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!

COMMENTS PROBLEMS?

So, there appears to be some problem with the comments -- not that you CAN'T post, but it may take several tries (and you may give up). I may have fixed it, but who knows?

In honor of new loyal reader DG, I will try to write something about the SCOTUS decision later today. Maybe I'm just a contrarian, but I don't think that it means much in and of itself. I didn't think much of Zarqawi's death, either. These things are all very small, however much we focus on them. The cumulative effect, however, remains to be seen. posted by Carlton at 3:02 PM

HOW MANY SUNDAYS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

The WaPo has an update about our beloved IRS HQ:

Not a Drop of Sympathy Over Flooded IRS Building [Oh, they slay me!]
By Petula Dvorak and Robert Samuels
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 30, 2006; Page B01

Mother Nature must've been audited. [Yuk, yuk!]

How else to explain more than 20 feet of rainwater that flooded the headquarters of the Internal Revenue Service in downtown Washington this week -- a flood of tax-code proportions that ravaged the agency, closing it for a month, yet only strafed the nearby Museum of Natural History, with its dinosaur bones and diamonds?

and

For now, the building reeks of mold and debris.

Even with all the pumping, parts of the basement still have about two inches of water. Mud stains color the linoleum floor and climb five feet up the wall, where the white paint is peeled to expose red brick. Officials estimate the cleanup and repairs will cost tens of millions of dollars; by today the IRS will have two 50-person crews working round-the-clock to repair and restore the building.

Latest update (rumor, really) from a co-worker regarding the IRS Headquarters building:

[Person in charge] should be filling us in soon. However, there was over 20 feet of
water.
All power generating equipment was destroyed (phrase used was over 80
percent damaged).

All righty then!

Basement of the IRS building

I've been at the job for less than a year (started work in September, 2005) but from the beginning I have been in awe of/put off by the IRS building. The inside is a maze of looong, indistingushible hallways, all with a very 1930s feel to it -- some of the interior doors have ventilating transoms, for example, although they are useless because the building was retrofit with unopenable ("bomb-proof") exterior windows.

The elevators creak their way up and down the seven floors, occasionally refusing to open when you reach your destination floor and occasionally "forgetting" all the buttons that have been pushed in mid-journey.

Maintenance problems do seem to abound. Before all this flooding business, I was passing by an open electrical closet on the first floor, and was suprised to see water gushing from the ceiling (down the pipes holding all the wiring, naturally).

I'll learn more about my work situation next week. The nice thing is that, even with all this, I don't have to worry about having a job to go back to.

At least. I don't think I have to worry. posted by Carlton at 1:35 PM

THE ARTIST AT WORK

I'm not sure I have permission to post this picture -- but here it is, anyway.



Notice all of her "influences" -- old-time baseball, screaming cartoons, Washington Sports Club schedule -- on display. I'm very proud of Molly, who is working hard on a bunch of projects that don't give back a lot of immediate reward. Go visit her site (link at left). posted by Carlton at 5:15 PM

MORE PIX

It looks like they are going to pay me to sit around for the foreseeable future, so here I am, blogging. I don't have much to say, curiously enough, so . . . PICTURE TIME!

Molly and the bride -- Molly in heels is a foot taller than Sharon in no heels

My movie-star sister-in-law, my cousin-in-law and some random woman

Cleaning my shoes

Driving up to Boston

A group of assembled worthies posted by Carlton at 5:01 PM

A MONTH OF SUNDAYS

I was just informed that my office will be closed all week. I was also informed of a rumor that it will be closed for a month. So . . . maybe I'll get to do a bit of extra blogging in the near future. posted by Carlton at 6:20 PM

WHAT I'VE BEEN READING (SINCE EVERYONE WANTS TO KNOW)

This is just a list of the books that I've been reading in the recent past. I don't keep records of this sort of thing, so this could be from the beginning of the year, or later, and I could have forgotten something:

1. The Brothers Karamazov, by F.D.(a waste of time, if you ask me)
2. Mother Night, by K.V. (a re-read, one of my faves)
3. Middlesex, by J.E. (good, but too long)
4. Take the Cannoli, by S.V. (funny, but I have mixed feelings about S.V.)
5. The Gnostic Gospels, by E.P. (I found this book in someone's trash on my walk home from work -- it turned out to be really interesting)
6. Garlic and Sapphires, by R.R. (where food and journalism collide)
7. Cash, the Autobiography, by J.C. (groovy)
8. Practical Homicide Investigation, by V.G. (read several sections, with the idea that I might write a detective story one day -- yeesh!)
9. Collapse, by J.D. (currently reading)
10. The South Beach Diet, by Dr. whatsisname (because SOMETHING MUST BE DONE)

ETA -- Europe Central, by W.V. (excellent in many ways, but again too long)

I've also taken a leaf through a collection of poems by Wilfred Owen, although I won't say that I read the book.

That turned out to be more than I expected -- I have this idea that I'm not reading anything these days. It's certainly not a heavy load, but it is self-selected. Go me. posted by Carlton at 12:41 PM

TWO EXTRA SUNDAYS THIS WEEK

Off tomorrow as well. I can be reached at home. posted by Carlton at 5:16 PM

YES

From Tapped (via Atrios):

The Bush administration is actively working against the wishes of the elected Iraqi government and the expressed preferences of the American public to pursue an indefinite occupation of Iraq. This is a perpetual deployment on behalf of no stated goals, no wish-list of accomplishments, and no obvious purpose. I can't say whether we want the military bases, the oil, the regional foothold, or anything else; but invading a country, overthrowing their government, and then remaining against the wishes of the elected successors is the very definition of an occupying power, and in any international context, the neocons would be quick to define it as a hostile occupying power. Folks sometimes wonder why we don't have an exit strategy. The answer, now obvious, is because we don't want one.

posted by Carlton at 12:48 PM

HOBBY HORSE, REVISITED

Interesting article from the WSJ about the world in which new law school grads find themselves:

On the surface, the legal profession appears to be booming. Although growth has slowed since the 1960s and '70s, each year 40,000 new lawyers join a field that now totals one million, about the same size as the nation's state prison population. Salaries have climbed steadily, and lawyers at the top firms can expect to make about $160,000 upon graduation from law school. But look beneath the statistics and a few facts jump out. First, large law firms, those employing more than 500 lawyers, lose nearly 40% of their associates within four years of hiring them. After six years, the ratio climbs to 60%.

I lasted into my fourth year, and that's with a job change in the middle. I never made $160,000, by the way, but I was always in the low six figures. It was a miserable experience, but, at the same time, it has worked out pretty well for me. I have had some good breaks, however.

What most people don't tell you is that law school, even with the attendant salary, can be a honey-trap:

At $38,000 a year for law school, plus living expenses, law-school graduates certainly have a lot of debt ($60,000 on average, upon graduation). For this price, college students and their parents should be thinking harder about their choices. When I went to law school, nearly everyone tried to convince me that doing so would "keep my options open." All this really means is: "You can still be a lawyer."

I don't want to say that law school is the wrong choice for any particular person. It's not often the best choice, but for many it is a perfectly adequate, reasonable one. Here are some words of wisdom:

1. Law school is a professional degree. not a liberal one. It is not designed to make you a better person, improve your soul, or any other B.S. It is designed to get you money after you graduate.

2. Be as certain as possible that law school is what you want to do before you go.
One way to do this is to try to do something else for a while. I recommend at least two years working before going back to law school (or any grad school, really). Also, make friends with some lawyers, if you can. Interview them about what they do. Does that sound like something you'd like to do? (If not, maybe that's telling you something.)

3. Debt! There are a few really good expensive law schools (Harvard, Yale, the usual suspects). There are a few good inexpensive schools (state schools like Virginia or Michigan if you are a resident). There are a lot of mediocre-to-bad expensive schools. DO NOT pay the big bucks to go to a school that isn't one of the best. You won't make enough when you graduate to pay off your loans. You'd be better off working at Arby's -- and I am serious.

Shopping for law schools is very similar to shopping for a car -- you should be trying to get the best deal. If a Bentley costs $200,000 and a Mercedes costs $70,000, is the one really almost three times the value of the other? What if a third option was a Volkswagon that was free? It depends on what you want, of course, but chasing the status name without regard for the economic ramifications is foolish.

4. Realize that, if you get the big job that pays $100,000+/year, odds are that you will not have it for very long. We are all special, of course, but in some ways you should count on being like most people. Most people don't stay at the big firms for as long as six years. Most people change jobs and do something else. That means the big money doesn't last forever. Plan accordingly.

5. After six months, that big firm salary will not seem like big money.

That's all. posted by Carlton at 11:41 AM

AN EXTRA SUNDAY THIS WEEK

Looks like I don't have to go to work today:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Floods that ravaged the U.S. capital kept government tax collectors and federal agents away from work on Monday and closed the home of the Declaration of Independence.

With as much as 7 inches of rain having fallen since Sunday, flooded basements or electrical problems forced the closure of the Internal Revenue Service headquarters, most of the U.S Justice Department and the National Archives.

Earlier this year, we had a fire in our building. Today, it's a flood. What's next, locusts? posted by Carlton at 11:28 AM

VERY SORRY

I have been extremely bad about keeping in touch with people in the last few months (Not as bad as Greg, of course, but bad). I apologise heartily. If you have sent me email, wedding invitations (yikes!) etc. recently, I will try to respond asap.

I'm not dead, no matter what my wife says.

posted by Carlton at 11:28 PM

I AM, IN FACT, BACK (AND ROUNDUP)

1. The wedding was a Chinese/American affair and was AWESOME. Following the ceremony was what can only be described as a feast.

Among the courses:
*A Lazy Susan (with centerpiece carved froma whole canteloupe) filled with sliced jellyfish, large yellow squid, pork spareribs, fried skin of suckling pig, and some kind of beef.
Initial reactions were mixed.

(You may note the many drinks on the table -- for the first course.)

*Fried crab balls (spheres of crab meat, wise guy -- with claw).


*A giant bowl of fruits de mer and broccoli (said bowl itself made of fried noodles).
*Roast chicken(Complete with head).



*Chinese lobster (Also with head)
The chicken and lobster heads were married later that afternoon in a quiet ceremony -- legal in Massachusetts!

*Shark fin soup
*A platter of mushrooms and baby bok choy in delicious sauce.
*Wedding cake
*Sweet bean soup
*A giant heart-shaped yellow custard.
The exact consistency of love!

Faboo.

2. Thinking about the latest round of Congressional scandals, I am appalled at how cheaply our elected representatives sell themselves. Randy Cunningham is supposed to have taken about $2.5 million dollars. William Jefferson was caught accepting a $100,000 bribe. No offense to anyone, but that is chump change. An industry regulated by Congress may have billions of dollars at stake, and they can get what they want by buying an old man a boat? A boat is nothing -- less than nothing. If I offered you $10,000 to spit on the sidewalk, or throw some non-biodegradeable trash out the car window, you would likely do it (if you thought I was serious). It may not even seem wrong to you, and even if you were given the maximum fine, it would make economic sense to do so.

What am I saying? Given the numbers involved, I don't blame lobbyists for bribing Congessmen . . . or any official, really. Given the costs and risks, it would be irrational for them not to bribe. The only way to stop them is to change the numbers.

3. Early next month is Chinese/American Wedding Number 2, starring my brother and his Chinese (from China) bride. This one takes place in Mississippi, and should be a markedly different affair.

4. I have started on a new creative project, which is more like repurposing some old fiction of mine. "Old" meaning "bad" of course -- but at least it exists. There may be more to say about this at a later date. Maybe not.

That is all. posted by Carlton at 10:47 PM

OUT OF TOWN

Molly and I are headed to Boston for a wedding this weekend, so updates are unlikely before Monday. But they are always sort of unlikely, so no biggie, right?

A note about the Gitmo detainees: WE HAVEN'T CHARGED THEM WITH ANY CRIMES, despite having held them in PRISON for YEARS. We can't charge them with any crimes, because THE COURTS WOULD DISMISS THE CASES because we TORTURED THEM. So now they are committing SUICIDE, and we're wondering how we can fob them off on someone else. We can't set them free, because if they weren't terrorists before, THEY ARE NOW.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest. posted by Carlton at 9:52 AM

MY VIEW, SOLICITED

A Gentle Reader, below in comments, asked for my take on the Zarqawi death matter. I am flattered that someone would ask my opinion (or that someone actually is reading my page), although this is a topic that I haven't given a lot of thought or attention. But here goes:

1. I'll take the administration and its media toadies at their word, that Zarqawi was a very, very bad man. A criminal. A mass-murderer. A terrorist. The mastermind behind a certain bombing in Jordan. I'm glad he is dead.

2. Whatever he was, it should be remembered that the Bush people had ample opportunities to kill him in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion but chose not to for PR purposes.

Mike Scheuer headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for six years before resigning in 2004.

He has told the ABC's Four Corners program the Bush administration had Zarqawi in its sights almost every day for a year.

He says a plan to destroy Zarqawi's training camp in Kurdistan was abandoned for diplomatic reasons.

"The reasons the intelligence service got for not shooting Zarqawi was simply that the President and the National Security Council decided it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers," he said.

"Mr Bush had Mr Zarqawi in his sights for almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq."

3. It is my belief that the recent business about his death is entirely for U.S. domestic consumption. It is supposed to give Bush a little bump in the ratings, maybe create some momentum so he can statge a "comeback" -- a comeback the need for which is especially pathetic when your party controls all of government. Given what we know from number 2, above, it wouldn't surprise me if we had a bead on him for some time and pulled the trigger when it was deemed most politically advantageous to do so. I'm not saying that's what happened, and if it were you and I would never know, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I believe that the situation in Iraq, and in the Muslim world at large, goes beyond individuals and personalities -- even those with names like Bush and bin Laden. Even if we killed or captured Osama at this point, would it stop the jihadist movement? Did capturing Saddam, or killing his sons, stop the insurgency? Even if Bush were impeached and someone rational put in his place, would that make the Iraq problem go away? posted by Carlton at 6:05 PM

BOO HOO

Yahoo finance had an article up recently which is informative:

The [nutjob rightwing anti-tax group] says untold numbers of small businesses and family farms spend millions on tax advice or are forced out of business because heirs don't have the cash to pay the levy.

Government data contradict that claim. As few as 485 small businesses were subject to the tax in 2000, a Congressional Budget Office study of IRS data found last year. Of those, 164 didn't have enough cash to pay the tax, presumably forcing heirs to sell some or all of those companies. [Or, they may have rather continued art school rather than go run Dad's tractor-trailer parts distribution company.] That's a fraction of the USA's nearly 6 million small employers and nearly 18 million ventures without employees.

The tax applies this year to estates valued at more than $2 million - $4 million for couples - under 2001 legislation signed by President Bush. The top rate is 46% on every dollar over those exempt amounts. The exempt amounts will continue to rise, and the rates fall, until 2010, when the tax is repealed for one year. It will return in 2011 unless Congress acts.

The article ends with a reference to the evils of "double taxation" -- how horrible to tax the same dollar of income twice, both when earned and upon death. When thinking about that, it may help to consider the dollars that you earn at a job are taxed at least three times: you pay federal income, state income and payroll taxes. And gosh, if you actually spend those dollars, you'll probably end up paying sales taxes as well. Adding to that that much of the wealth in these large estates comes from appreciated property, rather then income, which is not taxed at all until it is sold -- then these double taxation foes can cry me a river. posted by Carlton at 10:33 AM

DEADWOOD RETURNS

Other matters (such as the death of Zarquawi) can wait -- the real news of the day is that Deadwood is back this evening! After it's over, I can cancel my HBO, because I swear, there never anything on any of the 9 versions that I get that I want to see.

In honor of this momentous occasion, I present a montage of swearing from this fine show. For the delicate among my readers, this video contains nothing but swearing.



Enjoy. posted by Carlton at 9:51 AM

SPECIFICITY, BLOG-WISE

One of the great things about the wold of the blog is that it gives one the chance to explore an esoteric or obscure topic close to one's heart.

As an example, I give you The Silent Penultimate Panel Watch, run by a fellow who scans the comics (online and in print) for examples of a practice he finds to be creatively lazy. Check it out. Every day.

As a side benefit, that page may educate the public as to the meaning of the word "penultimate" -- "next to last", not "super-duper ultimate to the max (with attitude)." posted by Carlton at 9:10 AM

ESTATE TAX BLOGGING, PART II

Once again, Paul Krugman follows my lead:

You may have heard tales of family farms and small businesses broken up to pay taxes, but those stories are pure propaganda without any basis in fact. In particular, advocates of estate tax repeal have never been able to provide a single real example of a family farm sold to pay estate taxes.

This is a really fascinating area, where policy and politics and the blind optimism of the average American intersect. The result is the total bamboozlement of a large swath of the American public, who oppose a tax that they will never have to pay, on people they will never know. posted by Carlton at 9:03 AM

MISCELLANY

1. I've been reading back through old posts (which is what you do, when you're a narcissist). I'm embarrassed by all the typos. Yikes!

2. Does anyone know what has happened to Greg?

3. I'm very sad that next week's episode of Doctor Who will be the last of the season, and the last with Christopher Eccleston. His successor, David Tennant, will probably be fine -- by chance, I've just seen him in a couple of diverse roles as a) a rapist/murderer in the present, and b) a foppish, unmanly milksop aristocrat in the 1930s. I hope for the best.

As you can see from those pix, Billie Piper (the UK's answer to Britney Spears) will continue as the Doctor's, ahem, companion.

posted by Carlton at 4:16 PM

ESTATE TAX BLOGGING IS BACK!

I'm working my way through Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, which is a good read -- although at the rate I am going I will certainly not finish it without racking up some library fines. Diamond begins by discussing the situation in present-day Montana, where a complex intersection of business interests, poor agriculture practices, overpopulation and an influx of staggeringly wealthy outside property owners (the only one he mentions by name is Huey Lewis -- of the News) have threatened to destroy the lifestyles and culture of the permanent inhabitants of one particular area. Interesting stuff, although I find the later chapters on Easter Island and the Maya to be more compelling.

But on page 60, in the Montana chapter, he mentions that:

If old farmers are still living on their farm when they die, their heirs are forced to sell the land to a developer for much more than it would fetch by sale to another farmer, in order to pay the estate taxes on the great increase in land value during the deceased farmer's lifetime.

If I ever was an expert on the ins and outs of the estate tax, that time has past. I would like to point out, however, that the above sentence is a true statement only if the assumption is made that the farm must be sold at the death of the old farmers. If highly appreciated farmland passes out of the family, it will be valued for purposes of calculating the estate tax in terms of its "highest and best use" -- which is usually something like building McMansions on quarter-acre lots and not growing alfalfa.

Example: Farmer Brown owns a piece of land that's worth $3,000,000 as a subdivision and only about $500,000 as a farm. When he dies, the executor can sell the property to Farmer Green for the $500,000, but will still have to pay estate tax based on the $3,000,000. So, it makes sense that the heirs -- who have all moved to Boise and work as insurance salesmen and managers of fast-food restaurants -- would rather sell the land to McDeveloper for more money and have more left over to fund the grandkids' college funds.

(I'm ignoring the fact that Farmer Brown could pass the farm tax-free to Mrs. Brown, if she is living, and that this example assumes that the Browns never did any kind of estate planning whatsoever during their lives. If they had, a married couple dying in 2005 can pass up to $3,000,000 to heirs free of estate tax, so this wouldn't be a problem at all. If the farm was worth even more, a lawyer could have helped the Browns set up a program of gifting to the kids and grandkids so that much of the value of the property had already passed to family members tax-free by the time of the death of the second of Farmer and Mrs. Brown to die. And they could have placed a permanent restriction on the land, so that it could not be developed, which would further depress the estate tax value.

So the Browns are idiots, and now they are dead. Oh well.)

If the farm is kept in the family and continues to be operated as a farm for a certain period of years after the transfer, though, the estate tax can be calculated using the land's value as a farm, however -- and in certain cases the IRS will allow the family to stretch out the payment of that tax over several years. That doesn't sound too bad, does it?
(Of course, the code sections involved are a bit complicated, but they were cretaed for farmers, and it can be done.)

My understanding is that the boogeyman situation, in which the family is actively working on the farm when Gramps dies and are forced to sell it to a mean old developer, almost never happens. Because of the different options listed above, and probably some others, a family that wants to keep the old farm going is not going to be forced off the land because of the taxman. What's most likely in any given situation is that the children either left the farm and don't want to go back and operate it -- because living on a farm is really hard and they hated it -- or they get dollar signs in their eyes when they realize how much they could each get their mitts on if they just unloaded the place.

How do I know that this is true? I don't. But I surmise it's true. Why do I so surmise? Because if it weren't true, the right wingers who hate the estate tax and want to kill it would put the faces of that ousted family on every billboard between Santa Cruz and Orono, and trumpet their plight to high heaven. They don't do that, though -- they hardly ever give examples of actual families, because an estate planning lawyer could take one look at the situation and tell that there's no problem that signing a couple of well-drafted documents wouldn't solve. Instead, the wingers always point to families who "fear" they may lose their farms. Sure, they fear it -- because either a) they don't know how the system works, so they are gullible, or b) they know that Junior and his sister will have the old farm sold off before Gramps is even cold.

OK, that's enough about that. You may now go about your normal daily lives. posted by Carlton at 2:31 PM

NEW BOSS

I've been forgetting to mention that I may have a new boss soon, in that Henry Paulson has been nominated to be the new Secretary of the Treasury. I don't know much about the man, but what I gather from the recent news reportage is encouraging: very bright, responsible, good with the money, independent, vaguely progressive (supports Kyoto). All well and good.

Still, I think you'd have to be a crackhead to want the job in this administration. Reportedly, John Snow (the soon-to-be former Secretary), was not a bad egg, but wasn't a good enough "salesman" for Bush's policies (Specifically, I remember reading that his job was "to convince people that the pee running down their legs was rain", or something along those lines). In other administrations, Treasury would be an extremely powerful policy-making position. The President would call up Treasury to see what we were doing on a certain issue. In this administration, the White House tells the Treasury what has been decided, and the Secretary goes around making speeches about how that's the best and only thing we could possibly do. That would be a workable, if perhaps inefficient, way to make policy -- if the White House were actually making policy. Remember, these are the "Mayberry Machiavellis" -- all decisions are made politically. (Example: it is very bad policy to release the name of an undecover CIA agent just to dicredit her husband. Politically . . . well it must have seemed like a good idea at the time.)

If Paulson is as smart and independent as he seems, I'm guessing he is in for a rough ride.

UPDATE: It seems like Paul Krugman feels the same way, except with, like, more details and stuff.

What will they ask you to lie about? Maybe you’ll be asked to declare that we’re on track toward a balanced budget. Or maybe you’ll be asked to lie about environmental policy. Some of the administration’s right-wing supporters opposed your selection because you are known as a supporter of action against global warming, so the political types might want you to throw them a bone by endorsing the administration’s failure to do anything about the threat.

Right now, you’re being flattered. You have a natural urge to be a team player. But if you play the game your new bosses want you to play, your credibility with the public will evaporate in no time at all. And when you’re no longer useful to your new friends, you’ll be tossed aside.

posted by Carlton at 9:34 AM