Gentle Reader -- You are welcome to peruse my web-based journal. I assure you that my contributions to this medium will be both infrequent and inconsequential. Read on!

HMMMM

So, who do I know in Missouri? posted by Carlton at 11:23 PM

COMPASSION

I watched the speech the other night, as our Leader addressed the nation. It may not surprise anyone, but I think that Bush has it all wrong. Not just about Iraq and terror and tax cuts and appointing redneck hoo-hahs to the highest court in the land (have I mentioned in this space that I know Charles Pickering?)
Of course, I think that Bush is wrongheaded and misguided and (perhaps) mean-spirited on all these counts.

What I picked up during the address that I had never thought about before was Bush's emphasis on compassion as a motivating factor for government action. We should provide funding for AIDS programs in Africa because it's terrible what is happening to those people. We should provide health care for our poor seniors because it's our duty to provide for the less fortunate in our society. We should provide programs for drug addicts to help rid them of their dread affliction. I think Bush made all these points, and I think this is a pretty good rendering of his approach (sorry, I don't have a transcript).

I don't want for us to do these things out of compassion. I want for us to care for the elderly poor, yes, but not necessarily because they make for pitiful specters or because their stories pull at my heartstrings -- I want our society to care for these people because I may end up as one of them. I want there to be programs for drug addicts less because I could end up as one myself (unlikely), but because drug addicts commit crimes and make the streets less safe. I want for us to intervene in the AIDS disaster in Africa because a hugely contagious, deadly plague will destabilize a a continent and give rise to poverty and disorder that cannot help but affect us.

It isn't compassion that should prompt us to do these things, but our own self interest. These are matters of policy, not charity. I think that doing them for the wrong reasons will cause us to do them in the wrong way or halfheartedly. To put it simply: we should do them for ourselves. posted by Carlton at 11:14 PM

APROPOS OF NOTHING

Punch lines to some jokes my dad used to tell in his math classes:

"A flying none."
"Even adders can multiply when they have logs."
"Polly gone."
"If we had any guts we'd get out of here." (Not a math joke.)
"The sons of the squaw of the hippopotamus are equal to the sons of the squaws of the other two hides."
"Harry Reasoner."
posted by Carlton at 6:57 PM

ARR, MATEYS

When the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2002, some enthusiastic sportswriters found the victory fitting because, since Sept. 11, “we’d become a nation of patriots.” Some wags responded by asking: “Does that mean if the St. Louis Rams had won, we’d be a nation of sheep?”

Following that logic, the outcome of Super Bowl XXXVII means that the United States is now “a nation of pirates.” That result was a foregone conclusion after the Oakland Raiders and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers won their respective conference championships. The Buccaneers made it official by beating the Raiders, 48-21.

The article here.

Hey . . . what are fog horns made out of, anyway?

A SORRY STATE OF AFFAIRS

So, someone (twink) mentioned to me recently that my blog has really taken a trip downhill on the fast few months. That may be true. It probably has something to do with not having quite as much time sitting around alone in my apartment -- altogether a better situation for yours truly. If my art suffers, well then art can go screw.

A SORRY STATE OF THE UNION

I, for one, am very interested to hear what our Leader has to say for himself tonight. He hasn't been saying much lately, except for that bit about not enjoying reruns of bad movies. Mostly, he's been talking through his proxies, like Ari "Mouth of Sauron" Fleischer. Maybe if he explains that supply-side thing to me one more time it will finally make sense.
posted by Carlton at 6:48 PM

JUST IN PASSING

Bush introduced his plan to abolish the tax on stock dividends by saying "double taxation is wrong." But, as Daniel Altman wrote in the New York Times (1/21/03), "Corporate dividends "are not the only kind of income that is taxed twice. Other taxes create a double, triple or event quintuple burden. And unlike the double taxation of dividends, which mainly affects the wealthy, the burden of other forms of multiple taxation -- sales taxes, import taxes, payroll taxes, among others -- often falls most heavily on poorer Americans."

The rest here. posted by Carlton at 11:26 AM

NO "E"

My anonymous correspondant has recently forgotten how to spell my name properly. What cheek! "Carleton" is a college in Minnesota (I think). posted by Carlton at 8:43 AM

A SHOUT OUT

To Liza, if she is reading this. Thanks for the chat this afternoon -- welcome and long overdue. posted by Carlton at 3:18 PM

INTERESTING UPDATES

It's official: a one-legged cat that made change from a shoe would be interesting.

Is this page interesting? Survey seems to say no, yet you (the surveyed) keep coming back . . .

I have so far received five or six anonymous postcards (I forget) from different parts of the country. Some are nice, some are not so nice. One hinted that I would soon be the victim of a letter bomb. I'll believe that when I see it.

And speaking of not interesting to anyone but me, I had a pretty complex (for me) problem today involving the calculation of compound interest from a trust at varying rates of return with a fixed annual gift, which I worked out in Excel. Question: If we keep making X gifts from the trust each year, how many years can we continue doing so at A, B, C rates of return? I got it wrong the first time, of course. I was ultimately victorious however -- with the help of one of our accountants. Dad would be so proud! (Speaking of different "rates of interest" -- yuk yuk.) posted by Carlton at 4:19 PM

FORBIDDEN

For a while now, I've had a couple of topics that I don't like to talk about. Not that they are objectionable in themselves, just that I have come to realize that life is too short to waste. I've found that people who want to talk about these topics are more than willing to take up endless hours with the intimate details of their lives as they relate to these topics. My tolerance for these has just gotten shorter and shorter over the years, until it is nigh nonexistent. So far there are two, with a third nearing full qualifications.

The topics are:
1. Cats (Perhaps soon to be Cats/Dogs)
2. Shoes
And, soon to qualify as the third:
3. Weddings

I'm going to get misquoted on this score, but I'll go ahead and make my case. I like cats, for example. We had cats when I was a youngster, and I always enjoyed playing with them, having their company, etc. I may someday get a cat of my own (although Ms. Twink is allergic). I think kittens are very cute.

But I don't really want to hear about your cat. I don't think that everything that your cat does is interesting. What your cat likes to eat, the fact that it likes/doesn't like to sleep in your bed with you, where your cat likes to go when it's afraid, whether your cat missed you while you were gone. I don't want to see pictures of your cat, especially not professional ones that you had taken and carry around in your wallet. I'd rather not know that those exist. (Note that after getting to know a couple of my coworkers at the Hutch, I may have to extend this ban to dogs as well). I don't want to hear you refer to your cat as a "baby", and certainly not a "baby kitty". Yuck.

What I don't mind hearing about your cat: that you have one, that you like cats, that your cat is sick or has gotten well, if you have an unusual cat. It's a fine distinction, but here it is: if we are friends, the fact that you have a cat or other pet is important. If something has happened with the cat that makes you happy or unhappy, that's worth mentioning. That's pretty much where it stops.

With shoes, the same applies. Shoes are important; I own several pairs. I don't need to know about the shoes you almost bought, the shoes that you want, the shoes that someone else wore, the ones that you saw but couldn't find in your size, etc. If there is a shoe issue that makes you particularly happy or unhappy, you may share it with me. Otherwise . . . take it somewhere else.

You can see where weddings might fall into this category. Here's the Rule: Make sure that what you're sharing on these topics is INDEPENDENTLY INTERESTING. Do I have to love cats/shoes/weddings to appreciate your information? If so, remember that I don't.

This post may officially qualify me as a curmudgeon. Note that this ban applies only to CONVERSATION. You want to write about your cat on your blog? Go ahead. You want to send me a letter about your shoes? Fine. I might very much want to see pictures of your wedding. Just let me opt-out if I've had too much.
posted by Carlton at 2:29 PM

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT?

Ms. Twink came downtown the other day and had lunch with me. As the Grille up in my firm is now defunct *snif*, we went to Souper Salad, one of those lunch places that exist in downtowns everywhere -- fast, expensive, only open until about 4 in the afternoon. This reminded me of something that happened one of the other times I went to that Souper Salad.

Around the time that I started working at the Hutch, a few of us first-years went down to the SS for lunch. I checked out behind another of my colleagues, a guy named Matt. The woman who checked me out was blond, nice looking, a bit younger than me. She also had only one hand -- I couldn't tell whether she had lost it or was born without it or what, but she only had one. I was fascinated by the way she handled the register. When she made change for me, she dug her nub into the drawer and came up with several quarters balanced on the end, which she sorted with her normal hand. She did the same thing with my bills. She was easily as fast as a two-handed cashier. I couldn't tear my eyes away.

I walked away with my colleague, holding my sandwich. When we got out of her earshot, I said, "Did you notice that woman who checked us out?"
"Yeah, I know," he said. "What a rack she had!" posted by Carlton at 2:00 PM

DESPERATELY SEEKING PSYCHO

Keith's moving-out altercation with a suddenly psycho housemate here. That ain't cool, my glum friend. I hope you did well on the GRE. posted by Carlton at 9:53 AM

SOMETHING ABOUT THIS IS SUSPICIOUS

Conspiracy Theory Central here. posted by Carlton at 9:48 AM

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OTHER SIDE

Here's an editorial from the Globe entitled "Why Should I Apologize for Making Lots of Money?" It was handed to me this morning by another attorney with whom I've been talking about the whole tax cut issue, although the editorial is not specifically about that. ("Thank goodness!")

Apologize? I wouldn't ask him to apologize. Pay taxes, maybe. posted by Carlton at 11:05 AM

GLAD THAT'S OVER

I had to get the thing about the tax cut off my chest. I beg your indulgence.

In other news, I have managed to get sick, to that annoying degree where it seems stupid to stay home from work and pointless to be at work because you can't concentrate. I took off an hour or so early on Friday -- this weekend I intend to rest.

Ms. Twink has been very kind to me this week, bringing me something to eat when I didn't feel like going out or cooking and generally being thoughtful and caring. I won't say much more about this, because I don't want to embarrass anyone (myself included) -- but I am touched by her kindness in this regard. posted by Carlton at 11:11 AM

AN OPPOSING VIEW

My friends at The Motley Fool, whom I generally respect, are in favor of the cut. Go figger.

(No, they aren't really my friends -- I just read their site. As if I had any friends!) posted by Carlton at 11:28 AM

DIVIDENDS

Let's talk about the proposed new tax cut. As with any such initiative, each of us should properly ask two questions:

1) Will this benefit ME?

and

2) Is it a good idea?

Self-centered person that I am, I tend to address the first question first.

Whether or not this tax cut will benefit you depends, of course, on who you are. Are you someone who owns stocks that pay dividends? If you are, how do you own them? A lot of Americans own stocks, or own shares in mutual funds that invest in stocks -- I believe I read today that the figure is something like 50% of us. I happen to think that everyone who isn't buying groceries with food stamps SHOULD own stocks, through an IRA or 401(k) plan, if nothing else. But THAT is the problem: most of us own stocks via one of these qualified plans, and dividends paid within those plans would not be taxed anyway, or taxed only when the assets are withdrawn from the plan as ordinary income. Is the Bush tax cut going to help out someone like me, who owns stock mostly through my 401(k) plan at work? Not really.

Who is it designed to help? This was answered just yesterday through my work as a trusts and estates lawyer at a firm that caters to the very wealthy. I was looking through a client file for a woman who has a personal net worth in the high eight figures. From ONE stock that she owns (out of a varied portfolio), she receives about $50,000 a quarter in dividend income. That's $200,000 per year. Under the Bush plan, she would pay NO income tax on those 200 big ones. She saves upwards of $70,000 a year via this plan. That's whom the plan is designed to help.

But is it a good idea generally? I'll go out on a limb and say maybe not. Proponents of this plan point out that this money is being "double taxed", first as corporate income and then as personal income. It is taxed twice, that's true. If it wasn't distributed in the form of a dividend, it would be taxed when the individual sold his shares as capital gains taxes. Fix this inequity and you also get an economic boost, say the proponents.

The force of this argument, for me, is undermined by the following:
1. Double taxation is at the heart of what it means to be a corporation. There are other business-type structures in which all profits to the entity "pass through" to the interest holders -- the partnership is just one example. The beauty of the corporation, though is that it is a separate entity for all purposes; it is effectively immortal. Partnerships, on the other hand, are in constant danger of dissolution if any of the partners leave. The corporate structure allows the business to survive after the departure of any particular employee, and it also allows the corporation to grow very very large on the strength of hundreds (or millions) of individual investors. So yes, corporations really must be taxable entities -- it's one of the things you trade off to get the benefits of being a corporation. And people who earn income are always taxable. Eliminating the tax at either end undermines this whole system.

2. Most of these corporations aren't paying very much tax to begin with. What about these companies that are reincorporating in the Bahamas or the Caymans? Should their dividends be untaxed in the hands of individuals -- generating income that is never taxed? Even looking at the companies that are still on American soil, you'll find (I think) that most of them pay far less income tax than they should.

3. Calling this a stimulus is not very amusing. What is the old lady of my example going to do with her extra $70,000/ year? Spend it on groceries and expensive running shoes? Rather, I think she is going to put it in a bank account or back into stocks. I think the bulk of this tax cut is going to go to people who are already consuming as many goods as they want to consume. Interesting.

I know I've held all of you riveted with this. I don't pretend to be an expert on these matters (especially not on corporate structure), but this is what I've been thinking about re: this tax cut. I'm against it.

posted by Carlton at 5:47 PM

SUMTIN TO LOOK AT

This.

I'm doing more linking than writing these days. Whatever. posted by Carlton at 5:09 PM

LA PESTE, DEUXIEME FOIS

I am not actually sick, despite the ominous portents of grave illness. Maybe tomorrow! posted by Carlton at 2:51 PM

ANY THOUGHTS

Anyone care about the repeal of the tax on dividends? I've been following this issue, and just can't make up my mind. posted by Carlton at 2:50 PM

FACTOID

So if the Pentagon were a country, it would rank as the world's 14th-biggest economy - a fraction smaller than India and South Korea, but larger than the Netherlands or Russia.

Interesting article here. posted by Carlton at 2:49 PM

LA PESTE

Everyone I know is sick. Ms. Twink is sick. My co-workers are sick. Because I have the iron constitution of the heroes of old, I will of course not become sick.

Yeah. I walked back and forth between my place and the Twink household a time or three (in the snow!) on Sunday. Mapquest tells me it was about 10 miles. But I needed the exercise, etc. That was yesterday. Today I am in the land of the sniffles and the headaches.

Boo hoo, I know. I'm a big baby. posted by Carlton at 6:07 PM

CALL NOW

This product may change your life. posted by Carlton at 5:56 PM

NOT INACCURATE

In the Middle East, Israel seized more land because Palestinian suicide bombers struck again because Israel began construction on a fence because Palestinian suicide bombers struck again because Israel launched rocket attacks because Palestinian suicide bombers struck again because Israel bulldozed occupied homes because Palestinian suicide bombers struck again because Israel leveled neighborhoods ...

Here's the rest. posted by Carlton at 9:50 AM

UPDATES

Are few and far between these days. Busy as a li'l bee, I am.

Note the new links. posted by Carlton at 3:38 PM