We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, December 18. 2012
Charlie Chaplin and Einstein
AVI ponders the IQ test
CERN virtually certain it's discovered the Rosetta Stone of physics
What Sen Inouye did during the war
Even in Medical School, Affirmative Action Rules
Lots of good stuff at Am. Digest
The ‘decline of manufacturing’ is an inevitable, global phenomenon, and that’s something to celebrate
Figures. After Tim Scott Announcement – Cries of “Token Black” and “House Negro” Begin
Op-Ed: Time to Stamp 'Cancelled' On Postal Reform?
Would you put a sign on your house saying "Gun Free Zone"?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I find it a little ironic that the first post is one hating on Myers-Briggs, but that's immediately followed by a post discussing that factors other than IQ play a role in success...factors like personality type.
Myers-Briggs may not be perfect, but that's more a matter of precision rather than accuracy. It's useful, largely because it's generally correct. And that's much more than can be said for much of the formal psychology that is perpetuated.
The number of comments doubled after I started counting, but I find it amusing that in the discussion at Althouse about half the commenters identified their own MBTI profile. At the time, there were 41 comments (total) and 18 had self identified as INTJ
So of the 16 types, the one estimated to have only 1% to 4% of the population makes up 44% of althouse commenters?
No, this can't possibly be a valid way to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions...
THAT is one heckuva a photo. Each guy is with maybe his only peer, and the peerages are from the opposite sides of the brain, therefore the universe.
Sorry, Einstein had plenty of peers: Planck, Hilbert, Born, von Neuman, Heisenberg, Schrodinger
Oh, alright. Who d'you think I am, anyway, Von Neuman?
Well, I recognize Einstein, but is that really Charlie Chaplin? He was Quite Handsome! I must never have seen a pic of him when he wasn't clowning.
Should We End the Tax Deduction for Charitable Donations?
Reading between the lines of the article, one guy says that people will still give anyway, even if there is no deduction. The other one seems to be actively involved in soliciting big donations and knows that the presence of the deduction is one of the arguments which helps her make the "sale".
First guy says the deduction benefits mostly high-earners who don't need it. She says, no, the benefit goes to the people getting services from the charities supported.
I've seen lots of noise about this one on the more left-leaning fora that I frequent. One of the key bits of information that we don't have in our link is that there is a vocal bunch who hate-hate-hate the charitable deduction because such a large proportion of the qualifying donations are given to churches and faith-based aid organizations.
The next largest proportion goes to big cultural institutions, such as libraries, art museums, ballet, opera, PBS - and here the opposition fractures into two groups:
One group claims that this isn't charity, because it is just rich people using moneys deprived from the treasury to do things that benefit themselves, but don't help the nation at large. (Taking money out of social programs so that you can watch "Great Performances" on TV...)
The other group would prefer that the big cultural institutions were dependent directly upon the government for their funding anyway, like they are in Europe. They won't say it, but this is because donors tend to give to things that are both popular and support our cultural heritage, whereas government money can be controlled by people who will direct the funds to artists and organizations with the right politics.
Oh boy. Do you remember when Christine Gregoire refused to net a nursing school teacher flunk an African/American gal out of her course. Broke the teacher's tenure contract. Fought her with so many legal moves that the teacher quit after having paid $70,000 in legal fees. Yup---this was going on in Seattle in the early 1990's. before Gregoire was rewarded with the job of governor.
I did not know that. Why am I not surprised that she would do that? I'm acquainted with that state.
The pros and cons of the "charitable" deduction don't really mean anything. It may be true that people will give less if the deduction is ended but why should I care? What I do care about is when we talk about abuse of deductions the so-called charitable deduction is head and shoulders above all the rest in it's abuse. A multi-billionaire can avoid 100% of the taxes on his estate by giving it to "charity". And that "charity" can be an anti-American NGO or he can give it all to Africa through a organization that can spend it on terrorists. Once the money is given and the 503 is formed who controls how that money is spent? And is a 503 a "charity"???
True - but, the original intent of the charitable deduction is to enhance the civic life of all of us. Look at how Maggie's people go to museums and enjoy other fine cultural events that have their roots in some rich guy's Charitable deduction. True, many people use it for un-charitable purposes, but that's what you get when the Government is in charge of Everything (Susan's "Theory of Everything")
...did I just contradict myself?
If I could respectfully disagree on one minor point.
The original intent of the charitable deduction was political power. The politicians scratched the backs of churchs and NGO's and the churches and NGO's scratched the politicians backs and crossed their palm with silver. But the politicians being devious and street smart claimed they created the deduction to enhance the civic life and do good things. Just as today the politicians always put a glorious and high sounding name on the laws they pass to take our money and our rights.
"Gun Free Zone" --
which noun does 'free' modify?
Which 'free' is meant; 'unrestricted', 'no-cost', or 'unavailable'?
Could be saying, this is an unrestricted zone for guns -- a free zone, for guns --a place to shoot.
"Don't douse the campfire with flammable fluids, dolt, use INflammable fluids!"
PS, further pointless elucidation:
Evil Free Zone: Heaven
Evil Free Zone: Hell
(there should be a sign before the sign:
''Hyphen-Free Zone'', because a 'hyphen free-zone' needs no sign, there'll be little tiny horizontal lines all over everything)
oops, buried the lead:
Evil Free-Zone: Hell
Evil-Free Zone: Heaven
Marzy Doats and Dozy Doats and Little Lambsy Divy
Maybe the guy loved his mother. He killed her in her sleep, and if he hadn't, would she want to be alive after he did what he did? No, probably not, and for a long long time. Poor, poor thing.