Monday, July 07, 2014
Playmate Joanna Krupa Thinks Huntress Kendall Jones Should Be Killed
Last week, a firestorm erupted on Facebook over several pics of legally hunted, not endangered, African animals by a Texas Tech University cheerleader named Kendall Jones.
One would’ve thought, given the rank, ripe and replete rancor leveled at Miss Kendall that she publicly filmed the murder of a baby or something.
Sorry, that example sucked. My bad. I should’ve dug deeper for a better analogy because a Leftist doesn’t give a rat’s backside about babies getting offed, and they recently even celebrated some chick that actually filmed her abortion.
Anyway, the anti-hunting nutters on the Left did their typical crybaby shtick aimed at Jones, namely caterwaul and campaign that Kendall and her pics be “banned” from Facebook. Aren’t liberals cute? They love banning things. They don’t care what one does as long as they mandate it. Everything else, well, it should be banned. They would’ve made awesome youths in Hitler’s army, but they were born too late. Oh, well. Maybe Satan has something new for them in the 21stcentury since they missed the Third Reich’s boat last century. Who knows? I guess we’ll have to wait and see, eh?
What I find interesting about the incendiary nature of their wrath against the young huntress was not only their petty protest of things they don’t like and do not understand, but the multiple online calls (which I believe have traceable IP’s to their home addresses) for Kendall’s death. One prominent song writer, a rather mannish looking, snaggle-toothed British lady, even tweeted for “the bitch to be killed“. But then she deleted it. But we preserved it, just in case she deleted it accidentally. You’re welcome.
After the homely song writer spewed her murderous rage at the teenager, a‘Real Housewives From Miami’… uh … star, Joanna Krupa took to Instagram and said, ‘This bitch Kendall Jones killed this beautiful creature so she post a selfie! That lion is an endangered species… breaks my f**king [heart] not to mention he had a family… I wish I can fly to Africa and shoot her ugly ass.’
Which brings me to this twist with the twisted mooks that make up the anti-hunting taskforce: Apparently, after reading their multitudinous tirades, they’re against the legal hunting of unendangered animals and they’re completely comfy with the illegal murder of a college coed.
Question: Is it okay for people to now put out calls, multiple calls, for law-abiding hunters to be killed? Did I miss some new policy that affords PETA types to go onto social media and request the death of a person? I must have, because these anti-hunting lovelies do it nowadays with impunity and I’ve preserved several of these screeds on my website at ClashDaily.com.
Now, I’m sure they would say they’re merely using a “figure of speech” when they cry for Kendall to killed, but I guarantee that there’s some bath-salt zombie wanking to a Nat Geo magazine right now that just might follow through with their ill-will.
And that’s why I think the cops should pay those who made death threats against her a little visit. Y’know … a house call to find out what the blank they’re thinking, because it’s a very odd behavior for a civilized society. These death-spewing, anti-hunting clowns are giving al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda’s 2.0 version, ISIS, a run for their deranged money, they are so vocal with their terror threats. I guarantee if it were a Tea Partier calling for a person’s or a specific group’s annihilation they’d get a little knock-knock from the police. Fo’ sho’.
As stated, these freaks won’t be hard to find with the snail slime they’ve left behind on the Internet. It’s traceable and it would be a peace of cake to rattle the cages of the various and the most vociferous Facebookers screaming for Jones’ head.
Watch your six, Kendall, these winners are not right in the head.
Where’s the Tolerance – Black FL GOP House Congressional Candidate Glo Smith Campaign Signs Vandalized
The political left frequently complains about the imaginary conservative war on women yet they conveniently ignore the real war waged against black female conservatives.
Florida Republican House of Representatives candidate Glo Smith is the latest victim subjected to intimidation tactics from the “tolerant” left.
Smith’s face, appearing on one of her campaign signs, was sprayed over with white paint last week. There are also reports that several of Smith’s campaign signs have been stolen.
The NationalReview.com reports:
…she became aware of the racist defacement of an eight-foot-by-four-foot sign Tuesday. The sign was situated on private property in view of Interstate 10 in Jacksonville. The vandal sprayed white paint over the face of Smith, who is African-American. The paint job appears to be carefully done and leaves the eyes untouched, creating a very creepy effect.
Although it has not been determined who the vandals are, this race-based attack is consistent with the black liberal assault on black conservative women.
As a high profile black conservative, I’m very familiar with this type of intimidation tactics. Because of my political views, I’m constantly attacked and criticized through social media with comments claiming “You want to be white” and “You should dye your hair blond.” I’ve also been called “Auntie Tom,” “Aunt Jemima” and numerous other names not appropriate for posting.
Black conservative females are attacked because we threaten the money and power of the black liberal establishment – community activists, politicians, media publications and some ministers – that propagate the victimization game.
The independence and self-sufficiency message of black conservatives dispels the lies from these individuals and groups because their constant message is about blacks being victims and requiring special treatment.
Not surprising, the so-called black leaders – Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP – have not come out to defend Smith. There have been no marches or demonstrations in the streets or grandstanding on this incident because in reality, the black liberal establishment’s outrage is only used to protect liberal causes – conservatives need not apply.
Reading to Newborns Is Probably Useless
RAZIB KHAN points out that correlation is not causation
Like clockwork every few months I feel prompted to write about The Nurture Assumption. In this case it is due to The New York Times reporting that the American Academy of Pediatrics is now recommending that parents start reading to their newborns. As noted in the piece in The New York Times a major reason for this recommendation is the research which shows that higher socioeconomic status families tend to talk a lot more to their offspring than lower socioeconomic status families, and provide them with a richer vocabulary. The assumption is that this head start allows higher socioeconomic status children to outpace their peers cognitively. Naturally they reference Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. This work surveying 42 families was published in 1995, and concluded that children raised in professional households will hear 8 million more words in a year than children raised in a household on welfare.
But that’s old news. There is also a reference to a 2013 study, SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. The study here looks at 48 individuals. You can see the major result at the top of this post. To me one thing that strikes me are the rather modest correlations. The children in higher socioeconomic circumstances have larger vocabularies, but it’s not an incredibly big difference. There is a huge amount of variation within socioeconomic brackets, just as there is within families. The standard deviation of IQ in groups of siblings is nearly the same as the standard deviation of IQ in the general population. There’s only so much control families and genes have (shared environment + heritable component).
Naturally the first thing that comes to mind is that socioeconomic status and intelligence are not totally uncorrelated, and intelligence is at least somewhat heritable. Smart parents might simply talk more to their children, and those children will tend to be smarter than you would expect by chance. The authors are aware of the behavior genetic literature, but they tend to argue that it can be interpreted in a way which leaves open the possibility for the large effect of shared environment. In general my prior is to be skeptical of this, because the overall body of research suggests that for many behavioral traits the variation within the population which isn’t genetic (on the order of half) is simply unaccounted for.
(1) This doesn’t mean that there aren’t environmental effects which might result in changes in outcome on the margin. But we just don’t know enough about non-genetic component to assume that a silver bullet policy prescription can be formulated out of a few studies. A few years ago Jim Manzi came out with the book Uncontrolled: The Surprising Payoff of Trial-and-Error for Business, Politics, and Society, where he unveiled the term “high causal density.” In other words, there are lots of causes for some effects, and it is difficult to tease apart the variables so as to engineer appropriate responses. This is clear even in the case of the genetically heritable component, which is often polygenic and difficult to assign to any given gene of large effect. And it is also likely in many cases for numerous environmental variables, some of which may simply be stochastic (which can explain differences between identical twins raised together).
Unfortunately a major human cognitive bias seems to be the need to think that we can control things, and effect change. This results in the adherence to fads and fashions such as Freudianism and attachment parenting as the years come and go. The single biggest thing you as an expectant parent can do to have a child with a large vocabulary is to select a mate with a large vocabulary. This won’t guarantee anything, because there is going to be lots of variation on individual outcomes, but in a developed world context this is probably the lowest hanging fruit in terms of ‘return on investment.’ Think of it as ‘loading the die.’ That doesn’t address the issue of inequality, which is really what’s bothering people in this particular case, but I strongly suspect that reading to newborns is going to be a waste of everyone’s time here, though it may make people feel as if they are doing something. Young parents have a finite amount of time, and it seems pragmatic for them to starting reading to children when children can actually start understanding the structure of narratives!
Political constraints on homosexual research
Will gay marriages be more durable than heterosexual marriages have been over the last generation? Let’s face it: it is not as though traditional boy-girl marriage has been a world-beater lately in the U.S. Will gay breakups differ from hetero marriages, given that in most cases there will be fewer child custody battles or alimony payments to haggle over? I have no idea, and make no prejudgments about the matter. This will be a great time to follow the data.
But that may be a problem. I do have one hunch about what will happen: social science research in to gay marriage will be discouraged, when it is not suppressed or demonized because any finding that might deviate from the current triumphalism will be politically incorrect. Just as most graduate students in social science stay away from certain aspects of research on minorities (see Jason Richwine for what can happen when you try it), this will become another area marked off limits.
It’s already happened to two researchers who attempted to assemble and analyze statistics on adopted children raised by gay couples, Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, and Loren Marks, a sociologist at Louisiana State University. In separate studies using standard panel large-scale survey methodology, they each concluded that children raised in same-sex marriage households had higher rates of various social dysfunctions than children raised in traditional married households. As with almost every social science analysis, there is ample room to criticize the research design, and Regnerus’s sample size (only about 250 parents) may be too small and over too short a span to bear the weight of any conclusions at this point.
But of course that’s not the way people responded to his work. The liberal establishment, and Regnerus’s own university, went to DefCon1 to denounce his work in all of the usual ways. A group of 200 professors signed a letter denouncing the study. I wonder how many of them actually read it? I wonder how many of them will conduct similar research? There’s a survey I’d like to do, and on these questions I’d be happy to offer a confident prediction about the results.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.