1. 15:07 5th Dec 2009

    notes: 6

    reblogged from: jayparkinsonmd

    Prison for not buying health insurance?

    jayparkinsonmd and matthewdipaolamd selectively quote a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation that includes the language:

    H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.

    [A bunch of helpful context, omitted here]

    Criminal penalties

    Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses.  Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

    • Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

    • Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.

    It’s true, of course, that it would be theoretically possible for somebody who refused to buy health insurance and willfully refused to pay the increased tax could end up in prison for felony willful tax evasion.

    But it’s not actually going to happen. It’s really just a talking point. And that’s a game two can play. Can I say something similarly ridiculous? Let me try:

    Under the current tax code, you can take deductions for political donations. So somebody with my income who makes a large donation to the Republican National Committee would pay fewer taxes than I, who did not. And if I decide to willfully pay the same amount of taxes that they did because I think I have a constitutional right not to be penalized for not donating to the RNC, I could end up in prison. The Republicans aren’t fighting to change this—so I have to assume those fascist Republicans want everybody who doesn’t donate to their reelection to go to prison.

     
  2. Comments (View)
  3. 12:29

    notes: 2

    reblogged from: larkspur

    Caboo the Akita, plus a light frost.

     
  4. Comments (View)
  5. 19:59 4th Dec 2009

    notes: 4

    Why we're in Afghanistan

    There’s a lot to be unhappy—even angry—about in the decision to escalate the War in Afghanistan. But it may be the best of a series of really awful options. In fact, we’re not really escalating the war. We’re just ratcheting up our involvement. That’s not a euphemism—it’s simply an acknowledgment that the war will continue with or without our involvement. And the people who die will be equally dead and equally mourned whether or not their names get noticed by our evening news or their obituaries run in our newspapers. Let’s not forget that we’re not the only ones who can kill or be killed.

    Today in Pakistan, militants attacked a mosque in Rawalpindi. Thirty-six people were killed, seventeen of them children. This wasn’t a case of carelessness. It wasn’t a case of mistaken identity. It wasn’t even a couple rogue psychopaths in an isolated massacre. This was a calculated act by a loosely affiliated, transnational group that determined it would lose if it attacked military targets, so it decided to kill people at random. It is an attempt to promote a political or social agenda by making opponents fear for their lives.

    And this is where a categorical pacifism starts looking pretty ineffectual. Pakistan’s government has tried negotiation. It has tried cease fires. None of it worked. And, though the attack happened in Pakistan, it would be remarkably short-sighted to think that what happens in that part of Pakistan isn’t inextricably linked to what happens just over the border in Afghanistan.

    I don’t like war. There are bad wars and there are worse wars. The consequences for Afghanistan and much of Pakistan of a unilateral NATO withdrawal—or a gradual NATO defeat through attrition and loss of will are about as bad as they get. I don’t like Obama’s plan. But it could be worse. And I don’t know if it could be better.

     
  6. Comments (View)
  7. 13:34

    notes: 4

    reblogged from: azspot

    (via azspot)

    The White House has authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, officials said this week, to parallel the president’s decision, announced Tuesday, to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. American officials are talking with Pakistan about the possibility of striking in Baluchistan for the first time — a controversial move since it is outside the tribal areas — because that is where Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to hide.

     So, I don’t really have a problem with drone strikes, per se. They’re no more ethically problematic than cruise missiles or attack helicopters. But why is the CIA doing drone strikes? Shouldn’t that be a military matter? Sure, the CIA (hopefully) has some valuable information—but I would really like to restrict the CIA’s role to gathering information.

    Shouldn’t we want to keep as much political space as possible between the part of the government in charge of shady political intrigue and the part of the government in charge of killing people?

     
  8. Comments (View)
  9. 12:03

    notes: 6

    reblogged from: crazynutjob

    Crazynutjob has more details than you care about. But, despite some regrettable political stances, he knows what he’s talking about on these numbers. And he can answer questions like whether there is a historical correllation between the first derivative of the stock market and the second derivative of the employment rate.

    (Is there? Because if there is, I might be a conservative again. Otherwise, I’m still an Obammunist.)

     
  10. Comments (View)
  11. 18:50 3rd Dec 2009

    notes: 4

    Some of President Obama’s wealthiest supporters are becoming a bit whiny, and it has nothing to do with policy. Tickets for tours of the presidential residence are scarce, even for those who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for last year’s campaign. Private fundraisers tend to be brief, businesslike affairs. And there have been no sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom, weekends at Camp David or intimate lunches with the first couple. Nearly a year into his presidency, that pattern has led some top Democratic donors across the country to grumble that they aren’t getting the kind of personal attention from Obama and special access to the White House that they became used to during the eight years of the Bill Clinton presidency.

     
  12. Comments (View)
  13. 18:45

    notes: 1

    Apparently, the Way of the Holy Spirit is not a secretive Jesuit martial arts cabal.

     
  14. Comments (View)
  15. 10:05

    notes: 8

    Seriously Huffington Post?

    Seriously Huffington Post?

     
  16. Comments (View)
  17. 23:43 2nd Dec 2009

    notes: 8

    reblogged from: jgh

    Obama and his Telepromter

    jgh writes,

    Since when do politicians not read from Teleprompters? Obama has written many of his own speeches. I’m unsure of what this talking point is supposed to be about.

    Can somebody help?

    I think it’s a mix of a few impulses. It’s very important for a lot of people for Obama to be over-hyped—so if he speaks intelligently and persuasively, it must be some kind of trickery. Thus, the teleprompter. Obama himself is some kind of charismatic actor. The nefarious, liberal forces write his speeches and Obama simply reads them. This helps some people feel less threatened.

     
  18. Comments (View)
  19. 19:38 1st Dec 2009

    notes: 8

    image: download

    This did not just happen.
Or did it? Did EA Games seriously just hit me with an in-program supplemental license agreement a few weeks after installation? And for a privacy policy? EA Games, you suck.
If you ever see something like this, reject it, and lose any sort of functionality, I would consider you fully within your rights to uninstall the program and demand a full refund of the purchase price. Is it ridiculous to demand a refund because you don’t like a privacy policy nobody thinks you’ll actually read? Sure. But it’s way less ridiculous than the above displayed rubbish.

    This did not just happen.

    Or did it? Did EA Games seriously just hit me with an in-program supplemental license agreement a few weeks after installation? And for a privacy policy? EA Games, you suck.

    If you ever see something like this, reject it, and lose any sort of functionality, I would consider you fully within your rights to uninstall the program and demand a full refund of the purchase price. Is it ridiculous to demand a refund because you don’t like a privacy policy nobody thinks you’ll actually read? Sure. But it’s way less ridiculous than the above displayed rubbish.

     
  20. Comments (View)