Dwarf dinosaurs? That makes about as much sense as "jumbo shrimp".

In my day we didn't have these thin laytex condoms. So you could enjoy sexual pleasure. In my day there was only one kind of condom. You took a rabbit skin and wrapped around your privates and tied it off with a bungee cord and you couldn't feel nothing! And half the time you didn't even know your partner was there. And we used the same one over and over again! 'Cause we were ignorant morons! Just a bunch of hairless, head-kabobs standing around with rabbit skins on our dinks and that's the way we liked it!

(God bless Dana Carvey)

I was just reading this and thought you were talking about "masturbation inhibitors" and I was thinking, how would that help against HIV?... heh.

Also: Ashley, the pig intestines work much better than the rabbit pelts. Try it sometime, you'll thank me. They don't call them "sausage casings" for nothing.

But the rabbit pelts are furred, for her pleasure.

Ah, yes, if we kill terrorists, we only make them stronger!

Of course, lefties also love to taunt Bush about not having caught Bin Laden yet. From their reaction to Zarqawi's demise, we can presumably expect them to criticize Bush if he ever does catch or kill the Binster. Imagine how many new Bin Ladens will rise up in his place! I'm telling you, we all might as well just cut off our own heads right now and save them the trouble.

Um, was that in response to something?

Has anyone here actually used a skin condom? It's interesting that this one has attached ties. I was under the impression — that pun was actually intended — that one used a ribbon, bow knot on top for extra refinement (and easy tying).

GB is responding to the K-Lo point. I would argue that Yglesias is not saying that killing terrorists makes them stronger, but that simply killing top terrorists will not actually eliminate terrorism.

My official lefty talking points about Zarqawi say: (1) this probably won't cripple the insurgency, which goes far beyond him (2) we should've killed Zarqawi in '02, and we didn't need to invade Iraq to do it. But Albritton says (if I read him right) that it might be a sign that the Sunnis are being brought on board, which would be an excellent thing.

Dude, my comment ISE'd. The kitten is angry.

By "is angry" I'm assuming you mean "was angry that night, my friends." (How does one ISE on Apostropher's non-Unfogged site? Can it be done?)

Hey we got a number of corporations vying for your sponsorship a coupla threads down.

And you're first paragraph re. the K-Lo point gets it exactly right.

I saw the corporations. I drive by Weinerschnitzel all the time in Lubbock, but I have never dared go in.

The "rocks is the new sucks" folks belong here.

GB is responding to the K-Lo point.

Umm, okay. But the humor I see in her "time and time again" is that if it was really that difficult to replace assassinated leaders, they wouldn't be proving it over and over. Right? As with the John Gibson screencap, my interest isn't really in the policy argument, but the funny turn of phrase.

I think lefties may have given G.B. some trick gum that made him ooze black stuff out of his mouth like Francis in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure.

Given that the Winter Palace I mean White House talking points today seem to be that this is a good thing - even a great thing - but not exactly the end of the insurgency, any more than the death of Saddam's sons and the capture of Saddam was the end of the Ba'athist participation in the insurgency, and that this is pretty much exactly the position I've read in the few lefty places I've gone since this morning, I find it deeply amusing (and a little heartening) that the best GB's got in him today is that the Left is still not clapping hard enough.

I don't recall reading anyone saying they missed having ol' Zarqy around.

lefties may have given G.B. some trick gum

Nah. He's just got his panties in a wad over the massive Republican tax increase on Americans living overseas.

The law effectively forces many overseas Americans into higher tax brackets by imposing complex new requirements for calculating the value of housing allowances and then taxing the allowance at the lowest rates.

Yeah, that would bother me if I was on an expat package with a housing allowance, instead of being a local Japanese hire. But I feel for my American brothers and sisters: this sucks for them.

The new law does nothing about the hundreds of thousands of Americans living overseas who have stopped filing income tax returns, even though Congress taxes Americans on their worldwide income regardless of where they live. "This law is targeted at those who are filing tax returns, not those who have stopped filing," said Peter Merrill, a partner in the national economic practice of PricewaterhouseCoopers in Washington.

Yeah, why bother going after people who break the law, when you can continue to squeeze the law-abiding? Great strategy: Reward people for being criminals.

Another article on the expat tax:

The new law, however, does contain some good news. The foreign earned-income exclusion, which was under threat of extinction just three years ago, was maintained and will be indexed to U.S. inflation as of the 2006 tax year. That means U.S. taxpayers will owe no tax on their first $82,400 of income earned abroad this year, up from $80,000 in 2005.

So my US taxes are actually going down. Boo-yah.

Seriously, though, the Brits and Aussies I know here think it's a huge joke that we Yanks have to pay taxes to our home country while working overseas.

That does seem bizarre.

Dude, norbizness, that trick gum slam was awesome. I may use that on chatboards in the future. Don't worry, I'll be sure to credit you for devising it.

Again, kudos.

Seriously, though, the Brits and Aussies I know here think it's a huge joke that we Yanks have to pay taxes to our home country while working overseas.

I don't think it's any more "bizarre" (apo's words) than, for example, someone in the U.S. who doesn't have any kids having to paying school taxes. You still receive numerous benefits from having US citizenship, even if you don't reside or work in country, and $80K per year tax free isn't exactly chicken feed. Not to mention that it's only income tax we're talking about, not all taxes.

I can see why a Brit or Aussie without, for example, access to their National Health Service while abroad, might think paying taxes is a bit suspect, but that really doesn't apply to U.S. citizens.

Has anyone here actually used a skin condom?

No, but I've been known to use the odd rabbit.

From their reaction to Zarqawi's demise, we can presumably expect them to criticize Bush if he ever does catch or kill the Binster. Imagine how many new Bin Ladens will rise up in his place!

G.B. - do you really think this is fair? Admittedly, I basically only read the major blogs, but the reaction I've seen is as Matt has summed it up, but in addition liberals have been noting that this is 3) a good thing.

Were we to blow up bin Laden next week, I'd expect the reaction to be as follows, 1) yay, even though 2) he hasn't been very important for awhile now, and 3) took long enough, but still, 4) yay. That's what I'd expect to see, and it seems to me that it would be a fair reaction.

Michael gets it right: My prospective reaction to getting bin Laden would be pretty much the same as with Zarqawi, but much magnified. That is, HOORAY! HOORAY! HOORAY! should've taken care of him and his buddies at Tora Bora when it would have had much more of an impact HOORAY!

Oops, there's a problem with all those new terrorist leaders waiting in the wings: According to the AP, lots of them are dead.

Matt and Michael, I imagine that while Bush critics would applaud the capture or killing of OBL, their commentary would be of the "should've done it earlier (but not under Clinton)" variety, combined with a heapin' helpin' of "It doesn't really make a difference in practical terms, since al Qaeda will conitnue on without Bin Laden."

Um, why would any Bush critics be opposed to OBL being captured or killed under Clinton?

And, not that this should come as a surprise, I'm exceedingly glad that lots of those new terrorist leaders waiting in the wings are dead. I'm thrilled that we seem to be degrading Al Qaeda's capabilities.

GB, I take it that your point is that "Should've got bin Laden earlier" cuts against Clinton as well as against W? That may be true -- I don't know exactly what the deal was with the Sudan -- but it seems to me that failing to go all out to get bin Laden after 9/11 was much less excusable than failing to go all out to get bin Laden before 9/11.

For one thing, there was much less political will to get him; given the criticism from Republicans when Clinton tried to kill bin Laden in Afghanistan, there's no way Clinton would have been able to start a war to get him.

And the "should've got him earlier" feeling/complaint is largely based on the fact that Bush, despite advice from experienced military leaders to the contrary, started pulling forces and resources out of Afghanistan to prepare for the Iraq invasion while OBL was still at large and the Taliban hadn't been decisively defeated.

In fact the Taliban now seems to be staging a resurgence in Afghanistan. I don't think this would have happened if we had kept our eyes on the ball and finished the job there instead of being distracted by a war of choice in Iraq unrelated to 9/11 and OBL.

Look guys, you go to war with the administration you have, not the administration you wish you had.

Beta Pictoris sounds like a Haliburton/KBR dream-contract come true! What is 300% mark up these days on a deep space diamond mining galatic class cruiser anyway?

But what the article (on Beta Pictoris) left me wondering was, how does one become an "expert" on extra solar planets? I mean, having never been to one and all.

No, but I've been known to use the odd rabbit.

I don't know if they were odd before, but they're probably at least a little neurotic afterwards.

M/tch:

That "$80K per year tax free" simply means we're not double-taxed on amounts below that. We pay national and local income taxes and a 5% sales tax, and are double-taxed above the exclusion.

M/tch, good point on Afghanistan, but the point of that exercise from the point of view of the Administration was simply to lay some good wood on somebody, and the Taliban were convenient targets and had been sheltering OBL and AQ. But that country has little strategic importance, which explains our lack of appetite for winning that continuing struggle against the Taliban and warlords.

I think it's fair to wonder if the withdrawal from Tora Bora was based on a realization that Americans could be more easily convinced of the need to invade Iraq if the architect of 9/11 was still on the loose. I think most domestic support to invade Iraq would have evaporated had the Adminstration told us they had captured or killed OBL.

GB, how did the Europeans manage to get past their incessant warring? By deciding to bury the hatchet, emphasize their common interests, downplay their differences and to integrate economically. It is still a work in progress, but much has been achieved in eliminating the us vs. them that was the case up through WWII.

How do we eliminate the us vs. them elsewhere? I think it's clear that open conflict simply breeds more, and that our heavy military presence in the ME is not making the region more stable. We could better serve our interests with a lighter hand, and put the money to better use as well. In Israel and Palestine, perhaps more mutual exhaustion is needed for hositility to abate - hostility which clearly in and of itself is counter-productive.

As for Iraq, even with all of the King's horse and all the King's men, it would be a difficult job to keep that country - which is now rapidly fracturing, together. But it seems clear that the Administration has no stomach for using troop levels adequate for quelling the civil war and bringing enough stability that factions will put their weapons down. I think withdrawal is a mistake, but if the Administration is unwilling to take the steps necessary for victory, then withdrawal is preferable to dragging things out with inadequate troop levels. This seems like a real mistake to me, and one guaranteed to assure a long war in which the only winners will be the arms sellers and hate mongers.

That "$80K per year tax free" simply means we're not double-taxed on amounts below that. We pay national and local income taxes and a 5% sales tax, and are double-taxed above the exclusion.

Oh I know, I was speaking purely about U.S. taxes, not Japanese taxes. I lived in China for about five and a half years so I have firsthand experience of how the U.S. tax scheme works for expats.

I was just saying that simply residing outside the U.S. doesn't mean one receives none of the benefits of citizenship, and those benefits cost money. So it makes sense to me that Americans living abroad pay less income tax (they aren't using American highways, police forces, etc. much), but I don't see why it's bizarre that they should be liable for some income tax.

And of course, since you're receiving the benefits of Japanese government services, it makes sense that you're liable for Japanese taxes.

Not that this is important, but several times during the time I've been in Japan, the foreign-earned income exemption was threatened. First it was "evil Clinton and the tax-and-spend democrats are taking away our exemption!" and then it was "evil Bush and his xenophobe republicans are taking away our exemption!"
It turns out that even without the exemption, the income tax we pay to the Japanese government is deductible, and since it's usually more than what we would pay in the States, the exemption (the amount of which goes up every year) isn't really a big deal.

Considering the benefits of being an American citizen, it's kind of unfair that I haven't paid the IRS a dime in the last 15 years, but I'm not going to complain about it.

Are you sure the exemption goes up every year? I thought it had been stuck at 80K for at least 5 years now.

You damned expat free-riders!!1!

Free rider my ass. We're not actually using any of the wonderful services our tax dollars pay for.

GB,
Judging from how long I've been here, you must be right that it's not every year, but it was at 70,000 when I first filed for it, and as far as I can recall it has never gone up more than 2000 in any given year.

Which reminds me, I haven't filed my taxes for 2005 yet, and the automatic two-month extension is up in two days!

GB, that's certainly not true - we get lots of the benefits that tax dollars and government borrowing pay for, such as the benefit of waiting in line for security checks when we leave the country, having our telephone and internet communications monitored for terrorist threats that we may pose, the benefit of the nuclear and military umbrella that the US provides to Japan, and our military and diplomatic efforts in the Middle East have led to greater energy supply stability and lower prices [scratch that] enhanced security measures here in Japan as well.

the benefit of the nuclear and military umbrella that the US provides to Japan

By that logic, Japanese people should be paying American taxes.

Yep. The US spends huge chucks of our GNP on defense to police the world; Pax-Americana means Japan, Europe and large parts of the rest of the world, even outside of our allies, get a free ride. Largess such as this is just one of the ways in which we choose to assuage our egos while undermining our long-term economic position (guns v. butter). Of course it also pays political dividends and is appreciated by some very large rent-seekers.