I’m just a bill on Capitol Hill…

by

PRWatch has this up.  Those of us of a certain age will recall the original (they have a link to it, too.)  Ahhh…remember when they were actually trying to inform people of the government process?  And civil rights?  My older sisters took Civics classes…by the time I reached high school, some five years later…no civics classes—just government class.  And it didn’t even hit me what had happened until I went to college, and one of my professors began asking the class if they knew their rights.  None of them did.

Correction

by

Boy, is my face red…

I realized last night that my post on Romney’s tax returns was ass backwards.  I should have added the $7,000 standard deduction instead of subtracting it.  Geesh.   And no, I wasn’t smoking anything.  Stupid dyslexia rearing its ugly head…

Anyway, I’ve edited the post.

Romney’s tax returns

by

The Sunlight Foundation has this up on the lack of sunlight by Romney.  (hat tip to washington post)

The rightwingers are all over this–saying that Romney is a private individual who does not have to disclose his returns.

Um…does anyone else wonder why the rightwing (and the Dems)  are all about snooping into other people’s lives…saying “if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t mind someone reading your emails, watching what books you check out, who you call on the phone (and what you say), and generally destroying the Fourth Amendment…so, um…why do they have a problem with Romney laying his tax return out there?  I mean, if he has nothing to hide….

Looking at the stats on Romney…good grief look at the disparity between him and Obama.  And man, it warmed my heart to see Obama was paying 32%, but as the article states, it’s because of the classification of income–Obama’s coming from book sales.

The rightwingers will make the case that Romney somehow deserves to only pay 13 -15% of his income because it’s investment income…they have wrongly stated that he would be paying taxes on income he’s already paid taxes on. Not true–the investment capital is not taxed again, but the profits he makes on those investments is.   He should be paying 35% on the profits he makes–whether its from investments or from a paycheck.  Incidentally, if he loses money, he gets to deduct that from his taxes owed.

Lastly,  I’m sick of hearing about how great the rich are in contributing to charity–some statement was made awhile back on how much more they give to charity.  Sitting where I am, there is just as much charity with the poor–only they don’t get to deduct that off their taxes, so it isn’t documented.  They will help others out the best that they can–a few bucks or few sheets of typing paper or a few slices of bread to tide one over…that sort of thing.

So…speaking of taxes…here is the 2011 tax table figures:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

If one takes the standard deduction (single), they start taxing you when you make $15,000–minus the $7,000 standard deduction.    It’s stunningly pathetic that the one-percenters like Romney can take taxes off to feed his horse, but a person who every week has to decide whether to pay the light bill or food on the table has to pay taxes on a measily $15k.  Poverty level….

Here is the poverty level, by the way–which is waaaay too low:  http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml

A person making $20,000 per year would be more like it–you can’t afford decent housing at even that level.  You certainly couldn’t put any money away in savings nor could one take even the most simple vacation (camping, etc.).  You’re one paycheck away from being homeless.

I think the reasons for keeping the level so low are listed on the page–it’s used to determine food stamp eligibility and other social services…it’s the same with the false 8% unemployment figures…if you don’t acknowledge a problem exists, or acknowledge the scope of the problem, then you don’t have to get off your butt and do something about it.

 

West Nile

by

…well, it’s that time of year for the Health Dept to put out its dire warnings of West Nile virus, spread by mosquitoes.  This is an annual warning by the dept. so you would think that thousands of people die of the disease...nope.

Here’s  a story on a death by West Nile.  Note that it’s the first one since 2007:  http://www.statesman.com/news/local/west-nile-death-first-since-2007-2425637.html

The state’s Health Dept. was recommending people use DEET to avoid mosquitoes, and subsequently, the virus.  I was at the beginning of chemical awareness and asked the director of the office I was in whether citronella was as effective.  He said yes, but citronella had to be applied every 30 minutes.  When I asked about an article I had just read about DEET being linked with epileptic seizures, he confirmed that it did cause seizures in some people.  So, I asked why the public wasn’t informed of this, and that citronella was a non-chemical solution, he blew me off. The health dept. denied people information so that they could make their own decisions.  This was another reason I left that job.

Here’s  a link (gov) on it: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002763.htm

Here’s a less biased link:  http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2005/DEET-Cox-NCAP17oct2005.htm

A good link here.  She outlines the dangers and then gives helpful suggestions on natural repellants.   When I still had my house, I would light three or so citronella candles before going out to the patio, and never had a problem with being bitten.  And I also had natural citronella bug repellant wipes that I used when I was out.

I tried to look up deaths from DEET, and there are few reported cases.  Since it is known to cause seizures, and other neurological issues, I have to be skeptical of the statistics–how many had seizures that caused death, but it was not attributed to DEET?  Since there is such denial in the medical profession of the devastating effects of chemicals (toxins) on our health, I’m just not that confident that they are inquiring about the chemicals a person uses.

Greenwald on Extremism Normalized

by

…continuing to boil the frog…

From the comments section, a few posters are arguing about the uninformed public making poor choices because…they’re uninformed.  SiouxRose makes the point that a single mother with 2 kids doesn’t have the time to do what we do–looking for the news on the internet…because she sure the hell isn’t getting the information she needs to make an informed decision on the network news.

Then another poster comments that people need to take responsibility.

The problem with that is  with media consolidation into the rightwing mania, the information access is extremely limited.  It’s difficult to get accurate, mostly unbiased (there’s no such thing as un-biased) news reported by intelligent individuals with a grasp of the subject at hand.  Like I reported earlier, the only station that reports news like it used to be reported, prior to Reagan’s assault on the Press and Marketplace of Ideas, is a rightwing station.  They report every half hour.  The other stations?  You’re lucky if you get the news in the morning, and then you’re SOL for the rest of the day.  Nothing. Nada.  And when the storm hit my area, there was nothing the next day–Saturday–to tell folks what was happening and where they could go for a cooling center.  But you can be sure that there will be half-hour segments when/if a ter__ist event is happening.

So…to blame the public for not getting access to information is blaming the wrong folks–they already have very little power.    And if you’re like me, you only get access to news through the internet.  As has been said before–you control information, you control people.

I just wish there were as much outrage over the consolidation of media and the end of the Fairness Doctrine as there is against war.

Following the trail…

by

I picked up an old copy of The Nation over the weekend, the date:  10-1-2001.  It was the first issue after 9/11, and prominently featured the twin towers on the cover.  In it was a story that I don’t recall reading, and given the upheaval of that moment in time, I probably didn’t read it.

However, the story was worthy of the cover had it not been for the tragedy of the weeks before–

The report by Amy Bach, an attorney, was on the Federalist Society and its infiltration into law schools all over the country.

In it, she showed the web of connections that this “society” was constructing–conservative law students (Antonin Scalia was one) who didn’t like their liberal law professors’ point of view, and wanted to do something about it.  That something was the Federalist Society to encourage conservative students to organize, and then make connections to the power players in the White House and the Supreme Court.

Bach names names and one of them is Jeff Sutton.  He argued the cases Alexander v. Sandoval and University of Alabama et al v. Garrett. (link here: http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/vol11_no4/art1p1.html)

I did a search to see where Sutton was now–here:  http://www.onu.edu/node/34771

and here:  http://abovethelaw.com/tag/jeffrey-sutton/

Well, of course he was nominated to a judge position by Bush.

From the article:

“…it [Federalist policy] benefits big business, it’s anti-egalitarian, it shuts plaintiffs like the poor and disabled out of courts, and it rolls back the New Deal notion that the courts have a role to play in helping the downtrodden.”

However, Bach noted organizations of progressive and centrists, one of which is the American Constitution Society.  The problem with getting organized is that progressives are not as narrow-minded, but independent in thought.  It’s soooo much easier to organize when your targets are the poor, disabled, women, minorities, etc.–you know, people who have less power to fight back.