going straight into their pockets where they keep their money, when their own income and potential for income looks good. I can see a study rigged to use that mechanism to make this idiotic claim that resistance to this nonsense and the political agenda is economic, but I wanted details, so I decided to take a closer look at the article, and the answer was right there. This was a bunch of bullshit wrapped in pretty paper to sell another lie. let’s start with this:

In an experiment conducted online, 187 Americans ranging from 18 to 70 years old watched a newscast with skeptical commentary about a NASA documentary on climate change. Participants who more enthusiastically supported the capitalist system were more dubious about climate change, and they misremembered facts from the newscast about the severity of climate change. Conversely, participants who were more critical of the capitalist system and more interested in social change recalled the information about climate change as being even more severe than the facts that were presented.

So first off, let me point out that the “mischaracterization” made by this idiot author about how supporters of the capitalist system were more likely to “misremember facts” or “not grasp the severity of the problem”, was nothing but his biased attempt to discredit people that pointed out what they were shown was a pile of bullshit. The likely scenario is that these people, less ruled by fucking feelings, pointed out that this cult is based on a well orchestrated campaign of falsehoods, flawed models and systems, manipulation of the facts and data to create a desired results, a peer review circle jerk, the demonization of anyone not willing to let them get away with this shit, and that not a single one of the horribly exaggerated effects have come to pass, isn’t “misremembering” or “not seeing the gravity of the situation”, but pointing out why this thing is a scam. Cultists don’t like that.

I also am not surprised people that saw the inherent value of the capitalist system were less prone to bullshit than their collectivist counterparts, because it has always been obvious to me that collectivists tend to be ruled by emotion and emotional appeal. Show a bunch of collectivist twits a fictional piece like Al Gore’s idiotic movie, hilariously titled “An inconvenient truth” of all things, that proposes draconian collectivism to deal with the coming apocalypse, and one shouldn’t be surprised these twits gobble up that shit sandwich either.

Anyway, back to the point here. The study, as practically every one of these pro AGW propaganda pieces tends to do, made a totally wrong conclusion from what they saw. The conclusion they should have made was that people inclined to believe the unwashed masses have a right to use government force to steal from the productive to benefit themselves are far more likely to buy a pack of lies when it pushes their agenda, while those that don’t buy theft by government and totalitarianism as good, are far less likely to fall for that bullshit.

Next we get the following doozy:

In another experiment, with 57 college students, participants were divided into two groups: One read a statement that the federal government had very broad power to influence the economy and the availability of jobs; the other, a statement that the government’s power was limited. The participants then read a news article that recounted some errors that were inadvertently included in a scientific report on climate change. Participants who thought the economy had a strong influence on their lives were more skeptical about climate change and were less likely to remember facts from the news article about the severity of climate change.

In a third experiment, with 203 college students, one group listened to a podcast that reported the U.S. economy had recovered from the recession, another group heard the recession was continuing, and a control group didn’t hear any podcast. All of the participants then watched a NASA documentary about scientific evidence of climate change before completing a survey about their support for the current U.S. economic system. Participants who more strongly endorsed the legitimacy of the economic system were more likely to believe in the severity of climate change only when they thought the economy was strong and stable.

Let me start by pointing out that when you pick a bunch of college students that are not in engineering, math, physics, chemistry, medicine, accounting, or something that actually involves not just regurgitating bullshit liberal dogma, for their opinion on things scientific, you shouldn’t be surprised to see the stupidity the experimenters did. I am sorry, but “Studies” or “Poli Sci” majors are neither hard science types nor – yes it is my opinion – really learning anything of value outside an artificial world created by the grand collectivist machine. They are a plague on the universe. I should have probably at the point of the realization how unscientific this scientifc study was, just moved on to something less brain damaging than this idiocy, but I couldn’t pass the opportunity to showcase what we are dealing with here.

In the first example, where they used some college students that were likely some 7 year geniuses of the humanities fields, we should begin with the fact that nobody with any common sense would buy the idiocy that government, by its very nature, has any form of control on economic activity, other than to impede, degrade, or piss away tons of tax payer dollars on it. But it remains baffling to me that this experiment led to the conclusion that good economic metrics influence people to dismiss the AGW bullshit. Again, I see that the correlation here isn’t faith in good economic times over AGW dystopia as much as how much more inclined someone was to accept the AGW nonsense as gospel if they lacked a solid grasp of economics and the impact of government on that activity.

If anything, the third experiment shows that the AGW cult is bull. Believers are far more likely to endorse the agenda while they felt they had little to lose and a lot to gain from the wealth transfer agenda behind the AGW movement. But as happens in real life, as soon as things got good for them, they were far likely to want that wealth transfer. Seriously, if you take a look at the supporters of Bernie Sanders and then at the supporters of Donald Trump, the big difference is the fact that the Sanders camp is comprised of people that are in deep debt and are looking for someone to bail them out (lots of jobless humanities students with big loan debt), while the other camp lacks that crowd.

These experiments should have concluded that collectivist are far more likely to like collectivist agendas when they gain from them, and much less likely to do anything but pay lip service to them when they find out they will foot the bill. Also that non-collectivists will focus on the reality of economics and human nature over some apocalyptic fantasies collectivists hope will convince people to let them fuck us all over.