A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
the whole package that made it clear that he held no real concern for truth.

Ordinarily one provides justifications as a defense to a crime, if the statute or common law allows it, not as a basis for claiming a crime was not committed at all.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by viet_mom

Fifth, non-tax deductible donations are probably not being included in the figures. Example: support for foreign orphanages is not tax deductible but adoptive parents nevertheless shell out several thousand dollars per adoption just for the orphanage (which may or may not be misused by the orphanage director). In fact, most orphanages in Viet Nam are (sadly) keeping children there until Americans can once again adopt from VN, rather than give the children to families in France, Italy and Denmark, the other countries that adopt from VN. Orphanage donations from European countries are so much lower that the orphanage is better off financially waiting for the Americans to show up, with thousands in fees, giving out $100 bills to the caretakers like it's monopoly money. Americans feel such an obligation later on, too. Most end up continuing to send huge amounts of money forever. There are entire orphanages, and even small communities in third world countries being fully supported by the non-tax-deductible funds of Americans.
VM

If it's a fee (e.g., there is a quid pro quo, like adoption services that lead to a baby), it's not tax deductible either for a US or a foreign orphanage. It no more belongs in a summary of contributions that do medical bills paid to tax exempt hospitals or amounts spent for knick-knacks in museum gift shops.

If it is a contribution, people should look for a US charity that will accept donations and funnel them to the Vietnamese orphanage. There are a bunch of charities that will do this kind of thing, resulting in the contribution being tax deductible. I don't know who might do it for Vietnamese orphanages, but have seen it in several other contexts. Look for a charity with a footprint in Vietnam, since the charity is responsible for making sure the money is being spent for good purposes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ordinarily one provides justifications as a defense to a crime, if the statute or common law allows it, not as a basis for claiming a crime was not committed at all.

That was more along the lines of "snarky comment thrown in by Bilmore to show why he isn't all that sympathetic to the claimants".

I still wonder how you prove BARD that someone knows the US is affirmatively trying to hide someone's agent status. That sounds harder than trying to prove that someone knew the speed limit was thirty - that's why there's a presumption for most offences. Not for this one, though.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, there was a requirement that the discloser know that the government was "taking affirmative measures to conceal" the persons's ID - but that's short of a "bad acts" requirement.

Wouldn't that include telling Novak that he couldn't use the information? As he admitted he was told?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ordinarily one provides justifications as a defense to a crime, if the statute or common law allows it, not as a basis for claiming a crime was not committed at all.

Ordinarily one justifies a crime, if at all, based on the conduct of the victim, not the (supposed) conduct or the (supposed) motivations of her husband. Those justifying Novak's conduct by attacking Wilson are well past the ordinary.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Wouldn't that include telling Novak that he couldn't use the information? As he admitted he was told?

Yeah - I missed that part.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan


Also, the Doctors Without Borders say they have enough money specifically for tsunami relief, and they'd like people to give to them generally so they can use it for other work they do or to give money to other relief organizations.

In my mind, this is a reason to bump DwB/MsF to the top of the giving list -- they know their limits and what they can do cost-effectively. Someone I know had an experience with another aid agency, one of the big ones, where they saw them completely mismanaging funds because they had more money than they needed or knew what to do with and HAD to spend it to comply with terms of the grants. They put a goddamn pool in the directors' yard in Kabul, and invented all kinds of exotic perks for the key admin staff.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But it certainly sounds like whether official or unofficial, the idea that instilling terror is a useful tactic seems to have survived Abu Ghraib.

So no reaction from any of the Bushies to the notion that we use terror as a tactic? Come on kids, I was baiting you with this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So no reaction from any of the Bushies to the notion that we use terror as a tactic? Come on kids, I was baiting you with this.

50. Mine Hero


While fishing, Gilligan pulls a WWII mine out of the lagoon. When the Professor is unable to deactivate the mine, Gilligan tows it back into the lagoon, where it harmlessly explodes.


b: 23-Dec-1965 w: David Braverman & Bob Marcus d: Wilbur D'Arcy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
In my mind, this is a reason to bump DwB/MsF to the top of the giving list -- they know their limits and what they can do cost-effectively. Someone I know had an experience with another aid agency, one of the big ones, where they saw them completely mismanaging funds because they had more money than they needed or knew what to do with and HAD to spend it to comply with terms of the grants. They put a goddamn pool in the directors' yard in Kabul, and invented all kinds of exotic perks for the key admin staff.

2. Plus, they obviously take restrictions on gifts very seriously. That level of accountability, honor, and spending control is sorely lacking in many charities.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...itain_hamza_dc

Cleric Suspect Misses Hearing Due to Long Toe Nails


LONDON (Reuters) - Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri failed to appear before a British court Tuesday, complaining his toe nails were too long and he could not walk.


Someone help with the Re. line

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Someone help with the Re. line

"One-eyed clerics with no hands"?

[viet_mom]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If it's a fee (e.g., there is a quid pro quo, like adoption services that lead to a baby), it's not tax deductible either for a US or a foreign orphanage. It no more belongs in a summary of contributions that do medical bills paid to tax exempt hospitals or amounts spent for knick-knacks in museum gift shops.

The fee (anywhere between $9,500 to 30K) doesn't get itemized, but most of it is supposed to go to the orphanage where your child is adopted from. Not to reimburse the orphanage for its adoption services (the agency does the paperwork, not the orphanage, which merely houses the child and tells the agency that one is available). And caring for a child in these countries wouldn't ever cost the orphanage 9-30K, so the fee isn't meant to reimburse the orphanage for the care provided your child for the one month he/she was there (in my case, that was the length of time there). From an economic standpoint, you are removing an extra mouth to feed and the orphanage is less strained. The fee is supposed to be to improve conditions at the orphanage for the children left behind who may not be adoptable (many have family who visit them there and have not been relinquished), medical supplies, food, etc.

If it is a contribution, people should look for a US charity that will accept donations and funnel them to the Vietnamese orphanage. There are a bunch of charities that will do this kind of thing, resulting in the contribution being tax deductible. I don't know who might do it for Vietnamese orphanages, but have seen it in several other contexts. Look for a charity with a footprint in Vietnam, since the charity is responsible for making sure the money is being spent for good purposes.

True. But a lot of aid is not funnelled through U.S. tax deductible charities. Those charities do not earmark the funds to specific places you want them to go and there are many cases where the givers want the funds to go to specific people or communities.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...itain_hamza_dc

Cleric Suspect Misses Hearing Due to Long Toe Nails


LONDON (Reuters) - Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri failed to appear before a British court Tuesday, complaining his toe nails were too long and he could not walk.


Someone help with the Re. line

That's a seriously weird article. Assuming the problem really is "long toenails" (note that this explanation was offered by the prosecutor, not the defense). But according to the article:

• He had been due to make an appearance via video-link from the high-security Belmarsh jail in London where he is being held.

So, what the hell kind of prison can't get an inmate from one room to another because of his toenails?


eta: I guess my headline would be "Islam: A Religion whose Criminals are Smarter than the Average British Prison Warden."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by viet_mom
The fee (anywhere between $9,500 to 30K) doesn't get itemized, but most of it is supposed to go to the orphanage where your child is adopted from. Not to reimburse the orphanage for its adoption services (the agency does the paperwork, not the orphanage, which merely houses the child and tells the agency that one is available). And caring for a child in these countries wouldn't ever cost the orphanage 9-30K, so the fee isn't meant to reimburse the orphanage for the care provided your child for the one month he/she was there (in my case, that was the length of time there). From an economic standpoint, you are removing an extra mouth to feed and the orphanage is less strained. The fee is supposed to be to improve conditions at the orphanage for the children left behind who may not be adoptable (many have family who visit them there and have not been relinquished), medical supplies, food, etc.

If the fee has two components, they ought to break it in two and funnel them through. This would be similar to what is done on Old Home U Cruize to Belize -- you pay a fee to the charter company and there is a required contribution to the Alma Mater. I can't say doing this is a slam dunk legally, but it is done and there are lots of deductions taken on this basis.

True. But a lot of aid is not funnelled through U.S. tax deductible charities. Those charities do not earmark the funds to specific places you want them to go and there are many cases where the givers want the funds to go to specific people or communities.

I have seen charities that can earmark for specific foreign charities -- conditioned on the foreign charity meeting the charities' requirements (e.g., show in a budget where the money is going and represent that it will be spent for the good stuff). If no one is doing this, someone should set up a charity to do it. The idea that someone might cut a $30,000 nondeductible check when they could cut a $40,000 deductible check and still have money in their pocket seems tragic, especially for the orphanages. Of course, it does leave more money in the pot for Bush to refund to the millionaires.