I was glossing over the headlines on Yahoo's News page when a headline grabbed my attention: "Ants eat away woman's eye in hospital". This is just wrong on SO many levels.
1) Why is Reuters reporting this kind of thing?
2) How is it that one of the most populous democracies (India) on the planet has state run hospitals where this kind of thing can happen?
3) Why was this one of the most popular stories on Yahoo today?
OK. Never mind. I actually DO know the answer to #3. I read the story. Many of you will read the story. Many people who see the story in the "Most Viewed News Stories" will also be intrigued by the story, and read it.
People are sick. We are all fascinated by the odd and the macabre. It's not just the riveting, and ever present, accident on the side of the road, that gets our attention. It's other gross or ridiculous things. Think about it. Ever catch someone picking their nose? Do you immediately look away or do you watch to see what they do with the result? Heck, the television industry counts on our fascination for this stuff. Think about "Fear Factor". And, while not nearly as straight out gross, think about all those other reality television shows.
Other than television, what real situation have you encountered where good taste told you to turn away, but you just couldn't?
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
A taxing view?
Does two posts in a row make a theme?
"Live Free or Die" was not initially meant to refer to taxation. However, New Hampshire residents will fight to the death to avoid taxes. New Hampshire has no sales or income tax. There are meals and lodging taxes, and capital gains taxes, and business-based taxes. However, the largest revenue generator for state and local governments is property taxes.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Public services need to be paid for somehow. We all understand that. And, it is generally understood and accepted that real estate taxes will increase over time. However, any significant increase to a tax bill will generate more fervor in New Hampshire than any state in the union. Perhaps that is why there are so many tax-related stories in the local press on any given day. ( Others would argue that there just isn't that much else worth talking about in the area. )
The town of Orford is currently enmired in a battle over, what is popularly being refered to as, the view tax. The independent assessment firm that was hired to reassess properties in the town has raised the valuations on many properties by $100,000 or more based on "the view" from a particular property. The Union Leader article gave one example where a one room cabin with no electric, phone, or septic services, was valued at $22,900 — plus $140,000 for it's view of rolling hills. The assessment firm argues that "view" has always been part of any assessment formula. Residents and Town Selectmen argue that the increases in local values is outrageous and unwarranted. Most of the fervor over "the view tax" has been that the assessment forms now have a distinct line for the valuation of properties labled "view".
Assessments are supposed to be based on fair market value of property. While I am sure that the town has a right to be concerned about an overly steep increase in the valuation of its properties, I have to wonder if this situation would have generated less hype had the details of the valuation not been broken down so clearly on the assessment forms. Then again, that guy with the primitive cabin who was assessed at $162,900 probably has a right to know why HIS cabin is worth more than some guy down the road whose identical cabin was only assessed at, say, $25,000 since that cabin only has a view of the town dump. Then again, if I were in the market for hunting cabin, would it be worth the HUGE difference to have a lovely view from my primitive hovel. Perhaps. I certainly hope that the assessment firm has enough substantial comparable market data to back up such differences.
I wish Orford well in its fight of the assessments. The State is looking for revenue in some tough economic times. It should be interesting to see how this plays out.
"Live Free or Die" was not initially meant to refer to taxation. However, New Hampshire residents will fight to the death to avoid taxes. New Hampshire has no sales or income tax. There are meals and lodging taxes, and capital gains taxes, and business-based taxes. However, the largest revenue generator for state and local governments is property taxes.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Public services need to be paid for somehow. We all understand that. And, it is generally understood and accepted that real estate taxes will increase over time. However, any significant increase to a tax bill will generate more fervor in New Hampshire than any state in the union. Perhaps that is why there are so many tax-related stories in the local press on any given day. ( Others would argue that there just isn't that much else worth talking about in the area. )
The town of Orford is currently enmired in a battle over, what is popularly being refered to as, the view tax. The independent assessment firm that was hired to reassess properties in the town has raised the valuations on many properties by $100,000 or more based on "the view" from a particular property. The Union Leader article gave one example where a one room cabin with no electric, phone, or septic services, was valued at $22,900 — plus $140,000 for it's view of rolling hills. The assessment firm argues that "view" has always been part of any assessment formula. Residents and Town Selectmen argue that the increases in local values is outrageous and unwarranted. Most of the fervor over "the view tax" has been that the assessment forms now have a distinct line for the valuation of properties labled "view".
Assessments are supposed to be based on fair market value of property. While I am sure that the town has a right to be concerned about an overly steep increase in the valuation of its properties, I have to wonder if this situation would have generated less hype had the details of the valuation not been broken down so clearly on the assessment forms. Then again, that guy with the primitive cabin who was assessed at $162,900 probably has a right to know why HIS cabin is worth more than some guy down the road whose identical cabin was only assessed at, say, $25,000 since that cabin only has a view of the town dump. Then again, if I were in the market for hunting cabin, would it be worth the HUGE difference to have a lovely view from my primitive hovel. Perhaps. I certainly hope that the assessment firm has enough substantial comparable market data to back up such differences.
I wish Orford well in its fight of the assessments. The State is looking for revenue in some tough economic times. It should be interesting to see how this plays out.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Taxing the Arts, or asking for a fair share?
I was curious to see that a somewhat local item had made the national AP site. The Board of Selectmen of the town of Peterborough has recently reversed years of tradition by taking away an artist colony's tax-exempt status. Since 1907, The MacDowell Colony has hosted hundreds of writers and artists each year on its 450 wooded acres. One of the town's lawyers argued that the artist colony does not benefit the general public, merely the artists in residence.
The town has reevaluated the status of several large charitable organization recently in an attempt to keep overall taxes down, and meet the community's growing expenses. If taxed on the value of its 450 acres, MacDowell would owe Peterborough $156,000 annually in property taxes. The town opted for compromise. It initial assessed the colony $50,000 in taxes, stating that it would be willing to accept $17,000 in order to recoop the cost of supply the colony with town services. However, it threatened to take the colony to court when MacDowell refused to pay, based on its tax exempt status.
Many who live in Peterborough feel that the town is becoming greedy. Should charitable organizations have to pay taxes on their real property like everyone else? Probably not "like everyone else". However, if part of the charter of the charity is not to preserve property from development, I think charities that hold large tracts of land should be taxed on any land not used to further the charter of the charity. The tax could be at a much lower rate that the rest of us pay, but there could be some tangible give back to the community.
If I were administering the MacDowell Colony, I would partner with another charitable organization, such as The Nature Conservancy. The bulk of the land could be donated to a land-trust organzation, whose main mission was to keep large parcels of land undeveloped. The writers and artists that visit MacDowell could still benefit from having gentle access to the inspiring isolation of that wilderness, but Peterborough would have less 'ground' to stand on when it game to taxing the Colony.
If the Board of Selectmen are truly being greedy, I would just love to see them attempt to take on The Nature Conservancy. Peterborough would end up spending more in that losing legal battle than they could hope to recoup in decades of taxes on the disputed property. I wonder if the Colony has considered such a strategy.
The town has reevaluated the status of several large charitable organization recently in an attempt to keep overall taxes down, and meet the community's growing expenses. If taxed on the value of its 450 acres, MacDowell would owe Peterborough $156,000 annually in property taxes. The town opted for compromise. It initial assessed the colony $50,000 in taxes, stating that it would be willing to accept $17,000 in order to recoop the cost of supply the colony with town services. However, it threatened to take the colony to court when MacDowell refused to pay, based on its tax exempt status.
Many who live in Peterborough feel that the town is becoming greedy. Should charitable organizations have to pay taxes on their real property like everyone else? Probably not "like everyone else". However, if part of the charter of the charity is not to preserve property from development, I think charities that hold large tracts of land should be taxed on any land not used to further the charter of the charity. The tax could be at a much lower rate that the rest of us pay, but there could be some tangible give back to the community.
If I were administering the MacDowell Colony, I would partner with another charitable organization, such as The Nature Conservancy. The bulk of the land could be donated to a land-trust organzation, whose main mission was to keep large parcels of land undeveloped. The writers and artists that visit MacDowell could still benefit from having gentle access to the inspiring isolation of that wilderness, but Peterborough would have less 'ground' to stand on when it game to taxing the Colony.
If the Board of Selectmen are truly being greedy, I would just love to see them attempt to take on The Nature Conservancy. Peterborough would end up spending more in that losing legal battle than they could hope to recoup in decades of taxes on the disputed property. I wonder if the Colony has considered such a strategy.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Which gods do I have to sacrafice to for this to turn out well?
I just read on Yahoo News that Fox has ordered a pilot for a new Terminator-inspired TV series, The Sarah Connor Chronicles. It will supposedly be character-driven, and will follow Sarah and John as they are on the run, hiding from the machines, when John is still a teenager.
I really loved The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day. The third movie, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, was a disappointment. I think the main reason I was unhappy with the flick* is that it didn't live up to the story development of the first two. In addition, and probably more importantly, I had read a great interpretation of what should have come next. S.M. Stirling wrote a trilogy of books: T2: Infiltrator, T2: Rising Storm, T2: Future War. If you liked the first two movies, you will love this series. Reading the series got me reading some of Stirling's other books. (All of which I got him to autograph at World Con in Boston last year.)
The new Fox series sounds more along the lines of Stirling's books in focus, though it will probably bridge the official story gap between the second and third movies. Science fiction television series have a hard road to travel to be successful. I wish this pilot well. Heck, if it succeeds, I will have another hour of television to look forward to on my very scaled back schedule.
*The above is a hint of a post to come: "Flick, Movie, or Film: Three distinct products of Hollywood"
I really loved The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day. The third movie, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, was a disappointment. I think the main reason I was unhappy with the flick* is that it didn't live up to the story development of the first two. In addition, and probably more importantly, I had read a great interpretation of what should have come next. S.M. Stirling wrote a trilogy of books: T2: Infiltrator, T2: Rising Storm, T2: Future War. If you liked the first two movies, you will love this series. Reading the series got me reading some of Stirling's other books. (All of which I got him to autograph at World Con in Boston last year.)
The new Fox series sounds more along the lines of Stirling's books in focus, though it will probably bridge the official story gap between the second and third movies. Science fiction television series have a hard road to travel to be successful. I wish this pilot well. Heck, if it succeeds, I will have another hour of television to look forward to on my very scaled back schedule.
*The above is a hint of a post to come: "Flick, Movie, or Film: Three distinct products of Hollywood"
Thursday, November 10, 2005
I am cursed, I tell you!
I love word games. Until a couple of years ago, I was pretty smug about my skill with them. Our church has a family game night several times a year. So, I glommed right on that when we joined. I met my match in Scrabble. My (now good) friend Chris is unbeatable, as far as I can tell. I feel good if I can come within a hundred points of her.
However, I assumed that Chris was an abberation. Surely, I could still beat just about anyone else. Or at least give as good as I get. I am not so sure any more.
My good buddy Brian and I started playing Scrabble online a few months after he moved to California. We were pretty eveningly matched for quite a while. We basically took turns winning. And then, about two months ago, I really slaughtered him in one game. I felt very proud of myself. I crowed about that game around my house for days and days.
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! The Fates do not like when you do stuff like that. Now, I fear that I may never win again. Brian has beaten me more times in a row than I can count now. (Ok, it's been at least five times.) And, the first few times he basically more than doubled my score. The gap the last couple of games has decreased to less than a hundred points. However, the games have not even been close at the end.
Anyone for a rousing game of checkers?
However, I assumed that Chris was an abberation. Surely, I could still beat just about anyone else. Or at least give as good as I get. I am not so sure any more.
My good buddy Brian and I started playing Scrabble online a few months after he moved to California. We were pretty eveningly matched for quite a while. We basically took turns winning. And then, about two months ago, I really slaughtered him in one game. I felt very proud of myself. I crowed about that game around my house for days and days.
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! The Fates do not like when you do stuff like that. Now, I fear that I may never win again. Brian has beaten me more times in a row than I can count now. (Ok, it's been at least five times.) And, the first few times he basically more than doubled my score. The gap the last couple of games has decreased to less than a hundred points. However, the games have not even been close at the end.
Anyone for a rousing game of checkers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
