It’s that time of year again- cops begin offering money for unwanted guns. I have an old piece of crap Stevens single shot .22 rifle that I would like to turn in for some ammo money. I just won’t drive all the way to Orlando to get $50, especially not Pine Hills.
Oh, and the article claims a grenade was turned in at a past event. The guy got a good deal, because it was an inert grenade:
I wonder if you could buy a $15 dummy grenade and turn it in for a $50 gift certificate?
It’s tax season, and now we have an article claiming that taxes are racist: “Black married couples face heavier tax penalties than white couples,” and it’s pure BS. This is the logic:
When a Black or white couple have the same income, deductions and family structure, they will have the same tax liability, Gale said. But given the average economic differences between white and Black couples, according to the report, Black married couples are still more likely to face penalties and smaller bonuses.
Before tearing into the faulty logic here, I want to point out that “white” is not capitalized once in the article, while “Black” is capitalized every time. A bit of subtle “othering” that happens in journalism today.
So the taxes aren’t racist, it’s just that black married couples have more children than their white counterparts and taxpayers with children generally tend to face larger penalties under our current tax code. So it would be more accurate to say that the tax code discriminates against those with children.
I call bullshit on that, too. If a couple has a child, they get additional personal exemptions, they also get:
Let’s look at two married couples: they have the same income, same jobs, same financial situation. Each couple earns a combined $68,000 a year. Their employers withheld $5,000 from their paychecks for Federal taxes. The only difference is that couple one has no children, and couple two has two children.
Couple one is in the 12 percent tax bracket, with an effective tax rate of 11.03%. They will pay $4,644 in Federal income taxes this year, so they will get a $356 refund.
Couple two has two children. They are both latchkey children, so there are no childcare expenses to deduct. They are also in the 12 % bracket, and had the same effective tax rate as couple two. However, they get more credits, so only wind up paying a net $644 in Federal income tax, and will wind up with a refund of $4,356.
So if in fact black couples have more children that whites, blacks pay LESS in taxes.
The 11th circuit unanimously says that Florida’s law restricting gun sales to those older than 21 is consistent with the US historical tradition of restrictions. When I get time, I would love to see the rationale behind that.
Keep a couple of things in mind:
Don’t for one second think that the Republicans are your friends.
The collapse of SVB bank is the second largest bank collapse in US history. It’s stock price lost 90% of its value in less than 48 hours. Most of the depositors and their deposits are uninsured. People are going to lose billions. Just who was in charge of this place?
The CFO was Joseph Gentile. He was the CFO of Lehman Brothers when they failed.
The Board of Directors is filled with diversity hires who are there because of their woke credentials. They all have pronouns in their bios, which are filled with corporate newspeak. The Head of Financial Risk and Model Risk Management was this nutbag:
This is what happens when you allow people to manage your money based on woke principles instead of on their actual skill and competence. I hope the depositors at this failed bank enjoy all of that diversity, because diversity is your strength, eh?
Get woke, go broke.
That’s not a typo. Read what they are trying to do: (pdf alert)
(B) A PERSON WHO WAS UNDER THE AGE OF 25 YEARS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE MAY NOT BE FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE UNDER SUBSECTION (A)(4) OF THIS SECTION.
OK, so what does subsection (A)(4) say?
(4) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, committed in the perpetration of or an attempt to perpetrate:
(i) arson in the first degree;
(ii) burning a barn, stable, tobacco house, warehouse, or other outbuilding that:
1. is not parcel to a dwelling; and
2. contains cattle, goods, wares, merchandise, horses, grain, hay, or tobacco;
(iii) burglary in the first, second, or third degree;
(iv) carjacking or armed carjacking;
(v) escape in the first degree from a State correctional facility or a local correctional facility;
(vi) kidnapping under § 3–502 or § 3–503(a)(2) of this article;
(vii) mayhem;
(viii) rape;
(ix) robbery under § 3–402 or § 3–403 of this article;
(x) sexual offense in the first or second degree;
(xi) sodomy as that crime existed before October 1, 2020; or
(xii) a violation of § 4–503 of this article concerning destructive devices.
If this passes, I am going to have to add Maryland to the “no go” zones list.
Several NHL teams are catching static because their players are refusing to wear rainbow themed uniforms during pregame warmups. The league declared an annual ‘Pride’ month to honor faggotry, and now some of the players are refusing to drop to their knees. (see what I did there?) The left is trying to cancel them, calling them names like “coward” because they won’t honor this woke garbage.
I thought that sports teams were supposed to support the political statements of their players, or does that only apply when they are kneeling during the national anthem?
I saw this a week or so ago, and wanted to comment, but hey, lots of things going on. There is this study being talked about that claims resumes with they/them listed as pronouns are more likely to be overlooked than other resumes. It’s a garbage study. Let me explain:
The flaw lies in the methods of the researchers. They sent two sets of identical resumes in to prospective employers in an effort to test “whether or not the inclusion of gender-neutral pronouns impacts how employers perceive resumes.” Both featured a gender-ambiguous name, ‘Taylor Williams.’ The only difference between the test and control resumes was the presence of gender pronouns on the test version. The test resume included “they/them” pronouns under the name in the header.
The flaw here is obvious. In order for a study to be valid, you should conduct the test with the control having only one difference from the test. That difference is called the dependent variable. In this case the dependent variable is the presence or absence of preferred pronouns, NOT the presence or absence of “they/them” as opposed to “he/him” or even “she/her.”
So all they have proven is that people who put preferred pronouns in their resumes are less likely to get hired. They set out to prove that nonbinary applicants were being discriminated against, but all they managed to provide was evidence that employers don’t want the drama of assholes who insist that everyone use their preferred pronouns. It’s my guess that, should the study be repeated with the other pronouns, the results would be similar. The last thing that a company needs is some woke gender pronoun warrior running around, creating drama and potentially suing because they were misgendered.
Companies don’t like drama, they don’t like getting sued. Companies are funny like that.
Some interesting facts about securing firearms.
[Researchers at Rutgers University] found that 58.3 percent of firearm owners store at least one firearm unlocked and hidden and 17.9 percent store at least one firearm unlocked and unhidden. Among those who store at least one firearm locked, gun safes are the most frequently used type of option both for devices opened by key, PIN code or dial lock (32.4 percent) and biometric devices (15.6 percent).
I don’t have any biometric devices. I frequently have at least one firearm that is not secured in the house, but there are no children in my house, which brings us to the next quote:
First, to address motivation we need to address disproportionate fears regarding the likelihood of armed home invasions. Similarly, we need to help the public better understand the risks associated with having firearms in the home – above and beyond the risk of unauthorized access by children.
Let me guess, this is the point where they trot out the old bull about guns being more likely to be used on a family member than a home invader. The problem with that “fact” is that guns are highly unlikely to be used against you or a family member if you are not a criminal. Gun safes don’t prevent suicide if the owner is the one committing suicide.
It seems that the Southern Poverty Law Center needs to list itself as a Domestic Terror Organization, seeing as how one of the attorneys on staff there has been charged with Domestic Terrorism, with authorities alleging that the attorney participated in a mostly peaceful protest by throwing deadly missiles at police. The left continues to gaslight everyone with this:
“Music is not a crime, protest is not a crime. The first amendment doesn’t go away when a single person sets a fire,” the Atlanta Solidarity Fund tweeted following the events of the day.
That’s bullshit and they know it. If one person robs a bank, the getaway driver is still guilty of bank robbery, even if he never enters the bank. They continued with their bullshit by making this claim:
Destruction of material is fundamentally different from violence.
Again, that is total and complete bullshit. This is how the left defines “mostly peaceful.” Under the SPLC’s own definition, they are an anti-government hate group.
I don’t know how he will manage it with a split Congress, but here he comes.
President Biden said in a speech on Wednesday that he’s going to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines “come hell or high water.”