Default User writes, inter alia:
Φ, you say: “If what I write doesn’t describe you, then I’m not talking about you.” That’s OK because I doubt anybody cares. And, for God’s sake, get a proper name. I mean “Φ,” do you think you are Prince?
‘Tis true: my aesthetic is a mess. I write under a Greek pseudonym on a blog with a Latin name and an English URL, and my avatar is a fictional TV trial lawyer as acted by a homosexual. None of these has any obvious connection to the other.
Clearly I’m befuddled beyond measure.
One obvious difference is that being anti-breast-cancer is framed as being pro-women. Thus one can insinuate that folks who resist social pressures to support the campaign are anti-women. Since folks fear seeming anti-women much more than seeming anti-health, a breast-cancer campaign can tap into far more social pressure than can an exercise or sleep campaign.
Think pink gets much of its energy by offering a way for folks to be indirectly political; one can seem pro-women, and insinuate that others are anti-women, while only ever explicitly talking about health and medicine. AIDS awareness gets a similar political punch; one can talk only health, yet insinuate that others are anti-gay. Much of medicine is not about health, but about showing that you care, in this case caring about the right political groups.
Megan McArdle summarizes arguments against the corporate income tax. My favorite:
There are already substantial disincentives to shelter your income in a corporation. Every time I suggest this, I get a lot of people arguing that people would simply funnel all their expenses through a corporation, and avoid paying income taxes. These people are unaware that there are already substantial reasons to do this now, because corporations can deduct all sorts of things that people can't--rent, cars, utilities, non-mortgage interest payments, and so forth. So why don't people do this?
Because the IRS won't let them, that's why. While owners of corporations do manage to chisel at the margins, the smart ones don't funnel their whole personal budget through the firm, because doing so is a sure route to an audit and a hefty fine. You can argue that we need to beef up the rules, and maybe we do. But there's no reason to worry about wholesale abuses of the system, because the IRS is already reasonably adept about ferreting these out.
Roissy shows “Modern Marriage in One Picture”:
Via Steve, an excellent article by Jonathan Last at The Weekly Standard. The last section is a detailed history of Singapore’s 30 year effort at reversing its collapsing fertility rate. As you will see, Singapore approached the problem with kind of coordinated focus that America reserves for land wars in Asia, and its failure will be sobering to those of us concerned about America’s shrinking white population.
A couple of months ago, somebody I read posted a YouTube (I think) link to a very well done two-part video on the role that mortgage lending played in the financial collapse, equipped with very nice graphics. I watched part one, but somewhere lost all links to the video. If anyone can point me to it again, I’d sure appreciate it.