Re: Not the same.

1

Lara! Lara!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 5:16 PM
horizontal rule
2

Who's Lara.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 5:19 PM
horizontal rule
3

Kidding, I briefly wondered but couldn't be bothered to check.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 5:20 PM
horizontal rule
4

1: Easy, tiger. We all remember the '90s. Mmmmm, Playstation 1 graphics.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 5:27 PM
horizontal rule
5

We all remember the '90s.

Whoah, let's not go too far here.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 5:45 PM
horizontal rule
6

Maybe unnecessarily presidential, probably easy enough to guess. I know the author of the second piece. She's pretty awesome. Frankly, not sure why she works out over there when she could go to the YW instead (where everyone else in our social circle goes, so maybe that's why.) Anyhow, yeah, I mean, kinda silly thing to do, but totally reasonable when you hear the explanation.


Posted by: William Howard Taft | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
7

Clearly, the problem is that people who write comments on the Internet are terrible.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
8

I don't think the explanation lets her off the hook for not realizing that she looks funny. I mean, absolutely do things that look funny. The consequence is that you look funny.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
9

Well, sure, it's funny, but it's viral because she's fat.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
10

I'm not going to defend that part - people are indeed assholes about fatness.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
11

I think it would be funny if ANYONE, of any shape/size, were sitting in a chair on a treadmill watching TV. However, I think the quality of the mockery would be different, and I'm not very comfortable with the mockery that's based on her size rather than her behavior.


Posted by: E. Messily | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 7:24 PM
horizontal rule
12

Yes to 11. Mara called me fat tonight to try to hurt my feelings, because only a mean FAT mom would make a child leave a playground. Other friends and I had been talking about when and how that becomes a clear negative term rather than a neutral descriptor, and clearly it's some time before 6.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
13

12: A friend's kid was reading some book that had as an aside, something about a kid being teased for being fat, and was genuinely mystified. I think this was when she was 9 or maybe 10.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
14

11 is (of course) correct.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
15

I mean, the OP also basically said 11. "Let's separate insults about her body from people who were laughing at her behavior." The problem is I think mostly nobody was laughing at the behavior, however funny it would have been on its own. As 9 says.


Posted by: E. Messily | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
16

I only laugh at pictures of cats asking for cheeseburgers.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
17

The link has no photo, fwiw. And it still made me laugh.

Yes, it went viral because she's overweight, and that is shitty. But all the emphasis on the back story and "if they only knew there was a House marathon on!" still strikes me as funny.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
18

The link in the OP doesn't contain the photo, but the original post that it's reposting does.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
19

Mostly I feel sorry for the person waiting to use the machine.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
20

Oh, I had misread and assumed it was the photo from the comments. Now I'm all confused because in the photo teo linked to it seems like all the humor is coming from the situation (with perhaps an assist from overalls) since the person in the photo isn't fat. Whereas with the other photo I totally understood why people were arguing that everyone's just laughing at a person for being fat.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
21

I take no position on the photo or its use, but under any just regime the one-sentence paragraph in the narrative personal essay would be banned.

And then it happened.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 9:30 PM
horizontal rule
22

I had my picture/brief video taken by strangers a week or two ago while doing something outré, and keep worrying that it's all over the internet by now. It wasn't titillating, didn't fit into existing narratives about Bay Area assholes, and it was probably impossible for me to look fat under the circumstances, so it might have gone nowhere. Or perhaps it's all over Black Twitter. I'm going to sleep now and will leave you all to speculate.

(sorry Halford -- last 2 sentences should have been two distinct paragraphs)


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 10:25 PM
horizontal rule
23

I was just typing away in a comments box, minding my own business, making paragraphs - you know, just writing - and then I realized I wanted to emphasize something. The site I was posting on re-flows the text depending on the width of the window and I didn't want my point to be lost in a sea of words all crammed together.

So I made the point its own paragraph.

Weeks later, I got a frantic text message from a friend I hadn't heard from in years attached to a gif showing a cat at a keyboard in front of a screen with a copy of Word 97 showing Clippy. The cat was pawing the "return" key. The caption read, in all caps: SO I MADE THE POINT ITS OWN PARAGRAPH. My friend's text message said, only: "did they copy u?"


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 08-24-14 10:38 PM
horizontal rule
24

OT: NMM2 Dicky Attenborough. People of 90 do fall off their perches and he had a damn good innings, but why can't some of the bastards kick off?


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 1:28 AM
horizontal rule
25

I understand this, because before we signed up for cable the gym was my place for watching Jeopardy on the elliptical. (I guess we could have gotten it over the air, but meh, lazy.) Thankfully Wheel comes on afterwards to guarantee I don't get too in shape. Never would have thought of just using a chair, does seem a bit like cheating.

Mmmmm, Playstation 1 graphics.

Triangles! Our graphics are better, but our misogynists are the same.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 2:10 AM
horizontal rule
26

re: 25

I'm just hoping the fates have something really nasty saved up for Tony Blair:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/24/tony-blair-advice-kazakh-president-protesters

Some kind of tragic combined public immolation/prolapse, or something.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 2:46 AM
horizontal rule
27

26. People who have followed Doonesbury down the years will notice that Blair is here re-enacting a long story arc involving Duke, the strip's resident psychopath. We can only hope that the parallels continue, that Nazarbeyev is ejected from Kazakhstan, moves into Blair's house and takes over all his stuff.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 3:04 AM
horizontal rule
28

Looking at 18: that photo is funny, man.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 3:50 AM
horizontal rule
29

Having seen the photo in 18... a) she's not fat and b) she's not easily identified (although I suppose her friend and her mother figured out it was her, so I'm on flimsy ground here). Aren't there a million people who coud look exactly like that if they were sat in the same spot?


Posted by: parodie | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 4:20 AM
horizontal rule
30


People who have followed Doonesbury down the years will notice that Blair is here re-enacting a long story arc involving Duke, the strip's resident psychopath

OMG, you're right. There's even a lovestruck Chinese suitor whose affection he doesn't return, but whom he keeps around because she's useful.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 4:45 AM
horizontal rule
31

30 was me.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 5:18 AM
horizontal rule
32

And of course, Tony Blair's acid benders are legendary.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 6:30 AM
horizontal rule
33

He did play in a band named after a Grateful Dead album, but I think that's as far as it went. People I know who knew him as a student are unanimous that he was almost praeternaturally boring.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 6:35 AM
horizontal rule
34

What Grateful Dead song, turned into a band name, would be the most boring band?

Probably "Sunrise".


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 7:52 AM
horizontal rule
35

Song title, I mean.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 7:53 AM
horizontal rule
36

St. StephenEtienne.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
37

Or "Eyes of the World". That would be a boring band circa 1990, the Tears For Fears / Jesus Jones era.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 7:57 AM
horizontal rule
38

At a Siding.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 8:06 AM
horizontal rule
39

Drums


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 8:09 AM
horizontal rule
40

Ugh, what if there was a whole Drums PLANET?


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 8:11 AM
horizontal rule
41

touch of gray


Posted by: alameida | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
42

"Kevin Drums" is what they call it when Mickey Hart just plays an earnest, reasonable 4/4 beat for an hour and a half.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
43

Bonus points awarded to Halford for 42.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
44

There's a great video explaining the four on the floor beat.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 8:46 AM
horizontal rule
45

20: did you read the comments she got? They were laughing at her for being fat. Your assessment of her as not fat has nothing to do with that.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
46

I don't even see fat. Which is why I can't make a roux.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 9:12 AM
horizontal rule
47


Annals of diplomacy. Fuckers are letting that "special relationship" status go to their heads. (H/T LGM).


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
48

Annals of diplomacy. Fuckers are letting that "special relationship" status go to their heads. (H/T LGM).

That's fantastic. There's also the immediately prior tweet:

British EmbassyVerified account ‏@UKinUSA

200 yrs ago today, British redcoats marched down Penn Ave to set fire to the White House.

Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 9:39 AM
horizontal rule
49

Finally, a causus belli. Let's finish the job and take Toronto.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
50

That should have been #finishthejob #takeToronto #theyburnedtheWhiteHouse #moderndayredcoats


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 9:55 AM
horizontal rule
51

We'll start the invasion by sending in Burger Kings!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
52

Emergency legal bleg:

The IRS is trying to ream me out almost 10k on account of money I send back into the US from abroad, to pay off my student loans. They're saying it's taxable income, even though it's my own money I file returns on every year.

I asked my parents stateside to hire a tax attorney, and they came up with this, which seems crap somehow. Does anyone know anyone good? Ugh.


Posted by: Konrad Adenauer | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
53

For 10k it's almost certainly not worth it to hire anyone actually good. A volume tax defense shop is probably fine. I can ask around but you can't afford a $400/hr tax lawyer.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:02 AM
horizontal rule
54

53: Yeah, I agree it's not worth it to go top shelf. My fear though is that a volume place won't be at all well prepared to handle my practically sui generis situation.


Posted by: Konrad Adenauer | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
55

52: Rather than hiring an attorney, I'd suggest finding an enrolled agent. Your parents should be able to locate one near them.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:10 AM
horizontal rule
56

52: How is that even possible? Erg!


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
57

45: That commenters are misogynist assholes doesn't prove anything. If it did no youtube video would ever have been legitimately funny.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, the go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:36 AM
horizontal rule
58

56: Even the IRS agent seemed to implicitly recognise the situation is ridiculous, but the law says money over a certain threshold coming into a US bank account from abroad is taxable, so from their end, it's that simple: I have to pay taxes on it.


Posted by: Konrad Adenauer | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:39 AM
horizontal rule
59

You probably should have talked to the lawyer before you sent the money in.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
60

58 doesn't make it sound like hiring a lawyer is going to help much... I trust you've carefully reported your foreign bank accounts every year?


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
61

Do you mind disclosing the threshold? I just want to make sure I don't need to do any ninja accounting myself; I do send money back each month to pay for various debts.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:46 AM
horizontal rule
62

60: Yes, where required by law. Some years my liquid assets were below the threshold for reporting.


Posted by: real ffeJ annaH | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:47 AM
horizontal rule
63

Hey. I guessed correctly.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:48 AM
horizontal rule
64

Woops, I gave up my identity, oh well.

61: I actually don't know. I chuck over about 5k a year, so that was enough.


Posted by: real ffeJ annaH | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:49 AM
horizontal rule
65

Hm, I do that much as well. I won't worry about it until the IRS come knocking, I suppose.

God, sometimes I really hate dealing with this sort of crap. I haven't once reported a foreign bank account, which is maybe a mistake, but I believe I'm under the required threshold (it looks like you need $50,000 in assets for married, filing separately). As far as I'm concerned, permanent residents of another country (and legit ones, not tax haven seeking people) just shouldn't have to deal with the US tax system at all.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
66

I'm so confused, google doesn't bring up anything about a tax on bringing money in, and lots of people saying it's fine. Maybe my google-fu is getting weak.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:58 AM
horizontal rule
67

How are they supposed to tell you are legit and not tax having seeking if you don't deal with the U.S. tax system?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
68

65: Noooo it's 10k, not 50k.


Posted by: real ffeJ annaH | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
69

There's two kinds of reporting, I think one kicks in at 10K and the other at 50K.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
70

You should probably talk to an accountant about retroactively reporting that, the penalties are pretty awful.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
71

67: Somehow every other country in the world manages it, so maybe one could ask around.


Posted by: real ffeJ annaH | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
72

68: No, I'm still fine. There's not a bank account with $10,000 in it in my name anywhere.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
73

70: Also, honestly, I'm at this point willing to say fuck it, I'm not going back. I have zero plans to live in the US in the future.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:03 AM
horizontal rule
74

How can moving 5K give you 10K in taxes? That's super weird.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
75

74: It's over several years. What they want to do is charge me back taxes, penalties, and administrative fees, which come out to close to 8k, and would clear my obligations and also allow me to transfer money into the US for the next 10 years tax free, as long as it's for the sole purpose of paying student loans. An IRS agent also has to come out to my parents' home and set this all out formally, and I have to be present on conference call.

That's the compromise they came up with after chatting with their legal dept for 10 minutes. I told the guy I'd think about it and talk to some people and he said the case will be over a year old very soon*, and after that things can get very serious. I told him that was intimidation and dissuading me from legal counsel as is my right, and he backed down a bit.

*They say they sent stuff to my parents' house twice via UPS, since 2013, but my parents never received anything. They have my address in Germany, as I file a tax return every year, but they've never tried to contact me there.


Posted by: real ffeJ annaH | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
76

Holy shit, and now my dad's saying the whole thing is a scam: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Reiterates-Warning-of-Pervasive-Telephone-Scam


Posted by: real ffeJ annaH | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
77

Ah, now that makes much more sense than the rest of the story!


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in." (9) | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
78

My google-fu is fine after all!


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in." (9) | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
79

If it's a scam, you can deduct it from next year's taxes.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
80

I was really confused about how your parents got looped in to what should be private between you and the IRS. Also UPS struck me as really weird, surely the IRS only uses USPS.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in." (9) | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
81

It's a scam. The IRS doesn't use UPS, only US mail, and googling the 888 number they gave, seems clear it is a known scammer #.

THANK GOD


Posted by: real ffeJ annaH | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
82

Do you use your current (foreign) address when filing with IRS? Is there some other reason why the real IRS would be trying to send things to your parents' house (btw, they always send certified mail, not UPS). It really does sound like a scam, though one wonders how they could possibly have found you and your weird situation to target.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
83

Ditto to 77.

Fleur has been getting calls recently purporting to be from the IRS, but her scammers are a lot less sophisticated, it seems.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
84

82 before 81. Well, that solves it. Any idea how they could have found it?


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
85

Great. Here's a scary thought to disturb you're reacquired peace of mind. How did they know enough about you to contact you (or your parents) on that scam?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
86

Just send out a relatively specific scam to lots of people and you'll hit a few that it actually matches. I get all kinds of spam about my non-existent fifth-third bank account but I'm sure if you email a million people some significant number of them have an account there.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
87

85 before seeing 84.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
88

That they could find you in particular really does seem like the weirdest part of the story.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
89

Hey! One less thing to worry about. That is an absolutely crazy story.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
90

Are you on some sort of list of Americans abroad? Also finding your parents is super weird.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
91

If they contact me, we'll know they've infiltrated Unfogged.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
92

They wrangled a good long while on the phone with my parents - who are not slick, so they may have actually started with very little info, and gotten a lot out of them indirectly.


Posted by: real ffeJ annaH | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
93

Yikes. Glad you found out in time. We've gotten numerous messages on our answering machine from scammers claiming to be from the IRS.

An IRS agent also has to come out to my parents' home and set this all out formally, and I have to be present on conference call.

One of the scammers was set to show up in person? Maybe it would be a good idea to contact the authorities so they could nab the guy.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
94

Or just have your parents invite them in, shoot them in the doorway, and plant a gun on them.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
95

53: Tax lawyers in your area only charge $400/hr. I think a "good" one here would be $500.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
96

$400/hr was the cheapest possible rate I could think of. Our legal market is more expensive than Boston, in general.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
97


I get all kinds of spam about my non-existent fifth-third bank account but I'm sure if you email a million people some significant number of them have an account there.

A variant of the same technique is to say "your credit card account number beginning..." Most people don't realize that the first digits of the credit card number identify the issuing bank, so it looks legit.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:40 AM
horizontal rule
98

FIRST WE SPAM MANHATTAN THEN WE SPAM BERLIN.


Posted by: OPINIONATED LEONARD.COHEN@BOT.NET | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:41 AM
horizontal rule
99

95: $500 is on the cheaper end of very good at a small firm, but obviously you know that markets better than I do.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 11:45 AM
horizontal rule
100

Gets you a lawsuit against Obama:

Contract for BakerHostetler to handle GOP lawsuit vs. Pres Obama "agrees to pay...at a blended rate of $500 per hour for...attorney time."


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
101

Perhaps they cracked the foreign bank's database and looked for US citizens.

I'm minded of the Leverage episode (and I remember hearing this was quite real) where scammers conspired with IRS employees, got lists of people with a back taxes repayment schedule, and strongarmed them into putting the entire repayment amount on a credit card.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 12:50 PM
horizontal rule
102

47 is fantastic. And the US can get all upset about it right after they stop celebrating Independence Day.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
103

47 is fantastic. And the US can get all upset about it right after they stop celebrating Independence Day.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
104

Oh, is UPS not mail fraud?


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
105

I can't remember offhand, but they talked to you on the phone, so that's wire fraud. Same deal.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
106

That is, to Jeff.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
107

Interesting - I wouldn't have guessed, but various places online say using UPS or FedEx or similar services for fraud does constitute wire fraud, because they're interstate carriers.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
108

107: Yes, it's in the statute ("sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier"). Wiki says (w/o citation) that it wouldn't apply to a UPS mailing that doesn't cross state lines but that sounded wrong and on a very quick look several circuits disagree.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
109

Mail fraud, that should be, obviously.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
110

Weird, that was the only reason I could think of that they wouldn't just use USPS, since that seems like a tipoff. Maybe they believed wikipedia.

I'm still curious how they figured out to target you. It seems that they only have your US address which may narrow it down a little. It seems rare enough a situation that they probably have a list somehow (rather than say looking at your parent's trash).


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 3:50 PM
horizontal rule
111

Thank you everyone for your help. I'm trying to sort out with my dad what they knew from the beginning and what they got from him. He's being vague and somewhat uncooperative, which makes me think they actually got quite a lot from him, and he's now embarrassed about it. Once I sort that out I'll report this to the Treasury.


Posted by: real ffeJ annaH | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 4:12 PM
horizontal rule
112

Glad you've got it worked out, ffeJ. The thread was crazy to read through - what a relief that it was a scam.


Posted by: ydnew | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 4:26 PM
horizontal rule
113

Re: 47 etc.

Did everybody else know, per Wikipedia, that the US and UK pressured the Free French NOT to allow African troops to parade in the liberation-of-Paris parade down the Champs Elysees 70 years ago? That's pretty fucked up.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
114

Sorry, that was me.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 4:30 PM
horizontal rule
115

What if the scam was coming from inside the blog?


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 4:31 PM
horizontal rule
116

sorry ffej, that's hella creepy. it does sound as if they pumped your dad. you do have to declare the maximum USD amount held at any point in any and every foreign bank account in your name, but you know this, probably. I do this also, obviously, and have to file estimated quarterly payments, but one quarter late because overseas filers get an automatic chance to defer to june 15th. but obviously they can only tax your income one time, and indeed only start to tax you at all once you've made over a certain amount of money. god, how creepy and weird. but the irs will always use the us mail and have your ss#. it will be interesting to see if they had it when they called your dad, right? that would be the real sign you got hacked somewhere along the line.


Posted by: alameida | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:37 PM
horizontal rule
117

halford, is 115 a confession?


Posted by: alameida | Link to this comment | 08-25-14 10:37 PM
horizontal rule
118

113 is quite startling and I wonder why Morgan was so willing to give Bedell Smith and the US army its way on that. I suppose one could read his memo charitably as "look, Colonel, you know how the Americans are about this sort of thing, and if you want their support you need to lose the coloured soldiers pronto" rather than actually endorsing the statement (which was after all made by his boss). Still not great.
(BTW I think, Natilo, that you're misreading Wikipedia a bit on that. 2e DB was not purged of black troops just for the victory parade - it was purged of black troops for the entire battle for Paris.)


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 08-26-14 3:39 AM
horizontal rule
119

Britain caved to American demands on Jim Crow fairly consistently throughout the war (cf. the Nat Bookbinder affair). They excused themselves by saying that relations were strained enough as it was and this was not the ditch they wanted to die in.

What would have happened if Brooke had gone to Eisenhower and said, "Look, if you want to appoint these Confederate revanchists to lead your armies, that's up to you, but please remind them that they're in Europe now and, German policy notwithstanding, we do things differently here", I don't know. Would the Americans have taken their ball home?


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 08-26-14 4:57 AM
horizontal rule
120

119: good point. As I think I noted elsewhere, we'd already irritated them more than somewhat by renaming the M4 Tank the "Sherman".


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 08-26-14 5:42 AM
horizontal rule
121

What would have happened if Brooke had gone to Eisenhower and said, "Look, if you want to appoint these Confederate revanchists to lead your armies, that's up to you, but please remind them that they're in Europe now and, German policy notwithstanding, we do things differently here", I don't know. Would the Americans have taken their ball home?

Obviously the treatment of black soldiers by the U.S. (and other Western Allies) in the second world war was disgraceful. But this can hardly be laid at the feet of Eisenhower or Beatle Smith, neither of whom was especially racist by the standards of the day. Conciliatory and political by nature, Ike was singularly focused on winning the war, and was at pains to tamp down internecine conflicts that could interfere with the prosecution of the war. Given the disproportionate representation of Southern segregationists in the U.S. Army officer corps, he can be forgiven for concluding that the military benefits of integration were outweighed by the risk of discord in the ranks. When military necessity decreed that African Americans should be allowed in combat roles, Eisenhower permitted it. Ike's later record on Civil Rights as President compares favorably with his predecessors and immediate successor.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 08-26-14 6:04 AM
horizontal rule
122


Eisenhower's postwar record on racial matters looks especially good in contrast to Montgomery's tenure as Chief of the Imperial Staff. Just sayin'.



Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 08-26-14 6:16 AM
horizontal rule
123

121. I fully understand Eisenhower's reasoning, which was effective, if not glorious (but once you're in bed with Stalin, why strain at a gnat?) My point was whether it would have been possible for the Allies to insist that while the Americans were free to organise themselves as they pleased, they could not impose their prejudices on the armed forces, let alone the civilian populations, of other countries, and if the US officer corps didn't like it they could suck it up until they got home.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 08-26-14 6:22 AM
horizontal rule
124

As far as I know, Eisenhower was personally as non-racist as any white man of his generation who wasn't a paid up Trot. Definitely less racist than Churchill, to name but one. But that isn't the point.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 08-26-14 6:26 AM
horizontal rule
125

Weren't the armed forces and civilian populations of other countries dependent on U.S. food supplies at the time?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-26-14 6:28 AM
horizontal rule
126


My point was whether it would have been possible for the Allies to insist that while the Americans were free to organise themselves as they pleased, they could not impose their prejudices on the armed forces, let alone the civilian populations, of other countries, and if the US officer corps didn't like it they could suck it up until they got home.

Perhaps, if racial justice had been a priority, or even an identified issue, for the British* government or British society. But then we're in the realm of counterfactual history.

*Not to single out Britain. The same would have been true anywhere else in Europe, only worse.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 08-26-14 6:29 AM
horizontal rule
127

125. Partly. Also Canadian, New Zealand, Australian, Argentine, South African...


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 08-26-14 6:32 AM
horizontal rule
128

I'm not saying the decision to liberate Paris with white troops wasn't motivated by racism, but I think it's possible that a non-racist rationale could have been offered for it. To wit: Hitler and his inner circle were well aware that the German population preferred to surrender to the Western Allies than to be overrun by the Bosheviks. Heck, they knew this to be true of the German officer corps, especially in the aftermath of the July 20 plot. So the propaganda apparatus of the Third Reich was actively stirring the pot, trying to create fear of being enslaved by the Western powers to stiffen the will to resistance in the West. One of the standard propaganda tropes was the "Negro brothels" that the flower of German maidenhood would be forced to toil in. One can imagine that the SHAEF would have wanted the most salient liberation event in the West to feature unthreatening white soldiers.

Also, the later excesses of French colonial troops outre Rhin suggests that misgivings about their discipline and good order were at least a little bit justified.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 08-26-14 6:44 AM
horizontal rule