novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts published by jack

Great line from Forrest Gump. Now here‘s a bit of stupidity to chew on — “Smarter people are no better off”.

You heard that right. Check out the “logic”:

On the surface, Zagorsky’s analysis confirms the findings of previous studies linking higher intelligence with higher income. “Each point increase in IQ test scores is associated with $202 to $616 more income per year,” he says. For example, a person with a score of 130 (in the top 2%, in terms of IQ) might earn about $12,000 more per year than someone with an average IQ score of about 100.

On the surface, people with higher intelligence scores also had greater wealth. The median net worth for people with an IQ of 120 was almost $128,000 compared with $58,000 for those with an IQ of 100.

But when Zagorsky controlled for other factors – such as divorce, years spent in school, type of work and inheritance – he found no link between IQ and net worth. In fact, people with a slightly above-average IQ of 105 , had an average net worth higher than those who were just a bit smarter, with a score of 110.

People who had divorced once had about $9600 less wealth on average than their never-divorced counterparts. And those who smoked heavily had an $11,000 reduction in net worth. These external factors – rather than IQ – could explain the differences in wealth, Zagorsky suggests.

Let’s see…

  • Choose to stay in school… learn useful skills… choose a good career… earn more money!
  • Choose spouse more wisely… less likely to divorce… less likely to have to support two households and two divorce lawyers… keep more money!
  • Choose not to smoke…  don’t spend $5 per day on cigarettes…  save extra $1825 per year…  that $11,000 comes in just six years!

So the reason smart people are better off is not because they are smart, but because they do less stupid shit.

Does it never occur to these “researchers” that smart people stay in school longer because that’s what they are good at?  Does it never occur to them that smart people choose more lucrative careers because they can, and stupid people can’t?  Does is never occur to them that smart people choose their spouses more wisely because they have the intellectual capacity to make better choices?  Does it never occur to them that smart people save more because they have more self-control?

Apparently, the researchers are too stupid to figure out that smart people do less stupid shit because they are not stupid shits.

At the Worth Youth Chess Championships in Durban, South Africa, our pride of Virginia, Jennifer Yu, won the GOLD MEDAL in the 12G division (girls 12 and under). A little further down the page, you will will see Akshita Gorti, also of Virginia, in 12th place.

And our own Aasa Dommalapati took 14th place in the 10G division.

Doing Virginia proud, girls! Congratulations!

So, the Калифорния legislature passed a bill restricting government surveillance with drones. Gov. “Moonbeam” Brown vetoed it.

Check out the stupidity:

Brown said in a statement that the bill appears to be too narrow and could go beyond what the state and federal constitutions would prohibit.

“There are undoubtedly circumstances where a warrant is appropriate,” he wrote. “The bill’s exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution.”

Uh, Guvn’r, if the bill didn’t put tighter restrictions on your misuse of drones than the U.S. and Калифорния Constitutions require, there would be NO DAMNED POINT TO THE BILL AT ALL.

The reason I first went to The Angry Bear was posts this one. (Too bad it’s infested with intolerant liberals in charge.)

The author of this post is the current (and last) Postmaster of Webster, NC, and speaks of his area of expertise, the United States Postal Service.

It always confuses the big-government liberals, stuck in the false-dichotomy mindset that says if they support Big Government and all Big Government programs, then conservatives opposed to Big Government must oppose all Big Government programs. What they cannot seem to wrap their minds around is the concept that we DO support the U.S. government’s running those programs which a the U.S. Constitution says it is supposed to run. Among these are the Army, the Navy, and the Postal Service.

So why this fascination (among conservatives mostly, I suppose — I’m sure you will correct me if I am wrong) with the idea that the Postal Service is supposed to be self-supporting? We do not expect the Army to be self-supporting. It probably could be. We could probably sell enough weapons, and rent out enough troops, to make it so. We do not expect the Department of the Interior to be self-supporting. We could probably place high enough rents on mining and grazing operations, and high enough fees for visitors, to make it so.

The point is that profits are not what the government is about. Efficiency is desirable, but the primary mission of those agencies is to provide the services, not to turn a profit.

This is why we conservatives oppose Big Government — because Big Government is inefficient. That is why the Constitution cedes to the U.S. government only those things that cannot be done by the States and the People. At the time of our founding, the operations of the Postal Service could not be done by any other agency than the government of the United States. If, in the age of email, UPS, and Federal Express, we think that that situation no longer pertains, then we should amend the Constitution to remove that Power from the U.S. government. But killing a government program by forcing it to turn a profit, knowing that government programs are by nature inefficient, is, at best, disingenuous.

This topic has been weighing on my mind for some time. Even now, I am reluctant to write about it. But it is important.

Early in the swim season, one of our young instructors was accused by a parent of “inappropriately touching” her daughter while teaching her how to swim. The police investigator asked the boy and his mother to come in for an interview. During the “interview” (interrogation is a better word), the interrogator “mislead” (lied) about evidence saying, “We had a nurse specialist perform an examination of the girl. What if I told you we had DNA evidence?” (See? The interrogator didn’t say they DID have DNA evidence, only “what if….” In fact, the examination showed no evidence of assault.) The interrogator implied that there were other accusations. There were not. The interrogator implied that there would be leniency if he just admitted to the crime, when in fact she just wanted him to incriminate himself enough for her to file charges. He did, finally saying he had done it “once or twice” during backstroke, when he was holding her level so her bottom didn’t sink. The interrogator charged him with sexual assault.

Then came the court case. They got the interrogator, on the stand, to admit that she lied to get the “confession.” (From that point on, anything the interrogator says is immediately suspect. If she will lie to get a confession, why would she not lie to get a conviction?) She admitted that the accused and his mother had not been informed of his Miranda rights, nor was he or his mother told that the interrogation was being recorded.) Then, the accuser herself took the stand. She said the alleged assault came every day while she was doing breast stroke. Then she was asked whether the person who had done that was in the courtroom. She took a minute to look at everyone in the room, and said, “No.” The defense attorney, obviously, saw no point to cross-examining.

So them the girl’s mom took the stand. First, she lied and said she was at every practice. Then, she recanted on that. She then said she had not see any other swim instructors that day, when one was sitting in the courtroom (and the woman had walked by her three times already) and two more were sitting outside! Apparently, she knew the name of the accused boy’s mother, knew he was one of the instructors, found a three-year-old facebook picture, and accused him!

My suspicion is that this was a girl who was not a good swimmer (thus she needed help staying afloat during the backstroke) and didn’t want to go to practice anymore. “Well, WHY don’t you want to go?” “I don’t like it.” “But WHY don’t you like it? Did something happen?” “Yes.” “What? Did someone do something you didn’t like?” “Yes” “What?” “Nothing, really.” “What do you mean, NOTHING? Did someone touch you?” And it just degenerates from there. Mom with the leading questions, and the girl going along because she hates swimming. (Which doesn’t look good because her mom is on the Board for that pool. It was not the accused’s home pool.)

What kind of an effed-up justice system do we have that an boy can be accused of such a crime, which would result in his being barred from ever working with children again — not in swimming, not in Scouts, never — with ZERO evidence and a bullied confession given with false promises of leniency? This “investigator,” who did not actual investigation at all, should be fired and charged with misconduct. The mother should be charged with making false accusations, and at a minimum, should be required to pay the accused’s legal fees.

Banned from yet another leftist blog. I got there via the The Middle Class Political Economist, which has some interesting articles. Unfortunately, the host “moderates” all comments, which can take days (if at all — it seems some get “lost”), so there is no conversation to speak of. But some articles were cross-posted, and does not so “moderate” commentary.

Well, at first viewing it looked like a sane economics blog, with some interesting analysis of Fed interest rate policy, labor share and labor force participation rates, etc. No such luck. It’s full of intolerant libs who, if you disagree with their socialist policies, start calling one racist, stupid, arrogant, anti-poor, 370H $$@, etc. Finally, I was banned — ostensibly for repeatedly “introducing a new topic” (a.k.a. “hijacking”) threads. Indeed, in the last instance, the topics I was discussing were introduced by the original poster herself. It seems that the “new topics” I introduced were facts, logic, and reason. And they just cannot handle that.

I doubt that any of the commenters there will deign to come here. I applaud Troll and Special Ed for having the balls to stick to their guns when they are in the minority. The folks at Angry Bear cannot handle the comments of even a single conservative.

Yes, pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine did shoot down a civilian airliner, possibly at the command of the Russian military, and possibly of President Putin himself. While this incident is a tragedy, before we condemn the pro-Russian separatists, it should be noted that several aircraft have been shot down there recently, which begs the question, “Why was a civilian airliner there?”

Also, we must remember our own mistake in shooting down Iran Air Flight 665 on the 3rd of July, 1988.