I should pay more tax, says US billionaire Warren Buffett — The Guardian

The United States’ second-richest man is asking to pay more taxes.

Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the “Sage of Omaha”, has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: “The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It’s dramatic; I don’t think it’s appreciated and I think it should be addressed.”

Something that I’ve never understood is why there isn’t one extra field on tax returns: “Voluntary tax amount.” Every so often we get these news stories where the rich-rich (the ultra-super-mega-rich) want to pay more taxes. For the love of everything that is holy, let these people pay more taxes! All it takes is an extra field asking them how much extra they want to pay.

This is what I can’t stand:

A leading Democrat, the Harlem congressman Charlie Rangel, published alternative plans this week that would impose a 4% surcharge on people earning more than $200,000 a year, while delivering tax relief to 90 million working families.

What kind of flunkie failed fourth-grade math to somehow relate these two figures? A quick calculation shows me that people that make $200,000 per year make 0.000003846% what Warren Buffett is worth. These two groups can’t even remotely be considered in the same galaxy; hell, these two groups can’t even be considered the same planet. (To put this in perspective, a person worth $50,000 is worth the same proportionate amount when compared with someone making $.19 per year.) Maybe instead we need a “4% surcharge” (read: 4% tax increase) on those people worth $50 billion or more.

If Warren Buffett wants to pay more tax then let him; however, don’t use a man who is worth more than my city to show me that other, demonstrably unrelated, groups need to pay more.

2007 Yearly Tropical Cyclone Activity to Date — COAPS

Last year the headline on this blog read, “Quietest Hurricane Season In Decade.” This year’s blog entry now has to go back to 1977 to find a less active hurricane season.

The link goes to real analysis that uses real science, not that take-it-on-faith, religion of “global warming.” If you, reader, would like to partake in some science, please click on the link above (also check out my ongoing global warming post). If you prefer to blame the lack of activity on a conspiracy between George Bush and Halliburton, this one might be better.

I know that updates to this blog have slowed to a drip, and I’m sorry for that (to anyone who actually cares). Law school is marching along, I suppose. This semester seems easier to me than last year. One reason is that my family is here this year, but another reason is that once you find your stride, it’s just day-to-day like everything else.

One of the more stressing events of this semester is writing my comment — a 40-ish page paper that is due in a couple of weeks. My topic is going to surround “ethical hacking” and how the law treats ethical hackers and unethical hackers the same. I plan on talking about (to varying degrees) the DMCA, DeCSS, ElcomSoft, the role of ethical hackers, and a few other anecdotal stories.

If anyone in the community wants to leave a tip or information, please email me (link above) or leave a comment. I would like, essentially, to write a critical paper about the DMCA in those ways that “we” in the community always complain.

UPDATE: By “we,” I mean those of us in the computer community.

Gore, U.N. Body Win Nobel Peace Prize — AP

The Nobel Peace Prize has continued its slide into utter irrelevancy and shameful politicking. There was a day when the Peace prize was given to such worthy individuals as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mother Teresa.

As of late, though, the Peace Prize is awarded to those who best represent international anti-American or leftist politics. Such notable individuals include: Yassar Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Mohamed ElBaradei, and now Al Gore.

New documentary takes unflinching look at abortion in US — AFP

A limited-release documentary is showing the debate over abortion from both sides.

One scene depicts a doctor sifting through a surgical tray after performing a late-term abortion, where the grisly residue of an arm, a foot and part of a face can be clearly made out.

“It’s about as shocking as any motion picture can ever get. It’s illegal to film someone being killed,” said Kaye.

They may be the kind of images used by anti-abortion activists, but Kaye also doesn’t shy from showing pictures of a kneeling and bent-over naked woman who died after performing a botched abortion on herself with a wire coat hanger.

I do not have the stomach to watch a movie depicting a doctor sifting through the remains of a dead baby to make sure that all of the pieces have been removed from the woman, but maybe this documentary (if it is in fact one, and not one of the more aptly-name “docugandas,” such as An Inconvenient Truth) will be a good one for others to watch.

I have another reason for posting this link, too.

Even after spending years working on the project, Kaye, however, admits to not knowing where he stands in the debate.

“My position on the subject is that I don’t really know what’s right. I didn’t know much in the beginning… and at the end I was just as confused.”

This type of “confusion” raises a question outside of the point of the article: unless you’re absolutely sure, in your own mind, that a procedure that ends the existence of a life (or, if you prefer, a “would-be” life) is morally, legally, and ethically acceptable, should you really condone it? Is this not an issue that requires one to demand a level a certainty beyond “probably.” Is even being “probably” correct sufficient enough to explain away the horror should one be wrong?

In the absence of scientific “certainty,” there must be a default position that a person takes. I have wondered, on occasion, if my own stance on abortion (pro-life) is actually supported by the evidence. My inability to convince myself that abortion is simply a medical procedure that should be available, though, necessitated my acceptance that the correct default position was rejection.