Wake up?
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 09-22-2008 - 11:35pm |
I keep returning to this board in the hopes that there will be some intellectual, thoughtful dialogue going on...And I am always so disappointed.
I think so many of you who post here are really smart and insightful, and have a lot of great things to say...But I'm just wondering when an intelligent conversation is going to take place.
I'm really not trying to be offensive, but it just seems that someone poses a question or a thought, and then it's off to the races about how much op-ed 'evidence' and partisan subjectivity one can possibly squeeze into a post.
Is there no one here, besides me, who believes in analyzing BOTH candidates with the same critical eye, and then moving forward with discussion that leads to some kind of thoughtful debate?
I keep saying this, and no one replies to me. But I believe it's important enough to keep nagging about....And so, I will.

Pages
No comment - just interesting....
August 19, 2008
"The Greek Menace"
Some responses to the Tax Foundation's announcement of a new campaign called Compete USA which claims high corporate tax rates are hurting US competitiveness. First, Paul Krugman:
Next, from Linda Beale:
As Dean Baker notes, the Washington Post has been pushing the same line:
"but what I DON'T think it shows is someone who's not "walking the walk." I think the most you've got on whoever this is - potentially - is a lack of consistency in their positions. But you haven't got someone who's acting or posting in bad faith, just because they come to a different conclusion than you do (and come to it organically, I assume - without knowing you disagree or object)."
"I asserted that the information obtained by the IRS did indeed come from a violation of trust and probably a violation of Liechtenstein law, but that it was information of illegal activity and should be pursued."
Right.....but (and again, I'm not asking here, because I'm pretty sure that getting too deep into the weeds would be an outright TOS violation) from what I could see, the scenario you posted as an example didn't necessarily indicate that. I make assessments of people based upon the largest data-sample I have of their overall behavior. If someone's brand new, I wonder if they're a reincarnated previous-poster, whereas that's something I think of a lot less (or not at all) with people who've been around for a while. If someone has a history of hypocrisy on issues, then I'd probably agree with you that the little bit you posted is likely evidence of more of the same. If that person's been around for a while and showed exactly the OPPOSITE tendency - i.e., NO proclivity towards that sort of ideologically partisan hypocrisy - then I'd probably be inclined to wonder further about whether there might have been instance-specific factors at work in this one case, which made it different from the norm, just on the general theory that people don't tend to start behaving completely differently than their history shows, on the spur of the moment, for no reason.
I also think there's often an unreasonably partisan sense of expectation regarding equivalence with regard to these sorts of issues. If someone has a record of excoriating the Republican culture of corruption, and they're confronted with a GOP partisan who brings up William Jefferson, I think it would be hypocritical of the person to try to minimize or ignore the effects and damage of Jefferson's actions and illegalities. But I DON'T THINK it would be hypocritical of that person to maintain that, for the most part, over the last eight years or so, the vast majority of corruption, both in frequency and severity, has been on the GOP side. Yet that is the very expectation that I think some people have: they bring forth one or two examples in an attempt to demonstrate equivalency with a virtual TIDE of counter-evidence, and then are shocked (SHOCKED!) that the people they're debating still maintain that things are far more one way than the other. This is where we get into issues of false equivalency vs. shades of gray. I doubt seriously that anyone would argue that any one party, for example, has a complete monopoly on corruption or poor behavior. So obviously, there's enough to go around to every party; no one's hands are 100% clean. But recognizing that fact IS NOT the same thing as being able to credibly say that "it's all the same." And yet that seems to be the argument - or at least the among-friends discussion which I've witnessed (on the order of "can you BELIEVE these Democrats? They're crazy - you provide them with EVIDENCE of how both sides do it, and they STILL go on about how it's mostly Republicans' fault!"). That's what I find either disingenuous or simply false, depending upon the intent behind it: just because ONE counterexample can almost always be found of something, it doesn't negate the larger point being made - just on the "it's the exception which proves the rule" theory. If there are MANY credible examples both ways, then I'd think it's fair to say "it's universal/endemic"....but that's just simply not always the case. And when it isn't the case, I find it annoying to be told that it IS.
But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5378080
Day of Reckoning? Super Rich Tax Cheats Outed by Bank Clerk
Technician in Liechtenstein Turns Over Names of Americans With Secret Bank Accounts
By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
July 15, 2008—
Hundreds of super-rich American tax cheats have, in effect, turned themselves in to the IRS after a bank computer technician in the tiny European country of Liechtenstein came forward with the names of US citizens who had set up secret accounts there, according to Washington lawyers investigating the scheme.
The bank clerk, Heinrich Kieber, has been branded a thief by the government of Liechtenstein for violating the country's bank secrecy laws.
He is now in hiding but scheduled to testify to the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Thursday via a video statement from a secret location, according to Congressional investigators.
Aides for committee chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) are scheduled to provide reporters with a background briefing later this morning in Washington on the committee's investigation of tax haven banks in Liechtenstein and Switzerland.
Aides say the hearing will also focus on the role of the giant Swiss bank UBS and its alleged efforts to help wealthy Americans hide their money from the IRS through shell companies in Liechtenstein.
Liechtenstein's veil of secrecy was pierced five years ago when the disgruntled technician, Kieber, downloaded the names of foreign citizens connected to the secret accounts.
Kieber reportedly sold three CD's full of names and data to tax authorities to 12 countries including Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy and the United States.
Tax authorities in Italy published the full list of names.
In Germany, the disclosures led to the arrests of several prominent CEO's on charges that had evaded millions of dollars in taxes.
A former UBS private banker, Bradley Birkenfeld, has agreed to a plea deal and is reported to be cooperating with US authorities in bring charges against American citizens on tax evasion charges.
The Liechtenstein bank, LGT, is owned by the tiny country's ruling family led by Prince Hans-Adam II.
Kieber's Washington lawyer, Jack Blum, says Kieber should be considered a whistleblower and a hero, not a thief, for revealing how the super rich hid billions of dollars using the Liechtenstein bank.
The names of the US citizens are now in the hands of the IRS and Senate investigators.
Washington lawyers say a number of prominent citizens have been subpoenaed to testify but have already indicated they will refuse to testify, asserting their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
It is not yet clear whether Senator Levin will insist they appear in front of the committee anyway. >>>
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
" i.e., NO proclivity towards that sort of ideologically partisan hypocrisy - then I'd probably be inclined to wonder further about whether there might have been instance-specific factors at work in this one case, which made it different from the norm,"
Apparently we will have to agree to disagree here.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
"This is different than a government listening into private conversations without a warrant in violation of statue
Pages