You Can Now Go to Jail for Having a Toy Gun in Atlantic City

nationalrev:

image

READ MORE! 

But, you won’t go to jail if you are an NFL player and brutally assault your girlfriend in a hotel elevator where there are cameras everywhere recording the incident from 15 different angles.  That’s apparently not a law enforcement matter but solely an issue between you and your employer as an NFL player and it’s the NFL’s fault that nothing was done as a result of a video that was allegedly received five months ago from a law enforcement source.  It’s apparently the NFL’s job to punish domestic violence committed by its players and solely and completely its fault when it doesn’t act on a video that the Atlantic City police department sent the NFL months ago but did not prosecute as a crime.

Own a cap gun that isn’t entirely bright fluorescent even though the law has required orange tips on cap guns since 1992?  Oh, you better believe that’s a jail sentence.

James Golden considers his 26 years working with Rush Limbaugh to be the greatest professional blessing he could ever imagine. Originally from Queens, New York, James met Rush while working for a major media network and hasn’t looked back since.

Most Rush listeners know James as either “Snerdley,” the call screener, or the “Official Obama Criticizer.” Golden was in Washington recently for a CURE meeting and that’s where we got the chance to sit down with him for this exclusive 30 minute video interview.

For the first half of the interview, Golden waxed passionately about race in America, and how America’s first black president has only harmed race relations in this country.

Recalling when strong, two parent families were the norm for blacks, when hard work and merit allowed blacks to rise in society, and when homicide wasn’t the major cause of the death for young black males, Golden said with genuine regret, “Isn’t it a shame that for most of black people, the good old days were the days when things were segregated legally in this country?”

He concludes, “What liberalism has done to black communities is horrific.”

Touching on the horrors of the Philadelphia black abortionist Kenneth Gosnell and the depravity in black music, Golden said that they are results of “people following the liberal ride down. They don’t care about values.”

“Al Sharpton and his bunch should be ashamed of themselves,” he said, as they have “let the issue of black life degenerate into a politically opportunistic issue.” His answer? Black people need to value their own lives and quit expecting political hustlers to solve their problems.

The Official Obama Criticizer said to listeners who are black, “There are no Republicans in your neighborhoods. The problem is the people in your neighborhood. Obama’s not coming to help you in your neighborhood unless you live in Martha’s Vineyard or have a golf course!”

On episodes such as those with Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin, Golden admits these stories touch a raw nerve for blacks who have seen police commit injustices in their neighborhoods for years. His advice for conservatives is not just to react when Sharpton or Jackson take advantage of these situations, but to build genuine relationships with black communities so that conservatives should be the first to arrive and see the truth for themselves.

This is wonderful.  He talks about how the minimum wage hurts black teenagers most of all. He says the problem is the Democrats in black neighborhoods and the Democrats releasing criminals back into black neighborhoods not the Republicans because they left black neighbors fifty years ago and only return at election time for “outreach.”  The problem is the Democrats who are still there.  He attacks people who call voter ID laws racist because you need an ID for every other interaction with the government.  He says black people should fight for justice—not social justice—because social justice is not justice.  It’s just great.  The entire video.  Amazing.

communismkills:

donttreadonvirginia:

communismkills:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/15/did-neil-degrasse-tyson-just-try-to-justify-blatant-quote-fabrication/

So I have some thoughts on this.

While it is true that the divider between half of the data is the median, not the mean, if you’re going to standardize your data and put it in to a normal distribution for any purpose of analysis, the mean and median will be the same thing, meaning half will be above and half will be below as definition.

So I am not quite sure if he was wrong there. Maybe schools are on a perfect bell curve when taking standardized scores in to account as your measurement. Makes sense. Schools do use standardized test scores to decide how the school and students are doing.

Tyson used the word “average.” In layman’s terms, an average is typically assumed to refer to the arithmetic mean. However, anyone who has even a basic understanding of statistics knows that “average” is a generic term for all measures of central tendency including “median” (as Tyson obviously meant), “arithmetic mean” (as the author of the linked post erroneously assumed), and “mode.” I’m really not a fan of Tyson for his anthropogenic global warming alarmism and many other reasons but that post is just wrong and is written like someone trying to sound smart by attacking someone for sounding too smart and failing epically in the process.

That’s not right, though. Average refers specifically to the mean. Everything else is just a measure of central tendency, but average means mean. It makes a difference if you’re going to use median, mean, or mode. They don’t all mean the average.

It would make sense to use average as a median, interchangeably, if he were referring to standardized test scores, since that’s a normal distribution. Half of the data would therefore need to fall below average.

But if the data were skewed in any fashion, as the article indicates, the mean and the median take on two completely separate definitions. I happen to be giving him the benefit of the doubt, since schools do, in fact, use standardized scoring.

No. The word “average” is rarely used outside of the context of elementary mathematics because it is such an ambiguous term. The word “mean” is even ambiguous since there are multiple types of Pythagorean means (e.g., arithmetic, harmonic, geometric), as well as the First and Second Mean Value Theorems for Integrals for determining means of functions, various weighted means, etc.

Even the basic dictionary definition on Google notes that an average can refer to the mode, median, mean, or any number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data. It is most commonly used among laymen to refer to the arithmetic mean but that does not make it the only definition.

communismkills:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/15/did-neil-degrasse-tyson-just-try-to-justify-blatant-quote-fabrication/

So I have some thoughts on this.

While it is true that the divider between half of the data is the median, not the mean, if you’re going to standardize your data and put it in to a normal distribution for any purpose of analysis, the mean and median will be the same thing, meaning half will be above and half will be below as definition.

So I am not quite sure if he was wrong there. Maybe schools are on a perfect bell curve when taking standardized scores in to account as your measurement. Makes sense. Schools do use standardized test scores to decide how the school and students are doing.

Tyson used the word “average.” In layman’s terms, an average is typically assumed to refer to the arithmetic mean. However, anyone who has even a basic understanding of statistics knows that “average” is a generic term for all measures of central tendency including “median” (as Tyson obviously meant), “arithmetic mean” (as the author of the linked post erroneously assumed), and “mode.” I’m really not a fan of Tyson for his anthropogenic global warming alarmism and many other reasons but that post is just wrong and is written like someone trying to sound smart by attacking someone for sounding too smart and failing epically in the process.

One of the best things about going offline for Shabbos and Yom Tov is being away from all the crap on Tumblr. Unfortunately, I see it when I get back online and, although it always makes me feel good that I didn’t waste my time, it’s such a downer. A period of 72 hours without electronics is coming up on Wednesday night so I’ll get to enjoy a nice long break from Tumblr. I’m not saying that there isn’t a lot I really enjoy about Tumblr (I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t more enjoyable than not) but everyone needs a break at least one day a week from this place and G-d provides Jews the wisdom to recognize that we need a break at least one day a week and multiple days in a row for many holidays so we focus on what really matters instead of this petty, mundane crap.

stuff-that-irks-me:

donttreadonvirginia:

stuff-that-irks-me:

image

The House voted overwhelmingly to pass a bill to audit the Federal Reserve Wednesday (333-92).

Just one Republican — California Rep. John Campbell — and 91 Democrats opposed the bill (H.R. 24), sponsored by Republican Rep. Paul Broun, which would order the Government Accountability Office to audit the Federal Reserve system and its twelve banks. Two hundred and twenty-seven Republicans and 107 Democrats voted in support of the bill.

“Today’s passage of the Audit the Fed bill brings us one step closer towards bringing much-needed transparency to our nation’s monetary policy,” Rep. Broun said in a statement. “For the past 100 years, the Federal Reserve, a quasi-government agency, has acted under a veil of secrecy – controlling our monetary policy and thus, our economy.”

The House passed a similar bill, sponsored by Republican Sen. Rand Paul, in 2012. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has refused to bring the bill to the Senate floor.

Yeah! Let’s give Congress more of a role in meddling with the economy! Congress is so fiscally responsible that we should give it a larger role in micromanaging the money supply! It’s not like the Fed largely purchases government bonds as a means to finance the amazingly fiscally-responsible budgets passed by Congress when it expands the monetary base or anything, right? It’s not like TARP was passed by Congress and the Fed only funded and implemented the massive spending authorized by Congress, right? Yes, let’s make sure that Congressional committees have more authority to call Fed officials to the Capitol to explain why the Fed didn’t do enough intervention to offset the disastrous interventions that Congress itself passed! It’s not like the Fed’s authority was originally granted by Congress and having Congress micromanage the Fed even further is only going to result in more legislation to micromanage the Fed so that it doesn’t “screw the little guy,” right? The Fed is already so political that the only way to fix it is to make it more political!

I’m not a fan of central banking but this is a horrendous idea and is only going to make things significantly worse.

I don’t want congress running the Fed, just making it transparent so 12 voting members don’t control everything unseen without consequences. Even if congress ran it, it would be 535 votes and would probably result in more gridlock which might be better than the constant meddling.

I understand that this is the reason why most on the right who support auditing the Fed support such legislation. My concern is that Congress is going to ask “why didn’t you do more?” and the Fed is going to actually “do more” in response. I don’t like the idea of the Fed “doing more.” Congress isn’t going to run the Fed but no amount of auditing is going to give any ordinary citizen standing to sue or do anything. Whether or not Congress passes any new legislation controlling the Fed as a result, there will be pressure on the Fed to be more active to please Congress and Fed policy will become even more political. Central banking is flawed in general but the politicization of monetary policy makes it immensely worse. Reactionary and/or aggressive monetary policy with goals of “reducing unemployment” or “priming the pump of the economy” are far more dangerous than the original “lender of last resort” and “stabilize the monetary system” goals that, while still as ridiculous as central banking in the first place, are not as overtly political as what Congress and the Executive Branch demand today. I would prefer moving towards free banking but less politicization of central bank policy and less demands from politicians that the central bank needs to “do something to fix the economy” that those same politicians largely screwed up would be better than this notion that Congress auditing the Fed will result in less politicization of Fed policy when it will undoubtedly result in more. The issue is not secrecy in the Fed’s operations themselves as much as it is the backroom deals with politicians. How do you think the new money gets into the economy when the Fed “prints money?” This new money is used to purchase new government bonds issued by the treasury (it is usually not actually printed but just electronically added to balance sheets). Politicians are the ones who issue these new bonds to pay for the out-of-control spending of other politicians. The Fed is pressured to comply and buy whatever bonds the politicians want it to buy because everything is so political and politicians demand immediate action not the actions that will produce the best results.

stuff-that-irks-me:

The House voted overwhelmingly to pass a bill to audit the Federal Reserve Wednesday (333-92).

Just one Republican — California Rep. John Campbell — and 91 Democrats opposed the bill (H.R. 24), sponsored by Republican Rep. Paul Broun, which would order the Government Accountability Office to audit the Federal Reserve system and its twelve banks. Two hundred and twenty-seven Republicans and 107 Democrats voted in support of the bill.

“Today’s passage of the Audit the Fed bill brings us one step closer towards bringing much-needed transparency to our nation’s monetary policy,” Rep. Broun said in a statement. “For the past 100 years, the Federal Reserve, a quasi-government agency, has acted under a veil of secrecy – controlling our monetary policy and thus, our economy.”

The House passed a similar bill, sponsored by Republican Sen. Rand Paul, in 2012. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has refused to bring the bill to the Senate floor. 

Yeah! Let’s give Congress more of a role in meddling with the economy! Congress is so fiscally responsible that we should give it a larger role in micromanaging the money supply! It’s not like the Fed largely purchases government bonds as a means to finance the amazingly fiscally-responsible budgets passed by Congress when it expands the monetary base or anything, right? It’s not like TARP was passed by Congress and the Fed only funded and implemented the massive spending authorized by Congress, right? Yes, let’s make sure that Congressional committees have more authority to call Fed officials to the Capitol to explain why the Fed didn’t do enough intervention to offset the disastrous interventions that Congress itself passed! It’s not like the Fed’s authority was originally granted by Congress and having Congress micromanage the Fed even further is only going to result in more legislation to micromanage the Fed so that it doesn’t “screw the little guy,” right? The Fed is already so political that the only way to fix it is to make it more political!

I’m not a fan of central banking but this is a horrendous idea and is only going to make things significantly worse.

This obsession with selfies is getting ridiculous.  There is nothing inherently wrong with taking a photo of yourself somewhere cool.  The problem is when people become so vain that they put lives at risk in the process.  This is by far the worst example of which I am aware if it turns out to be true.

However, I also saw a young mother a few days ago on my commute home from work setting up a selfie of herself on the sidewalk while her toddler was completely unattended and wobbling around near a busy street.  Her phone was angled so that only the mother could possibly have been in the photo.  She was not paying any attention at all to her very young child close to the ground near a busy street.

If you’re going to take a selfie, don’t put the lives of other people in danger and at least make it interesting because nobody wants to see a photo of you holding your phone in front of a dusty, spotted mirror.  A selfie with a waterfall behind you is cool.  A selfie in a filthy mirror with your dirty laundry and towels everywhere is just pathetic.

asderathos:

mrsrandallboggs:

I really don’t like the idea that people should vote for the sake of voting anymore. Like, as long as you’re taking part in the political process, it’s a good thing. No, people shouldn’t vote unless they know who they’re voting for and why.

I’ve been saying this since I was 18. Don’t rock the vote bebe. Lest you know wtf you doin.~

This focus on increasing voter turnout is ridiculous.  Low voter turnout is generally a good thing since it means that a larger percentage of voters who voted were actually motivated to vote for decent reasons and fewer people with low motivation voted.  That’s rarely a bad thing.

Proposals by city governments to pay people to vote and countries with laws that require their citizens to vote under penalty of law are only going to encourage uninformed voters with terrible motivations for voting and little reason to care about the issues to vote in greater numbers.

Additionally, this nonsense from many libertarians that it does not make economic sense in terms of a cost / benefit analysis to vote because the odds of a single individual determining the outcome of an election are astronomically high is potentially more dangerous but thankfully practiced by far fewer individuals.  Focusing on the statistics of whether you as a single individual will be the sole reason why a candidate wins or loses is ridiculous even though the math very well may be completely accurate.  Yes, the individual is more important than the collective and individual motivations ultimately drive all decisions including political decisions.  However, encouraging those holding a political ideology that is significantly more likely than the average person to vote for sound economic policies not to vote under the guise of sound economics is a recipe for disaster.  When you start looking at elections with a difference of 907 votes out of 2.2 million votes or 360 votes out of 1.9 million votes and considering whether discouraging people more likely to be informed about the issues than average person is a good idea because a single person isn’t going to be the deciding factor, your argument starts to fall apart rapidly.  You simply cannot claim that it is possible to create a universal equation that applies to every election using relatively simply math without ignoring most of the complexity and unmeasurable variables that go into the political process to the point where you are also making the argument that you could develop a single model to centrally plan the economy.  It’s really not that far of a leap and that is why, although I agree with most of public choice economic theory, I really find this argument against voting proposed by otherwise exceptional economists to be exceptionally flawed.

communismkills:

thoughtsandreplies:

runningrepublican:

This Econ prof just tried to claim the US was a free market until 1932.
Brah… Wtf.

The major shifts in market freedom in the US have been

1787 [The Constitution, specifically Article 1 Sec 8 “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”]

1865 [the abolition of slavery+],

1906 [Meat Inspection Act-],

1913 [The Federal Reserve-], and

1933 [New Deal],

however Hoover did his own ‘New Deal’ which was screwing us all first before FDR, but definitely not worse by any stretch of the imagination.

He’s sorta right ish, the professor.

You would have to completely overlook Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, and the Progressive Movement passing a significant amount of “anti-trust,” “pro-union,” “consumer-protection,” “anti-banker,” and other horribly economically-destructive regulations and legislation in the first few decades of the 20th century to claim that FDR was the president primarily responsible for damaging the free market.

FDR largely just resumed and expanded the policies started by his uncle/cousin, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover.  Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge created tremendous amounts of economic growth by putting us back on a free market path but the hallmark policy of Progressivism, the Federal Reserve, eventually destroyed the economy through its incompetence.  Herbert Hoover had an opening to return us to the policies of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 fed into the New Deal and things simply progressed from there.  Both Roosevelt administrations and the Wilson and Hoover administrations were largely run by the same Progressive policy wonks and/or those who mentored under the policy wonks from earlier administrations.

Woodrow Wilson was unquestionably the worst president in American history.  Ultimately, every one of FDR’s policies had its roots in the policies of previous Progressives.  He was simply in office so long that he was able carry the destructive torch lit by his predecessors farther and light far more eternal flames of Progressivism along the way than was possible in the shorter times that his predecessors were in office.  He also had significantly more crises that he didn’t let go to waste than his predecessors and the work they already began as a foundation.