Gun Control

[Symmetry]

Cities tend to vote liberal, I don't see the point here.

[thegreekdog]

Juan has a problem differentiating between a number of things.

For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" he ignores that not 100% of the voters voted Republican.
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores that the people that commit gun violence may not actually be Republicans (in another thread, there is some discussion about ex-convicts being Democrats and not Republicans, for example).
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores the more localized nature of gun violence.

That said, even a half-blind man could see the correlation between the traditional Republican strongholds and the gun violence. And as the article says, it's the states with the weakest gun control that have the most gun violence. Those are Repub states. Meanwhile you can also clearly deduce that the Northeast, the rock of Liberalism, has much less gun-violence than these other states.
Some of the more moderate states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois fall in the middle.

Okay. Here's what I'm going to do (because I'm a sucker). I'm going to spell this out for you in plain statistical English and plain statistical data all gleaned from unbiased sources. My argument is to show that your data is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst.

Here are the top 20 cities in order by number of violent crime per 100,000 people. These statistics are from the FBI for 2011. I've also included the political party of the mayor. Enjoy!

(1) Detroit, Michigan - 2,137.4 - Democratic mayor since 1957
(2) St. Louis, Missouri - 1,856.7 - Democratic mayor since 1949
(3) Oakland, California - 1,682.7 - Democratic mayor since 1977
(4) Memphis, Tennessee - 1,583.5 - Democratic mayor since 1876
(5) Atlanta, Georgia - 1,432.8 - Democratic mayor since 1887
(6) Baltimore, Maryland - 1,417.4 - Democratic mayor since 1967
(7) Stockton, California - 1,407.8 -
(8) Cleveland, Ohio - 1,366.4 - Democratic mayor since 1989
(9) Buffalo, New York - 1,238.2 - Democratic mayor since 1965
(10) Kansas City, Missouri - 1,199.7 - Democratic mayor since 1991
(11) Miami, Florida - 1,197.6 - Republican mayor since 2009
(12) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 1,193.3 - Democratic mayor since 1952
(13) Nashville, Tennessee - 1,181.3 - Democratic mayor since 1897
(14) Newark, New Jersey - 1,166.3 - Democratic mayor since 1962 (and current mayor is Democrat-darling Cory Booker)
(15) Washington, DC - 1,130.3 - Democratic mayor since 1967
(16) Indianapolis, Indiana - 1,100.8 - Republican mayor since 2008
(17) Cincinnati, Ohio - 1,032.1 - Democratic mayor since 1984
(18) Tulsa, Oklahoma - 999.7 - Republican mayor since 2009
(19) Milwaukee, Wisconsin - 999.1 - Democratic mayor since 1960
(20) Toledo, Ohio - 997.8 - Independent mayor since 2010 (formerly Democratic mayors since 1990)

Seems like a lot of violence in all of these Democratic strongholds, no?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/US_Mayors.html

Cities tend to vote liberal, I don't see the point here.

JB "Highest violent crime rates are in Republican states. Here's a cool map I downloaded from thinkprogress.org."
TGD "Highest violent crime rates are in Democratic cities. Here are some unbiased statistics."

My unbiased statistics show the highest rates of violent crime by city. In other words, the most violent crime per capita happens in Detroit, Michigan. Detroit is a Democratic (or liberal to use your word) stronghold. Does that help? If not, use your supposedly vast intellect to figure it out.

[Symmetry]

Cities tend to vote liberal, I don't see the point here.

JB "Highest violent crime rates are in Republican states."
TGD "Highest violent crime rates are in Democratic cities."

So, you're comparing apples to oranges?

[thegreekdog]

Cities tend to vote liberal, I don't see the point here.

JB "Highest violent crime rates are in Republican states."
TGD "Highest violent crime rates are in Democratic cities."

So, you're comparing apples to oranges?

No, but thanks for giving me the ability to repost my post so that it's on the top of this page instead the bottom of the last page. Now perhaps JB will read it!

[Symmetry]

Cities tend to vote liberal, I don't see the point here.

JB "Highest violent crime rates are in Republican states."
TGD "Highest violent crime rates are in Democratic cities."

So, you're comparing apples to oranges?

No, but thanks for giving me the ability to repost my post so that it's on the top of this page instead the bottom of the last page. Now perhaps JB will read it!

Aren't you comparing states to cities with this?

Apples and oranges, dude.

[Woodruff]

That said, even a half-blind man could see the correlation between the traditional Republican strongholds and the gun violence. And as the article says, it's the states with the weakest gun control that have the most gun violence. Those are Repub states. Meanwhile you can also clearly deduce that the Northeast, the rock of Liberalism, has much less gun-violence than these other states.

So why did California, the state that is rated the most strict on gun ownership, have the most gun murders in 2011?

Was it a total number or per capita? I mean...California's a pretty big fucking state. Never mind its proximity to Mexico.

[Woodruff]

I thought you guys found it laughable that the second amendment had anything to do with protection from a tyrannical government?

I find it laughable that it would have anything to do with it in our modern world, yes.

[Woodruff]

I don't know NS, did you read what the agent said in the article?

Yep, it said that California has a major population. Yet Texas has MANY more guns than California but a smaller number of deaths per capita...and half as many total as California. And the city of Washington D.C. has less population than either of those, yet it has 12 murders per 100,000 people and MANY more armed robberies. And they have very strict gun laws as well. Why are all these places that have strict gun laws so dangerous? I thought they were progressive utopias.

For those who can read, I've already covered this. It's called population density. It's not a difficult concept.

[Woodruff]

No educated is right in the context of that comment. You aren't allowed to change it justr because it sounds bad.

I'm not changing anything, just stating a fact. You can still get a good education in America, but our educational system's priority is political correctness and behavioral training.
I know more about the education system in my country than you do, Lootifer.

For someone who knows so much about it, I wish you'd stop speaking from a position of ignorance.

[Woodruff]

For example: Would you find certain facts, like that over 90% of America's collegiate faculty are of a certain political ideology, and the other ideology is not respected, completely misrepresented, and even openly encouraged to be attacked?

That's probably because the more conservative-minded people focus on making money and the more liberal-minded people focus on degrees. And I don't mean either of those in a bad way (either could be bad). It simply follows along a conservative viewpoint that they would be more concerned with money, as money is a means of security (which is important to the conservative mind). That's not to say that a liberal person isn't going to want money or have it as a focus either (we're all individuals, after all), but it is generally true to be more of a focus of a conservative viewpoint. Whereas the idea of "elite education" is more of a draw for a liberal perspective.

So I really do think that is why collegiate faculty is more often liberal. I certainly don't think it's some sort of a conspiracy by the universities...that just seems dumb.

[Woodruff]

I'm from Illinois, and I can tell you, that's what they do in Chicago. They leave the city and legally buy your beloved guns elsewhere, then they bring them back to the city to shoot kids.

Yep, guns are owned solely to kill kids.

Well at least you ignored the meat of his point.

[Woodruff]

I don't mind the direction that is going Loot, but separately, I would like to hear about how it is that background checks work, from anyone.

I've already explained how they can help. You ignored it, as usual.

[Night Strike]

Cities tend to vote liberal, I don't see the point here.

JB "Highest violent crime rates are in Republican states."
TGD "Highest violent crime rates are in Democratic cities."

So, you're comparing apples to oranges?

No, but thanks for giving me the ability to repost my post so that it's on the top of this page instead the bottom of the last page. Now perhaps JB will read it!

Aren't you comparing states to cities with this?

Apples and oranges, dude.

It's the big cities in the more conservative states that are causing those states to look more dangerous than they really are. Remove those liberal-stranglehold of large cities from the state's calculations and the violent crime rate will be way lower in those conservative states.

[Woodruff]

Here is one example, posted today or very recently viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190348&start=15#p4161676

That is an example of political correctness.

My statement is about political correctness...

I find it very hard to visualise. I would suggest that at whatever point this indoctrination was occuring would directly result in a dramatic increase in failure rates for the progression to the next level of education; e.g. using my example above, those 5 year olds would have sub-standard levels of math ability if instead of learning to count they only learned about diversity, therefore they would then fail any test which objectively tested their ability to count.

Of this could be covered/hidden by the fact that the tests could be getting modified to test for political correctness rather than traditional areas.

Is this happening? Are the students failing more and more? Are the tests changing?

For example: Would you find certain facts, like that over (1) 90% of America's collegiate faculty are of a certain political ideology, and (2) the other ideology is not respected, (3) completely misrepresented, and even (4) openly encouraged to be attacked?

(1) I would see that as a problem only if corruption/neopotism is a factor in why this 90% representation has come about. Is there any reason why an academic of the 10% political idealogy would not be able to to become a professor of something which has nothing to do with politics? (e.g. science, engineering, etc., even economics and law principles do not need a specific political alignment in which to be taught).
(2) and (3) I am going to need to see some actual evidence here. And how if it exists what possible relevance does it have to the education delivered at colleges/universities?
(4) The single most important lesson you will ever learn at college/university is how to think critically. This involves, at its heart, attacking preconceived notions and questioning the rationale behind them. I would hope that not only is this political idealogy being attacked, but every school of thought across the entire spectrum is being challenged and questioned by the students studying them.

You are missing the correct perspective.

That seems like a pretty arrogant statement coming from someone who makes baseless claims about the educational system.

it is very true that the Left completely dominated our universities. Virtually all radicalism comes from the universities, but it's "education" so their radicalism gets mainstreamed through culture shock and emotional manipulation/control. There overall statement about Education in America is "we teach you what to think" and its NOT "we teach you how to think".

That really isn't true in any way, Phatscotty. High schools tend a little more in that area because they are required to (thank you, No Child Left Behind), but that is not true at the University level, by and large.

You also need to understand I have witnessed first hand leftist brainwashing on more than a few occasions at universities and community colleges and high school I attended, my friends attended, my family attended.

My sister believes that the teaching of evolution is brainwashing. I liken that viewpoint to the one you're expressing here, frankly.

And yes that is happening. Students are failing more and more. In New York some high schools are producing graduates at levels of 80% that are illiterate. And yes the test are also changing. They are being "standardized", and the name of that program is Common Core if you want to understand what I'm talking about here

Thank you, No Child Left Behind.

[Woodruff]

Juan has a problem differentiating between a number of things.

For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" he ignores that not 100% of the voters voted Republican.
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores that the people that commit gun violence may not actually be Republicans (in another thread, there is some discussion about ex-convicts being Democrats and not Republicans, for example).
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores the more localized nature of gun violence.

That said, even a half-blind man could see the correlation between the traditional Republican strongholds and the gun violence. And as the article says, it's the states with the weakest gun control that have the most gun violence. Those are Repub states. Meanwhile you can also clearly deduce that the Northeast, the rock of Liberalism, has much less gun-violence than these other states.
Some of the more moderate states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois fall in the middle.

Okay. Here's what I'm going to do (because I'm a sucker). I'm going to spell this out for you in plain statistical English and plain statistical data all gleaned from unbiased sources. My argument is to show that your data is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst.

Here are the top 20 cities in order by number of violent crime per 100,000 people. These statistics are from the FBI for 2011. I've also included the political party of the mayor. Enjoy!

(1) Detroit, Michigan - 2,137.4 - Democratic mayor since 1957
(2) St. Louis, Missouri - 1,856.7 - Democratic mayor since 1949
(3) Oakland, California - 1,682.7 - Democratic mayor since 1977
(4) Memphis, Tennessee - 1,583.5 - Democratic mayor since 1876
(5) Atlanta, Georgia - 1,432.8 - Democratic mayor since 1887
(6) Baltimore, Maryland - 1,417.4 - Democratic mayor since 1967
(7) Stockton, California - 1,407.8 -
(8) Cleveland, Ohio - 1,366.4 - Democratic mayor since 1989
(9) Buffalo, New York - 1,238.2 - Democratic mayor since 1965
(10) Kansas City, Missouri - 1,199.7 - Democratic mayor since 1991
(11) Miami, Florida - 1,197.6 - Republican mayor since 2009
(12) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 1,193.3 - Democratic mayor since 1952
(13) Nashville, Tennessee - 1,181.3 - Democratic mayor since 1897
(14) Newark, New Jersey - 1,166.3 - Democratic mayor since 1962 (and current mayor is Democrat-darling Cory Booker)
(15) Washington, DC - 1,130.3 - Democratic mayor since 1967
(16) Indianapolis, Indiana - 1,100.8 - Republican mayor since 2008
(17) Cincinnati, Ohio - 1,032.1 - Democratic mayor since 1984
(18) Tulsa, Oklahoma - 999.7 - Republican mayor since 2009
(19) Milwaukee, Wisconsin - 999.1 - Democratic mayor since 1960
(20) Toledo, Ohio - 997.8 - Independent mayor since 2010 (formerly Democratic mayors since 1990)

Seems like a lot of violence in all of these Democratic strongholds, no?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/US_Mayors.html

You've already forgotten about what you agree with me on?

[Woodruff]

Cities tend to vote liberal, I don't see the point here.

JB "Highest violent crime rates are in Republican states."
TGD "Highest violent crime rates are in Democratic cities."

So, you're comparing apples to oranges?

No, but thanks for giving me the ability to repost my post so that it's on the top of this page instead the bottom of the last page. Now perhaps JB will read it!

Aren't you comparing states to cities with this?

Apples and oranges, dude.

It's the big cities in the more conservative states that are causing those states to look more dangerous than they really are. Remove those liberal-stranglehold of large cities from the state's calculations and the violent crime rate will be way lower in those conservative states.

Yes, and perhaps that is the point thegreekdog is trying to make. I will agree with that point. But then it begs the question...doesn't that also happen in the liberal states? If so, doesn't the divergence basically remain the same?

[thegreekdog]

Juan has a problem differentiating between a number of things.

For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" he ignores that not 100% of the voters voted Republican.
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores that the people that commit gun violence may not actually be Republicans (in another thread, there is some discussion about ex-convicts being Democrats and not Republicans, for example).
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores the more localized nature of gun violence.

That said, even a half-blind man could see the correlation between the traditional Republican strongholds and the gun violence. And as the article says, it's the states with the weakest gun control that have the most gun violence. Those are Repub states. Meanwhile you can also clearly deduce that the Northeast, the rock of Liberalism, has much less gun-violence than these other states.
Some of the more moderate states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois fall in the middle.

Okay. Here's what I'm going to do (because I'm a sucker). I'm going to spell this out for you in plain statistical English and plain statistical data all gleaned from unbiased sources. My argument is to show that your data is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst.

Here are the top 20 cities in order by number of violent crime per 100,000 people. These statistics are from the FBI for 2011. I've also included the political party of the mayor. Enjoy!

(1) Detroit, Michigan - 2,137.4 - Democratic mayor since 1957
(2) St. Louis, Missouri - 1,856.7 - Democratic mayor since 1949
(3) Oakland, California - 1,682.7 - Democratic mayor since 1977
(4) Memphis, Tennessee - 1,583.5 - Democratic mayor since 1876
(5) Atlanta, Georgia - 1,432.8 - Democratic mayor since 1887
(6) Baltimore, Maryland - 1,417.4 - Democratic mayor since 1967
(7) Stockton, California - 1,407.8 -
(8) Cleveland, Ohio - 1,366.4 - Democratic mayor since 1989
(9) Buffalo, New York - 1,238.2 - Democratic mayor since 1965
(10) Kansas City, Missouri - 1,199.7 - Democratic mayor since 1991
(11) Miami, Florida - 1,197.6 - Republican mayor since 2009
(12) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 1,193.3 - Democratic mayor since 1952
(13) Nashville, Tennessee - 1,181.3 - Democratic mayor since 1897
(14) Newark, New Jersey - 1,166.3 - Democratic mayor since 1962 (and current mayor is Democrat-darling Cory Booker)
(15) Washington, DC - 1,130.3 - Democratic mayor since 1967
(16) Indianapolis, Indiana - 1,100.8 - Republican mayor since 2008
(17) Cincinnati, Ohio - 1,032.1 - Democratic mayor since 1984
(18) Tulsa, Oklahoma - 999.7 - Republican mayor since 2009
(19) Milwaukee, Wisconsin - 999.1 - Democratic mayor since 1960
(20) Toledo, Ohio - 997.8 - Independent mayor since 2010 (formerly Democratic mayors since 1990)

Seems like a lot of violence in all of these Democratic strongholds, no?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/US_Mayors.html

You've already forgotten about what you agree with me on?

As far as I can tell, I was responding to JB with this post (not you).

[thegreekdog]

Yes, and perhaps that is the point thegreekdog is trying to make. I will agree with that point. But then it begs the question...doesn't that also happen in the liberal states? If so, doesn't the divergence basically remain the same?

I don't know the answer to that question since I did not look at this on a state-by-state basis, mainly because gun control laws can be federal, state, or local and it seems like a more accurate comparison to determine per capita violence by city (the smallest unit of government) than by state.

As someone else indicated (rds) there are other reasons for gun violence than the legality of guns or the lack of gun control (which are probably created equally by both major political parties). And that really is my point - gun control is ineffectual (unless, as some have indicated, we cease the manufacturer of guns completely) so perhaps we should concentrate on curing the cause of the illegal use of guns rather than expending our energy on ineffectual gun control laws. There does not appear to be any correlation between a lack of gun control in a "Republican" state (e.g. pick one) and draconian gun control in a "Democratic" city (e.g. pick one) and the effect on violence in that particular jurisdiction... so it must be something else right?

[Symmetry]

Cities tend to vote liberal, I don't see the point here.

JB "Highest violent crime rates are in Republican states."
TGD "Highest violent crime rates are in Democratic cities."

So, you're comparing apples to oranges?

No, but thanks for giving me the ability to repost my post so that it's on the top of this page instead the bottom of the last page. Now perhaps JB will read it!

Aren't you comparing states to cities with this?

Apples and oranges, dude.

It's the big cities in the more conservative states that are causing those states to look more dangerous than they really are. Remove those liberal-stranglehold of large cities from the state's calculations and the violent crime rate will be way lower in those conservative states.

Can you provide the stats for gun violence that separate cities from the rest of their state? It sounds like you have consulted them.

[Phatscotty]

For example: Would you find certain facts, like that over (1) 90% of America's collegiate faculty are of a certain political ideology, and (2) the other ideology is not respected, (3) completely misrepresented, and even (4) openly encouraged to be attacked?

(1) I would see that as a problem only if corruption/neopotism is a factor in why this 90% representation has come about. Is there any reason why an academic of the 10% political idealogy would not be able to to become a professor of something which has nothing to do with politics? (e.g. science, engineering, etc., even economics and law principles do not need a specific political alignment in which to be taught).
(2) and (3) I am going to need to see some actual evidence here. And how if it exists what possible relevance does it have to the education delivered at colleges/universities?
(4) The single most important lesson you will ever learn at college/university is how to think critically. This involves, at its heart, attacking preconceived notions and questioning the rationale behind them. I would hope that not only is this political idealogy being attacked, but every school of thought across the entire spectrum is being challenged and questioned by the students studying them.

RE: (1), even the most disputed and radical of economists (of their time) were given nobel laureates, e.g. F. A. Hayek and James Buchanan.

I hear some professors bemoan about "nepotism" or bias in their fields as a reason for not being published, but in nearly all cases, their work isn't good enough and/or they're not applying to the right journals.


Regarding political ideologies (party allegiances/or the faulty left v. right dichotomy?), the imbalance across (nearly all) disciplines of study vary by 5-10%. For an illustrative example, 60% of history professors are 'left' and 40% are 'right'. It's not as huge as PS thinks (90%).

You may be right about "history", but I was speaking of all universities combined. It's not me who "thinks" that, I am quoting someone who is an expert in the field and has done studies to show this. When you add the layer of teachers unions and their extreme left leaning and extreme power, it makes more sense.

[BigBallinStalin]

For example: Would you find certain facts, like that over (1) 90% of America's collegiate faculty are of a certain political ideology, and (2) the other ideology is not respected, (3) completely misrepresented, and even (4) openly encouraged to be attacked?

(1) I would see that as a problem only if corruption/neopotism is a factor in why this 90% representation has come about. Is there any reason why an academic of the 10% political idealogy would not be able to to become a professor of something which has nothing to do with politics? (e.g. science, engineering, etc., even economics and law principles do not need a specific political alignment in which to be taught).
(2) and (3) I am going to need to see some actual evidence here. And how if it exists what possible relevance does it have to the education delivered at colleges/universities?
(4) The single most important lesson you will ever learn at college/university is how to think critically. This involves, at its heart, attacking preconceived notions and questioning the rationale behind them. I would hope that not only is this political idealogy being attacked, but every school of thought across the entire spectrum is being challenged and questioned by the students studying them.

RE: (1), even the most disputed and radical of economists (of their time) were given nobel laureates, e.g. F. A. Hayek and James Buchanan.

I hear some professors bemoan about "nepotism" or bias in their fields as a reason for not being published, but in nearly all cases, their work isn't good enough and/or they're not applying to the right journals.


Regarding political ideologies (party allegiances/or the faulty left v. right dichotomy?), the imbalance across (nearly all) disciplines of study vary by 5-10%. For an illustrative example, 60% of history professors are 'left' and 40% are 'right'. It's not as huge as PS thinks (90%).

You may be right about "history", but I was speaking of all universities combined. It's not me who "thinks" that, I am quoting someone who is an expert in the field and has done studies to show this. When you add the layer of teachers unions and their extreme left leaning and extreme power, it makes more sense.

Oh sure, now throw down your source for " 90% of America's collegiate faculty are of a certain political ideology."

[Lootifer]

Yes please!

[Nobunaga]

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar28.html

72% is pretty high.

[Phatscotty]

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar28.html

72% is pretty high.

thank you! I looked for a while, but I can't remember the name of the author who's study I mentioned earlier, which was that on average across the nation, 9 out of 10 faculty are registered Democrats.

7.2-8.7 out of 10 is a powerful reality nonetheless

[Phatscotty]

For example: Would you find certain facts, like that over (1) 90% of America's collegiate faculty are of a certain political ideology, and (2) the other ideology is not respected, (3) completely misrepresented, and even (4) openly encouraged to be attacked?

(1) I would see that as a problem only if corruption/neopotism is a factor in why this 90% representation has come about. Is there any reason why an academic of the 10% political idealogy would not be able to to become a professor of something which has nothing to do with politics? (e.g. science, engineering, etc., even economics and law principles do not need a specific political alignment in which to be taught).
(2) and (3) I am going to need to see some actual evidence here. And how if it exists what possible relevance does it have to the education delivered at colleges/universities?
(4) The single most important lesson you will ever learn at college/university is how to think critically. This involves, at its heart, attacking preconceived notions and questioning the rationale behind them. I would hope that not only is this political idealogy being attacked, but every school of thought across the entire spectrum is being challenged and questioned by the students studying them.

RE: (1), even the most disputed and radical of economists (of their time) were given nobel laureates, e.g. F. A. Hayek and James Buchanan.

I hear some professors bemoan about "nepotism" or bias in their fields as a reason for not being published, but in nearly all cases, their work isn't good enough and/or they're not applying to the right journals.


Regarding political ideologies (party allegiances/or the faulty left v. right dichotomy?), the imbalance across (nearly all) disciplines of study vary by 5-10%. For an illustrative example, 60% of history professors are 'left' and 40% are 'right'. It's not as huge as PS thinks (90%).

You may be right about "history", but I was speaking of all universities combined. It's not me who "thinks" that, I am quoting someone who is an expert in the field and has done studies to show this. When you add the layer of teachers unions and their extreme left leaning and extreme power, it makes more sense.

Oh sure, now throw down your source for " 90% of America's collegiate faculty are of a certain political ideology."

Nobunaga beat me to it. it's only 72-87% so far.

Comment?