Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Statistics don't lie: lots of bad cops out there

In the last few years, there have been far too many videos emerge that show police, those sworn to protect and serve, behaving in ways that outrage all of us.  Time and again, I am told that there are always bad apples in any population, and the figure I get is that less than 1% of all police men and women are bad apples.

Statistically speaking,  I would call this estimate a pie in the sky wishful dream.  We have in the U.S. today far more bad cops than anybody hopes would be in uniform.  Here are the stats:

Ten known police officers responded to the Laquan McDonald incident in Chicago, Illinois in 2014.  Two of them were Cook County sheriff's officers who arrived after McDonald was shot and killed.  The other 8 officers on the scene were Chicago city policemen and women.  

In a recent news release, 5 of these 8 Chicago City police officers have been recommended for termination for criminal behavior, and one of them is Jason Van Dyke who has been charged with the murder at the scene.  The other 4 officers recommended for firing are Janet Mondragon, Daphne Sebastian, Ricardo Viramontes and Stephen Franko. The remaining three Chicago cops who were at the scene remain unidentified, and have subsequently retired before they could be fired.  All eight of these officers filed false reports regarding the shooting, and all 8 claimed that Laquan McDonald attempted to kill a police officer, when the several videos clearly show this was not the fact at all.

Filing a false police report is the basis of all bad cops, who are trusted to do the right thing and report their activities truthfully. Those who don't are obstructing justice, a felony.  Good cops don't commit felonies.  Only bad cops do this.  As an aside, not one of the Chicago City cops mentioned the arrival of the two Cook County Sheriff's department officers at the scene of the shooting.  Not one.  These two sheriff's department officers departed the scene and filed their own reports, which did not include specifics on the actual shooting since they had arrived after the fact.

What are the statistical odds of 8 bad cops showing up at the scene of a situation if only 1 in 100 cops in the universe of all cops are bad?  Assuming this 1% figure is correct, the math here suggests that the probability of 8 bad cops showing up simultaneously at any single point in time is (.01) to the power of 8, or 1.0 x e-18, or .000000000000000001%.  Or in other terms, statistically impossible.

This Laquan McDonald murder statistically debunks that stupid, wishful Utopian figure of .01% of bad cops in the U.S.  The statistical figure based on this one episode suggest 80% of all cops are bad apples, and they are all employed by the City Of Chicago.  Of course, that 80% figure is skewed as well since an 'n' of 8 is too low to apply to the U.S. nationwide, and would be considered statistically anecdotal, but the number of bad cops among the general police population in the U.S. is certainly way, way, WAY higher than .01%.  How much higher is subject to debate, but in my mind this fairy tale figure of no more than .01% of bad cops throughout the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is complete bunk.

I would conclude that statistically our country is lousy with bad cops.  

Do the math.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Trump poll numbers: are we seeing something like 'the Bradley Effect?'

Polls consistently suggest Hillary Clinton (D-Hell) leads Donald Trump in her quest for occupation of the White House.  These polls persist in suggesting Hillary's lead despite the constant drip drip drip of scandal, malfeasance and skulduggery which has followed the old crone ever since she became a national political figure 25 years ago.

With the left continually displaying tendencies towards violence in their tactics such as the Black Lives Matter movement, anybody who wears a Donald Trump T-shirt can expect to get slugged in the face and bloodied for display of this support at the hands of the criminal left.  Nobody in the Obama Justice Department is interested in the least in prosecuting any of this violence, if it furthers the agenda of the left.

If you have the nerve to indicate to the Internal Revenue Service that you support conservative values, you invite an audit.  If you enter a polling place in Philadelphia with any indication that you don't support the left, you are intimidated by thugs with billy clubs at the door, and nobody in the Justice Department is in any way going to stop this intimidation.  They actually support it.

Accordingly, to express support of Donald Trump is to invite violence upon the expressee. Who in their right mind would tell pollsters that they support Donald Trump, and then the next night find a brick thrown through their front window with a threatening note tied to it?  I myself will in no way put up a Trump campaign sign in my yard or a Trump bumper sticker on my truck, not a chance.  And invite some nut job lefty to place a bomb under my vehicle?

I am solidly behind Donald Trump.  And I am going to vote for Donald Trump.  But I am in no way going to tell a pollster about my preferences.   I suggest that I am not alone in this perception.  I would wager that something akin to 'The Bradley (or Wilder) Effect is in play here.  This 'effect' was seen in the 1982 polls in Los Angeles, when African American Democrat Tom Bradley was way ahead in the polls leading up to California gubernatorial election day, and then lost to a white George Duekmejian despite lopsided polls to the contrary.

The mainstream media are carrying the water for Hillary Clinton in a big way this election cycle.  They will support any and all means to discredit Donald Trump, to include violence.  I am of the opinion that Donald Trump has way more support than polls suggest.  

We'll see how this works on on election day, won't we?

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Massive student loan debt - who is to blame?

I heard through ABC news a few nights ago (via David Muir, anchorman and purebred Democrat) that the current amount of student loan debt nationally has surpassed the total U.S. credit card debt, a number in the trillions of dollars.  Then again, this came from the mainstream media, the likelihood of this figure being accurate is 50% at best.

But let's assume it's an accurate statistic.  Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been pandering to these beleaguered young folk with crushing debt by promising to make college free, and they also suggest that they will sign legislation that will forgive these amounts that they owe.  

Woo hoo!  More free stuff!!!  You got my vote, Hillary.  How exactly they will square all of this free stuff with the universities and student loan lenders has yet to be determined.  I am certain that the note holders of this trillion dollar debt will not be too happy to simply write it off their books.  

But the universities who hand out diplomas in Women's Studies, Diversity Studies, Humanities, Art History, Psychology, and the myriad of other useless and stupid degrees will hail this coming free education.  They, of course, will get paid regardless, by the U.S. taxpayer.  The electric bills that power the lights in the classroom will not be free.  The professors that profess inside these lit classrooms will not do so for nothing.  And they will want these classrooms heated and air conditioned, and that does not come free, either.

And nothing, absolutely nothing is ever so expensive once it becomes 'free.'  Once Hillary opens the doors to higher education facilities to whomever wants to walk through those hallowed doors, the price of everything will sky rocket to prices never ever seen by the eyes of mankind.  

Currently, however, college is not free.  Far from it.  The government has subsidized the public university system to levels never seen before, and the colleges that accept any and all students who can cut the tuition check with their student loans flowing in will jack up the cost of attendance at every level: parking fees, tuition, books, student activity fees, there is no end to the costs that rise virtually every day.  

The dirty shame of this higher education scam is that both public and private institutions offer the most useless diplomas ever dreamed up.  Degrees that have no commercial value to any employer at any level.  What kind of demand in the work place is there for somebody who has a Masters of Art degree, and whose 'dissertation' consisted of building a giant high heel shoe along with a giant lipstick case out of paper mache?   

None whatsoever.  And even worse, what kind of demand is there out in the market place for a graduate of Women's Studies?  These graduates are recognized as nothing more than walking, talking sexual harassment lawsuits.  No employer would touch these graduates with a 150-foot pole.

And these dopes with MA's are on food stamps and welfare because they are unemployable in fields such as art.  I would point the finger of blame at these dope's and their plight directly at themselves, their parents and the schools that offer these courses of study.  Surely common sense would prevail here, and all involved in steering these students towards these goofy and worthless pursuits share the blame; the universities, the parents, the guidance counselors, and the students themselves.

Solution: from this point forward, only finance degrees that are demanded by the marketplace.  You know, the 'hard' classes which involve a core requirement of at least an entire year of calculus (that's a form of math for you public educated folks) and English composition at a bare minimum.  You need to know how to write coherently, and you need to be able to present a position from a logical perspective.  If you can't do that, you are worthless to an employer who seeks a college education as a requirement of the job they seek to fill.

Q: What does a holder of an Art History degree ask every day at work?
A: 'Would you like fries with that?'

Friday, August 5, 2016

It's not ransom, you idiots. Next question....

Of course it's not ransom, you idiots.  It's, uh, er,...well, it's not ransom.  Next question, please....

My first knee jerk caption to my cartoon above would be something to the effect: 

Obama: 'Where do you want the ransom, boss?'
Khamenei: 'You evil infidel, just put it over there with the rest.'

Or perhaps a better one:

Obama: 'Are we friends now?'
Khamenei: 'No. Death to America. Now get out.'