Category Archives: Current Affairs

Iraq for Sale

1 Reply

If there’s one area that I think most people can agree on the war, whether they’re ‘fer it or agin’ it, I think most would agree that profiteers are the lowest of the low.  There’s a new movie out (and yes it looks like it was made by some lefties) that I’m hoping comes out on Netflix soon or I’ll end up buying it.  It’s called Iraq for Sale and if you visit the site you’ll find that there’s a blog and all kinds of other information to be had there.

I’ve often written about the soaring real estate prices in DC throughout the late 90s and early 00s, but they didn’t really take off until after 9/11.  The late 90s could be explained by the tech explosion (many people don’t realize how much of the internet/telecomm infrastructure was based in the DC area) but I think the early 00s can only be explained by the huge run up of defense spending after 9/11 and through the beginning of the war.  DC has always grown rapidly during wars, but I think this expansion was particularly sharp because of all the money flowing to contractors who then created very high paying jobs (contractors pay their people much better than the government/military pays theirs).

I want to see this film, but I also want to see more hard hitting reporting done on the contractors.  Some of these companies are making HUGE money on the war, much more so than in past conflicts because so much more work that used to be done by military personnel is being done by contractors.  I want to see how the money is being spent with contractors, what the contractors are delivering in return and exactly how much lucre some of these companies’ executives are getting at the cost of American blood.  Personally I think it’s a non-partisan issue, and if some people see that kind of questioning as an attack on certain leaders of the country then I’d say that’s a tacit acknowledgement of exactly what many of us suspect is going on. 

Screw it, I’ll just say it: George, Dick and Don’s friends are getting awful fat off of this little adventure in Iraq.

More on Diebold’s Electronic Voting Machines

Leave a reply

I’ve written before about the dust-up over the proposed use of electronic voting machines here in Forsyth County, NC.  That dust-up led to the resignation of the longtime director of elections because the Board of Elections wouldn’t support her proposal to use the Diebold machines, and over time the Board of Elections has been proven correct in their negative assessment of the machines.

Ed Cone has a piece about the trouble election officials are having with the Diebold systems being used in the Maryland primaries.  Things are so bad that Maryland’s governor is calling for a return to paper ballots for the November elections.  David Allen, whose been on top of this issue for a long time, has some interesting comments himself.

This is VERY important stuff and we need to get it sorted out by November since this mid-term election has the potential to have the greatest impact on our country’s future as any mid-term election in a generation.  And we definitely need to have all this figured out before ’08. Is there any doubt that ’08 will be the most important presidential election in decades?

I’ve Gotta Disagree with Ken, or, Where’s the Whitey Dance Club?

Leave a reply

Last week the Winston-Salem Journal ran a piece about travel clubs for black people and when I saw it the first thing that popped into my head was, "I wonder what would happen if they did an article about a white people travel club?"  Well, I’m not the only person who thought this.  The managing editor at the paper has a blog and on it he shared an email he received from a reader and his reply email.  Here’s what they wrote:

Please, Please help me understand the reasoning of the recent article (9-15-06) on vacation camaraderie. How outraged would the public,specifically the afro-american community be if your paper advertised and promoted a travel club or ski club or WET(White Entertainment Television) ,etc. designed only for white folks! It is so discouraging to read articles about the afro-americans complaining about racism in the workplace and communities and amazingly there are very proud to organize these clubs and organizations designed strictly for their own ethnic group. If we are ever to move past this sensitive subject of racism let’s drop the promotions of these afore mentioned clubs and organizations!
Thanks for listening,

Dear XXX: Your email was forwarded to me. Thanks for writing. I’ve discussed your comments with several editors here, both black and white. These travel clubs that we wrote about exist for several reasons, even when it comes to vacations. Sometimes, black people feel more comfortable doing things—particularly things that white people don’t often identify with black people, such as skiing—in groups. And clubs etc. that we as the majority may feel are open to everybody don’t feel the same way to minorities. 

You’re right that there is no WET, but the reason BET exists is that network TV did a poor job of producing shows that catered to the tastes of black Americans. Minority groups in America—whether racial, ethnic or religious—have always found strength in their own. That’s something that is sometimes hard for people in the majority to understand, particularly in how it relates to the larger goal of building a society where people are judged by what’s inside rather than outside.

Again, thanks for writing and for reading the Journal.
Best,
Ken Otterbourg
Managing Editor

Well, I can only say that if the justification for people creating and joining a club based on race is "Sometimes, black people feel more comfortable doing things—particularly things that white people don’t often identify with black people, such as skiing—in groups. And clubs etc. that we as the majority may feel are open to everybody don’t feel the same way to minorities" then why can’t a white person just as easily say "I’m not comfortable being around any non-whites so let’s create our own Whitey Ski Club so we all feel secure?" After all, those clubs that are open to all and aren’t often identified with white people could very well make a white person uncomfortable.  "Whitey Dance Club" anyone? 

Honestly I don’t have an issue with any group of people deciding to create their own exclusive club, but I do have a problem with one group being able to do it without catching heat and the other group getting absolutely raked over the coals for doing the same thing. The issue is not that people would decide to create a group based on race, but rather that there is a double standard in our society that says it is okay for one race to do it but not another.  So what if white’s are a majority?  Does it mean that they have fewer rights to consort with whomever they want just because there’s more of them?  That idea is actually contradictory to the concept of equal rights and I just don’t agree with Ken’s, or by extension, the paper’s reasoning.

To me the issue truly is that there’s a double standard in terms of race in this country and that we actually hurt the cause of racial equality by allowing the double standard to continue.  I personally don’t want to belong to a "white" club of any kind, or a "black" club, or a "tall people only club", because by default I think those clubs are less interesting.  I’m attracted to groups that engage me in different conversations on a regular basis so I’m drawn to groups, as Ken says, "where people are judged by what’s inside rather than outside." 

That said, if our society and our media can accept and extol the virtues of a black or other minority travel club then it should be able to do the same for whites, and if they can’t accept the same for whites then they should accept it for none.  I refuse to believe that it is an enlightened society (or publication) that allows for such double standards to exist and I’m saddened that in the forty years (two generations!) since the civil rights movement we still have to have these discussions.

So Ken, and the folks at the Winston-Salem Journal, I have to say that your article did not forward  "the larger goal of building a society where people are judged by what’s inside rather than outside" rather it added one more detour on the road towards attaining that goal.  It’s just a damn shame.

World’s Greatest News Spoof or Creepiest News of the Day

Leave a reply

According to this story in the BBC there’s a small town in Cambodia with people who have been infected by a new parasite carried by mosquitos native to the area.  The mortality rate for those infected so far has been 100%, but the strange part of the story is that the parasite restarts the victims’ hearts and other organs for a couple of hours and the victims proceed to walk around in a zombie-like state and behave violently before the effect wears off.

According to the story the Cambodian government is studying the parasite, an action which US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has objected to and claimed that the Cambodians hold a great potential biological weapon.  You think?  (I’m wondering if the same parasite is indigenous to DC…might explain a lot of the goings-on at the White House).

This has all the earmarks of a spoof, but if it’s true I can honestly say that it’s one of the creepiest stories I’ve seen.  Ugh.

This is What’s Wrong With America’s Leaders

Leave a reply

There’s an article in Time about House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi which I think perfectly highlights what’s wrong with America’s leadership.  From the article:

The 66-year-old San Francisco lawmaker is an aggressive, hyperpartisan
liberal pol who is the Democrats’ version of Tom DeLay, minus the
ethical and legal problems of the former Republican House leader. To
condition Democrats for this fall’s midterm elections, she has employed
tactics straight out of DeLay’s playbook: insisting other House
Democrats vote the party line on everything, avoiding compromise with
Republicans at all cost and mandating that members spend much of their
time raising money for colleagues in close races. And she has been
effective. House Democrats have been more unified in their voting than
at any other time in the past quarter-century, with members on average
voting the party line 88% of the time in 2005, according to
Congressional Quarterly. That cohesion enabled Democrats to hasten
President Bush’s slide in the polls when they blocked his plan to
reform Social Security by allowing retirees to eschew guaranteed
benefits in favor of private accounts. Bush’s approval rating remains
depressed–38% in a TIME poll last week–and the Democrats are in their
best position to win the House since Republicans took control of it in
1994.

I don’t know about you but I don’t vote for anybody to go to Congress and vote the party line.  I vote for them with the expectation that they will go to Congress and vote their conscience, for what they think is best for the country.  Hell, I don’t even expect to agree with them all the time, but I do expect them to do what they think is in the best interest of the country and there’s no way they can do that if they vote the party line. 

Is there anyone in our country’s leadership who isn’t serving a political party, PAC or donor interest before they’re serving the country?  I swear at this point I’d trust a room full of convicted felons before I’d trust this bunch.  Why?  Because the felon’s aren’t smart enough to get away with robbing me blind (they did get caught after all) while members of Congress, with the exception of folks like Duke and Delay, are smart enough to get away with it and somehow get re-elected.  I’d rather deal with people who try to stab me in the front than those who keep nicking me in the back.

Now you know why I continue to proudly proclaim myself an independent with a capital "I".

I’ve Been Thinking About Taxes

Leave a reply

Before I get started I want to say one thing: when I write about taxes I reserve the right to change my mind, just as I do when I write about other topics.  Okay.

I’m in the middle of a little self-education campaign re. America’s tax system.  The reason I’m doing it is that it occurred to me that while I’ve always complained about paying taxes, I’ve never really understood them.  I mean when I entered the work force I had no idea what Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid or FICA was.  I just knew there was a chunk of change being pulled out of every paycheck to be held by the government for when I was an old geezer, and what 16-25 year old cares about that?

Then a few years ago I started reading that Social Security probably wouldn’t be there when I retired, or that the government was dipping into social security to pay for stuff.  My little English-Lit brain kind of went, "Huh?" and then moved on because I had things like kids and work to worry about.

Now, though, I want to take the time to understand.  I want to know what income taxes are, why we have them and why our tax system is so complicated.  So I went on-line and bought a bunch of used books and I also went to the library to check out one book in particular, David Cay Johnston’s "Perfectly Legal."  It’s been a real eye opening experience.

Side note: I don’t agree with some of Johnston’s recommendations but I
found a lot of his background information fascinating and some of his
arguments compelling.  Definitely a worthwhile read, as is his coverage
of the IRS for the New York Times.

I still consider myself on the front end of the learning curve on income taxes, but after reading Perfectly Legal and starting in on a history of taxes in America (Federal Taxation in America: A Short History, by W. Elliott Brownlee) I can say that I think the following:

  • Income taxes are absolutely necessary.  While we can all argue about how much we should pay in taxes and about how much government we should fund (i.e. what the government should do with the money) I think we can all agree that part of being in our society is contributing to the common well-being of the nation and income taxes are an effective means to that end.
  • Income taxes can be fair, but currently aren’t.  I’ve read a lot of arguments for flat taxes and federal sales taxes, but I have to say that if the income tax system is fixed properly I think it has the most potential to be the most equitable.
  • Republicans and Democrats are both responsible for the current state of the income tax system. 
  • Our income tax system is unnecessarily complex, and that complexity hurts the middle class most and helps the upper class most.
  • The system is complex because the various loopholes and incentives that create the complexity benefit Congress’ most influential constituency, what Johnston calls the political-donor class.
  • The reason that the middle class is hurt the most by this system is that most people within the middle class have what I’d call normal income; wages and salaries.  They also have a higher share of their income taxed for Social Security.  The wealthy, especially the extremely wealthy, get most of their income via interest on their equities, stock options, etc.  Also, the average middle class person is taxed before they get their money while the wealthy are taxed after they’ve had their money in their pockets for a while.
  • The debate about taxes needs to start with a debate about defining income. We need to define income before we can get serious about tax reform.
  • We also need to debate the goals of the country, the fiscal priorities of the country, while we debate tax reform.  We may discover that we can reduce all of our taxes if we get serious about cutting back on what we expect the government to do.
  • The average American is woefully ignorant of the tax system, how it works and its history.  I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of Americans don’t know that income taxes didn’t exist until 1913 or that the top income tax rate during WWII was 90%.  Puts the current top tax rate in a different perspective doesn’t it?
  • Finally, there is no one in power that has an interest that would be served by fixing the system.  I wouldn’t count on anyone in power today to fix this thing.  It will have to be a remarkable grassroots effort.

Here’s the biggest thing I’m struggling with: should the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?  The rationale for this "progressive" taxation is that the wealthiest have accrued the greatest gains from our society and thus should pay a requisite share.  On the other hand if I make $100,000 and you make $1,000,000 and we both pay 20% then I’m paying $20,000 and you’re paying $200,000.  It looks to me like you’re already paying more.

Of course the reality is that in today’s system my $100,000 is actually less because I’ve had Social Security taken out of a huge chunk of it.  In fact you paid the same amount of Social Security on your one million as I did on my 100k, so right there I’m playing catch up.  And you’re much more likely to have loopholes to exploit and to have paid a tax lawyer to find them for you.  So in today’s system maybe we need you to pay 35% to make it equitable.

But if we redefine income to include all money we gain in the year no matter how we gain it, and do away with the loopholes and then come up with a tax rate that will serve the country’s needs, do we need to have a progressive tax?  One point here is that we’d probably want to have a lower rate (or  no tax) for the truly poor, but above that line we might be able to have one fair rate.

I’ve also read the argument that if we went this route we’d kill the incentives for investing in public companies, which is a key driver of economic growth.  I don’t know if I buy that though, since you’re still basically making money for doing nothing other than gambling on a company’s success, and that’s pretty easy money.  Can’t see the possibility of paying income taxes on easy money reducing its allure.  (I’m thinking that Greensboro blogger David Boyd might be prepared to debate/educate me on this point).

But, here we come to another sticking point for me: how do we tax someone who hasn’t realized the gain yet?  In other words if I’ve invested in Microsoft and the company gains 10% on the year, should I get taxed on the capital gains now or should I get taxed when I actually sell the stock and get the cold, hard cash?  I guess I could pay the capital gains now and then if I lose money the next year claim a deduction, but then we start getting back into complexity don’t we?

So like I said, I’m on the front end of this process and I have a long way to go, and I’m sure my thoughts will evolve on these matters.  But one thing I’m pretty certain will not change is my feeling that the system is broken, it’s not fair and we need to fix it for the good of our country.

Accountants, Lawyers & Congress

Leave a reply

Venture capitalist Brad Feld has a blog post called The Accountants Strike Back in which he has a series of observations that begin with "Accounting is the only profession where…" Let’s just say he’s not high on the accounting profession.

I’ll give you some samples below and you tell me if you agree that for most of them you could substitute "law" or "being a member of congress" for "accounting" and still be completely accurate.  To me these "industries" might be the true Axis of Evil:

Accounting is the only profession where you can completely screw
everything up (see Enron, WorldCom, Kmart, etc..) and your “punishment”
(so long as you aren’t Arthur Andersen) is that the “powers that be”
enact all sorts of legislation (SOX, Option Expensing, 409A, FASB 123,
etc.), that create a full employment act for your profession, radically
increase your fee structures, and make everyone in your profession
better off than when everyone thought you were doing a good job and
maintaining the public trust.

Accounting is the only profession that actively tries to get rid of
most of its clients, but at the same time tries to bleed every last
cent out of them on their way to being fired.

Accounting is the only profession that doesn’t care if their processes
negatively impact your business, what your opinion of them is, or
whether or not you are a happy customer.

Accounting in the only profession whereby a new regulation comes down,
a client alert is sent out and not a single client can understand
anything that is on the printed page.

Virginia Gentleman?

Leave a reply

Virginia_gentleman_bourbon
I was in college the first time I encountered Virginia Gentleman and it knocked me on my butt.  My latest encounter with a different form of Virginia "gentleman" was yesterday when I saw the video below of Virginia Senator George Allen on his campaign tour.  It also knocked me on my butt because it introduced me to the term "macaca", which apparently is a racial epithet and it showed once again how quickly a political campaign can turn.

Allen called the cameraman, an American college student of Indian descent who was filming Allen on behalf of Allen’s opponent Jim Webb, "macaca" and at one point said "welcome to America and welcome to the real world."  Since this was a predominantly white, rural Virginia crowd a lot of people think Allen was making a racial remark and Webb’s campaign is playing it to the hilt.

Now this thing has gone national, and not in the positive way. There’s a great piece on the Daily Show about it and Allen’s comment was even the subject of a question at a White House press briefing. It has also provided a reason for people to bring up Senator Allen’s confederate flag wielding days, none of which is good for a political campaign in 2006.  Ouch.

As you can tell from this exchange at Ed Cone’s blog no one’s really sure if Allen even meant anything specific by using the term "macaca", but as always the Daily Show had it right when they said (I’m paraphrasing), "I don’t know what macaca means but it sure as sh– sounds racist and in Virginia that may or may not be a bad thing."  I love that show.
 

If POTUS Blogged

Leave a reply

Will wonders never cease?  The President of Iran has his own blog (found via Lex), and you can even read it in English if you click on the little AmeriBrit flag icon.  I tried to read it in his native language but all the little squiggly lines made my eyes hurt and I couldn’t figure out if I was supposed to read left to right or right to left, which, oddly enough, made me think of POTUS.

Supposedly POTUS is reading while on his abbreviated two-week vacation, but I was wondering if given the opportunity, and the ability to type, he would be up for blogging?  Of course he would face challenges, like:

  • Determining the proper way to spell "nucular."
  • Figuring out that "PC" is not necessarily a Republican epithet, and thus does need to be turned on to get to that hairy little internet thing.
  • Finding a way to carve out some time to spend with Ted Stevens so he can get tutored on that whole "internet is a series of tubes" thing.
  • Having someone explain that "QWERTY" has nothing to do with gays or the military.

Once he overcomes those obstacles he’d then have to think of what he’d name his blog.  Here are some possibilities:

  • Touched by Bush
  • Heckuva Job Bushie
  • The Bushmeister
  • Dick?
  • Tony’s Pimp
  • Bring ‘Em On
  • Git’r Done
  • Decider Boy
  • Fool Me Once…
  • Bushwhacked

And what tags would POTUS use?  Well, there’s:

  • Boo!
  • What mistakes?
  • Ask Dick
  • Toastmasters DC Chapter
  • WMD! WMD!
  • Osama who?
  • I got Saddam Daddy!
  • Heckuva Job Rummy!

Suggestions?

I Wish I Had 10% of This Woman’s Guts

Leave a reply

The Christian Science Monitor is publishing a series about the abduction, and eventual release, of freelance journalist Jill Carroll in Iraq earlier this year.  Mostly it’s a first-person account and it’s riveting.  After reading this first installment all I can say is that she has more guts than I could ever dream of having.

I can’t imagine having enough passion for a career that I would put my life on the line for it.  Of course this will give me a better perspective the next time I get a butt-chewing from a customer.  It could definitely be much worse.