Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I will call Chavez and pray to the babyjesus and let you our decision.

Next k is all yours.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you'll retire that sock, I'll disappear for a while.

Can we have a vote? I like that sock.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have two questions (1 and 2a or 1 and 2b) for the people that supported the war in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq.


1) If the Taliban were not connected with Al Queda would it have been morally justifiable for the United States to invade and take over Afghanistan?

2a) If no, how badly does a government have to abuse its people before another country has the moral right to invade and take it over?

2b) If yes, what makes Afghanistan under the Taliban so much worse than Iraq under Saddam Hussein?

I did not realize we invaded Afghanistan; I thought we simply bombed the country sufficiently so that the Northern Alliance would handily win their war. However, this is an area where I think an important distinction is whether the behavior has become sufficient disturbing so that there is substantial international support for interfering. A single country should never serve as the sole moral arbiter for the world; if it does, I would expect that moral position to very quickly begin to show bias due to self-interest or a limited perspective. This is really simply human.

I think there are a number of situations that have met this standard, perhaps the most obvious one where no invasion occurred being South Africa. I am wary to say that, for example, the condition of women in Afghanistan can justify invasion; though genocidal attacks on the Kurds may well have justified an invasion of Iraq in the 1990s (but less so when the invasion actually did occur).

But if we are to posit that invasion by us is justified because of our views of the radical Islamic culture, I believe we have handed moral justification, at least at an intellectual level, to the anti-Israel forces in the Middle East, among others.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you'll retire that sock, I'll disappear for a while.

If you're implying that i control the sock- I'm offended, either by the falsehood, or the outing of the sock. Take your pick.

Penske, how does one join the insurgency?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Next k is all yours.

Merci.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168591,00.html

• The U.N.'s Spreading Bribery Scandal: Russian Ties and Global Reach
  
  NEW YORK — How widespread is the corruption at the United Nations? The multibillion-dollar Iraq Oil-for-Food (search) scandal was just the beginning.
  
  Now the issue is becoming the scale of corruption in the U.N.'s normal operations — and which individuals and corporations are reaping the benefits of a network of bribery and conspiracy that investigators have just begun to uncover. So far, those identities are still a mystery — but perhaps not for much longer.
  
  Last Friday, federal prosecutors in Manhattan indicted the head of the U.N.'s own budget oversight committee, a Russian named Vladimir Kuznetsov (search), on charges of laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bribes paid by companies seeking contracts with the United Nations.
  
  Kuznetsov, who has pleaded innocent, allegedly took a cut so openly that he had part of it deposited into the United Nations' own staff credit union in New York.
  
  Kuznetsov's arrest is the latest twist in the scandal involving the U.N. procurement department, which was the longtime post of Alexander Yakovlev (search), another Russian U.N. official recently fingered by U.S. federal investigators.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you're implying that i control the sock- I'm offended, either by the falsehood, or the outing of the sock. Take your pick.

Penske, how does one join the insurgency?

Confidential to Hank:

Slave's Kitchen, the night of the next full moon. Knock three times and whisper "let's ride bikes".

And remember to shave before you arrive, the hurrishave is frowned upon.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Can we have a vote? I like that sock.

2. Although the warping of the time/space continuum concerns me.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
We should do away with the tax code. A simple flat tax at a set level, no deductions, no credits, no government induced market warping incentives or disincentives, no nothing. A 1 page filing:

Dear Secretary of the Treasury:

My SSN is xx-xx-xxxx. I made $x last year.

Attached is a check for $y, representing my tax obligation of z%.

Spend it wisely or else!!!

Sincerely,

Jack Taxpayer

I pray for President Bush to have the fortitude to lead us to such a promised land.

As long as the "X" in "I made X" includes dividends, capital gains, etc. (by which I mean all accessions to wealth) I'm game. I can change my practice area overnight.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
As long as the "X" in "I made X" includes dividends, capital gains, etc. (by which I mean all accessions to wealth) I'm game. I can change my practice area overnight.

No dividends. Capgains yes.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No double taxation, so dividends are out. Alimony is out. Your others are mainly mostly in.

How do you figure dividends are out? Same with alimony? They aren't taxed twice, except in the sense that all money is taxed in the hands of a different taxpayer.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Or say if you are an up and coming politico, and some rich guys let you rob a futures market account to bribe you, and to set you up for a run at National office- would those illegal proceeds be taxed?

Why not? All the disguised bribes paid to Bush I and II, Clinton, Kennedy, Nixon, etc. were taxable. I see no reason to stop now.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This hypo sounds far-fetched, I am not sure it could ever happen irl. Isn't more likely that a first time investor could just get lucky and make outsized profits in a very short period in the complex world of the commodities markets, cash out on a high and then never trade in such instruments again? The latter seems more like the common fact pattern to me.

I'm fairly certain that in the political world, a former hot-shot ex=President or former Secretary or other adminstration insider would stay away from risky things like commodities in the future and go with sure-fire investments like laundering money for the Saudis through the Carlyle Group, or hitting the lecture circuit at $50 grand a pop. Why risk your money in futures when folks are falling all over themselves to hand it to you risk-free?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
How do you figure dividends are out? Same with alimony? They aren't taxed twice, except in the sense that all money is taxed in the hands of a different taxpayer.

These two are blatant double taxations. Why do want more tax? How about less tax and more efficient application?

As a side note: technically I am against alimony as a concept, so, since we are in a la la land anyway, let's assume alimony is outlawed in the Flat Tax Reform Bill.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm fairly certain that in the political world, a former hot-shot ex=President or former Secretary or other adminstration insider would stay away from risky things like commodities in the future and go with sure-fire investments like laundering money for the Saudis through the Carlyle Group, or hitting the lecture circuit at $50 grand a pop. Why risk your money in futures when folks are falling all over themselves to hand it to you risk-free?

the difference is setting someone up with cushy lobbying gigs or speech circuits is different than cooking the books such that one client's commodity trading account takes a hit to funnel cash to another more preferred client's account. Why not make insider trading legal too then? (which, actually, I am in favour of).

Why isn't that no one on the left can ever criticise the Clintons blatantly illegal behaviour? Sad.