Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's Warning to The Turkish People

by Nomad

FATCA: Why New Tax Haven Laws are a Disaster in the Making

by Robert Morris

Here's a guest post with some further insight on a controversial piece of legislation called FATCA. Robert Morris explains why this law on tax havens is a really really bad idea. 

First off, I would like to thank Nomad Politics for bringing up this issue, and also for reaching out to seek an opposing viewpoint to its FATCA coverage. This is the kind of open-mindedness that we could all use more of.

In that spirit, let's start by laying out a positive aspect of FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

Some Facts about FATCA

This US law was largely introduced in response to a Swiss banking scandal. A significant number of Swiss banks were revealed to have been colluding with US citizens to hide their earnings from the US government. FATCA has, in fact, severely disrupted the Swiss banking industry. Switzerland’s “too big too fail” banks, like UBS, have settled with the US government for sums that are eye-watering, but will not severely disrupt their business. Medium-size and smaller Swiss banks are being forced to pay proportionally much larger sums, whether or not they knew their clients were from the US. Many are going out of business. The small Swiss banks that survive this reckoning will certainly think twice before they ever deal with US clients again.

Judging from the fact that my anti-FATCA video has been viewed by about a 50th of the entire population of the Cayman Islands, the legislation has been having the desired effect in other tax haven jurisdictions as well. We should admit that in this one respect, FATCA has been having the desired consequence. Tax avoidance by Americans has become more difficult, and that is a good thing.

This one positive result, however should not distract the public from FATCA’s truly mind-boggling scope. FATCA is a sledgehammer that is being used where a toothpick was necessary. FATCA does not just go after Switzerland and Cayman. It fundamentally re-orders the business of banking for every country, and in every country.

Poetree: An Environmentally-Friendly Way to be Remembered

by Nomad

 John Kennedy once said,

 "Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."   

With thoughts of mortality come thoughts about how we would like to be remembered after we are gone. The costs of funerals are astounding and, for some people, the whole idea of burial in cement vaults and steel coffin is offensive and absurd. 

More and more cemeteries require  tombstones to be flush to the ground to expedite the maintenance. Those beautiful sculptural monstrosities that the Victorians loved are long gone. Now all that's left to remember you is a flat square tile in the ground. That's it.

But all of us want to be remembered- at least to some extent- after we're gone.

I recently saw one product that neatly addresses this while touching upon each of the points Kennedy mentioned. It's called "Poetree" and it's a simple but wonderful idea.

Ashes of the deceased are placed in a biodegradable urn. The urn doubles as a planter for a tree. (The picture shows boxwood but I can't see why there couldn't be a selection. Personally I'd prefer a willow or maybe an olive tree.)
At the base of the tree, there is a ceramic ring with the name and dates of the "loved one" and again, I suppose it could be further personalized as well. For urban dwellers, the boxwood tree could be decorative, I guess, but knowing my friends, it would end up being a handy ashtray or trash can.

Eventually, the tree could be moved to some open location and planted into the ground and, as time passes, form forests.

The minimalist concept comes from the mind of French designer Margaux Ruyan from DSK ISD International School of Design (India).

Junk Science? Questions about Expert Testimony in Michigan's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Trial

by Nomad

The testimony of the state's expert witness challenging Michigan's same-sex marriage took an amusing turn when he admitted that he believed gays would suffer eternal damnation in the depths of hell. But that's only half of the story. 
Read more to learn the rest.

Last week, the testimony in a federal court challenge on Michigan's same-sex ban took an unusual turn. In order to show a clear bias in what was supposed to be pure science- the plaintiff's attorney asked Professor Douglas Allen, a Canadian economist about his personal views on homosexuality.

The Monkey Trial Trick
As the state's expert, Professor Allen had warned the court that, after reviewing 60 same-sex parenting studies over a 15-year period, he recommended that the state uphold its ban. On the surface, the testimony seemed persuasive.

Then, Attorney Ken Mogill asked Allen:

“Is it accurate that you believe the consequence of engaging in homosexual acts is a separation from God and eternal damnation? .. in other words, they’re going to hell.”

“Without repentance, yes,” answered Allen.

This courtroom technique is straight out of the historic "Scopes Monkey Trial" of 1925 in which Tennessee attempted to ban the teaching of evolution in the state's public schools. Those bans came after lobbying from by World Christian Fundamentals Association whose president also happened to be a state representative. (In the same-sex marriage debate, it's a bit more camouflaged and involves a few politically-active Christian groups.)  The climax of the Scopes trial had one legendary attorney the great William Jennings Bryan, taking the stand and being quizzed about his religious views. The defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, in effect, publicly humiliated the state's attorney. 

(However, it should be recalled too that the Tennessee court found that the teaching of evolution could be banned and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. It was a victory for fundamentalists though it is usually portrayed as victory for progressives, a victory of science over superstition.

In any event, the same-sex marriage bans have not met with the same Supreme Court approval, In fact, the decision by the high court has been the key to overturning the discriminatory laws on a state-by-state basis.
Douglas' answer suggested that his pure science might not be quite as pure as he suggested. Naturally, the courtroom exchange made all the headlines but it was only half of the story. 

  

Putin's Power Play in Crimea Exposes a Long-Held Russian Hypocrisy

by Nomad

Russia's decision to annex Ukraine's Crimean region has sent a shudder throughout the international community. Vladimir Putin's decision was part and parcel of Russian policy, one that has been shaped by both its tsarist past as well as its Soviet years under Stalin. How does this controversial decision reveal an underlying hypocrisy of Russian policy?

Empire Rebuilding?

Monday saw Russian President Vladimir Putin annexing the Crimean peninsula for the Motherland, in the name of protecting the Russian ethnic minority in Ukraine. While the Russian-speaking minority forms about 17 percent of the Ukrainian population, they do make up the majority in Crimea. A majority of region but a minority of the nation.
This act, which the international community has soundly condemned as treaty-breaking and in breach of international laws of state sovereignty, has many of Russia's neighbors- with similar minorities- extremely worried. Their greatest fear can be summed up with two questions: Is Putin actually attempting to revive the Soviet Empire? If not, where will he draw the line?

As The Washington Post found Putin's speech  was riddled with false statements about the events. One interesting misleading statement:

“Crimeans say that in 1991, they were handed over like a sack of potatoes, and I can’t help but agree with it. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests.”

Putin's re-writing of history supplies the Kremlin with all the justification it needed for what some have called "a land grab." In fact, the 1991 decision to join Ukraine was a democratic one, with a vote of 54% in favor. Buried in the quote, Putin makes the suggestion that now Russia is prepared to use force to protect its interests.
Even if that means defying the West.