Alison's Window

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Travels along Florida's "Forgotten Coast"

The Forgotten Coast of Florida, self-named, is the part of Florida where the west coast takes a sharp turn to form the Panhandle. It has the occasional small beach, with darker sand than the glittering white expanses of Clearwater Beach, Madeira Beach and Sarasota. It has extensive and very beautiful shallows that would be mud flats except that they are more sandy than muddy. The area has produced magnificent harvests of oysters, shrimp and sponges.

It is also home to wildlife both beautiful and deadly. There is a park called Tate’s Hell State Forest. The story is that a man went into the forest following his hunting dogs one day. As he got ever deeper into the forest following the baying of his hounds, the dogs were silenced one by one (a cougar, perhaps?) and the man became lost and fell into the swamp. He was bitten by a water moccasin, became feverish and wandered delirious in the forest for ten days. When he finally staggered out the other side, someone asked him his name. He said “My name is Tate and I have just come from Hell.”

From the safety of a balcony, however, the wildlife dazzles with its variety and beauty. Especially the birds, which are of course much more visible than other animals. There is a complex of rental units on a large, heavily wooded and landscaped piece of property on the wide wide Apalachicola River in Eastpoint, just east of the long bridge that takes you into Apalachicola. The place is called the Sportsman's Lodge. It is home to a large flock of very tame peacocks, peahens and little bitty peababies (I counted thirteen or fourteen over a two-hour period.) They sit on the tin roofs, wander up to the office door and bob up the stairs to the second-floor porch and rooms. The hens scratch endlessly around the rocks and low shrubs, teaching their babies how to forage. It appears they are also fed cracked corn by the lodge owners, so they do very well. They are joined by a pair of quite ugly adult Muscovy ducks, followed by two cheeping yellow-gold babies.

Viewed from the porch, the panorama of the river and shoreline provides the opportunity to rack up an impressive count of different types of birds. Ospreys, of course, abound, as do the ever-present blackbirds and some crows. Numerous pelicans glide and roost. In addition, however, are the loner birds. A kingfisher lands on a wire, dives a couple of times and disappears. What appears to be a young bald eagle circles twice and returns to the woods. A hummingbird feeds on a flowering vine in the tree. A white egret still-hunts in the shallows. A great blue heron also stands peering intently into four inches of water but chases away a second heron, even though he is surrounded by acres of unpopulated fishing grounds.

Might as well be at a wildlife sanctuary. There is also a resident squirrel that looks like its mother got friendly with a fox. It is the usual squirrel color, but the center strip of its tail is the color of a red fox. Bizarre.

Travels along Florida's "Forgotten Coast"

Saturday, September 01, 2007

In response to my daughter Georgia's recent question:

hey there
can you explain to me this guy's logic - (see quote that follows) - as to why this story, in his opinion, solidifies the argument for inheritance taxes? I mean, what would be gained if the $12 mil was taxed?

"A Dog's Life. (Or Why Leona Proves We Need Inheritance Taxes.)
Posted by EJ_Dionne at 8/29/2007 12:46 PM
Lucky dog! The Associated Press reports: "Leona Helmsley's dog will continue to live an opulent life, and then be buried alongside her in a mausoleum. But two of Helmsley's grandchildren got nothing from the late luxury hotelier and real estate billionaire's estate. Helmsley left her beloved white Maltese, named Trouble, a $12 million trust fund (my emphasis), according to her will, which was made public Tuesday in surrogate court." Or, as The New York Daily News put it: "Billionaire Leona Helmsley's pampered pooch will go on living in the lap of luxury." This news comes a day after we learn that the number of Americans without health insurance has gone up by roughly 2.2 million. What do you make of Leona's canine genrosity? Isn't this another reason why we should not repeal inheritance taxes? (again, my emphasis) Join the dog fight. (PS, I like dogs just fine and have one myself.)"

My response:
That is E.J.Dionne writing. He is a very liberal columnist. It sounds like his argument is basically what many liberals think: that "the people" are not smart enough to make their own choices, especially when it comes to "the greater good" (as defined, of course, by the liberals), so they, through government regulation - coercion - should decide how best to use our money. In this case, he wants to tax the wealth earned by someone now deceased (and hence defenseless) to spend the money on his preferred cause, in this case "Americans without health insurance." Not only does he want to take someone's accumulated and formerly taxed earnings after death and redistribute it as he sees fit, he is also proposing to intervene in private decisions as to how to spend one's money.

If someone has decided not to buy health insurance, he is putting himself at risk. It is not the government's job to second-guess him, however stupid his decision may be or seem to others-than-himself to be. If children are not being protected because their parents do not buy health insurance, perhaps there should be a nationwide insurance pool, run privately, like the system the federal government offers its employees. Everyone would have to buy some form of insurance, as we do automobile insurance, and those below the poverty line might receive a subsidy.

But the government should not buy the insurance. And it is no justification for death taxes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with death taxes. There is no discernible logical link here between death taxes and health insurance subsidies.

1. Taxing the dead is just easier than taxing someone who can protest the treatment; 2. the target is an unsympathetic figure in this case and a wealthy person in general, i.e. part of a minority the majority may envy and not object to attacking; and 3. the liberal's inclination is to add taxes to taxes to more taxes, rather than budgeting revenue already flowing in, so any tax vehicle will do.
Bored yet?
love, me