July 8, 2016

Smith & Wesson poised to open near all-time high

Source: CNBC

Smith & Wesson (NASDAQ: SWHC) stock rose more than 4 percent in premarket trading Friday, putting it on track to open near an all-time intraday high.

The stock traded near $29.50 before the bell. On March 18, the stock hit $30.44 a share. On a closing basis, Smith & Wesson's all-time high is $29.37.

The gun maker's shares rose in the wake of two deadly police shootings and after a sniper killed five people in Dallas.

Sadly, gun stocks rising following deadly shootings is nothing new.

Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/smith-wesson-poised-open-near-121005496.html

June 30, 2016

38 arrests, 17 felony convictions, and he was walking around free and beat her almost to death.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article86582392.html

Our criminal justice system sucks, and the courts have responsibility for what happened to this woman. A person with 17 felony convictions should not have been breathing free air; any half sense of justice would have kept him off the street and out of her home that night.

The judges who oversaw his previous cases ought to have their names printed in every newspaper in the country so we know who shouldn't be retained next election cycle.

June 24, 2016

Brexit Vote Is An Act Of Revenge On David Cameron And An Arrogant Metropolitan Elite

Source: Forbes

The dramatic vote to leave the European Union has revealed two Britains – and not just the split between in and out. There is the London metropolitan bubble, perpetuated by the media, and then there is the rest. And the absurdity of the split is now clear to all.

This vote has demonstrated how out-of-touch the cosmopolitan class has become and why the dominance of London’s economy, politics and the media has led to such resentment. That’s why Prime Minister David Cameron has announced his desire to step down – he’s effectively been voted out after a campaign that, shamefully, tried to scare people into supporting him.

London is the epicenter of this left-leaning set of beliefs, for this is where the vast majority of the media resides, gossips and reports from. In fact, the London economy is regarded by politicians as far more vital to the health of Britain than the rest of the country – a recent report revealed that Londoners are 69% more productive, in GDP generated per head, than citizens elsewhere in the UK. The only capital of a large country that takes a greater share of national product than London is Moscow.

So it’s no coincidence that the most Europhilic areas are all concentrated within the capital – 78% of people in boroughs like Lambeth, Hackney and Haringey voted to remain in the EU. In fact, London is the only part of the entire United Kingdom where a clear majority was sympathetic to the EU.



Read more: http://goo.gl/tv9qk2

June 22, 2016

Why ban the guns that kill the least amount of people, and ignore the ones that kill the most?

Assault weapon/mass shooting deaths make the most headlines, but their numbers pale in comparison to single victim handgun murders. Why are we letting our psyche/emotions/fear rule our political actions instead of 1) our ability to do math and 2) our sincere desire to save the most lives we can?

In 2013, 11,000+ people were murdered with guns in non-mass shootings (80% of which were handguns).

137 died in mass shootings (most of which were probably perpetrated with a combination of handguns and assault weapons).

We also know that the 1994 assault weapons ban had almost no impact on gun violence, as little assault weapons violence was being committed by legal owners anyway (and illegal owners weren't going to change their behavior due to a ban), and handgun violence (already responsible for the vast majority of gun violence) continued at the same pace.

All gun deaths are tragic, but there are, at a minimum, probably 7,000 more lives we can save by moving on handguns. The NRA is going to fight it no matter what we do; why are we taking the cowardly, least impactful approach YET AGAIN???

This is so damn frustrating.

June 4, 2016

Ali called Joe Frazier ugly, Uncle Tom, and a gorilla, and probably showed the least sportsmanship..

of any athlete over the last 50 years. A lot of the poor sportsmanship you see today is a direct result of people glorifying Ali's taunting, insulting, and bullying of others.

He was, ironically, to sports what Donald Trump is to politics.

Sure, we agree with the guy's political beliefs, but let's not deify someone who by many measures was an absolute bully (and I'm talking about outside the ring).

May 31, 2016

"Turns Out Snoop Dogg is Not a Fan of Roots or 12 Years a Slave"

Interesting perspective from someone that a lot of younger African-Americans view as a relevant voice. While I don't worship the guy like I did in my teens, I do still think he is wiser than he gets credit for being. FWIW, I don't personally feel strongly one way or the other about the Roots remake.


"They're gonna just keep beating that shit in our heads on how they did us, huh? I mean, I don't understand America, they just want to just keep showing the abuse that we took hundreds and hundreds of years ago, but guess what? We're taking the same abuse. Think about that part.

When are y'all gonna make a motherfucking series about the success that black folks are having? The only success we have is Roots and 12 Years a Slave and shit like that, huh? Fuck y'all, I ain't watching that shit. … Let's create our own shit based on today. How we're living and how we inspire people today. Black is what's real. Fuck that old shit."


http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/05/30/snoop_dogg_is_not_a_fan_of_roots_or_12_years_a_slave.html

April 14, 2016

The U.S. Tax Code: Should it be structured to raise revenue, drive "desired" behaviors, or both?

I've been chewing on this question this morning after Senator Warren's announcement that she was working to make it easier for us to file our taxes.

While I do appreciate those efforts, I responded to a related thread stating that this taxpayer would so much rather have a simplified tax CODE than a simplified tax FILING system. And I'm not necessarily talking about a flat tax or any other regressive crap the neocons can come up with to help corporations avoid paying their fair share, but simply shifting our approach to tax collection in this country.

I'm not an accountant or a tax policy historian, but it seems like over 200 years our tax code has went from one with a primary goal of RAISING REVENUE for government expenditures, to one with a primary goal of INFLUENCING BEHAVIORS that the government sees as desirable. This is scary for 2 reasons:

1) Who gets to decide what those "desired" behaviors are? This can be heavily influenced by which party is in power. While deductions/credits/etc. may seem innocent, is it a good thing that a home-buying decision is heavily influenced by the mortgage interest tax deduction, a deduction that while nice, fails to mitigate the enormous risk the buyer has just assumed by purchasing a home? Is it a good thing that giant corporations get tax breaks alleged to help them "create jobs," when we know full well that that isn't happening in a lot of cases even when the breaks are applied?

2) This system, focused on driving behaviors instead of raising revenue, time and time again fails to raise sufficient revenues to cover expenditures, because when deciding how much can be spent, instead of simply estimating the # of taxpayers and income levels in a given tax year, it's grasping in the dark at estimates on how many people will take a certain deduction, and how much that deduction will net each person, etc.

What are your thoughts? Do you like the current tax approach?

April 10, 2016

Clinton supporters: 2016 aside, are you comfortable with DWS's stated purpose for superdelegates?

With a primary candidate being 15% to the nomination before a single one of you has voted?

And with this system, alarmingly undemocratic in the eyes of many, being a feature of the "Democratic" nominating process?

I acknowledge it's probably hard to separate the merits of the system with the immediate and substantial advantage it gave your preferred candidate from the day she declared, but if you can, I'm sincerely curious how the average Clinton supporter views this system.

Good for the Party, or an embarrassment to the Party?