O'Reily shouldn't Joke about beheading reporters

I'm horrified by Fox host Bill O'Reilly's "joke" about beheading Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank. Dana's alleged sin was failing to acknowledge that Fox had more than one Democrat on air on election eve as it celebrated the Republican victory.
Dana is a good friend and former colleague in the WSJ Boston bureau. Because he's hilariously funny and understated, he's a perfect foil for the overheated, angry Fox commentators. Dana writes about his feelings about O'Reilly's attack on him in the Washington Post today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110906643.html
He notes that jokes about beheading reporters are especially painful for those of us who worked for the Wall Street Journal when our colleague Danny Pearl was beheaded by militant Islamists in Pakistan. It's ironic that WSJ reporters and Fox commentators are all part of the News Corp. family.
O'Reilly is probably also miffed about Dana's terrific new book on his Fox stable mate, Glenn Beck: "Tears of a Clown." In the book, Dana describes the histrionic Beck, whose weepy monologues are enhanced by smearing mentholatum gel under his eyes, with devastating accuracy. Using Beck's own excuse Dana says he can't be misrepresenting Beck if he quotes his own words.
The book will tell most people far more than they want to know about what Beck says without ever really answering the question of whether he believes all of it. It struck me as a brilliant examination of how a propagandist can use innuendo and subtle misstatements to create a world that is very different from the one most of us live in.
Dana has succeeded in writing an exhaustive case study of how the paranoid mind can spin and spread conspiracy theories. Some 9 million people listen to him every week on TV and radio, so in a country of 300 million, he's only reaching a tiny fringe. But those folks scare Congressmen in conservative districts, and many of them go to tea party rallies. Unfortunately, Beck's technique and his world view matter.

Google suit over Microsoft contract hurts U.S. Gov operations

Google is stepping up its game in office software with a lawsuit against the Interior Dept. for picking Microsoft Office for a $59 million upgrade. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588641430182832.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_business
I'm not sure of the merits of Google's case. But I know the resulting delay won't be good for governement operations.
The endless litigation over government IT contracts is a big reason the government IT systems are so antiquated. Every effort to upgrade IT in government agencies requires months or years of writing RFPs followed by public comments, followed by amendments, followed by bids, followed by selections, followed by litigation. This is further complicated by quadrennial turnover of agency heads and deputy under-secretaries requiring the new leader to be updated on everything that went into the contract RFP and its aftermath.
The goal, of course, is fair competition for government procurement that will result in the best systems and the lowest price. The alternative would probably be companies lobbying congressmen with campaign contributions which isn't good either. But the game for bidders now is to get into the RFP process and put in criteria that make your company's product the only one that can fulfill the RFP. That's what Google says happened at Interior.
There's also a game of pulling together many competitors into consortia with different ones taking the lead on different contracts.
Maybe the Google lawsuit will result in a better system in 2012 or 2013. But Interior will lose a couple of years of enhanced productivity, and Microsoft may end up winning anyway.

How Google Avoids U.S. Taxes and How to Prevent It

My old colleague Jesse Drucker had a fascinating Washington Post article last weekend on corporate taxes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/30/AR2010103004613.html
It explains how one of the world's most profitable companies, Google, managed to virtually eliminate international taxes and minimize taxes paid anywhere by transferring its intellectual property to an Irish subsidiary. It then turned the profits of that subsidiary over to a Bermuda unit, via a Netherlands subsidiary.
You can get mad at Google for doing evil by ducking taxes. But that's unrealistic. Every company will do the most it can to cut its taxes. The U.S. 38% corporate tax rate is the highest corporate tax rate in the world, next to Japan. There will always be countries that see a benefit by having low corporate taxes. Ireland's tax-friendly laws resulted in the gainful employment of 2,000 Google workers in a shiny building in Dublin.
To me, the worst consequence of this is that the profits Google shelters from taxes have to stay overseas or be subject to the U.S. tax rate when they're brought back to the U.S. That gives Google an incentive to invest the money overseas either by buying foreign companies or building its business in Ireland and elsewhere. The Obama administration wants to force U.S. companies to pay taxes on some of their foreign profits. But that will put them at a big disadvantage against European and Asian companies that have lower tax rates. That, in turn, will hurt U.S. exports.
It seems to me that we'd bolster the U.S. export economy and the competitiveness of U.S. business a lot if we lowered the corporate tax rate to 15%. Then many companies will bring their profits back to the U.S. and invest where it makes the most economic sense rather than the most tax sense.

I just saw that Megan McArdle at Atlantic blogged on this issue advocating a zero-corporate-tax rate. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/why-we-should-eliminate-the-corporate-income-tax/65351/