Over the last six years, police in Chicago, Illinois have fired 2,623 bullets at citizens, killing 92 people and injuring 170 others, according to a new database by the Chicago Tribune. The department has drawn intense criticism for its brutality.
Between 2010 and 2015, the Chicago Police Department was involved with 435 shootings, many of which never caught the public’s attention. In those officer-involved shootings, police fired at least 2,623 bullets. At least one person was struck in 235 shootings, while officers missed hitting anyone in 200 instances, the Chicago Tribune found.
You don't say.
Quick question: How many of these "citizens" were armed? How many were in the process of committing a crime? Aren't such questions relevant to such a headline?
If you read the linked Chicago Tribune piece you don't get a SINGLE mention of the crime rates in Chicago. It's almost like these people think that the crime rate is irrelevant to all that police activity. Well here's the count:
2010:456
2011:455
2012: 523
2013: 442
2014: 436
They stopped counting in 2015. To get current year info you go here: http://crime.chicagotribune.com. Continuing from that site:
2015: 490
2016: 464 so far.
So a total of 3266 dead. Not total shot. Not total assaulted. Just the dead in 6 years. The police SHOT 435 people, or 13% of the total homicides and we know that most of those were justifiable homicides.
Why would the Chicago Tribune spend time acting as if the shootings by police there are a big problem or even the biggest problem? Seems to me that the Chicago PD are not shooting enough people to put a dent in the homicide rate in that city.
Dear Dwayne Wade;
I woke up this morning to the news that you had lost your cousin Nykea Aldridge to crime in Chicago. I want to extend my condolences and hope that you and your extended family get through this as a strong(er) unit. However; this is not all I have to say on the subject.
I recall that recently during the Espys, you and fellow NBA ball players made a very public show of support for the Black Lives Matter "movement". You said in part:
Wade picked up where the Clippers point guard left off: “The racial profiling has to stop. The shoot-to-kill mentality has to stop. … Enough is enough. Now, as athletes, it’s on us to challenge each other to do even more than what we already do in our own communities.”
You are now no doubt uncomfortable close to the reality of violence in black communities. No doubt you know that the person who killed your cousin was not not a police officer. No doubt that the person who shot your cousin was a black person and most likely a male. You called this "profiling" yet, it is a statistical fact that in Chicago 90+ percent of homicides are committed by black people (mostly males).
I hope that as you work through your grief that you reflect on the reality that this Black Lives Matter movement is a total fraud. They are more concerned with the very few people who are wrongly abused by a small cadre of police officers than with the lives of you and your family who are obeying the law and living a clean life.
Understand that as a group the Black Lives Matter movement has denied(1,2) the very existence of black on black violence. The actions of this movement has caused homicides to increase in many urban areas, including Chicago which has seen the most homicide rate since the 1990s. Where were the BLM people when your cousin got shot? Are they going to solve the crime? Pay for the funeral? Are they going to raise the child that is now motherless? The answer is "no" on all counts.
The Black Lives Matter movement wanted attention, it is funded by white philanthropists like George Soros and the Ford Foundation. People who never lived in and will never live in the communities like the one your cousin lived in. They live in gated communities with personal body guards and high tech security systems. They will never ever have to walk the streets with killers. And these people would make you think YOU are a sellout for calling the BLM what they are: A Democratic Party front group.
Hopefully I haven't come off too strongly. I just hate to see young black men who are sincerely trying to do what is best for the black community, get used for nefarious ends. I hope that out of this tragedy you are able to see BLM for what they are and the real problems in our communities for what they are.
Sincerely;
SKO
As I prepare an "epic" post (if I say so myself) on Liberal Pseudoscience(tm), I'll point the reader to a recent article on Apple's Machine Learning team.
Firstly, as usual, I will point out the "complexion" of Apple's technology leadership, even as it crows about "diversity".
Look who's missing.
Now lets look at what the general requirements are for doing machine learning at Apple (and presumably other companies doing similar AI work):
What’s interesting is that Apple’s ML is produced by many people who weren’t necessarily trained in the field before they joined the company. “We hire people who are very smart in fundamental domains of mathematics, statistics, programming languages, cryptography,” says Federighi. “It turns out a lot of these kinds of core talents translate beautifully to machine learning. Though today we certainly hire many machine learning people, we also look for people with the right core aptitudes and talents.” [my underlines]
As I pointed out in an earlier blog entry, Liberal Pseudoscience tells black people and liberal whites that:
“The racial narrative of White tends to be like this: Rugged individual, honest, hard-working, disciplined, rigorous, successful,” she said. “And so then, the narrative of U.S. public education: Individual assessments, competition, outcome over process (I care more about your grades than how you’re doing), ‘discipline’ where we care more about your attendance and making sure you’re not tardy than we care about your relationships … proper English must be spoken (which is just assimilation into standard U.S. dialect), hierarchical power structure, and heavy goal orientation.”
If "white" is "discipline, "rigorous" and "hardworking", then by direct inference black is "lazy", "lackadaisical", etc. Thus the liberal narrative for black education is in direct opposition to the very skills that are needed in the technology arena. Liberals are literally setting up black students to fail.
You cannot do statistics, programming and cryptology without being rigorous and disciplined. Liberals are saying that white people are inherently capable of these things and blacks are not. To quote Donald Trump: Liberals are bigots. But we knew this already.
It takes a high IQ to do mathematics and related fields. in the US blacks are 13% of the population. Even if we assumed that blacks and whites have identical IQ distributions (they do not), the availability of black folks with the required IQ's to engage in the kind of work Apple does in machine learning would be extremely limited.
So when we see pictures like the one above, with a total lack of black folks it should not strike us as odd. And if liberals continue to dominate education with the ideologies quoted above, we will see less blacks as they are not held up to the high standards required to succeed in STEM fields.
So I'm on Road and Track's website doing my automobile thing when the following advert shows up:
Firstly, I'm sending a note to Road and Track telling them I don't appreciate SJW bullshit on a automobile website.
Secondly to Unilever, I don't know what recent school of feminism grad you hired in your marketing department, but insulting the intelligence of men is NOT going to win you customers and this one will be actively seeking replacements for any of the products you produce that I use.
I, and all man can, in fact, observe the beauty of a woman as ONE of the things about her. I LOVE watching women track athletes run around in the little shorts. Did I mention I love that? And still I appreciate the training and other hard work that comes with being an athlete at that level. I cheered for the US women's 4x100 regardless of what they were wearing. Shame on YOU, Unilever for attempting to shame me for being a heterosexual man who appreciates the female bodies as part of what makes them who they are.
Fire the marketing company and any person who thought that such an advertisement was a good idea.
Meanwhile "Tonga Man" was being groped by the members of the NBC staff without a peep:
China, Russia and Iran have come together in a tripartite alliance supporting the Syrian government in the war against radical fundamentalist insurgents.
The main targets of this alliance are Islamic State and Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, formerly al-Qaeda’s affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, and its partners.
Until last week Russia and Iran were the military mainstays of the overstretched and undermanned Syrian army.
By opposing Assad, the US is now militarily against two nuclear powers.
Moscow, Tehran and Beijing fear the fall of secular Damascus would lead to the establishment of jihadi fiefdoms in Syria from which radicals would mount attacks into southern Russia and Iran and promote Muslim dissidence in China.
If China did not have the attention of ISIS before, it does now. Understanding that China has a far different (saner?) immigration policy than Europe or the US, it will be interesting to see if there is an uptick in "activities" by Muslims in that country or by those who manage to get in.
So yesterday I was crossing the Tappan Zee Bridge and observing the construction of it's replacement. I am always awed by the construction of such objects. It takes the cumulative efforts of many generations to get the technical knowhow to build such things. It takes precision and attention to detail. If construction is not done properly lives are literally at stake.
When I was in Tuskegee a professor Fluker used to tell us that Africans will only be respected when we:
build a plane that can go 3x the speed of light.
Now warp 3 may be a rather high goal but I think that his point was that Africans would need to develop among themselves the abilities necessary to create and maintain a [future] modern society. You can call for reparations and the like all you want, but if you cannot produce, eventually you are surpassed and bypassed by those who do.
The other thing that he used to ask is whether a student had an inferiority complex due to race, gender, economic status, etc. This was usually brought on by self-deprecating comments or behavior said or done by a student. He recognized, as I recognize now, that those who have inferiority complexes are already defeated and are not motivated. As Carter G. Woodson said (more or less, not a direct quote):
A man who believes himself inferior does not have to be barred from entering the front door, he will find the backdoor himself and if there isn't one he'll create one for himself.
Persons with inferiority complexes not only position themselves in inferior positions, they become resentful of those they see as superior to themselves. That resentfulness can often lead to violence. If they cannot directly lash out at the object of their resentment they will lash out at that which they deem to be symbols of their superior. Therefore when we see black folks rioting in burning "their own communities" it is because they, as James Baldwin pointed out, do not see it as "their community". Rather it is simply someplace they live. They know they didn't build any of it. They know that if anything breaks, that the people actually capable of building and maintaining it, will have to be called. For these individuals their whole entire life is essentially a wonderment like the new bridge crossing the Hudson.
How is this much different from when the African came into contact with the European "Ju-ju"? The smarter African leadership recognized that in the European they had met their technical superior and sent their sons and other higher ups to learn from the European. The smart Africans, when they saw the power of the "fire stick" didn't turn to the witch doctor, but they got their best smiths to try to recreate gunpowder (failed). But the rest, transported across the Atlantic found themselves in an inferior position where they essentially lived and died at the whim of the white population. In essence black employment in America has been the result of white employers. Where black people are unemployable, the government steps in with various programs. But dependency is dependency. Many black people know it, resent it, and will lash out in various forms if able. Which leads us to this fellow below:
Do not think for a minute that he's the only person who thinks this way. Do not think for a moment that he doesn't represent the mainstream of "mainstream" blacks.
This what happen because they not helping the black community
They? They who?
Like you know, the rich people got all this money. They like, you know, not trying to give us none
"Give"? This is the central problem. "Give". Other than those who were born into the top wealth, those who are "rich" worked for it. And even among those who inherited wealth, they got it because their parents did the work. Does this guy think that if he won a $500 million lottery and died that his kids ought to get nothing at all? I doubt that.
But more than that it shows the slave mentality. Once again, the slave depends upon his superior for his living because he cannot provide it for himself. Those who ask for a handout have already admitted his inferiority. Had this fellow had the mentality that he was equal in ability to those "rich" persons, he would have said 'we have been denied the opportunity..."
Lastly, I like to point out to folks, particularly those in the US. that generally speaking, this country was built from nothing. Europeans may have exploited enslaved African labour but they still built it. Most of us alive now, black or other, have little to nothing in the way of economic hands up via slave labour finances. Most of the companies we depend on and live with weren't in existence at any proximity to slavery or Jim Crow. Continuing to use JC and slavery as the explain all for black issues shows a level of desperation and yes, inferiority complexes that no amount of yelling and protesting can hide. It is only because white people in general are but a shadow of themselves and having a civil war among themselves have black folks been even able to get away with the juvenile antics.
It is fascinating to watch the British who at one point could claim to run at least half the known world, become one of the most self hating set of people next to Germans. If I had no idea about what the British had done in the past and someone told me they could have colonized and controlled as much of the world that they did, I would call you a damn fool and to stop taking whatever drugs you were on.
Today's example of British loss of basic self-respect is as follows:
A spokesman of the police force told Huffington Post UK: “We are continuing to seek a full injunction banning Britain First organisers Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen from entering Luton town centre and Bury Park for three years.”
Understand what is happening here. The British government is seeking to ban the free movement of native British persons in their own country. That's pretty low. Not only that but:
Earlier this year, Mr Golding and Ms Fransen led a group of activists through the town of Luton – which they call an “Islamist hotspot” – confronting local Muslims and handing out newspapers.
Police arrested Mr Golding and charged him with “wearing a uniform with political objectives” under the 1936 Public Order Act – an obscure regulation originally passed to prevent the rise of fascist groups before the Second World War. He was fined £450.
Ms Fransen was charged with religiously aggravated harassment – a case that is still ongoing.
Arrested for wearing a uniform?
All to appease non-native peoples who, generally speaking despise the British people? How is it that any of the leadership in Britain is actually still in power when they act in such a manner? It is pretty clear that the British have no sense of self-respect, no wonder then that the foreigners they insist on importing don't respect them either.
So yesterday I was told that Trump said Obama founded ISIS. It was later that I saw the report about that statement. It was funny because the fact that I was told about it with the expectation that I would be upset, showed just how effective Trump's trolling was.
Now we know full well that Obama didn't found ISIS in the manner we think of founding. But this excellent example of trolling forced those who were offended to show how stupid Trump is. In doing that they run across pieces like this one where the truth is even worse than the original statement.
Let us be clear. If we are going to be strict we have to credit the rise of ISIS with the entire cold war against Russia in Afghanistan. No Mujahideen, no Taliban. No Taliban no Al-Qaeda. No Al-Qaeda no ISIS. Straight line. Now presidents and other "higher ups" knew that the way to keep these Jihadis in line was to have strong, often brutal leadership. GW Bush apparently didn't get the memo and created a power vacuum in Iraq which would be the current founding event of ISIS. No Iraq war, no ISIS.
So in brilliant fashion not only did Trump troll Obama and Democrats, he also trolled establishment Republicans, all of whom are against Trump. Those establishment Republicans started the Iraq war and they don't want the public to realize that THEY are the ones responsible for ISIS. Now lets get to Obama and Hillary.
Having established that it was mainstream Republican establishment types that are actually responsible for the Iraq war and therefore the rise of ISIS can we put any responsibility for the spread and growth of ISIS on Obama? Certainly.
It was president Obama who involved the United States to be involved in the deposition and assassination of a sitting head of state who was a partner against ISIS and Al-Qaeda. This cannot be understated. Ghadaffi with all his faults, had emerged as a force against Al-Qaeda AND as a check against massive cross meditterean immigration to Europe. The US, under Obama provided air cover for "rebel groups" some of whom later pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda. As if THAT wasn't enough, Hillary and other Obama staffers knowingly LIED about the cause of the deaths of American servicemen and an ambassador. Deaths that were the direct result of the US involvement in Libya. So we have one count of Obama enabling the rise of ISIS in an area of the world where ISIS did not exist.
Secondly, Obama, still not understanding the crucial role of certain types of leadership in the Muslim world, sided with "rebel groups" in Syria to depose Assad. As a result of funding and providing arms (and logistical support) to "approved rebel groups" ISIS established itself in Syria (which is partially how we get the name ISIS). As a matter of fact, some of those "moderate rebel groups" not only aligned themselves with ISIS but gave them the arms the US "covertly" supplied to them. You can't make this shit up.
Currently the only country in Syria that has actually not supported or supplied terrorists is Russia! Think about it!
So we have a second count where Obama has in fact enabled the establishment of ISIS in a place that had no ISIS.
So while it may be total sarcasm to say that Obama "founded" ISIS, it is entirely correct to say that in at least two cases, Obama enabled the creation of ISIS camps/strongholds where they did not exist. The more the media reports on Trump's comments the more those of the public who seek to "verify" information will learn the truth. It may not be exactly what Trump says, but that is not the point.
While ignoring actual factual violence against persons who at a minimum appear to be Trump supporters, the MSM and just about every Democrat leaning talking head has made the claim that Trump made a threat against Hillary Clinton when he said the following:
"Hillary wants to abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."
Had this been a prepared speech, delivered to the letter rather than the usual Trump speaking extemporaneously as he habitually does, one could understand some level of concern. I say some level because we should take any apparent call for political violence very seriously. However since there is a concerted effort by Republicrats and their water carrying boys and girls in the MSM to smear trump as badly and as often as possible, level headed thinking is nigh impossible. Let me explain how this statement is truly supposed to be taken given who gave it and the usual way that he speaks:
Hillary wants to abolish the Second Amendment.
This is an assertion. It is the assertion that is the theme of the statements.
By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks
This is the "mechanics" of how his assertion would get done. The claim here is that if Clinton gets her judges on the bench, supposedly those that agree with getting rid of the Second Amendment, then there is nothing you can do, folks. Now in order to actually "abolish" the Second Amendment, there would need to be an act of Congress as required by the constitution, but the implication here is that abolition would occur by means of increasingly restrictive laws that would make ownership too onerous to exercise.
But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know
The "But" here implies that he's returning to the original assertion of Hillary Clinton wanting to abolish the Second Amendment. The statement between these, the "by the way" was an aside from his main point of abolition.
So what he's actually saying here is: "But back to the Second Amendment, people, maybe there is [something you can do] but I don't know [it looks bad]." Note that I put a comma after "Amendment". This is important because it separates the "people" from the "Second Amendment". "People is used like "folks"
What the media has willfully injected a "you could kill her" as the "something you can do". But that speaks more to the actual mindset of those opposed to Trump than to Trump's own mindset. Again, 99% of the political violence that has occurred this election season has been directed at Trump's supporters by Hillary and Sanders supporters, some of whom are not even legal residents of the US.
Now I know that the spokespersons are trying to say that Trump meant that the "second amendment people" as in "NRA types" can "maybe do something" like vote in a block. I think they are mistaken in this "interpretation" and are doing so because it's an easy thing to explain to the public, than explaining the grammatical issue of the quote and how you deal with a person making extemporaneous commentary.
Two days ago I saw a news report where a person with a large "T" in front of his home representing his support of Trump for president found it alight from someone who clearly did not approve.
Today I read that a man wearing a Trump t-shirt was attacked by a passing motorist who used a crowbar.
The man was walking on West Passaic Avenue at about 5:41 p.m. last Wednesday when a man he did not know pulled up in an older gray compact car, Bloomfield police said.
The driver questioned the 62-year-old about the Donald Trump shirt he was wearing, and then followed him into the parking lot of the Friendly's restaurant on Broad Street, police said.
"The motorist inquired why (the man) was wearing the shirt, directing profanities at him," Bloomfield Police spokesman Ralph Marotti said. "The (victim) continued to walk away as (the) motorist followed him."
The man then got out of his car with a crowbar, and during an altercation, struck the older man several times, authorities said.
A person in the comments section asked what the shirt said as if that was of any excuse or valid explanation for the political violence meted out to the 62 year old man.
Once again we will find our sitting president absent in condemning the rising political violence that has marked this election. I have seen cases where signs supporting Trump have gone from lawns to windows because of property destruction that followed the placement of yard signs. This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that both major political parties will not make a forceful public statement condemning the violence and for the federal government to fail to fully prosecute those individuals and groups who are engaging in domestic terrorism.
No US citizen should face violence, be it physical or economic for choosing to support or not support any candidate for office. Political thuggery is a deadly disease to any democratic system. Where citizens cannot feel secure to exercise their rights, society falls.
This AM on GMA I got to watch a headline in which it was proclaimed that Trump was having a 24 hours of trouble. Here's what they said and why it shows just how silly the MSM is and how much Republicans are not the opposition [to Democrats].
1) Trump told a woman with a crying baby to leave the room: When I saw the clip I could only shake my head in disbelief that this was "news". Of course the campaign experts say that one should be nice to women with/and babies. Pictures of politicians with women with babies or holding the babies themselves is a staple of campaigning. Trump is not the normal candidate and apparently the MSM has not managed to realize that these silly ass "rules" simply do not apply.
First of all, all but the permanently aggrieved could tell that Trump was having a fun time with crying baby. I you read body language and can smell the faintest whiff of sarcasm you know that his "it's OK" was clearly not "real". Nobody giving a speech likes or wants to hear a baby crying. It's a distraction. It is a distraction to the speaker AND to those who are trying to listen. Any mother with an ounce of respect would know this and would remove herself and her crying baby from the situation until the reason for the baby's outburst could be rectified. But the MSM is SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you, that a candidate would tell a woman with a crying baby to "get out". In the real world where we are not perpetually aggrieved we know the deal. It was humor, it was good natured rib poking and making light of a situation. To the MSM it is "misogyny".
2) Trump refuses to endorse Ryan or McCain: My response to the latter? So what? Mr "Bomb Iran" is a loser of presidential campaigns like Romney. Neither one of them should be given a microphone to give anyone advice about how to win a presidential campaign or what a candidate should or should not do. If they knew that shit they would have won. This would be like watching the olympics watching the 100 meter sprint and having people who lost in the first heat commentary on how Usain Bolt shows off too much. Um, when you BEAT Usain then you can talk. In fact, until you make it to the podium, STFU.
As for Ryan, He was elected to his current position in a wave of popular discontent about sanctuary cities, "refugees" and the like. No sooner had he gotten his position he sold out. He is the very embodiment of what is wrong with the Republican party. Why should Trump endorse this puppet of globalists and the DNC? Should Ryan be successfully primaried it will be icing on Trump's cake.
3) Obama tells Republicans to repudiate Trump: Not surprised at this. Republicans have been dancing to the DNC tune for many years now so why not directly tell them what to do? Obama says to do x,y or z, and the Republican response has been "how often sir?"
4) Wrath of Khan: The DNC convention which featured speeches by the parents of persons who committed crimes and were killed as a result of their behavior. Which featured a nomination of a candidate who's own decisions resulted in the deaths of US citizens and who then lied to cover it up. Which supports a group that has not only incited murder of police officers but who's claims of black lives matter are discredited by the very criminals they support as well as the climbing numbers of black dead in various cities as a direct result of their behavior. This organization which is full of so called "anti-war", "anti-imperialism", "anti-big money in politics" groups put up the Muslim parents of a fallen US soldier. This soldier was killed by an IED fighting in the Iraq war which was supported by the DNC presidential nominee!!
This supporter of Sharia made a direct attack on Trump claiming he had sacrificed nothing. Now Trump could have responded with "thanks for your sacrifice" and ended it there, but that's not Trump's style. Trump is very much the "you mess with me, I'm gonna mess with you" type of person. Khan was bait and Trump took it. Of course the MSM missed the part where Clinton supported the very war that got Khan's son dead.
5) Purple Heart-gate: Soldier/citizen gives Trump a replica purple heart, which is a signifier of someone wounded or killed in a US commissioned conflict. Not sure why, since Trump is neither wounded or dead but in any case, the press made a fuss because Trump said he always wanted one of those and that it was surely the easiest way to get one. Supposedly this was an affront to soldiers and those who received such an honor. Why? I have no idea. This is a country where people who lose get trophy's simply for having participated. I would suppose that Trump should have been given something like a medal of valor for going against the establishment.
6) Republican party considering a Trump dropout: Really? I'm not seeing Trump dropping out. But the fact that the RNC is seriously considering replacement strategies shows just how much the RNC is really alt-DNC. There are literally millions of Republicans who would bolt from the party if they offed their candidate. Worse than that, there is no upside to such a plan. Does the RNC really think that having purged Trump that suddenly they are going to capture a majority or even plurality of black votes to make up for their losses? Hispanic votes? The fact is that there are a great number of black and hispanic "conservatives" who are really liberals hiding out in the RNC who's only suggestion to the RNC is: "less white". Those paying attention know that this is exactly the message (and reality) of the DNC.
Anyway, this RNC scheming isn't bad news for Trump. This is great news for Trump. Trump has been exposing the RNC for what it really is: a bunch of people playing "conservative" for donor money and moral approval of the left. Someone has to be labelled the "opposition" so why not get paid to do that? Trump is hated by these people because he signals that the gig is up. I'd love to see the RNC dismantled and a major third party emerge from it's rubble. The two party shell game needs to end.
