Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To their credit, many self-professed Christians care more about what's happening in sub-Saharan Africa than most non-self-professed Christians.

And let me play devil's advocate here on Darfur, to some extent. I'm all for intervention if you think it can accomplish something, but what are you trying to do? Sudan is 2.5 million square kilometers -- eight times the size of Poland. If we had 100,000 troops to drop into the country, they could still get lost very quickly. What's their mission? Is there any reasonable prospect that we could bring law and order?

They could do what the UN does but actually do it right. The UN sets up these safe areas and refugee camps and lets the Janjaweed or whatever the hell they are ransack them. We should do it right by putting Marines around our safeareas and if any Janjaweed shows up we introduce them to the Marine philosophy ("we believe in peace through superior firepower and swift retaliation"). It is also pretty flat out there. Not much protective covering. It would be pretty easy hunting with our Hueys and Warthogs. We should assign a whole Division to protect that French Doctor association (even though they are french).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To their credit, many self-professed Christians care more about what's happening in sub-Saharan Africa than most non-self-professed Christians.

Do you mean non-self-professed Christians, or self-professed non-Christians? Because if the people are Christian but not identifying themselves as such, how can you identify the group to ascribe beliefs to them?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Bull. Wiping out their air force and/or enforcing a no-fly zone (the Sudanese government has been bombing the villages) will require no US ground troops. And the Darfur region is not the entire country. The goal is not to impose law and order; it is to stop a lightly armed government approved and directed group -- supported by the government's air force -- from killing unarmed civilians.

You could stop the air force from flying, and that would help some. But you cannot stop people on the ground from killing each other, and killing civilians, and that has been going on for years and years. And not just in Darfur -- all over the country. The Arab north has always dominated the national government, but it does not control most of the south. There are many, many factions, and who is fighting with whom keeps changing.

I'm not defending inaction. But there's not a lot we can do, either.

I recommend this book highly:



It's about Sudan, framed around the story of a British relief worker who married one of the southern rebel leaders.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To their credit, many self-professed Christians care more about what's happening in sub-Saharan Africa than most non-self-professed Christians.

Yeah, I was venting. At least the non-self-professed Christians aren't being hypocrites.

And let me play devil's advocate here on Darfur, to some extent. I'm all for intervention if you think it can accomplish something, but what are you trying to do? Sudan is 2.5 million square kilometers -- eight times the size of Poland. If we had 100,000 troops to drop into the country, they could still get lost very quickly. What's their mission? Is there any reasonable prospect that we could bring law and order?

I have no large scale military ops experience, so I can't say. Off the top of my head, though, first, we're not talking the entirety of Sudan, but one region. However, your point remains, since Darfu is about the size of France. I would think about turning the whole region into a no-fly zone, since the janjaweed apparently often rely on geovernment aerial bombing runs to soften up their target of choice. I'd also pay a visit to Khartoum, to politely ask them to rein in the militias.

Now that I've googled it, I find some experts say that between 25-50,000 troops should be a minimum force.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
They could do what the UN does but actually do it right. The UN sets up these safe areas and refugee camps and lets the Janjaweed or whatever the hell they are ransack them. We should do it right by putting Marines around our safeareas and if any Janjaweed shows up we introduce them to the Marine philosophy ("we believe in peace through superior firepower and swift retaliation"). It is also pretty flat out there. Not much protective covering. It would be pretty easy hunting with our Hueys and Warthogs. We should assign a whole Division to protect that French Doctor association (even though they are french).

You could set up some refugee camps with Marine guards, but know that in twenty years, we will still be protecting refugee camps while the civil wars there continue. Unless an American president gets tired of the occasional calls to parents of Marines.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Do you mean non-self-professed Christians, or self-professed non-Christians? Because if the people are Christian but not identifying themselves as such, how can you identify the group to ascribe beliefs to them?

I mean that capital-C Christians have been relatively vocal about the tragedy of the Sudan, probably because Arabs from the north have been brutal to Christians in the south. I obviously don't always agree with the capital-C Christians, but on this issue they've been out in front of most everyone else.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Ah. Much more like a flat tax, though I'd call that progressive. I have not ever been affected by the AMT (I am so poor) and have only ever run through the worksheets. Ignorance, right over here, check it out.

Interestingly, the person who is on the committee thingy did not explain their flat-tax thingy this way to my AMT-hating sibling, even though some kind of mortgage/charity things were the things to keep, and what you describe sounds like what she described.

Can AMT affect anyone who does not itemize?

I believe it can, if you have 17 kids or something, so get a lot of standard deductions. But I don't know, because I hit it as a result of high state taxes.

It is flat, but rates are changed. Since the top rate on the AMT is lower, moving it up to say 31%, inserting a middle rate, and creating a low rate should be feasible. Of course, I don't know what the revenue effect of having a $58k standard deduction is (but apparently it will soon be more expensive to repeal the AMT than the income tax).

BTW, is your sister's friend the hot one on the tax panel?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I believe it can, if you have 17 kids or something, so get a lot of standard deductions. But I don't know, because I hit it as a result of high state taxes.

It is flat, but rates are changed. Since the top rate on the AMT is lower, moving it up to say 31%, inserting a middle rate, and creating a low rate should be feasible. Of course, I don't know what the revenue effect of having a $58k standard deduction is (but apparently it will soon be more expensive to repeal the AMT than the income tax).

BTW, is your sister's friend the hot one on the tax panel?

Heh, no. And kids get you personal deductions, not standard deductions, right? I think.

Isn't having 3 rates basically what they did with TRA '86? And now we have a 4th? What you seem to be saying is that you think it would be a good idea to get rid of itemized deductions.

Pathetically, I'm not sure what "above-the-line" and "below-the-line" mean or I'd throw that in.

Have I mentioned lately that I miss Bob Dole?

Maybe I will reread Gucci Gulch.

ETA why the sudden tolerance for talking about tax?

[Replaced_Texan]

Grits for Breakfast

He's an ACL analyst talking about some of the problems that can stem from centralization of identifying material. This sort of thing scares the crap out of me. Do you think that the government is going to have better security than Choicepoint, Lexis-Nexus, DSW, several Universities, etc?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


ETA why the sudden tolerance for talking about tax?

From whom?

BTW Burger's wacky consumption tax ideas make it to the NYT.

And I don't know the answer on kids and AMT. All I know is reading about people with lots o' kids and getting the AMT despite their middle-brow income.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
From whom?

BTW Burger's wacky consumption tax ideas make it to the NYT.

And I don't know the answer on kids and AMT. All I know is reading about people with lots o' kids and getting the AMT despite their middle-brow income.

Oh right. You have always been the tax man. I guess.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Oh right. You have always been the tax man. I guess.

I think the tax people outnumber the others here these days. The rest of us have to put up with a tax discussion nearly once a week now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think the tax people outnumber the others here these days. The rest of us have to put up with a tax discussion nearly once a week now.

I started it by bitching about the AMT. Damned AMT. I'm not really interested in talking about tax policy, except to observe that the AMT's failure to allow a deduction for state taxes means that its burden falls disproportionately on people like you and me who live on the coasts. That seems wrong. If I'm paying that money to the state of California, I'm not clear why I should be paying taxes on it to the federal government as well. Damned AMT.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I started it by bitching about the AMT. Damned AMT. I'm not really interested in talking about tax policy, except to observe that the AMT's failure to allow a deduction for state taxes means that its burden falls disproportionately on people like you and me who live on the coasts. That seems wrong. If I'm paying that money to the state of California, I'm not clear why I should be paying taxes on it to the federal government as well. Damned AMT.

I like to see a Lib complain about taxes. Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling

But I thought you benefit more from all the services the G provides - you should be happy to pay more taxes, no?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I started it by bitching about the AMT. Damned AMT. I'm not really interested in talking about tax policy, except to observe that the AMT's failure to allow a deduction for state taxes means that its burden falls disproportionately on people like you and me who live on the coasts. That seems wrong. If I'm paying that money to the state of California, I'm not clear why I should be paying taxes on it to the federal government as well. Damned AMT.

But you aren't upset that it doesn't allow a deduction for property taxes or sales taxes or whatever other taxes? I mean, shit, I have to pay fed AND state income tax on the Medicare/OASDI taxes I pay!!!! And I have to pay state income tax on my federal taxes!!! OH. MY. GOD.

It's not like people who live in the middle get to deduct whatever it is that is coming from them to fund their governments, but you on the coasts don't get to deduct your income tax, so you are at a disadvantage.

It amazes me how taxes make normally smart, rational people dumb. Money is powerful stuff.