This really has been more entertaining than I originally thought it could be. I'm not going correct your errors, ("Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" Napoleon), but I do have a few thoughts which, against my better judgment, I shall offer in a sprint of a revered friendship to a fellow Aces Higher. (And for the record I do not consider you an “enemy”. I decide to provide you with an accurate quote so as to not make you the victim of “lousy reporting”. Let me suggest the word adversary or sparring partner.)
... Thus, anyone calling BS is exercising cognitive dissonance.
I would suggest you look this term up. It is a real term used by Psychologists, although I think that currently a more sharply defined and accepted term is motivated reasoning. Either way, I think that for the general public the terms are interchangeable.
One (and by no means the only) interesting idea/observation that has come up in the field of Psychology in the past several years is the fact that a certain clearly defined sub-set of subjects, when confronted with facts that challenge(s) the validity of emotional held belief(s), dig in further and deeper into their original belief. It would be like if you believed that the moon landings were actually taped on a set in LA and that with every piece of information that proved the opposite - you become more and more convinced that a studio set actually was used.
BTW: We are not talking about a handful guys with aluminum hats. We are talking about a large population set.
Your posts are a good example of someone who behaves that way. The recipe (or the main one anyway) is very simple:
Trash the authority (source) of the argument.
Trash the logic of the argument (optional)
Claim yourself or others as real experts and judger of facts.
If you would like to understand what you are doing you will have to read a book or two.
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts BY Carol Tavris and, Elliot Aronson
and
The case for motivated reasoning. by Kunda, Ziva available at the web site of the American Psychological Association at:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/108/3/480/
My hope is that someday that the fruit of all this clinical and academic research is reduced to a handful of bumper sticks. That way animated individuals who conduct most of their social research while driving to work on the interstate will become better informed members of society. (It will save them from having to read a book!)
But I digress.
I originally was just going to let your post go, but then I thought about the 501c3 stuff. I have helped non-profits file 990 before, so I kind of know how to read them and I thought lets go read it. It is not there. OK, looks as if the foundation was just set up, they have time. Then I thought wait, where did all this stuff about money being tucked away for tax purposes come from and why a 501c3? There are a number of different types of non-profits and many of them are easier to set up and run (from an IRS reporting perceptive). And she did it as a foundation (private I assume). Ah.
Well boys and girls gather round for just a few basic facts about 501c3 and private foundations. The main (and some would say the ONLY) reason to set up a 501c3 is to provide the donor of a gift, usually of cash and certain goods and services, a means getting a tax break, subject to certain limitations having to do with the circumstances of the donor. (Depending on how they are classified, the non-profit may not have to pay any or most federal and usually state taxes.) Private foundations have a little twist; funding is usually from one source and under IRS rules the foundation must give away a minimum percentage (5% I think) of its assets ever year.
So with that as background:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/384176/justice-jesse-ventura-was-right-his-lawsuit-j-delgado/page/0/2“And now for the kicker: It isn’t true. Out of the staggering $3 million that American Sniper collected in royalties for Kyle, only $52,000 actually went to the families of fallen servicemen. (Rather than 100 percent of the proceeds, as the public was led to believe, try 2 percent!) While Kyle’s widow claimed, in her testimony, that they never intended to profit from the book, and “wanted” to donate the money to other veterans, she said they were weren’t able to because of — get this! — “gift-tax laws that prevented them from donating more than $13,000 each to two families last year.”
The National Review, for those of you who do not know, is a conservative right wing magazine started by William Buckley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley%2C_Jr. I, and others, believe that no other publication did more to define modern day conservatism in America than the National Review. (While many disagreed with Buckley and his view points, no one that I know of ever accused Buckley of lying. Not lying, now there is a conservative and liberal idea that we all should support and promote!)
So…
During the Jesse Ventura trail, Taya Kyle under oath, stated that she had been instructed by her lawyers she was “prevented them from donating more than $13,000 each to two families last year”
It is my understanding that she gave her testimony while producing a voluminous amount of tears.
Not true. Tax laws for a foundation require that a MINIMUM of 5% the foundation’s assets have to be donated every year. Foundations can give as much as they have. However, foundations can count Administrative costs as part of the 5%. So, not too infrequently you find a private foundation stacked with family members with titles such as Vice-President of Knowledge and a salary and expense account to match. (BTW: The IRS deals with this issue all the time and they have guidelines for what are reasonable administrative costs. Given the fact that there was more than one gift (two!), at an exact amount ($26k), you got to wonder what is going on there.)
BTW: as concerned as you are about the family, if you set up a foundation because all you want to do is to avoid paying taxes, then there is a good chance that you will be fined by the IRS and a small chance that you will end up in jail.
Non-Profits have to be set up and run to support a public good mission.
Maybe you could let Kyle’s widow know that she was in error that she can indeed meet her promise of giving 100% of the proceeds to families of fallen servicemen.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/07/09/chris-kyle-video-deposition-to-be-played-in-american-sniper-trial/I’ve often believed that if you want to understand America you can read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Gaithersburg Address and all of the Constitutional Amendments, and you will not really get it until you dig into the US Tax Code, Regulations and Official Guidance. http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/Tax-Code,-Regulations-and-Official-Guidance.
Of course there are a couple of other issues out there and open for debate.
But the one fact that we now know is that Kyle is a liar. A court of law says so.
I understand why this would brother some people immensely. If he lied about a stupid bar fight, what else did he lie about? Were all of his 200+ kills (162 confirmed), to use his words “damn savages”. Were there innocents that he killed? I do not know, but we have the word of a liar and … ah…well just the word of a liar.
On another issue, Americans across the country are reporting a significant occurrence of acts of intimidation and suggested acts of violence on their persons by patrons of the movie. I hope that we can all agree that such behavior is despicable and should not be tolerated by anyone.
Another issue that really makes me sick in the gut is the host of so called Veteran Charities that prey “on the public's patriotism and generosity, promising assistance to veterans while lining their own pockets”. According to Charity Watch Some of the worst are:
AMVETS
Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S
Charity Watch,
http://www.charitywatch.org/, tries to stay on top of the issue and publishes a guide for donors. http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/donors_guide_to_serving_veterans.html
I found this from a few years ago. Not much has changed. Only more of these scam tax dodging profiteers have emerged. I guess that not too many of them went to Jail….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/veterans-charity-fraud_n_886259.htmlVery very sad.
