Debbie Does Dartmouth January 30, 2004January 21, 2017 DILBERT DOES DOLLARS Tim Bonham: ‘Just finished reading Dilbert – Way of the Weasel, and there is a short section in it where Scott Adams talks about financial advice. He says he thought about writing a book on this, but everything could be covered in one page, and people object to buying a one-page book, and he didn’t see how he could stretch it out to a couple hundred pages. Here is his 1-page Financial Advice. To me, it seemed pretty good – and much like what you have been saying for years! Everything You Need to Know about Personal Investing * Make a will. * Payoff your credit card balance. * Get term life insurance if you have a family to support. * Fund your company 401K to the maximum. * Fund your IRA to the maximum. * Buy a house if you want to live in a house and can afford it. * Put six months’ expenses in a money market account. * Take whatever money is left over and invest 70 percent in a stock index fund and 30 percent in a bond fund through any discount brokerage company and never touch it until retirement. * If any of this confuses you, or you have something special going on (retirement, college planning, tax issue), hire a fee-based financial planner, not one who charges a percentage of your portfolio. Everything else you might want to do with your money is a bad idea compared to what’s on my one-page summary. ‘What do you think of his advice?’ ☞ I think it’s great. Here’s how to stretch it out to a couple hundred pages. DEBBIE DOES DARTMOUTH Cliff Kramon: ‘One sizable college expense families encounter early in the process is the expense for Mom, Dad, and teenager to actually go out and visit the colleges, some of which may be several states away. Besides airfares, hotels, rent-a-cars, and meals, there are the personal days off from work. Not an unlimited resource either. As a partial solution, we at Collegiate Choice Walking Tours Videos have taped the student guided campus tour at over 350 colleges across the US and abroad. Nothing slick or promotional … just a simple recording of everything a family would have seen and heard had they visited the campus the day we did. We charge $15/video tour and our videos average about one hour per college.’ ☞ I feel a MasterCard commercial coming on: One road trip to Kenyon, with hotel, $373. Two unpaid days off from assistant managing the Burger King, $180. Chance to spend a couple of days with son on road trip? Priceless.’ Still – even if it’s not quite the same bonding experience – seeing a few schools at $15 each might help narrow the field of possible visits. I NEED YOUR HELP . . . Can you think of any money tips that are ‘summer’ related? I don’t know exactly what I’m looking for – in the words of Secretary Rumsfeld, if I knew what I don’t know, I wouldn’t not know it – but my guess is that it may be travel related, food or sports related, lemonade-related, stay-cool related, summer job related, buy-snow-plows-on-sale related – anything clever about summer money. (Pool blankets I already have.) Thanks for any ideas you can offer. LIEUTENANT BUSH Jared Swecker: ‘I am not even close to being politically active, but have enjoyed learning about basic Democratic opinions from your columns. The link that you provided in your Lieutenant Bush column that showed the supposed timeline of Bush’s knowledge of the September 11th attacks was just over the top for me. They depicted President Bush laughing on one half of the screen while on the other half there were images of people falling from the WTC towers. How dare someone use those violent and disturbing images to muster up emotions in people for political gain? This type of ‘mudslinging’ is exactly why politics sometimes has such a nasty reputation. The intent of this website borders on obscene. To portray President Bush as someone who knew about the events and turned away from them is absolutely ridiculous. This exemplifies the perverse American mentality that we need to blame somebody when something bad happens. When you slip and fall in the store, well then let’s sue Safeway for $1 million because they should have had pillows on the floor to catch your clumsy butt. I’m sure that legitimate criticism can be dealt out to many of Bush’s decisions and policies. But to claim that President Bush didn’t care enough or to say he was too stupid to realize the severity of the situation is not only irresponsible, it is disrespectful. The President of our country, regardless of the party he belongs to, should demand more than that from us. Thank you for the soapbox.’ Abe: ‘For you to suggest that a guy as sophisticated as Michael Moore couldn’t have possibly known what the word deserter meant really calls into question your own ability to analyze anything. That sort of inflammatory rhetoric is used intentionally in all cases involving people of Mr. Moore and Mr. Rove’s sophistication, and you and I both know it. It is a major reason why there is no civil discourse over our differences any more. You should be ashamed for saying such a silly thing. Of course he knew, and in certain constituencies, it had the desired effect. To pretend any differently is sophistry of the first order.’ ☞ Well, I don’t think I said he ‘couldn’t possibly have known.’ I think I said he quite possibly didn’t know. But more interesting (to me) is whether President Bush really was AWOL in a way that could have landed lesser men in jail. I’ll get to that in a second, but here is Moore’s explanation of the ‘deserter’ brouhaha: I was just attempting my best impersonation of that announcer guy for the World Wrestling Federation, asking the cheering crowd if they would like to see a smackdown (‘debate’) which I called ‘The Generaaal Versus The Deserterrrr!!’ (You can watch it here – hardly anyone in the media has shown this clip because viewers would suddenly see the context of my comments.) For more on Moore, you might want to visit his website. Sometimes, I think he goes too far. But often, he’s spot on. As to the details of Bush’s military service, Moore offers this, which he attributes to moveon.org. It’s kind of amazing how little press scrutiny this got form the so-called liberal press during the endless campaign of 2000. See what you think: Here are what appear to be the known facts, laid out recently in considerable detail and documentation by retired pilot and Air National Guard First Lt. Robert A. Rogers, and in a 2003 book, ‘The Lies of George W. Bush,’ by David Corn. 1. George W. Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its most deadly and the military draft was in effect. Like many of his social class and age, he sought to enter the National Guard, which made Vietnam service unlikely, and fulfill his military obligation. Competition for slots was intense; there was a long waiting list. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion. 2. He, nevertheless, was sworn in on May 27, 1968, for a six-year commitment. After a few weeks of basic training, Bush received an appointment as a second lieutenant – a rank usually reserved for those completing four years of ROTC or 18 months active duty service. Bush then went to flight school and trained on the F-102 interceptor fighter jet. Fighter pilots were in great demand in Vietnam at the time, but Bush wound up serving as a ‘weekend warrior’ in Houston<, where his father’s congressional district was centered. A Houston Chronicle story published in 1994, quoted in Corn’s book, has Bush saying: ‘I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.’ 3. Sometime after May 1971, young Lt. Bush stopped participating regularly in Guard activities. According to Texas Air National Guard records, he had fewer than the required flight duty days and was short of the minimum service owed the Guard. Records indicate that Bush never flew after May 1972, despite his expensive training and even though he still owed the National Guard two more years. 4. On May 24, 1972, Bush asked to be transferred to an inactive reserve unit in Alabama, where he also would be working on a Republican senate candidate’s campaign. The request was denied. For months, Bush apparently put in no time at all in Guard service. In August 1972, Bush was grounded — suspended from flying duties — for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. (Why wouldn’t he take this exam from a doctor?) 5. During his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush’s staff said he recalled doing duty in Alabama and then returning to Houston for still more duty. But the commander of the Montgomery, AL, unit where Bush said he served told the Boston Globe that he had no recollection of Bush – son of a congressman – ever reporting, nor are there records, as there should be, supporting Bush’s claim. Asked at a press conference in Alabama on June 23, 2000 what duties he had performed as a Guardsman in that state, Bush said he could not recall, ‘but I was there.’ 6. In May, June and July, 1973, Bush suddenly started participating in Guard activities back in Houston again – pulling 36 days at Ellington Air Base in that short period. On Oct. 1, 1973, eight months short of his six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge, Bush apparently was discharged with honors from the Texas Air National Guard (eight months short of his six-year commitment). He then went to Harvard Business School. Documents supporting these reports, released under Freedom of Information Act requests, appear along with Rogers’ article on the web at http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154. In the absence of full disclosure by the President or his supporters, only the President and perhaps a few family or other close associates know the whole truth. And they’re not talking. Bush was apparently absent without official leave from his assigned military service for as little as seven months (New York Times) or as much as 17 months (Boston Globe) during a time when 500,000 American troops were fighting the Vietnam War. The Army defines a ‘deserter’ — also known as a DFR, for ‘dropped from rolls’ – as one who is AWOL 31 days or more: www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf.
You Mean You DON’T Make $250 Million a Year? January 29, 2004January 21, 2017 D.B. Junior: ‘Your gratuitous comment in last week’s column, ‘does anyone really earn that little?’ – referring to a $100,000 annual income – is beneath you. During my recently ended 32-year career as a federal manager, I never made more than $85,000. Most of my co-workers earned far less. Look around – you may be losing touch with the reality of finances for most Americans.’ ☞ It was (I thought) clear sarcasm. Oops! You were not the only one to take it the wrong way. I was trying to show how callous and wrong-headed the Republicans are for tilting things even further in favor of the best off. It is appalling. It drives me to sarcasm. Sarcasm can backfire. My apologies! ( For the record: most American workers make nothing like $100,000 a year – $38,000 is closer to the median, if memory serves – let alone the $250 million I referred to in the same sentence.) Along those tax-inequitable lines, Paul Krugman’s column in Tuesday’s New York Times left no such confusion. In part (emphasis added): Why, then, do we face the prospect of huge deficits as far as the eye can see? Part of the answer is the surge in defense and homeland security spending. The main reason for deficits, however, is that revenues have plunged. Federal tax receipts as a share of national income are now at their lowest level since 1950. Of course, most people don’t feel that their taxes have fallen sharply. And they’re right: taxes that fall mainly on middle-income Americans, like the payroll tax, are still near historic highs. The decline in revenue has come almost entirely from taxes that are mostly paid by the richest 5 percent of families: the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. These taxes combined now take a smaller share of national income than in any year since World War II. This decline in tax collections from the wealthy is partly the result of the Bush tax cuts, which account for more than half of this year’s projected deficit. But it also probably reflects an epidemic of tax avoidance and evasion. Everyone who wants to understand what’s happening to the tax system should read Perfectly Legal, the new book by David Cay Johnston, The Times‘s tax reporter, who shows how ideologues have made America safe for wealthy people who don’t feel like paying taxes. John Brownie: ‘Last week, John Stossel (ABC-20/20) stated that IRS data shows that the top 1% of income earners (over $300,000 a year) pay 34% of the Federal tax and that the top 5% (over $125,000 a year) pay 53%. What do you think they should pay?’ ☞ Good question. Maybe what they were paying under Clinton? That seemed to work pretty well.
401(k) vs 529 . . . Let’s Get Ready to Rumble! January 28, 2004January 21, 2017 Tom: ‘You’ve become a rather tedious man. God bless you for the depths and conviction of your beliefs, but no one likes a one trick pony. Thanks for the CICI stock tip, though. I cleaned up. More of that, please.’ ☞ Well then, by my count that’s two tricks . . . but I take your point, so let’s get off the fate of the world and sink our teeth into something undeniably fun: the pros and cons of 401(k)s versus 529s. Cat fight! Cat fight! How can that be fun, you ask? The estimable Less Antman, CPA, can make anything fun. So I threw this question to him: IN THIS CORNER, THE 401(kaaaayyyyy!), AND IN THIS CORNER . . . Michael Irwin asks: ‘A 55-year-old wage earner making $100,000 pretax plans to retire in 10-12 years. He wants to put aside some money for his newborn’s college expenses. Is it better for him to have regular payroll deductions of post-tax money invested in a 529 plan or to have regular deductions of a similar amount of pre-tax funds put in a 401k? (His employer does not match either contribution.)’ The estimable Less Antman replies: ‘Assuming your tax brackets are the same now and when you are drawing the money out, there isn’t any mathematical difference between using the 401(k) plan and the 529 plan. For instance, let’s assume your tax bracket is 30%, and the total return on the investments inside the plan is 100%. (That is: it doubles.) (1) $100 of pretax income is put into a 401(k) . . . doubles to $200 . . . then is withdrawn, with $60 taxed away (30% of $200), and $140 remaining. (2) $30 in taxes are deducted from the $100, with the remaining $70 put into a 529 plan. It doubles to $140 and is withdrawn tax-free. ‘See? No difference. But that said, I think you should go with maximizing your contributions to the 401(k) plan unless your state’s 529 plan offers a tax deduction or credit for the contribution. For one thing, your retirement SHOULD come first, as you can always borrow for college but not for retirement. Student loan rates are usually very low. Second, you’ll have the flexibility to spend 401(k) money as you choose, while there isn’t any choice when it comes to the 529 money: if it isn’t spent on college, the earnings are taxed and penalized. Third, retirement accounts don’t enter into the calculations of assets available, when determining eligibility for college aid. Fourth, you’ll probably be in a lower bracket during retirement (although the effect of 401(k) withdrawals on taxable social security benefits is a bit of a wild card). Fifth, your retirement SHOULD come first. Wait, I already said that. But it is worth repeating: borrowing for college is always an option, at favorable rates. Borrowing for retirement is not. ‘By the way, assuming you are married and your family income doesn’t exceed $150,000, you and your spouse can each contribute $3,500 to a Roth IRA (if you are both over 50). That’s $7,000 per year, and you can still make 2003 contributions through April 15, 2004, so it is possible to shelter up to $14,000 instantly ($7,000 for 2003 and $7,000 for 2004). The contributions can be withdrawn tax-free at any time and for any purpose whatsoever, and the earnings can also be withdrawn tax-free once you reach 59 1/2, which is well before college will start. So it has all the advantages of a 529 plan, and none of the restrictions.’ LESS IS BACK One the features most worth the price of subscription to this site is the ASK LESS link, blinking at upper left. (For those who were beginning to wonder if Less was ever going to answer, I am told that he has carved out more time, and you might very well get answers just as clear and cogent as the one above. But don’t all click at once.) Tomorrow: You Mean You Don’t Make $250 Million A Year?
Lieutenant Bush January 27, 2004March 25, 2012 This is not the important thing. The important thing is his ignoring the ‘tremendous’ ‘immediate’ threat to the United States that the CIA alerted him to before his inauguration . . . and his telling America that ‘by far the vast majority of the help [from his proposed tax cut went] to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder’ – a cynical, trillion-dollar lie . . . and his contempt for the environment . . . and his judicial nominations . . . and his handling of Iraq (even if you agree Iraq should have been handled) . . . and his pulling out of the mid-East and Korean peace talks . . . and his efforts to shut down the stem cell research around the world . . . and on and on and on. Still, with Martha Stewart facing jail time stemming from insider trading (even though, yes, I know, that’s not what they’re trying her for), one does note that George W. Bush was not just on the board of directors of Harken Oil when he sold his stock, but on the three-man audit committee. Not only was his trade four times the size of hers, it was vastly more important to him, representing most of his net worth (versus virtually none of hers). And, yes, it sure looks as if Martha may not have been truthful with the S.E.C. But didn’t George conceal his trade from the S.E.C. until eight months after the filing deadline? (He says it wasn’t on purpose. But can we be sure a man who would tell a trillion dollar lie would not tell a much smaller one?) And did he not tell the press he was ‘exonerated’ when in fact he was not? (The S.E.C. chose not to prosecute the President’s son, but never pronounced him innocent.) And then you have the military service thing. For the details, click here. Bush supporters will say all this is ancient history . . . and I largely agree. If he were now doing a great job, what difference would any of this make? But he is not doing a great job; and if the Republicans are going to focus on every tiny flaw of the Democrats, as experience suggests they will – already, there are rumblings about John Edwards’ hair – is it unfair to raise these questions of insider trading and military service for those who may not adequately have considered them before? No sane person would suggest we should imprison the President for Harken Oil or execute him for failing to fulfill his military obligations (‘desertion’ having a special meaning in military law that Michael Moore could not have realized when he chose that word). But neither should we necessarily reelect him. Is George Bush really the only one would have had the judgment to deal with 9/11? He spent the first 27 minutes of the crisis reading to elementary school students a story about a goat. Whatever you may think of his military service, please click here to see how he handled the attack on the World Trade Center. I think any one of our guys could have read the story about the goat equally well – and one or two of them might even have decided not to.
Polish and Politics January 26, 2004February 24, 2017 SILVER If you have any, here’s how to polish it. Forget trying to get in crevices with silver polish and a rag. Just put a few inches of water in your sink, add water softener, salt, and a sheet of aluminum foil. Dip in your silver and remove, rinse off in fresh water, and you’re done. Amazing. It comes from a book called Haley’s Hints promo-ed on Saturday’s TODAY Show. The other hints were nearly as amazing (toothpaste to remove scuff marks from linoleum; shaving cream wiped on and off a bathroom mirror to prevent steaming for six weeks) but of no use to me (Charles is strangely unenthusiastic about linoleum; I avoid steamy mirrors by leaving the door open). The silver hint is of no use to me, either. My job is taking out the garbage. Indeed, my view is that if God had intended man to clean silver, He would not have invented Stainless Steel. But every once in a while, a web site ostensibly devoted to finance should touch on silver. (Missing a few pieces from your silver pattern? Break a dish? Click here.) A CONSERVATIVE TAKE ON DEAN As a DNC officer, I don’t include this link to promote Governor Dean – I am enthusiastically neutral, rooting for whichever of our terrific candidates emerges from the primary process in March. (According to the latest Newsweek poll, he will win: 52% of Americans don’t want to give Bush a second term.) Rather, what interests me about this link is that it comes from a conservative . . . perhaps not unlike the two conservatives I quoted Friday. It’s an unlikely alliance, Democrats and conservatives. But in this limited sense, the President may actually be a uniter not a divider. It’s worth reading the whole thing, but here’s the nub of it: Is this what it comes down to – that we accept a president who lies us into war for his hidden agendas, and who harms the American people in countless other ways, because he piously mouths all these platitudes about God and country, and turn against a man who refuses to give a concession speech (which is what the press wanted) and turns it into a pep rally? We apparently have reached a (downward) stage in American political life where an open show of emotions is forbidden. The one thing I liked about Truman was his emotional honesty; he could never become president today because of that. A RADICAL TAKE ON BUSH I see no point in trying to impeach President Bush, not least because – hello? – that would just give us Dick Cheney (who, if Saturday Night Live is to be believed, already is President). But if you just can’t wait til November 2, and you’re free tonight at seven, click here.
January Bounce, Etc. January 23, 2004January 21, 2017 JANUARY BOUNCE A month ago, I suggested three possible year-end bargains. The most speculative, CICI, closed last night at 65 cents, up 80% or so. If I were you, I’d sell a third of it here, a second third at 90 cents, if it should ever get there, and hold the last third long-term to see what happens. (I would not rush to buy it here – it remains highly speculative.) The next most speculative, ILA, closed last night at $4.39, up 25%. I plan to hold it for a year or more, hoping the company may one day return to health and a significantly higher valuation. The third, CMM – itself no blue-chip – closed last night at $11.31, up 10%. I plan to hold this one for a long time, also. As always, please remember that free advice is worth what you pay for it. Indeed, sometimes it is worth considerably less. TWO CONSERVATIVE VIEWS ‘Whatever else this president is,’ writes conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan in commenting on Tuesday’s State of the Union message, ‘he is no believer in individuals’ running their own lives without government regulation, control or aid. If you’re a fiscal conservative or a social liberal, this was a speech that succeeded in making you take a second look at the Democrats. I sure am.’ A while back I ran a blind quote from a prominent conservative who had e-mailed in dismay over the performance of the Bush administration. One of you wrote in to say he believed I had made it up, and that if I wanted anyone to believe it was real, I would have to name the source. Unfortunately, the fellow who sent the e-mail is not ready to go public with his view – it’s a pretty big life-decision to make, and my little column may not be the place he would choose to do it, if he ever does – but the e-mail I quoted from was quite real. As is this one, from the same correspondent, which arrived yesterday: Apparently, today’s NY Times is FINALLY beginning to report a few early strands of just how angry conservatives are with the lunatics running the country. For a few years, I’ve been a member of a very high-end restricted-circulation email group, heavily tilted toward the Right, overwhelmingly pro-Iraq War, and with substantial numbers of intellectuals, academics, and journalists. My guess is that about 18 months ago, 80% of the list members would have voted for Bush over just about any Democrat. In the last couple of weeks, nearly the last Bush supporters announced their opposition to his reelection. Needless to say, I take this as good news. I think, at the end of the day, the voters will favor the Democrat over Bush by a considerably wider margin than they did last time. Another reason I think so is Iowa: there was a huge influx of new voters to the caucus process – something like 50% of the caucus-goers were first-timers, I’m told – and, if true, this bodes very, very well for Democrats. If enough become concerned, alarmed, and engaged, turn-out for the general election may spike up around the country as it did for the primary in Iowa. A LIBERAL VIEW Q: How do you get rid of a bush? A: From the roots. And, finally, for your weekend delectation . . . A VIEW YOU WON’T HEAR EXPRESSED ON CBS From the network that didn’t bring you the Ronald Reagan docudrama, now fails to come the 30-second ad that moveon.org was trying to pay $1.6 million to run. To me, the prospect of a complete rightwing lock on all three branches of government, if we should elect Bush/Ashcroft November 2, becomes even more disturbing when you consider the increasing concentration and clout of the conservative media. Most of talk radio . . . FOX . . . and now an increasingly cowed CBS? Bill Paley must be turning over in his grave. Many of you have doubtless already gotten this e-mail, either directly from moveon.org or else from a friend. But for those who missed it, and who care about democracy: During this year’s Super Bowl, you’ll see ads sponsored by beer companies, tobacco companies, and the Bush White House.1 But you won’t see the winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund’s Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS refuses to air it.2 Meanwhile, the White House is on the verge of signing into law a deal which Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says is custom-tailored for CBS and Fox,3 allowing the two networks to grow much bigger. CBS lobbied hard for this rule change; MoveOn.org members across the country lobbied against it; and now our ad has been rejected while the White House ad will be played. It looks an awful lot like CBS is playing politics with the right to free speech. Of course, this is bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) submitted an ad that was also rejected.4 But this isn’t even a progressive-vs.-conservative issue. The airwaves are publicly owned, so we have a fundamental right to hear viewpoints from across the ideological spectrum. That’s why we need to let CBS know that this practice of arbitrarily turning down ads that may be “controversial” — especially if they’re controversial simply because they take on the President — just isn’t right. To watch the ad that CBS won’t air and sign our petition to CBS, go to: http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/ (If you want to skip the ad and just sign the petition, click here.) We’ll deliver the petition by email directly to CBS headquarters. You also may want to let your local CBS affiliate know you’re unhappy about this decision. We’ve attached a list of the CBS affiliates in your state at the bottom of this email. Remember, a polite, friendly call will be most effective — just explain to them why you believe CBS’ decision hurts our democracy. CBS will claim that the ad is too controversial to air. But the message of the ad is a simple statement of fact, supported by the President’s own figures. Compared with 2002’s White House ad which claimed that drug users are supporting terrorism,5 it hardly even registers. CBS will also claim that this decision isn’t an indication of political bias. But given the facts, that’s hard to believe. CBS overwhelmingly favored Republicans in its political giving, and the company spent millions courting the White House to stop FCC reform. 6 According to a well-respected study, CBS News was second only to Fox in failing to correct common misconceptions about the Iraq war which benefited the Bush Administration — for example, the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11. 7 This is not a partisan issue. It’s critical that our media institutions be fair and open to all speakers. CBS is setting a dangerous precedent, and unless we speak up, the pattern may continue. Please call on CBS to air ads which address issues of public importance today. Sincerely, –Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack The MoveOn.org Team January 22nd, 2003 P.S. Our friends at Free Press have put together a page which explains simply how CBS and the FCC rule change are integrally linked. Check it out here.
Scoobie – Don’t! January 22, 2004February 24, 2017 EMERGENCY CASH Did you know you can get cash for your miles? Well, if they’re American Express points you can. Just go to the web site and cash in points at a rate of $100 for every 20,000 points. They’re worth way more than that to most people – to me, they’re worth at least 2%, or $400 per 20,000 points – which is why Amex is happy to make the trade. MORE ON THE MEATRIX George Berger: ‘Your link to the Michael Pollan column on humane treatment of farm animals got me searching for alternatives to factory-farmed products. The one I found that I liked best is a program called “Free Farmed” run by the American Humane Society. They’re the people who monitor the film industry and certify ‘No Animals Were Harmed.’ Farms that pass their inspection get to display the Free Farmed logo on their products. I’m very happy to have a grocery nearby here in Phoenix that sells dairy products with the logo. I’m looking for more, but in the meantime I search out products that at least claim to be free-range or somehow indicate that they care about the welfare of their animals.’ AND WHILE WE’RE EATING Starbucks Low-Fat Latte ice cream. Run, do not walk. LOOK FOR SCOOBIE IN GUANTANAMO ‘Whenever I have a five dollar bill,’ writes blogger Scoobie Davis, ‘I draw a speech balloon for Lincoln with the caption that reads, ‘The GOP is no longer my party.” ☞ It is illegal to deface U.S. currency. I doubt a lot of folks have been prosecuted for this, but then I wouldn’t have expected the Justice Department to prosecute the South Carolina man who held up a sign (NO WAR FOR OIL) in what turned out not to be a free speech zone.
State of the Union January 21, 2004February 24, 2017 You’ve really got to read Paul O’Neill’s book. But let me mention just two features of the speech that rankled. One, the notion that massive tax cuts for the best off (which the President insists must now be made permanent) are what account for this great Bush economy, in which we’ve lost fewer than 3 million jobs. Yes, maybe zero percent interest rates have helped a little, and maybe tax cuts for the first $100,000 in income have helped a little (does anyone really earn that little?). But it’s the tax cuts on income between $100,000 and, say, $250 million, that really got the economy sizzling – or so they would have us believe. (As if there would have been a full-scale Depression last year had Congress not eliminated the estate tax for the year 2010.) Think of it this way. Roughly half the benefit went to folks making more than $250,000 a year. If those folks had gotten no tax cut . . . on the theory that the gap between rich and poor has been growing ever wider and in the long run does not a healthy society make . . . or on the even simpler theory that they were making more than a quarter million dollars a year . . . and if, instead, that half of the tax cut had gone to folks earning less than $250,000 a year . . . then, guess what? Folks in the bottom 98% or so would have gotten twice the tax reduction! (The half they got plus the half that went to people making more.) And, lacking things, they might have been even more assiduous in spending it and/or shoring up their badly stretched finances. At first blush, such a scheme may appear to be terribly unfair to, for example, someone earning $86 million a year – which was the minimum you had to earn to be among the 400 top income-reporters in 2000. But I would argue this way: those 400 folks (almost all of whom made more than $86 million; that was the minimum) were paying only 22.3% of their income in federal tax. A lot of actual dollars, to be sure (and we are grateful to them for every one of them), but a relatively bearable proportion. Was it really necessary to adjust things such that, in the same circumstances, their tax burden would have fallen to 17.5%? Or how about this? What if, instead of doubling the tax cut for those in the bottom 98%, you had used that dough to help states keep from laying people off and reducing services? What if you even used some of it to pay for the war? Anyway, I guess my point is that in his speech, the President made it sound as if his tax cuts were actually good economics or good social policy. The second thing about the speech that rankled (you will have your own list) was the sense that it had been vetted by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. With that in mind, although she sent it to me before last night’s speech, Sue Hoell hopes you saw this essay, by Jim Wallis. These two paragraphs sum it up: How a candidate deals with poverty is a religious issue, and the Bush administration’s failure to support poor working families should be named as a religious failure. Neglect of the environment is a religious issue. Fighting pre-emptive and unilateral wars based on false claims is a religious issue . . . Rather than suggesting that we not talk about ‘God,” Democrats should be arguing on moral and even religious grounds that all Americans should have economic security, health care and educational opportunity, and that true faith results in a compassionate concern for those on the margins. Be that as it may, if you’re interested in money, and how your country’s economic policy is being set, let me finish up where I started: you’ve really got to read Paul O’Neill’s book. [Bad enough that I blamed yesterday’s sloth on Martin Luther King, Jr. Worse that I misremembered his actual birth date (January 15). To compensate, the publisher is adding three days to your subscription.]
Still Celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday January 20, 2004March 25, 2012 I’m taking today off, too. “If a man is called to be a streetsweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted or Beethoven composed music or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, ‘Here lived a great streetsweeper who did his job well.'” — Martin Luther King, Jr. I love that quote.
Earth in the Balance — Watch This January 16, 2004January 21, 2017 GOOGLE TRICK Mike Hanlon: ‘Thought you might like this Google trick: Go to the Google home page and type in “elgoog” (that’s Google backwards). Then click the “I’m feeling lucky” button and watch what happens. Then . . . while still in that mode . . . try entering in the search box something else backwards – for example, ‘saibot werdna’. The coolest part of all this is in the developer’s FAQs: When China shut off access to Google a while back, a number of people worked around the ban by going to the site that generates this trick and accessing Google that way.’ ☞ I love this. TELLING WHETHER A WEB SITE IS BOGUS Brian Annis: ‘Sharon asks how to check on a web page’s veracity. Try searching the discussion lists at groups.google.com.’ James Redekop: ‘The web uses ‘SSL certificates’ to handle secure connections. One of the purposes of SSL certificates is to guarantee that the web site you are visiting is, in fact, who they claim to be. When you connect to a website with “https://” at the start of its address, your web browser asks the site for its SSL certificate and checks that the certificate was issued by a recognized Certificate Authority (of which Verisign is the largest). Encryption keys ensure that certificates can only be signed by the CAs that are claiming to sign them; you can’t forge a Verisign certificate without Verisign’s keys. In most web browsers, you can inspect a certificate yourself to see who issued it, to whom it was issued, and so on. In Internet Explorer, you can do this by going to the FILE / PROPERTIES menu item while on a secure page, and clicking on the “Certificates” button in the lower right-hand corner of the window that pops up. This will present you with a bunch of information about the certificate, including links to the issuer and so on. You can probably even call Verisign to verify that the certificate is legit, if you want.’ YOUR WEEKEND MOVIE Click here. You may not have voted for this guy; but the stunning pictures he shows are nonpartisan. It would mean a great deal to me – and ultimately, I think, to you – if you took the time to watch it all the way to the end and let me know your thoughts.