The Daily Smug: Barack Obama Born In Mombasa Kenya – British Intel...: M ichael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strat...
I’m concerned about you. I know that sometimes you get depressed that not everything in life has gone the way you planned. Maybe you wish you had more money. Maybe you wish you had a more prestigious job. Maybe you wish you had more free time. Maybe it’s some combination of these. Maybe you’re discouraged because things haven’t worked out as well as you would have liked, even though you tried your best, your entire life.
Cheer up. If you have a good spouse who loves you, if you have a family that admires you, if you have friends that respect you, if you have a boss and coworkers that value you, if you have all, or even some of these things, and you have been an honest, hard working human being, who has always tried to make intelligent decisions, you have done all that can be expected of you. If you put God and others before yourself, you are a successful human being. All the rest is just plain luck, and we don’t judge the value of a human being by the amount of luck they may have had. Money and assets may be the value of an estate, but they not the measurement of a human being.
A person is measured by how much he or she would be missed if they were gone, and below are two "people" who are absolutely worthless.
Is that Vee, or five?
What? Is he trying to emulate Roger Sterling
from "Mad Men"?
In a way, they were made for each other. Both have come across their fortunes by being luckier than average bear, but both are under the delusion that somehow they are solely responsible for where they are today. (a complete lack of humility) Both of them changed their names (A sure sign of vanity and narcissism) and both of them make me sick.
First you got Donald Tokowitz. An ambulance chasing, divorce attorney, that just happened to be in the right place at the right time. What better time and place for a divorce attorney than Los Angeles in the early ‘60’s? His was born in Chicago, and his family moved to LA when he was two. What if they would have moved to Sheboygan, Wi? He probably wouldn’t have made any of that money he made in real estate. Right place. Luck. How well would have he done in real estate if he had just gotten his start in 2005? Right time. Luck. I don’t begrudge anyone’s success, but imagine that he would give 99% of the credit for his success to - himself. The truth is he made enough money right from the start that he was able to weather any mistakes that would have wiped anyone else out.
Now we hear that he’s a racist, in LA. Wrong place. In 2014, while owning an NBA team. Wrong time. Time and place didn’t have anything to do with luck here. He had to know the environment he lives in. He can’t blame any of this on bad luck. It’s due 100% to stupidity. He should have either kept his racism to himself, or sold the team and moved somewhere where he wouldn’t offend anyone, like the moon. A lifelong member of the KKK wouldn’t have acted the way Tokowitz did if he was in the same situation. Tokowitz failed on a no-brainer, and I hope he pays for it. Maybe he can get a feel for the bumps in the road that the rest of us all feel.
Tokowitz suffers from a special kind of stupidity that comes from achieving success too easily, and then having so much money that everyone around him was afraid to correct him when he was acting stupid. I know the type. A real piece of shit. Don’t let the money fool you.
And just to show you what an absolute failure the guy really is at what’s important in life, this is the result of his parenting skills:
n 1955, Sterling married his wife, Rochelle ("Shelly") Stein, with whom he had three children: Scott Sterling (deceased), Chris Sterling, and Joanna Sterling.
In 1999, Scott Sterling at the age of 19 was arrested for shooting his childhood friend, Philip Scheid, with a shotgun at his father's Beverly Hills mansion. Philip said that it was during an argument with Scott whereby he was shot in the legs from behind as he ran away. According to Los Angeles Times Magazine, their argument was reportedly over Saved by the Bell: The New Class actress Lindsey McKeon. Scott said that he fired his gun in self-defense after Scheid approached him with a knife. Ultimately, no charges were filed. The county district attorney's office refused to file criminal charges due to issues involving the victims' credibility. The police said Donald Sterling attempted to intimidate a detective prior to his son's case being dropped.
On January 1, 2013, Scott was found dead at the age of 32 from an apparent drug overdose at his apartment in the Malibu Beach Villas complex on Pacific Coast Highway, a property owned by the Donald T. Sterling Trust. Shortly after, Shelly Sterling released a statement that said, "Our son Scott has fought a long and valiant battle against Type 1 Diabetes [...] His death is a terrible tragedy, the effects of which will be felt forever by our family and all those who knew and loved him." Reports suggest that Scott Sterling had injected an oral narcotic medication. The report also suggests that diabetes and oxycodone likely played a role in Scott's death.
Next we got María Vanessa Perez, what do you know, another name changer. What, are these “people” ashamed of their heritage? They should be ashamed of themselves. I don’t have to say much about this loser. Just another slut, trying fuck stupid rich men out of their money, but you just know she’s also under the illusion that somehow she has earned everything she has, including her notoriety, through her own intelligence and hard work. I’d have some respect for her if she just admitted what she really is. A high priced, low class whore.
Anyhow, cheer up. On your worst day, you are ten times the human being that these pieces of shit ever will be.
Just a few years ago, self driving cars were the stuff of science fiction. Now, they’re about to make the bold step into reality. Not if I have anything to say about it. The scientists and engineers behind these monstrosities should watch more science fiction movies before they unleash them onto the public.
Google: Driverless cars are mastering city streets
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Google says it has turned a corner in its pursuit of a car that can drive itself.
The tech giant's self-driving cars already can navigate freeways comfortably, albeit with a driver ready to take control. But city driving - with its obstacle course of jaywalkers, bicyclists and blind corners - has been a far greater challenge for the cars' computers.
In a blog entry posted Monday, the project's leader said test cars now can handle thousands of urban situations that would have stumped them a year or two ago.
"We're growing more optimistic that we're heading toward an achievable goal - a vehicle that operates fully without human intervention," project director Chris Urmson wrote.
Urmson's post was the company's first official update since 2012 on progress toward a driverless car, a project within the company's secretive Google X lab.
The company has said its goal is to get the technology to the public by 2017. In initial iterations, human drivers would be expected to take control if the computer fails. The promise is that, eventually, there would be no need for a driver. Passengers could read, daydream, even sleep - or work - while the car drives.
The driverless car has all the ingredients of a classic science fiction movie. You got the scientists/inventors/engineers, who may have at one time, meant well, but are now driven by something other than the betterment of mankind. You got the “creation” that threatens the health, life, and safety of the general public, and you have a textbook case of a scientific ethics dilemma - does having the ability to create, give you the license to create?
How many times in all your years and miles of diving have you encountered a totally unique emergency situation, a one in a million thing that no computer program could ever have a contingency response for? A tire blowout, a vehicle malfunction, a deer running in front of you, with a car behind you and another car approaching from the opposite direction? The list of possibilities is endless and the number of possibilities that we could never think of is much higher than the the number that we could.
There is no way a driverless car could possibly react as well as a human being in those one in a million scenarios that could never be taken into account in advance, and that’s assuming that the driverless car would always function perfectly. I have had many instances of vehicle failure that lead to situations required split second decision making. The type of vehicle failure and the environment in which it occurred made for a completely unique situation that will probably never be exactly duplicated again ever in the history of mankind. How the hell are you going to incorporate that into a computer program? Sometimes a unique situation calls for the opposite action that would be used in 999 out of 1000 other similar cases.
Think about this. What’s been in the headlines recently? It appears that GM couldn’t even make an ignition switch properly, even when they knew they had a problem. Now what’s more complicated - an ignition switch or whatever is necessary to make a vehicle operate without a driver? Are you going to trust your life to people who can’t even make an ignition switch? Are you going to just sit there and let your government allow others to put their trust in such people and the faulty equipment they produce? What are you going to do when one of these driverless cars malfunctions and it’s heading towards you at 60 mph?
If you think you can trust driverless cars to be safe and reliable, take a look at the dashboard of your own car. If you don’t see this right now, give it a few months.
You know what this means. Something's gone wrong. Eventually, when something goes wrong with a driverless car, people will die.
We want you to be a conservative blogger.
That’s where you risk getting into trouble for stating the obvious.
Sounds easy. What does it pay?
Pay is inversely related to how badly you need the money. Famous people make millions, well known people make six figures.
So for me, it’s...
Let’s just say it’s a round number.
Alright, let me have a crack at it.
Fixate yourself upon this image. What do you see? A sheet of plywood? Yes. But there’s more, so much more. You’re looking at the savior of our environment and what makes affordable housing for everyone who isn’t part of the uppermost classes, possible. You’re looking at the manifestation of a liberal wet dream, and just like about everything else, it was the result of white males attempting to make some money.
What would a world without plywood be like? The two words that would come closest to describing it would be, treeless and homeless. That’s right. The lowly sheet of plywood has done more to save the environment and shelter the lower and middle classes than all the liberal income redistribution and environmental activism to date, plus all that will ever occur in the future, and it’s all due to the innovation of “evil white males”. Kind of ironic isn’t it?
It’s only ironic if you believe all the crap that liberals spew, and expect you to believe. Let’s take another look at that sheet of plywood. What’s the first thing you notice?
The size right? Four feet by eight feet. Have you ever seen logs being hauled on trucks? They're seldom over four feet wide. Go into any older building. It is extremely rare to see any single solid board wider than 18 inches. Why? There’s a lot of reasons, but one of the most important is, that a wider solid board, (the only kind they had the technology to produce back in the old days) is just about useless. The wider a solid board is, the more likely it is to cup and split and therefore, the wider a solid boards becomes, the thicker it needs to be, even if a project does not require lumber of such thickness. The end result is wasted trees. Plywood eliminates the relationship between board width and thickness (this is a fancy way of saying increases strength) and maximizes the efficient use of trees at the same time. How?
Look at that sheet of plywood again. What else do you see. Do you notice how the grain repeats itself? How is that even possible? See how the pattern of knots repeat themselves? Now you know that’s impossible. No tree has branches of the exact same size and placement only a few inches away. Is it magic? In a way, it is. It’s the magic of white capitalists’ innovation, but unlike douchebag magicians, I’m gonna show you how the trick is done.
Today, China is the top plywood producing country, but the US is still number two, and the important thing here is that the technology was developed in the U. S. and Europe by - guess who. China and other countries merely adopted our technology, and if they’re smart, they will adopt forest management practices developed in the U.S. too. Contrary to what some people say, we have excellent forrest management programs here in the U.S. Here’s what the forests in many countries that haven’t adopted the technologies and management practices developed by evil white men look like today.
|This is India - A cracka free zone.|
|This is Brazil - Relatively honky free.|
|The U.S. - Huh? Who woulda thunk?|
Here’s my point. It’s not just plywood. I’m gonna let Captain Capitalism pinch hit for me here:
See? Those evil white males aren’t so bad. In fact, without their contributions, life itself, for most of the people on this planet would have never been possible. White males are the only reason the people who love to demonize them even exist. Now that’s irony.
Despite bloody weekend, Chicago's murder rate is down, police chief says
(CNN) -- If you read the headlines out of Chicago this past Easter weekend -- more than 40 shot, including nine killed -- you might be surprised to learn that the city's homicide rate is still trending downward, according to the police chief.
Yes, that's right: Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy told WGN Radio this week that Chicago's homicide rate is "still ahead of where we were last year, which was a record." The number of homicides in Chicago last year dropped to 415, compared to 503 in 2012, an 18% drop. That lower level hasn't been seen since 1965.
And why do you think that is? Do you think it might have anything to do with this?
source: The Blaze
Here’s What Happened to Crime in Chicago After Illinois Finally Passed Concealed Carry Law
On July 9, 2013, a bill to recognize Illinois gun owners’ right to carry concealed firearms was passed by both chambers of the state Legislature. Illinois became the last state in the nation to allow public possession of concealed guns.
Gun control advocates warned that high-crime areas, like Chicago, would only see more violence if residents were allowed to carry guns in public.
In reality, the opposite may be happening.
On Tuesday, the Chicago Police Department announced that the city experienced its lowest murder rate since 1958 in the first quarter of 2014. There were 6 fewer murders than the same timeframe in 2013 — a 9 percent drop — and 55 fewer murders than 2012, police said.
Further, there were reportedly 90 fewer shootings and 119 fewer shooting victims compared to last year. There have also been 222 fewer shootings and 292 fewer shooting victims compared to the first quarter in 2012.
All crime is down 25 percent from 2013 and police say they have confiscated over 1,300 illegal guns in the last three months.
Now, it’s entirely too soon to conclude that the concealed carry law is partly responsible for Chicago’s across-the-board drop in the crime. However, it is not unreasonable to conclude the drop in crime may undercut gun control advocates’ argument that more guns equal more crime.
It should also be noted that the first concealed carry permits were issued in late February, so the decrease in crime can’t yet be attributed to more people carrying guns.
The more telling statistics will be revealed as 2014 marches on. Still, as always, correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation.
Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy called the drop in crime a “trend.” He attributed the drop to the “talent level of individuals” on the police force, “intelligent policing strategies” and other programs. He did not mention the concealed carry law.
But if McCarthy is going to give the police department credit for the reduction in murder rate last year, isn’t that saying the same thing as the police were responsible for the higher murder rate the years before? Were the police not trying as hard to prevent crime prior to last year? This is classic liberalism - being willing to blame your own incompetence before you are willing to blame the failure on your ideology. There is no way the libs are going to give concealed carry credit for the drop in the murder rate, even if it means making themselves look bad.
Here’s another interesting excerpt from the CNN story.
There are some Chicago neighborhoods -- poorer, less educated, predominantly African-American and infested with gangs -- that have murder rates 10 times higher than other Chicago areas.
What is CNN trying to say here? In the very same story, they mention that gun control laws have been struck down citywide and statewide. If the ability to legally possess a firearm were the problem, why would some neighborhoods have higher murder rates than others? For that matter, why were there any gun related murders when the ban on firearms in Chicago was in place? What possible reason could CNN have to even mention the words “African-American and infested with gangs”, unless they, themselves, are racists? Classic liberalism rears its head again - blame gun violence on race before admitting that the supporters of the second amendment are correct.
I thought that we were supposed to believe that all this gun violence was the fault of the guns themselves, not the people using them, although without even knowing it, CNN may have for once, actually have been right. I once lived in a small town where everyone I knew owned multiple guns and I can’t recall even one incident of murder by use of a firearm. Of course that town isn’t very diverse.
If you see the connection between reduced crime and concealed carry, you’re smarter than either Chicago’s police chief or CNN.
More from CNN
"It's just insanity that there's such a proliferation of firearms that they're so easy to get your hands on," McCarthy told WGN Radio on Monday. "The studies show when there's more restrictive gun laws, there's less gun violence. It's not brain surgery, it's really really simple.
I would like to see these “studies”. Someone show me an example where more restrictive gun laws have reduced gun violence.
"It's going to take us a while to fix poverty and the break-up of the family units and education and jobs. But we can do something about gun laws today and we're just not doing it."
That may be an uphill climb: In February, a federal judge struck down Chicago's ban on gun sales, saying it went "too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions." And in 2010, the Supreme Court declared Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban unconstitutional.
Making it even more difficult, last year, Illinois became the 50th state to allow its residents to carry concealed weapons after a veto from its governor failed to kill the legislation.
CNN can’t even differentiate between the cause and solution of the problem.
McCarthy may get some limited help from the feds at least in keeping repeat criminals off the street: the office of newly appointed U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon announced Monday the creation of a violent crimes section to focus on how to more effectively use federal statues to prosecute those behind Chicago's gun violence,the Chicago Tribune reported.
It’s impossible to be a liberal and not end up making yourself look stupid, because in order to be a liberal, you must embrace a flawed ideology. As soon as you recognize the faults in the ideology, you begin to cease being liberal.
Will I ever run out of ways to slam liberalism?
source: USA Today
Monthly 'Ladies' Home Journal' to fold after 131 years
Another one bites the newsstand dust.
(Photo: Kwaku Alston for Ladies' Home Journal)
The death of print continues apace.
Today's victim: The monthly Ladies' Home Journal. After 131 years, the July issue will be its last, reportsAd Age. The website will continue on, and the magazine itself will become a quarterly special-interest publication available starting this fall on newsstands, vs. via subscription. Nonetheless, the entire editorial staff was laid off as part of the change.
LHJ has a circulation of 3.2 million, down from a 1968 peak of 6.8 million, according to parent company Meredith. Subscribers will get one of Meredith's other titles — Every Day with Rachael Ray, More or Better Homes & Gardens — in their mailboxes instead.
To start with, what do I, some stupid redneck, white male, whose magazine subscriptions consist only of “Car Craft” and “Farm Show”, know about “Ladies Home Journal”?
The answer of course is, nothing, absolutely nothing, but, I have my suspicions. I can’t say from personal experience, what the political slant of LHJ is, but since virtually all publications like it, lean towards the liberal side, I would have to assume that it does too, and it didn’t take much work to confirm my suspicion.
After 131 years, LHJ is calling it quits. Why? Because traditional magazines cannot compete with electronic media, right? Isn’t that what we have been hearing for the past twenty or so years? There is some truth to that, but I believe that the main cause of the death of LHJ is: (Are you ready for it? Can you guess what I’m going to say? Do you see it coming?) liberalism.
LHJ is like all the other women’s magazines that have been around since the beginning of time. They’d sit on our mother’s coffee tables, ignored by young boys, until they’re old enough to read and comprehend, until that fateful day when such boys had a school assignment that involved cutting pictures out of magazines for whatever reason. While looking for pictures of animals and such, a young boy couldn’t help but notice the articles about sex and the ads for women’s undergarments. After that, the women’s magazines warranted a quick scan each month as new issues arrived. This window of boys’ interest, only last a couple of years, until friends introduce them to better reading material found in their dad’s or older brother’s domains. This paragraph explains most men’s entire lifetime experience with women’s magazines.
Even with limited firsthand experience with women’s magazines, it’s still possible to make some assumptions about LHJ. First of all, in their 131 years of existence, there must have been some time in which it was, more or less, conservative. That would have been back during their growth period. Probably right up until just a few years before their peak in 1968. After that, it has been downhill ever since.
The advent of the internet and a higher percentage of women working outside of the home are definitely causes of decreased readership, but can they be blamed solely, for the cause of death for LHJ? I don’t think so. The demise of this and many other print publications (including many newspapers) is due largely to the liberalism of their staff, editorial departments, and (lack of good) management.
I’m just over 50 years old, the age that is pretty much the dividing line between the people who disdain all things electronic, and those who couldn’t imagine life without the internet and social media. Even now, LHJ has circulation of 3.2 million, 3.2 million, and they’re calling it quits! How on earth did LHJ, or any other traditional publication ever get started, if 3.2 million isn’t enough critical mass to keep the ball rolling? We all know better. 3.2 million, (even if that number is constantly shrinking) is plenty of readers to sustain a publication for years, and if managed properly, for years to come. There’s a niche market of older readers who despise computers, that could keep that magazine going for at least another two decades. Two decades. That’s substantially longer than the life expectancy of any magazine at birth, even during the heyday of traditional print publications.
I know it and you know it. Liberalism is what killed LHJ. Like a human being, a magazine has a life cycle, and the length of that cycle can be determined by outside influences, and how those influences are dealt with. The internet, and changes in reader demographics may be like a cancer to traditional magazines, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t fight the cancer to remain alive as long as possible, unless of course, those magazines are run by liberals.
Occasionally, while surfing the web, I will run across excerpts from women’s magazines from the early ‘60’s and before. They’re usually articles about how a wife can keep her husband and family happy, or how to save money or time around the home. These excerpts almost always appear on sites that consider them quaint or passé, or even look upon them, and the era in which they were written, with contempt, but such articles were written during the growth period in the magazine’s life cycle. The same sites have no problem with any of the liberal crap published during the last thirty some years of such publications demises.
The circumstances in which almost everything exists (not just traditional print publications) are changing, but in almost every other area, there are holdouts, willing to fight and change to survive. There are still small businesses that survive in industries dominated by corporate giants by serving niche markets, providing those customers with unique products and services that better suit those customers’ wants and needs. This of course, is more difficult, and liberals just don’t do difficult. They’re all about easy, from the time they chose a college major that didn’t require science and math, to when they’re still voting for Democrats that promise more government handouts when they retire.
LHJ and other traditional print publications are run and staffed by people of such mindsets, and that’s why such publications are ceasing to exist. You gotta know when to hold'em, know when to fold’em, and when the going get’s tough, liberals always fold’em. That’s why they always look to the government for the security of themselves and others. They can’t even imagine what it would be like to have to make on their own in times of trouble.
Sometime during the ‘60’s, these women’s magazines adopted a liberal slant, and at least in the short term, it was a good idea. Readership increased because the publications were doing something new and bold. These weren’t their reader’s mother’s magazines anymore, but they made the mistake of throwing everything away that made them popular in the first place, and compounded the problem by refusing to ever look back or even consider that someone might disagree with their points of view. It never even crossed any of their minds that adopting a conservative, or even a non-biased point of view might be just as refreshing to readers as the move toward liberalism was in the ‘60’s, even when they were desperate and had nothing to lose.
You see the same thing happening right now with TV “news programs” like “Meet the Press”. NBC is trying to figure out why people don’t like David Gregory, other than the fact that he’s creepy looking. This is how blind liberals are, and it’s a self imposed blindness. They refuse to even consider that their own political views are the cause of their unpopularity and they would rather become failures themselves, than admit to the failure of their ideology.