The other day I gave you some links to check out but, knowing how I am, sometimes I mean to check out sites and then, what? I guess I just get lazy and never do it. So I'm guessing that maybe you get like that too sometimes.
So.......here's the information from one of the links. It's worth a read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theology Thursdays: Where are the Christians? by Pat Buchanan
When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed.
First came capitulation on the Bush Doctrine, as Pyongyang and Tehran defied Bush's dictum: The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Then came suspension of the democracy crusade as Islamic militants exploited free elections to advance to power in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq and Iran.
Now Israel's rampage against a defenseless Lebanon -- smashing airport runways, fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges and roads -- has exposed Bush's folly in subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, making Israel the custodian of our interests in the Middle East.
Lebanon has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its airstrikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the free world than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.
Olmert seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a preplanned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.
Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas, Olmert imposed an economic blockade of Gaza and the West Bank and withheld the $50 million in monthly tax and customs receipts due the Palestinians.
Then Israel instructed the U.S. to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority, though Bush himself had called for elections and the participation of Hamas. Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied.
The predictable result: Fatah and Hamas fell to fratricidal fighting and Hamas militants began launching rockets into Israel. Hamas then tunneled into Israel, killed two soldiers, captured one, took him back into Gaza and demanded a prisoner exchange.
Israel's response was to abduct half of the Palestinian Cabinet and parliament and blow up a $50 million U.S.-insured power plant. That cut off electricity for half a million Palestinians. Their food spoiled, their water could not be purified, and their families sweltered in the summer heat.
Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas. But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and is un-American and un-Christian.
But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?
When al-Qaida captured two U.S. soldiers and butchered them, the U.S. Army did not smash power plants across the Sunni Triangle. Why, then, is Bush not only silent but openly supportive when Israelis do this? Why are Democrats, too, silent when Israel pursues a policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?
Israel appears determined to expand the Iraq war into Syria and Iran, and have America fight and finish all of Israel's enemies. That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in, this is deplorable.
Who is whispering in Bush's ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?
How much must America pay for the education of this man?
Pat Buchanan edits The American Conservative magazine.
Patrick J. Buchanan
Thursday, July 20, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of scarey when Pat Buchannan makes sense, huh?
Tawny
Sunday, July 30, 2006
I'm sure I've mentioned before that my all-time favorite siger is Holly Near. Odds are good you may have never heard of her. She's not on mainstream radio. Public radio, yes, sometimes. Mainstream never.
I want you to go to her website (www.hollynear.com). Then I want you to click on the link regarding opposing the wars.
Check out the links. You'll find some really informative stuff.
Tawny
tawnyford@webtv.net
I want you to go to her website (www.hollynear.com). Then I want you to click on the link regarding opposing the wars.
Check out the links. You'll find some really informative stuff.
Tawny
tawnyford@webtv.net
Saturday, July 29, 2006
I don't know about you but I don't wear shoes much in the summer. I'm always barefoot. In and out of the house to the backyard, out front to fetch the mail, to the driveway to get something out of my truck, overto the neighbors house to deliver a message....no shoes for me. It feels good to be unencumbered by footwear.
Until I'm heading out to the store, or to the library, or somewhere you have to have shoes on. And I forget to put them on.
I can't tell you the number of times this summer I've gotten to town, crawled out of my truck, and realized OH NO! and back home I go to grab them.
It happened again today. This time I was a good ten miles from home when I realized something--my sandals--was missing.
So now I'm thinking an extra pair of shoes might not be a bad thing to have in my truck. Tucked behind my seat by the umbrella and my jacket. Just in case.
Tawny
Until I'm heading out to the store, or to the library, or somewhere you have to have shoes on. And I forget to put them on.
I can't tell you the number of times this summer I've gotten to town, crawled out of my truck, and realized OH NO! and back home I go to grab them.
It happened again today. This time I was a good ten miles from home when I realized something--my sandals--was missing.
So now I'm thinking an extra pair of shoes might not be a bad thing to have in my truck. Tucked behind my seat by the umbrella and my jacket. Just in case.
Tawny
Friday, July 28, 2006
This article is from this week's edition of the MetroTimes (www.metrotimes.com).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicken Littles and voting rights
by Keith A. Owens
7/26/2006
Sometimes people forget.
When President Lyndon Johnson won passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it was because it had become painfully obvious by then that black Americans, particularly black Americans in the South, didn't stand a chance of being afforded the most basic and elemental American right — the right to vote — without heavy-handed assistance from the highest levels of government. Johnson, who had grown up dirt-poor in the Texas hill country, was good at being heavy-handed. Given his background it isn't exactly shocking that he had some racist attitudes of his own to wrestle with and overcome. But as someone who never forgot what poverty and degradation could do to a human being, he was probably better equipped than any president since to recognize what those ills could do to the nation.
After the Civil War, African-Americans in the former Confederacy voted in record numbers. Naturally this made white folks nervous because they knew the power of the vote, and, with the withdrawal of federal troops in 1876, they set about putting black folk back in their place — as close to their former condition of slavery and as far from the ballot box as possible.
Poll taxes and literary tests were among the gentler barriers to keep blacks from voting; when those failed there were lynchings and other forms of violence.
Only after the civil rights movement of the 1960s did those barriers fall. Even with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, years remained before black people could vote in the South without unreasonable fear of being harassed or intimidated. But vote they did, resulting in the election of record numbers of black officials.
Some might say those days of intimidation aren't over yet. Poll taxes, literacy tests and thugs at the polling place may be a thing of the past, but where there's a will there's a way. The powers that be can still try to disenfranchise black voters when they want to. For example, some Southern Republican legislators angrily protested that renewal of the Voting Rights Act unfairly punishes their states for long-remedied past crimes committed by folks who have long since left the scene. But Georgia offers proof that the so-called "New South" isn't necessarily as new as some would like to believe.
Renewal of the Voting Rights Act "is blatant discrimination ... and unconstitutional," Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., is quoted as saying in several news reports. "Georgia now outperforms the nation in every area of black voting — turnout, registration and the success rate of black candidates. Clearly, by all measurable standards, the injustices targeted under the Voting Rights Act have been remedied."
Well, we still have injustices to worry about.
Georgia passed a law last year that bars people from voting without government-issued photo identification, which causes far more problems for black — and elderly — voters in that state than for anyone else.
"According to census data, black Georgians are far less likely to have access to a car than white Georgians, so they are at a distinct disadvantage when driver's licenses have an important role in proving people's eligibility to vote," The New York Times countered in an editorial.
"Under the Voting Rights Act, Georgia's law must be cleared by the Justice Department before it can take effect," the Times contended. "There can be little doubt that the law would have 'the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,' and it therefore must be rejected. But in the current Justice Department, there is a real danger that this decision will be based on politics rather than law.
"Georgia's new identification requirement is part of a nationwide drive to erect barriers at the polls. Indiana also recently passed a new photo-identification requirement, and several other states, including Ohio, are considering the addition of such requirements."
At the time of the editorial, the Justice Department was deciding whether Georgia's new law violated the Voting Rights Act. The department has since decided that it does not, and so the law stands. And, of course, we know that so-called voting "irregularities" were so pervasive during the 2000 presidential election in Florida that they may have cost Al Gore the presidency — and the disenfranchisement of black voters in the state had a lot to do with those "irregularities."
For example, in Florida's Gadsden County, which has the highest percentage of black voters in the state, one in eight votes cast during the 2000 election was never counted. Many voters wrote in "Al Gore," but the optical reading machines rejected them because "Al" was considered a "stray mark." In majority white Tallahassee, however, the vote spoilage was nearly nonexistent. In Tallahassee, voters placed their ballots directly into optical scanners, and if they added a stray mark, they were given another ballot with instructions showing how to correct it.
When Bush was re-elected in 2004, voting problems were documented in Ohio, though not quite so blatantly or extensively. And there is a troubling debate over whether that election was indeed stolen.
So two weeks ago, the House voted 390-33 to renew the Voting Rights Act, and without any of the troubling amendments pushed by some Republicans who ultimately backed down on a promised floor debate. And in the Senate, the bill passed 98-0 with President George Bush's promise to sign it.
The notion that the Voting Rights Act was imperiled and might expire in 2007 has been swirling around in the black civil rights community for years. Initially those who warned that the Congress could not be trusted to restore the act without considerable pressure were dismissed as being a little too paranoid. Of course Congress would renew it.
But just when it was starting to look like those folks could be written off as Chicken Littles, legislators like Norwood started exercising their lungs complaining that the act was unfair and needed to be altered. Then the Democrats — and supportive Republicans — started exercising their lungs saying that they wouldn't agree to any weakened version of the act. Suddenly the Chicken Littles were thrusting their chests out, pointing to the dispute as proof positive that African-Americans were on the verge of losing their right to vote.
So much for Chicken Little. The sky is still up there and black folks can still vote down here. Personally, I don't think the Voting Rights Act was ever in much danger. Only the craziest right-wing Republicans want to get saddled with trashing something like that, especially when the party is working overtime reaching out to black voters who feel the Democratic Party has been taking them for granted for too long. Hell, just last week Bush spoke to the NAACP for the first time since he became president. His speech went over like a lead balloon, but nothing compared to what would have happened if he had to stand in front of the nation's oldest civil rights organization trying to explain why his party figured it was time to scrap the Voting Rights Act.
But black folks in Gadsden County had their voting privileges messed with six years ago with the act in full force. The biggest threat to the black vote isn't Southern states itching to turn back the clock. The biggest threat is black folks who don't vote, and black folks who fail to realize we will always have to fight to protect that vote. I'm glad the Voting Rights Act is in the clear, but that hardly means we are.
Let's not forget this.
Keith A. Owens is a Detroit writer, editor and musician. Send comments to letters@metrotimes.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think all of this is sad, as well as incredibly pathetic. There shouldn't have to be a re-signing of the Voting Rights Acts. We should all have the right to vote, act or no act. For as far as this country has come, we still have a loooong way yet to go.
Tawny
tawnyford@webtv.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicken Littles and voting rights
by Keith A. Owens
7/26/2006
Sometimes people forget.
When President Lyndon Johnson won passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it was because it had become painfully obvious by then that black Americans, particularly black Americans in the South, didn't stand a chance of being afforded the most basic and elemental American right — the right to vote — without heavy-handed assistance from the highest levels of government. Johnson, who had grown up dirt-poor in the Texas hill country, was good at being heavy-handed. Given his background it isn't exactly shocking that he had some racist attitudes of his own to wrestle with and overcome. But as someone who never forgot what poverty and degradation could do to a human being, he was probably better equipped than any president since to recognize what those ills could do to the nation.
After the Civil War, African-Americans in the former Confederacy voted in record numbers. Naturally this made white folks nervous because they knew the power of the vote, and, with the withdrawal of federal troops in 1876, they set about putting black folk back in their place — as close to their former condition of slavery and as far from the ballot box as possible.
Poll taxes and literary tests were among the gentler barriers to keep blacks from voting; when those failed there were lynchings and other forms of violence.
Only after the civil rights movement of the 1960s did those barriers fall. Even with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, years remained before black people could vote in the South without unreasonable fear of being harassed or intimidated. But vote they did, resulting in the election of record numbers of black officials.
Some might say those days of intimidation aren't over yet. Poll taxes, literacy tests and thugs at the polling place may be a thing of the past, but where there's a will there's a way. The powers that be can still try to disenfranchise black voters when they want to. For example, some Southern Republican legislators angrily protested that renewal of the Voting Rights Act unfairly punishes their states for long-remedied past crimes committed by folks who have long since left the scene. But Georgia offers proof that the so-called "New South" isn't necessarily as new as some would like to believe.
Renewal of the Voting Rights Act "is blatant discrimination ... and unconstitutional," Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., is quoted as saying in several news reports. "Georgia now outperforms the nation in every area of black voting — turnout, registration and the success rate of black candidates. Clearly, by all measurable standards, the injustices targeted under the Voting Rights Act have been remedied."
Well, we still have injustices to worry about.
Georgia passed a law last year that bars people from voting without government-issued photo identification, which causes far more problems for black — and elderly — voters in that state than for anyone else.
"According to census data, black Georgians are far less likely to have access to a car than white Georgians, so they are at a distinct disadvantage when driver's licenses have an important role in proving people's eligibility to vote," The New York Times countered in an editorial.
"Under the Voting Rights Act, Georgia's law must be cleared by the Justice Department before it can take effect," the Times contended. "There can be little doubt that the law would have 'the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race,' and it therefore must be rejected. But in the current Justice Department, there is a real danger that this decision will be based on politics rather than law.
"Georgia's new identification requirement is part of a nationwide drive to erect barriers at the polls. Indiana also recently passed a new photo-identification requirement, and several other states, including Ohio, are considering the addition of such requirements."
At the time of the editorial, the Justice Department was deciding whether Georgia's new law violated the Voting Rights Act. The department has since decided that it does not, and so the law stands. And, of course, we know that so-called voting "irregularities" were so pervasive during the 2000 presidential election in Florida that they may have cost Al Gore the presidency — and the disenfranchisement of black voters in the state had a lot to do with those "irregularities."
For example, in Florida's Gadsden County, which has the highest percentage of black voters in the state, one in eight votes cast during the 2000 election was never counted. Many voters wrote in "Al Gore," but the optical reading machines rejected them because "Al" was considered a "stray mark." In majority white Tallahassee, however, the vote spoilage was nearly nonexistent. In Tallahassee, voters placed their ballots directly into optical scanners, and if they added a stray mark, they were given another ballot with instructions showing how to correct it.
When Bush was re-elected in 2004, voting problems were documented in Ohio, though not quite so blatantly or extensively. And there is a troubling debate over whether that election was indeed stolen.
So two weeks ago, the House voted 390-33 to renew the Voting Rights Act, and without any of the troubling amendments pushed by some Republicans who ultimately backed down on a promised floor debate. And in the Senate, the bill passed 98-0 with President George Bush's promise to sign it.
The notion that the Voting Rights Act was imperiled and might expire in 2007 has been swirling around in the black civil rights community for years. Initially those who warned that the Congress could not be trusted to restore the act without considerable pressure were dismissed as being a little too paranoid. Of course Congress would renew it.
But just when it was starting to look like those folks could be written off as Chicken Littles, legislators like Norwood started exercising their lungs complaining that the act was unfair and needed to be altered. Then the Democrats — and supportive Republicans — started exercising their lungs saying that they wouldn't agree to any weakened version of the act. Suddenly the Chicken Littles were thrusting their chests out, pointing to the dispute as proof positive that African-Americans were on the verge of losing their right to vote.
So much for Chicken Little. The sky is still up there and black folks can still vote down here. Personally, I don't think the Voting Rights Act was ever in much danger. Only the craziest right-wing Republicans want to get saddled with trashing something like that, especially when the party is working overtime reaching out to black voters who feel the Democratic Party has been taking them for granted for too long. Hell, just last week Bush spoke to the NAACP for the first time since he became president. His speech went over like a lead balloon, but nothing compared to what would have happened if he had to stand in front of the nation's oldest civil rights organization trying to explain why his party figured it was time to scrap the Voting Rights Act.
But black folks in Gadsden County had their voting privileges messed with six years ago with the act in full force. The biggest threat to the black vote isn't Southern states itching to turn back the clock. The biggest threat is black folks who don't vote, and black folks who fail to realize we will always have to fight to protect that vote. I'm glad the Voting Rights Act is in the clear, but that hardly means we are.
Let's not forget this.
Keith A. Owens is a Detroit writer, editor and musician. Send comments to letters@metrotimes.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think all of this is sad, as well as incredibly pathetic. There shouldn't have to be a re-signing of the Voting Rights Acts. We should all have the right to vote, act or no act. For as far as this country has come, we still have a loooong way yet to go.
Tawny
tawnyford@webtv.net
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Are you watching the news on tv about the war between Israel and Lebanon? Are you following news accounts on the internet from foreign press sources?
If you're not, well, you should be.
Here are some links for you to check out:
This should look famiiar to you. It's what Israel did in 1993, and they're doing it again.
http://hrw.org/reports/1996/israel.htm
--
White phosphorous they used then
www.uruknet.info/?p=17629
--
White phosphorous now
www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/newsdesknst/0/OECB74B32C97055CC22571AD00526087
--
Israel is accused of using humanshields in Gaza.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5212870.stm
--
Israel ignored the fact that they were UN peacekeepers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/12/hi/middle_east/5217176.stm
--
If all you read is the American press and all you watch is the US tv news, well, then you're getting a skewered view of what's going on in the world. And that's a shame since you have access to the internet and numerous reliable foreign news sources.
hugs, Tawny
If you're not, well, you should be.
Here are some links for you to check out:
This should look famiiar to you. It's what Israel did in 1993, and they're doing it again.
http://hrw.org/reports/1996/israel.htm
--
White phosphorous they used then
www.uruknet.info/?p=17629
--
White phosphorous now
www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/newsdesknst/0/OECB74B32C97055CC22571AD00526087
--
Israel is accused of using humanshields in Gaza.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5212870.stm
--
Israel ignored the fact that they were UN peacekeepers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/12/hi/middle_east/5217176.stm
--
If all you read is the American press and all you watch is the US tv news, well, then you're getting a skewered view of what's going on in the world. And that's a shame since you have access to the internet and numerous reliable foreign news sources.
hugs, Tawny
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Found this interesting article in this week's edition of the MetroTimes (www.metrotimes.com) and thought you should read it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest story in America today is one most people don't know much about, one which seriously threatens to destroy this nation.
And no, it is not the war in Iraq. That is only damaging our economy, killing tens of thousands and making enemies of much of the world.
What's much more dangerous to us at home is the vast transfer of the nation's wealth now going on. A transfer, that is, from the poor and the middle classes, not only to the rich but to the super-rich.
That's a story the mainstream media has indeed largely ignored. Last week an excellent, richly documented account of what is happening and why did appear — but only on the Internet. Even then, it was only available to an exclusive group of New York Times customers. That's a shame, because it needs to be read by everyone in this country. The article, "The Rise of the Super-Rich," was written by editorial board member Teresa Tritch, a longtime financial writer and bureau chief for Money Magazine before joining the Times.
"In the United States today, there's a new twist to the familiar plot," she says. "Income inequality used to be about rich versus poor, but now it's increasingly a matter of the ultra-rich versus everyone else."
What she then does is prove it, with a vast array of official statistics. The author is not some little left-wing theorist, but a hard-eyed analyst who understands the economy. What she shows is how the gap between rich and poor is widening, dangerously and catastrophically — as a direct result of the Bush administration's deliberate policies.
"In 2006, the average tax cut for households with incomes of more than $1 million — the top two-tenths of 1 percent — is $112,000, which works out to a boost of 5.7 percent in after-tax income."
The poorest one-fifth of us? They get three-tenths of 1 percent. That means, if you make $25,000 a year, you get another $75 or so. Meanwhile, you are going to lose way more than $75 worth of social services. As Tritch notes, "Earlier this year, President Bush signed into law a measure that will cut $99.3 billion over the next nine years from domestic programs like Medicaid and food stamps."
What this means is that the richest 1 percent of the population is getting richer — the people making at least $316,000 a year. Everybody else is treading water or worse.
Wonder why you don't seem to be doing any better even when the White House keeps talking about "the return of prosperity?" This is why: Back in 1989, the poorest half of the population had only 3 percent of all the nation's wealth.
Now, that's down to an even stingier 2.5 percent. Half the population, in other words, gets 97.5 percent of all the stuff. The rest get the sweat off the back of George Bush's faithful Christian hand.
But the real winners are the wealthiest 1 percent, who account for exactly a third of all the nation's net worth, a figure that is growing. Every year they get a little more of it; the rest of America, a little less.
That wasn't always the case. From 1947 to the 1970s, "all income groups shared in the nation's economic growth— and poor families actually had a higher growth rate in real annual income."
Unions helped then. But then that trend started to reverse — a pattern that is now continuing with a vengeance. And the policies of George W. Bush are guaranteed to keep things this way.
"The best-off Americans are not only winning by an extraordinary margin right now — they are the only ones winning at all," Tritch writes.
"President Bush has yet to acknowledge the true state of affairs ... but the growing income gap — and the rise of the super-rich — demands attention. It is making America a less fair society, and a less stable one."
Amen. Think about what that might mean, especially when that half of the population decides they no longer have any stake in this system.
Jack Lessenberry opines weekly for Metro Times. Send comments to letters@metrotimes.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hugs, Tawny
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest story in America today is one most people don't know much about, one which seriously threatens to destroy this nation.
And no, it is not the war in Iraq. That is only damaging our economy, killing tens of thousands and making enemies of much of the world.
What's much more dangerous to us at home is the vast transfer of the nation's wealth now going on. A transfer, that is, from the poor and the middle classes, not only to the rich but to the super-rich.
That's a story the mainstream media has indeed largely ignored. Last week an excellent, richly documented account of what is happening and why did appear — but only on the Internet. Even then, it was only available to an exclusive group of New York Times customers. That's a shame, because it needs to be read by everyone in this country. The article, "The Rise of the Super-Rich," was written by editorial board member Teresa Tritch, a longtime financial writer and bureau chief for Money Magazine before joining the Times.
"In the United States today, there's a new twist to the familiar plot," she says. "Income inequality used to be about rich versus poor, but now it's increasingly a matter of the ultra-rich versus everyone else."
What she then does is prove it, with a vast array of official statistics. The author is not some little left-wing theorist, but a hard-eyed analyst who understands the economy. What she shows is how the gap between rich and poor is widening, dangerously and catastrophically — as a direct result of the Bush administration's deliberate policies.
"In 2006, the average tax cut for households with incomes of more than $1 million — the top two-tenths of 1 percent — is $112,000, which works out to a boost of 5.7 percent in after-tax income."
The poorest one-fifth of us? They get three-tenths of 1 percent. That means, if you make $25,000 a year, you get another $75 or so. Meanwhile, you are going to lose way more than $75 worth of social services. As Tritch notes, "Earlier this year, President Bush signed into law a measure that will cut $99.3 billion over the next nine years from domestic programs like Medicaid and food stamps."
What this means is that the richest 1 percent of the population is getting richer — the people making at least $316,000 a year. Everybody else is treading water or worse.
Wonder why you don't seem to be doing any better even when the White House keeps talking about "the return of prosperity?" This is why: Back in 1989, the poorest half of the population had only 3 percent of all the nation's wealth.
Now, that's down to an even stingier 2.5 percent. Half the population, in other words, gets 97.5 percent of all the stuff. The rest get the sweat off the back of George Bush's faithful Christian hand.
But the real winners are the wealthiest 1 percent, who account for exactly a third of all the nation's net worth, a figure that is growing. Every year they get a little more of it; the rest of America, a little less.
That wasn't always the case. From 1947 to the 1970s, "all income groups shared in the nation's economic growth— and poor families actually had a higher growth rate in real annual income."
Unions helped then. But then that trend started to reverse — a pattern that is now continuing with a vengeance. And the policies of George W. Bush are guaranteed to keep things this way.
"The best-off Americans are not only winning by an extraordinary margin right now — they are the only ones winning at all," Tritch writes.
"President Bush has yet to acknowledge the true state of affairs ... but the growing income gap — and the rise of the super-rich — demands attention. It is making America a less fair society, and a less stable one."
Amen. Think about what that might mean, especially when that half of the population decides they no longer have any stake in this system.
Jack Lessenberry opines weekly for Metro Times. Send comments to letters@metrotimes.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hugs, Tawny
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Don't dismiss this interesting information just because you may (or may not) have a problem with the source--The Final Call, Louis Farrakhan's publication.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FinalCall.com News: War in the Middle East
July, 2006
(FinalCall.com) - As of Sunday, July 23, 2006, the world watches as the 12th day of war in the 'Middle East' between Israel and Lebanon continues unabated and threatens to spill over into a possible regional and even world war. So far, the Lebanese health ministry has reported over 360 civilian deaths and over 500,000 displaced by Israeli bombing raids while Israeli officials have reported over 30 civilian and military deaths from retaliatory attacks by the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah.
The latest conflict began on July 12, 2006 when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers who were part of an Israeli unit that was ambushed after crossing the border into Lebanese territory. Hezbollah's stated goal for capturing the soldiers was to negotiate a prisoner swap with Israel which currently holds over 9,000 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners in Israel.
Although Hezbollah and Israel had negotiated prisoner swaps in the past and according to Lebanese police officials, the Israeli soldiers were captured after crossing into Lebanese territory, the Israeli President, Ehud Omert declared that the incident was an "act of war" and promptly proceeded to implement what many observers believe to have been a well in advance preplanned war by ordering bombing raids on the entire infrastructure of Lebanon.
In an effort to deliver updated news as well as background information on various perspectives on the conflict, we are presenting a number of web links including articles, links to maps and Internet-based audio/video features.
Lebanon, with its Capital city Beirut, covers approxmiately 3,950 sqare miles and lies at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea north of Israel and west of Syria. It is four-fifths the size of Connecticut.
See map: http://www.finalcall.com/absolutenl/t.aspx?n=35&l=62
Lebanon's estimated population of 3.8 million people speak Arabic (official), French, English and Armenian. It is made up of 95% Arab, 4% Armenian and 1% other. Is main religions are 60% Muslim and 39% Christian.
News and Analysis
Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, its causes and consequences
Perspective by Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2776.shtml
The two Israeli soldiers were captured after infiltrating Lebanon territory
http://www.finalcall.com/absolutenl/t.aspx?n=35&l=63
In U.S. Mainstream Media's eyes, not all casualties are equal
News analysis of America's 'mainstream' media coverage
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2785.shtml
Hillary Clinton and "anti-war" Democrats celebrate Israeli war crimes (WSWS)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/clin-j19.shtml
The U.S. Congress and the Israeli Attack on Lebanon: A Critical Reading
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3381
Patrick Buchanan: Where are the Christians?
http://www.blackelectorate.com/print_article.asp?ID=1692
Fact File: What is Hezbollah?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/27EDF072-1581-48CE-812D-A34D7C89A333.htm
Audio/Video (Highly Reccomended Viewing)
Bypass the narrow one-sided reporting of MSNBC, FOX, CNN, NPR, BBC and conservative Talk Radio. Visit LinkTV for news from the Direct perspectives of Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Israel, etc.
(Requires QuickTime Media Player)
http://www.finalcall.com/absolutenl/t.aspx?n=35&l=64
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan Press Conference:
"Guidance to America and the World In a Time of Trouble"
http://www.finalcall.com/pressconference/
Related 'Middle East' Based Websites (English Versions)
Lebanon-based Future TV
http://www.futuretvnetwork.com/
Lebanon-based Dar Al-Hayat News
http://english.daralhayat.com/
Isreali-based News Service Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/
Iran-based News Service IRIB
http://www.irib.ir/worldservice/englishRADIO/
Syrian-based News Agency SANA
http://www.sana.org/index_eng.html
Lebanon based Al-Manar TV's English Website (Affiliated with Hezbollah)
http://www.almanar.com.lb/news.aspx?Language=en
Note: The U.S. Government has attempted to censor Al-Manar TV from the public therefore satellite transmission of the station is not easily available in America and its website is not always accessible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hugs, Tawny
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FinalCall.com News: War in the Middle East
July, 2006
(FinalCall.com) - As of Sunday, July 23, 2006, the world watches as the 12th day of war in the 'Middle East' between Israel and Lebanon continues unabated and threatens to spill over into a possible regional and even world war. So far, the Lebanese health ministry has reported over 360 civilian deaths and over 500,000 displaced by Israeli bombing raids while Israeli officials have reported over 30 civilian and military deaths from retaliatory attacks by the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah.
The latest conflict began on July 12, 2006 when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers who were part of an Israeli unit that was ambushed after crossing the border into Lebanese territory. Hezbollah's stated goal for capturing the soldiers was to negotiate a prisoner swap with Israel which currently holds over 9,000 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners in Israel.
Although Hezbollah and Israel had negotiated prisoner swaps in the past and according to Lebanese police officials, the Israeli soldiers were captured after crossing into Lebanese territory, the Israeli President, Ehud Omert declared that the incident was an "act of war" and promptly proceeded to implement what many observers believe to have been a well in advance preplanned war by ordering bombing raids on the entire infrastructure of Lebanon.
In an effort to deliver updated news as well as background information on various perspectives on the conflict, we are presenting a number of web links including articles, links to maps and Internet-based audio/video features.
Lebanon, with its Capital city Beirut, covers approxmiately 3,950 sqare miles and lies at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea north of Israel and west of Syria. It is four-fifths the size of Connecticut.
See map: http://www.finalcall.com/absolutenl/t.aspx?n=35&l=62
Lebanon's estimated population of 3.8 million people speak Arabic (official), French, English and Armenian. It is made up of 95% Arab, 4% Armenian and 1% other. Is main religions are 60% Muslim and 39% Christian.
News and Analysis
Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, its causes and consequences
Perspective by Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2776.shtml
The two Israeli soldiers were captured after infiltrating Lebanon territory
http://www.finalcall.com/absolutenl/t.aspx?n=35&l=63
In U.S. Mainstream Media's eyes, not all casualties are equal
News analysis of America's 'mainstream' media coverage
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2785.shtml
Hillary Clinton and "anti-war" Democrats celebrate Israeli war crimes (WSWS)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/clin-j19.shtml
The U.S. Congress and the Israeli Attack on Lebanon: A Critical Reading
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3381
Patrick Buchanan: Where are the Christians?
http://www.blackelectorate.com/print_article.asp?ID=1692
Fact File: What is Hezbollah?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/27EDF072-1581-48CE-812D-A34D7C89A333.htm
Audio/Video (Highly Reccomended Viewing)
Bypass the narrow one-sided reporting of MSNBC, FOX, CNN, NPR, BBC and conservative Talk Radio. Visit LinkTV for news from the Direct perspectives of Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Israel, etc.
(Requires QuickTime Media Player)
http://www.finalcall.com/absolutenl/t.aspx?n=35&l=64
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan Press Conference:
"Guidance to America and the World In a Time of Trouble"
http://www.finalcall.com/pressconference/
Related 'Middle East' Based Websites (English Versions)
Lebanon-based Future TV
http://www.futuretvnetwork.com/
Lebanon-based Dar Al-Hayat News
http://english.daralhayat.com/
Isreali-based News Service Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/
Iran-based News Service IRIB
http://www.irib.ir/worldservice/englishRADIO/
Syrian-based News Agency SANA
http://www.sana.org/index_eng.html
Lebanon based Al-Manar TV's English Website (Affiliated with Hezbollah)
http://www.almanar.com.lb/news.aspx?Language=en
Note: The U.S. Government has attempted to censor Al-Manar TV from the public therefore satellite transmission of the station is not easily available in America and its website is not always accessible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hugs, Tawny
Monday, July 24, 2006
Are you a parent? Are you living in the same household as your
child(ren)? Or are you divorced and required to pay child support? If
so, do you pay your child support?
I ask because there are numerous scoundrels (men and women) out there who
have been orderred by the courts to pay child support and they don't.
A friend of mine is 35 years old, married and the mother of four sons.
Her parents divorced back in the early 1970's. Her mother was given
custody of her. Her father was given visitation rights and orderred to
pay child support.
He told her mother that if she made him pay child support he would
'take' her child and she would never see her again. Preferring to starve
rather than run the risk of having her baby kidnapped by him, she never
pursued the support.
In the early years he was hauled in to court a few times for
non-payment, but only when someone down at the Friend of the Court
offices noticed he wasn't paying.
One time he asked the mother to come to court and tell the judge that
she didn't want his money, and she did, anything to keep him from
following through on his threat to kidnap her child. The judge told her
that she may not want the money but it was for her child and refused to
terminate the father's monetary obligation.
The only time they heard from him was when the courts were after him. He
never came to see their child. Never.
The last time the mother heard from her exhusband was when their child
was 18. He called and asked her to come to court, Friend of the Court
was after him again for nonpayment. He said he had fled the state to
avoid paying child support, only coming back now, 18 years later. He
said he didn't see why he "had to pay for some thing that happened 18
years ago". She refused to help him.
Three years ago, when her daughter was 32 years old, she read an article
in the newspaper about how the state was going after people who owed
child support.
She sat down and wrote the Friend of the Court a long letter. She said
she knew there were thousands of children who needed the support money
now, but if the office ever had a free minute.....and then she proceeded
to tell them how he had threatened her all those many years before and
that's why she never pursued the money that was rightfully owed to her
and her daughter.......
Six monthes later she got an envelope from the court with a copy of a
judgement levied against him for back owed child support! And then the
checks started coming in weekly!
It wasn't much money, but it was the principle.
Last year she received notice that the checks were going to stop because
the father was out of work and applying for SSI.
Come to find out he had quit his job and applied for social security
benefits in order to get out of paying child support (again).
Two days ago she received another child support check. Apparently he was
back to work and the court was after him again for back child support.
The whole point of this story is to let you know that your 'bill' for
child support isn't terminated/erased when your child turns 18. You owe
what you owe until you pay it off.
If you owe child support and you think you're being so cool by not
paying it, if you think it's all going to go away when he/she has their
eighteenth birthday--HAHAHA on you!
Tawny
tawnyford@webtv.net
child(ren)? Or are you divorced and required to pay child support? If
so, do you pay your child support?
I ask because there are numerous scoundrels (men and women) out there who
have been orderred by the courts to pay child support and they don't.
A friend of mine is 35 years old, married and the mother of four sons.
Her parents divorced back in the early 1970's. Her mother was given
custody of her. Her father was given visitation rights and orderred to
pay child support.
He told her mother that if she made him pay child support he would
'take' her child and she would never see her again. Preferring to starve
rather than run the risk of having her baby kidnapped by him, she never
pursued the support.
In the early years he was hauled in to court a few times for
non-payment, but only when someone down at the Friend of the Court
offices noticed he wasn't paying.
One time he asked the mother to come to court and tell the judge that
she didn't want his money, and she did, anything to keep him from
following through on his threat to kidnap her child. The judge told her
that she may not want the money but it was for her child and refused to
terminate the father's monetary obligation.
The only time they heard from him was when the courts were after him. He
never came to see their child. Never.
The last time the mother heard from her exhusband was when their child
was 18. He called and asked her to come to court, Friend of the Court
was after him again for nonpayment. He said he had fled the state to
avoid paying child support, only coming back now, 18 years later. He
said he didn't see why he "had to pay for some thing that happened 18
years ago". She refused to help him.
Three years ago, when her daughter was 32 years old, she read an article
in the newspaper about how the state was going after people who owed
child support.
She sat down and wrote the Friend of the Court a long letter. She said
she knew there were thousands of children who needed the support money
now, but if the office ever had a free minute.....and then she proceeded
to tell them how he had threatened her all those many years before and
that's why she never pursued the money that was rightfully owed to her
and her daughter.......
Six monthes later she got an envelope from the court with a copy of a
judgement levied against him for back owed child support! And then the
checks started coming in weekly!
It wasn't much money, but it was the principle.
Last year she received notice that the checks were going to stop because
the father was out of work and applying for SSI.
Come to find out he had quit his job and applied for social security
benefits in order to get out of paying child support (again).
Two days ago she received another child support check. Apparently he was
back to work and the court was after him again for back child support.
The whole point of this story is to let you know that your 'bill' for
child support isn't terminated/erased when your child turns 18. You owe
what you owe until you pay it off.
If you owe child support and you think you're being so cool by not
paying it, if you think it's all going to go away when he/she has their
eighteenth birthday--HAHAHA on you!
Tawny
tawnyford@webtv.net
Sunday, July 23, 2006
If you called me any time last night from about 7:30pm until nearly midnight, well, I am really sorry I missed talking with you. I was in downtown Farmington at the Founders Festival. (www.foundersfestival.com) The festival is a yearly event to celebrate the town's heritage as the first Quaker settlement in Michigan.
There are a gazillion things to do at the week-long festival. One of my favorites is the Saturday night music in the downtown square.
I was in town in time to hear two bands: Tracy Maree + Robyn Lee, a country duo, and Funkeestation (www.fnkeestation.com), a jazz/Motown/R+B band. The country duo wasn't all that, but Funkeestation was great!
The sign of a good festival band is if they can get the crowd out of their seats and dancing. Funkeestation had people dancing their feet off!
If you have festivals in your town or your area, you should check them out. I have never had a bad time at a festival.
Tawny
There are a gazillion things to do at the week-long festival. One of my favorites is the Saturday night music in the downtown square.
I was in town in time to hear two bands: Tracy Maree + Robyn Lee, a country duo, and Funkeestation (www.fnkeestation.com), a jazz/Motown/R+B band. The country duo wasn't all that, but Funkeestation was great!
The sign of a good festival band is if they can get the crowd out of their seats and dancing. Funkeestation had people dancing their feet off!
If you have festivals in your town or your area, you should check them out. I have never had a bad time at a festival.
Tawny
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Friday, July 14, 2006
I can't remember if I ever told you about my Uncle Jamal. He's my second favorite uncle.
Uncle Jamal has always been the picture of health. Talk about a workhorse? His photo should be in the dictionary as part of the definition! If he wasn't working at a job, then he was working out. The man was always in motion.
And then he had a stroke.
Took everybody by surprise. The man had never been sick with more than a minor cold his entire life. Blood pressure was good, cholesterol too.
The stroke hit him hard. It affected his talking. It paralyzed one leg and one arm. The doctors didn't think he'd recover.
Uncle Jamal refused to believe the doctors. He pushed for physical rehab classes. And when he wasn't working at the rehab center as an out patient, he was walking, slowly and dragging his bad leg, around and around his daughter's backyard. From there he progressed to more rehab classes and to stair climbing. Not on a stair stepper, oh no. Uncle Jamal was walking flights of stairs at the communty center, still dragging his bad leg, still unable to use his paralyzed arm, but climbing up and down flights of stairs over and over and over again each day.
A few monthes ago Uncle Jamal went down south. He's staying in an itty bitty town, population maybe 300, and he's related to almost every single one of the town's residents. He's taking some new kind of rehab at a special place and he doesn't have to drag his leg anymore! It's working!
I guess what I'm trying to say here is--Don't give up! They told Uncle Jamal he was never going to get better. That he ought to just accept it and plan his life accordingly. They said he would be an invalid forever.
Uncle Jamal refused to accept that. He fought it. And he's making incredible progress.
Don't give up. Don't ever give up.
hugs, Tawny
Uncle Jamal has always been the picture of health. Talk about a workhorse? His photo should be in the dictionary as part of the definition! If he wasn't working at a job, then he was working out. The man was always in motion.
And then he had a stroke.
Took everybody by surprise. The man had never been sick with more than a minor cold his entire life. Blood pressure was good, cholesterol too.
The stroke hit him hard. It affected his talking. It paralyzed one leg and one arm. The doctors didn't think he'd recover.
Uncle Jamal refused to believe the doctors. He pushed for physical rehab classes. And when he wasn't working at the rehab center as an out patient, he was walking, slowly and dragging his bad leg, around and around his daughter's backyard. From there he progressed to more rehab classes and to stair climbing. Not on a stair stepper, oh no. Uncle Jamal was walking flights of stairs at the communty center, still dragging his bad leg, still unable to use his paralyzed arm, but climbing up and down flights of stairs over and over and over again each day.
A few monthes ago Uncle Jamal went down south. He's staying in an itty bitty town, population maybe 300, and he's related to almost every single one of the town's residents. He's taking some new kind of rehab at a special place and he doesn't have to drag his leg anymore! It's working!
I guess what I'm trying to say here is--Don't give up! They told Uncle Jamal he was never going to get better. That he ought to just accept it and plan his life accordingly. They said he would be an invalid forever.
Uncle Jamal refused to accept that. He fought it. And he's making incredible progress.
Don't give up. Don't ever give up.
hugs, Tawny
Thursday, July 13, 2006
So how do you stay cool when it's so doggone hot and humid? Me? No air conditioning at my house, not a window unit, no central air. I use fans. One or two in each room. Turn them on when I enter, turn them off when I leave. I even have a little fan that sits in the bathroom on the back of the toilet.
See, whoever it was who designed my house, I don't know what they were thinking because there is only one window in each room. That's right, just one window. So if I were to install one of those window-type units, well, on days that weren't beastly and I didn't need to turn the air on, I wouldn't be able to open the window to let in the pleasant natural air because that big heavy piece of metal would be in the window.
I checked out those rolling air conditioners at Costco and Sams. Have you seen them? They run around $350 and they're on wheels. You roll them to whatever room you want to cool off. The kitchen this morning, the bedroom tonight perhaps. Thing is, you still have to vent them out a window.
So what I'm hoping is that by next summer someone has figured out how to make a rolling air conditioner that doesn't need to be window vented. Maybe it could have a drip pan, or whatever that thing is they have on dehumidifiers to catch the moisture. And when they have something like that, then I'm buying one!
In the meantime I really like those tower fans. Are you familiar with them? They're tall and thin, they don't take up much space and they run real quiet.
It's been a bit beastly here the past few days. That's why I'm talking fans and air conditioners. Kathleen, my beloved cat, is stretched out on the leather chair in my office. When it's hot and humid she clings to that chair like its a life preserver and I only see her when she needs a morsel to eat or drink.
I hope you're holding up okay in the heat. Remember to drink plenty of fluids.
hugs, Tawny
See, whoever it was who designed my house, I don't know what they were thinking because there is only one window in each room. That's right, just one window. So if I were to install one of those window-type units, well, on days that weren't beastly and I didn't need to turn the air on, I wouldn't be able to open the window to let in the pleasant natural air because that big heavy piece of metal would be in the window.
I checked out those rolling air conditioners at Costco and Sams. Have you seen them? They run around $350 and they're on wheels. You roll them to whatever room you want to cool off. The kitchen this morning, the bedroom tonight perhaps. Thing is, you still have to vent them out a window.
So what I'm hoping is that by next summer someone has figured out how to make a rolling air conditioner that doesn't need to be window vented. Maybe it could have a drip pan, or whatever that thing is they have on dehumidifiers to catch the moisture. And when they have something like that, then I'm buying one!
In the meantime I really like those tower fans. Are you familiar with them? They're tall and thin, they don't take up much space and they run real quiet.
It's been a bit beastly here the past few days. That's why I'm talking fans and air conditioners. Kathleen, my beloved cat, is stretched out on the leather chair in my office. When it's hot and humid she clings to that chair like its a life preserver and I only see her when she needs a morsel to eat or drink.
I hope you're holding up okay in the heat. Remember to drink plenty of fluids.
hugs, Tawny
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Okay, I know it's a stretch, the phone sex lady giving you tax advice, but I got this from the monthly email newsletter that my accountant sends out. It just might help you.
______________________________________________________________________
On May 25, 2006, the IRS announced that it will stop collecting the federal excise tax on long-distance telephone service. This is a very old tax, imposed first in 1898 (really, 1898!) as a "luxury" tax on wealthy Americans who owned telephones. The current rate is 3% of the charges billed for these services.
The turnaround comes about following decisions in five federal appeals courts that the tax does not apply to long-distance service as it is billed today.
Refunds Available
Taxpayers will be eligible to file for refunds of all excise tax paid on long distance service billed to them after February 28, 2003 through July 31, 2006. Interest will be paid on these refunds.
The refund will be claimed on the 2006 returns, due in 2007. The tax forms will include a line for requesting the overpayment amount on the 1040 series, the 1041, the 1065, the 1120 series, and the 990-T. The only way to get the refund is to file a return, even if you have no tax liability. Those individuals with no tax liability will use the new Form 1040EZ-T. It is too early to file for a refund currently. The IRS is working on a simplified method for individuals to use to claim a refund.
Let's keep it simple.
"So taxpayers won't have to spend time digging through old telephone bills, we're designing a straightforward process that taxpayers may use when they file their tax returns next year," said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. "Claiming a refund will be simple and fair."
To get your refund you can use the IRS simplified method, which is only available to individual taxpayers, or go through those old phone bills. For some of you, this might be a good time to gather up thee old phone bills. They might provide you a larger refund. This is similar to the sales tax deduction: use the IRS table amount or your actual amount. So, during those lazy days of summer, if you have time on your hands, gather up those old phone bills (after February 28, 2003, not after 1898). Time spent now could result in a larger refund next year. Entities (such as corporations) cannot use the simplified method. Businesses also may take into consideration the tax benefit doctrine and, thus, must include as income the refunded amounts. For all taxpayers, the interest received on the refunds is taxable and would be reported on the 2007 income tax returns.
An Interesting thought
So, the federal excise tax on long distance telephone service only took about 108 years to repeal. The federal income tax has been with us since 1913. If we can hang in there for another 15 years, will that tax be repealed also? Call your Congressperson and let them know your thoughts. It's cheaper now!
_____________________________________________________________________________
hugs, Tawny
______________________________________________________________________
On May 25, 2006, the IRS announced that it will stop collecting the federal excise tax on long-distance telephone service. This is a very old tax, imposed first in 1898 (really, 1898!) as a "luxury" tax on wealthy Americans who owned telephones. The current rate is 3% of the charges billed for these services.
The turnaround comes about following decisions in five federal appeals courts that the tax does not apply to long-distance service as it is billed today.
Refunds Available
Taxpayers will be eligible to file for refunds of all excise tax paid on long distance service billed to them after February 28, 2003 through July 31, 2006. Interest will be paid on these refunds.
The refund will be claimed on the 2006 returns, due in 2007. The tax forms will include a line for requesting the overpayment amount on the 1040 series, the 1041, the 1065, the 1120 series, and the 990-T. The only way to get the refund is to file a return, even if you have no tax liability. Those individuals with no tax liability will use the new Form 1040EZ-T. It is too early to file for a refund currently. The IRS is working on a simplified method for individuals to use to claim a refund.
Let's keep it simple.
"So taxpayers won't have to spend time digging through old telephone bills, we're designing a straightforward process that taxpayers may use when they file their tax returns next year," said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. "Claiming a refund will be simple and fair."
To get your refund you can use the IRS simplified method, which is only available to individual taxpayers, or go through those old phone bills. For some of you, this might be a good time to gather up thee old phone bills. They might provide you a larger refund. This is similar to the sales tax deduction: use the IRS table amount or your actual amount. So, during those lazy days of summer, if you have time on your hands, gather up those old phone bills (after February 28, 2003, not after 1898). Time spent now could result in a larger refund next year. Entities (such as corporations) cannot use the simplified method. Businesses also may take into consideration the tax benefit doctrine and, thus, must include as income the refunded amounts. For all taxpayers, the interest received on the refunds is taxable and would be reported on the 2007 income tax returns.
An Interesting thought
So, the federal excise tax on long distance telephone service only took about 108 years to repeal. The federal income tax has been with us since 1913. If we can hang in there for another 15 years, will that tax be repealed also? Call your Congressperson and let them know your thoughts. It's cheaper now!
_____________________________________________________________________________
hugs, Tawny
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Received this from a friend and thought it might make you laugh too!
How many forum members does it takes to change a light bulb?
1 member to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed
14 members to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently
7 members to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
1 member to move it to the Lighting section
2 members to argue then move it to the Electricals section
7 members to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs
5 members to flame the spell checkers
3 members to correct spelling/grammar flames
6 members to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb"
another 6 members to condemn those 6 as stupid
2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"
15 know-it-all members who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct
19 members to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum
11 members to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
36 members to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty
7 members to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs
4 members to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's
3 members to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
13 members to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"
5 members to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy
4 members to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
13 members to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"
1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again.
---
----
hugs, Tawny
How many forum members does it takes to change a light bulb?
1 member to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed
14 members to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently
7 members to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
1 member to move it to the Lighting section
2 members to argue then move it to the Electricals section
7 members to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs
5 members to flame the spell checkers
3 members to correct spelling/grammar flames
6 members to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb"
another 6 members to condemn those 6 as stupid
2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"
15 know-it-all members who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct
19 members to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum
11 members to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
36 members to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty
7 members to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs
4 members to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's
3 members to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
13 members to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"
5 members to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy
4 members to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
13 members to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"
1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again.
---
----
hugs, Tawny
Monday, July 10, 2006
Have I mentioned to you that I've been having problems with my truck? If I haven't, well, you're about the only one whose shoulder I haven't cried on (smile).
I drive a Ford F150 pickup truck. Yes, I know, not real good on gas. I bought it in 2000, before the oil companies started gouging us.
But the funny thing is, all the years prior, when gas was reasonable, I was driving--by choice--Ford Escorts and Ford Tempos. Those Escorts, especially the stick shift 4 cylinder ones, you could go all the way from Detroit to Marquette (which is on the shores of Lake Superior in the upper penisula of Michigan) on one tank of gas.
Anyway, even though my truck is a 2000 it only has a smidge over 40,000 miles. In fact, it rolled over to 40,000 just a couple of days before I took it in to the shop. And that was close to three weeks ago.
What's wrong with my truck?
Well, a while back it started having 'spells'. It wouldn't keep running when I started it, and it would stink to high heaven! Now this wouldn't happen every day. Oh no. Just every now and again. And each time someone would come take a look at it to fix it--a miracle! it worked just fine! There was a nasty rumor circulating that I had a case of Munchausen by pick-up truck.
So I didn't drive it very much. I mean who wants to brake down, right? Finally, three weeks ago, I drove it to the shop to get fixed. The place I took it to has a stellar reputation. In fact, the place is so good that even the local dealerships take their cars there when their mechanics can't fix something.
Phone calls have been going back and forth as the mechanic tried to diagnose and then correct the problem. Because you know, of course, the truck wasn't having 'spells' with him.
Until Friday.
So today he calls and tells me he knows what it is. Ready? The computer in my truck is broke.
Naturally the computer is waranteed for 3 years or 30,000 miles, both of which I'm past.
I'm looking at an approximate $800 fix-it bill. And the truck won't be ready until Wednesday, if he can get the computer by then.
Oh my!
Tawny
I drive a Ford F150 pickup truck. Yes, I know, not real good on gas. I bought it in 2000, before the oil companies started gouging us.
But the funny thing is, all the years prior, when gas was reasonable, I was driving--by choice--Ford Escorts and Ford Tempos. Those Escorts, especially the stick shift 4 cylinder ones, you could go all the way from Detroit to Marquette (which is on the shores of Lake Superior in the upper penisula of Michigan) on one tank of gas.
Anyway, even though my truck is a 2000 it only has a smidge over 40,000 miles. In fact, it rolled over to 40,000 just a couple of days before I took it in to the shop. And that was close to three weeks ago.
What's wrong with my truck?
Well, a while back it started having 'spells'. It wouldn't keep running when I started it, and it would stink to high heaven! Now this wouldn't happen every day. Oh no. Just every now and again. And each time someone would come take a look at it to fix it--a miracle! it worked just fine! There was a nasty rumor circulating that I had a case of Munchausen by pick-up truck.
So I didn't drive it very much. I mean who wants to brake down, right? Finally, three weeks ago, I drove it to the shop to get fixed. The place I took it to has a stellar reputation. In fact, the place is so good that even the local dealerships take their cars there when their mechanics can't fix something.
Phone calls have been going back and forth as the mechanic tried to diagnose and then correct the problem. Because you know, of course, the truck wasn't having 'spells' with him.
Until Friday.
So today he calls and tells me he knows what it is. Ready? The computer in my truck is broke.
Naturally the computer is waranteed for 3 years or 30,000 miles, both of which I'm past.
I'm looking at an approximate $800 fix-it bill. And the truck won't be ready until Wednesday, if he can get the computer by then.
Oh my!
Tawny
Sunday, July 09, 2006
In case you've been wonderring how Michael Moore's latest project is doing....
Friends,
Just a quick note to let you know how things are going.
Back in February, I asked if people would send me letters describing their experiences with our health care system. I received over 19,000 of them. It was truly overwhelming as we literally took a month and read them all. To read about the misery people are put through on a daily basis by our profit-based system was both moving and revolting. That's all I will say right now.
We've spent the better part of this year shooting our next movie, "Sicko." As we've done with our other films, we don't discuss them while we are making them. If people ask, we tell them "Sicko" is "a comedy about 45 million people with no health care in the richest country on earth."
But like my other movies, what we start with (General Motors, guns, 9/11) is not always what we end with. Along the way, we discover new roads to go down, roads that often surprise us and lead us to new ideas -- and challenge us to reconsider the ones we began with. That, I can say with certainty, is happening now as we shoot "Sicko." I don't think the country needs a movie that tells you that HMOs and the pharmaceutical companies suck. Everybody knows that. I'd like to show you some things you don't know. So stay tuned for where this movie has led me. I think you might enjoy it.
At this point, we've shot about 75% of "Sicko" and will soon begin putting it together. It will be released in theaters sometime in 2007.
And if you don't hear much from me in the meantime, it's only 'cause I'm busy working. I realize that my silence doesn't stop the opposition with their weird obsession for me! It seems like not a week passes without my good name being worked into some nutty news story or commentary. (I have to say, though, I did enjoy Tom Delay blaming me and Ms. Streisand for why he had to resign from Congress!)
I hope all of you are enjoying your summer. If you're near the state of Michigan later this month, I'll be putting on the second annual Traverse City Film Festival in Traverse City, Michigan. I've personally selected 60 or so movies that I love, many of which did not get the notice or distribution they deserved. Others are brand new independent movies and documentaries that I hope will find a large audience when they are released.
The film festival will take place in this beautiful town in northern Michigan, from July 31st to August 6th. Appearing in person with their films will be David O. Russell ("Three Kings"), Lawrence Bender ("An Inconvenient Truth"), Terry George ("Hotel Rwanda"), Larry Charles ("Borat"), plus Jeff Garlin, Jake Kasdan, and other filmmakers. We're also going to show every feature film made by the greatest American director of all time, Stanley Kubrick. Joining us in person will be his executive producer, Jan Harlan, and actors Malcolm McDowell ("A Clockwork Orange") and Matthew Modine ("Full Metal Jacket"). We'll also be presenting a special salute to films made in Iran (a sort of "Let's get to know them first this time!" effort).
If you'd like to see the entire list of films, click here. Tickets go on sale today (July 7) at noon. To purchase your tickets (all seats $7), click here or call 231-929-1506. Last year we had 50,000 admissions, and we expect most films to sell out early this year.
Well, that's it for now. Bush has quietly closed down the special section of the CIA that was devoted solely to capturing Mr. bin Laden, so we can all rest easy now. I wonder who his next scary evildoer will be. A fearful nation awaits its marching orders, sir!
Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
P.S. Don't forget to visit my website which I update every day with all the news the Bush stenographers (a/k/a "Mainstream Media") fail to put on page one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hugs, Tawny
Friends,
Just a quick note to let you know how things are going.
Back in February, I asked if people would send me letters describing their experiences with our health care system. I received over 19,000 of them. It was truly overwhelming as we literally took a month and read them all. To read about the misery people are put through on a daily basis by our profit-based system was both moving and revolting. That's all I will say right now.
We've spent the better part of this year shooting our next movie, "Sicko." As we've done with our other films, we don't discuss them while we are making them. If people ask, we tell them "Sicko" is "a comedy about 45 million people with no health care in the richest country on earth."
But like my other movies, what we start with (General Motors, guns, 9/11) is not always what we end with. Along the way, we discover new roads to go down, roads that often surprise us and lead us to new ideas -- and challenge us to reconsider the ones we began with. That, I can say with certainty, is happening now as we shoot "Sicko." I don't think the country needs a movie that tells you that HMOs and the pharmaceutical companies suck. Everybody knows that. I'd like to show you some things you don't know. So stay tuned for where this movie has led me. I think you might enjoy it.
At this point, we've shot about 75% of "Sicko" and will soon begin putting it together. It will be released in theaters sometime in 2007.
And if you don't hear much from me in the meantime, it's only 'cause I'm busy working. I realize that my silence doesn't stop the opposition with their weird obsession for me! It seems like not a week passes without my good name being worked into some nutty news story or commentary. (I have to say, though, I did enjoy Tom Delay blaming me and Ms. Streisand for why he had to resign from Congress!)
I hope all of you are enjoying your summer. If you're near the state of Michigan later this month, I'll be putting on the second annual Traverse City Film Festival in Traverse City, Michigan. I've personally selected 60 or so movies that I love, many of which did not get the notice or distribution they deserved. Others are brand new independent movies and documentaries that I hope will find a large audience when they are released.
The film festival will take place in this beautiful town in northern Michigan, from July 31st to August 6th. Appearing in person with their films will be David O. Russell ("Three Kings"), Lawrence Bender ("An Inconvenient Truth"), Terry George ("Hotel Rwanda"), Larry Charles ("Borat"), plus Jeff Garlin, Jake Kasdan, and other filmmakers. We're also going to show every feature film made by the greatest American director of all time, Stanley Kubrick. Joining us in person will be his executive producer, Jan Harlan, and actors Malcolm McDowell ("A Clockwork Orange") and Matthew Modine ("Full Metal Jacket"). We'll also be presenting a special salute to films made in Iran (a sort of "Let's get to know them first this time!" effort).
If you'd like to see the entire list of films, click here. Tickets go on sale today (July 7) at noon. To purchase your tickets (all seats $7), click here or call 231-929-1506. Last year we had 50,000 admissions, and we expect most films to sell out early this year.
Well, that's it for now. Bush has quietly closed down the special section of the CIA that was devoted solely to capturing Mr. bin Laden, so we can all rest easy now. I wonder who his next scary evildoer will be. A fearful nation awaits its marching orders, sir!
Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
P.S. Don't forget to visit my website which I update every day with all the news the Bush stenographers (a/k/a "Mainstream Media") fail to put on page one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hugs, Tawny
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Did you catch the film clips of the hot dog eating contest on the 4th? I want to say it happenedi in New York but I may be mistaken as to the location.
Anyway, a goodly number of the people on earth are starving. Starving to death.
And there it was right up on the tv, CNN which is viewed worldwide, people eating for competition. Stuffing themselves. Gorging themselves. Jamming gazillions of hot dogs and buns down their throats. Not because they're hungry. Not because they're starving. Because they want to win a prize.
And the poker tournaments on damn near every tv channel? You see those? Just about any day, and any time of the day or night, scroll the cable channels and you'll see poker tournament after poker tournament. Gambling glamorized.
Let's see, gluttony and gambling. Two sins. Both of them, in present day America, right there on the tv for everyone to see.
And we wonder why most of the world hates us.
Add to that the nudity and sexual promiscuousness that is so prevalent.
And we wonder why most of the world hates us.
Tawny
Anyway, a goodly number of the people on earth are starving. Starving to death.
And there it was right up on the tv, CNN which is viewed worldwide, people eating for competition. Stuffing themselves. Gorging themselves. Jamming gazillions of hot dogs and buns down their throats. Not because they're hungry. Not because they're starving. Because they want to win a prize.
And the poker tournaments on damn near every tv channel? You see those? Just about any day, and any time of the day or night, scroll the cable channels and you'll see poker tournament after poker tournament. Gambling glamorized.
Let's see, gluttony and gambling. Two sins. Both of them, in present day America, right there on the tv for everyone to see.
And we wonder why most of the world hates us.
Add to that the nudity and sexual promiscuousness that is so prevalent.
And we wonder why most of the world hates us.
Tawny
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
