Swing poster + why blog wars suck

Everyone COME TO MY EVENT + dress up like a skag from the 20s.


+
Blog wars:

1. they are a waste of time, unless they are funny. the moment they become too serious, be less serious and make them crazy.

2. no matter how many times you explain something to someone, they can still not get it.

3. someone usually brings the idea of reading levels into it, and that's when you know you're wasting your time on some self-declared expert who was probably told too many times in grade 4 that they read at a grade 6 level and this went to their heads for the rest of their lives.

4. when they invert the serious with the sarcasm: saying your sarcasm is ad hominem and ignoring your real ideas

5. because people who blog seriously really think they're opinion matters no matter how dumbfunny it is. they are ready and lonely enough to fight long after awesome people lose interest.

BTW, the other day i read that on 9.11 a man loaded up his van with gasoline and drove it into an abortion clinic. He was not called a suicide bomber. he didn't even make the news.

PS.
i <3 raymi too bad for big blue wave of suzanne at least she got some traffic and notice how her last post hasn't changed, i mean, if she's so into it move on. dont bathe in the attention of other peoples fans.

Love

Seamus says:
I love you

chelsea says:
i farted

Seamus says:
i guess, I still love you

chelsea says:
fine

Good news: there has to be an election soon.

its obvs exam time here at good news central. But I have had it, I've decided proposed income splitting is bad news for single parents (which I had), for widows (which I have in the fam), for women (which I am), and for the poor (which is just normatively wrong to make more poor). It's in good news because I think its doubly important to tell the world.

One: single parents cant split income. So those who say there's too much taxing going on, those who do get some of their money back aren't these people. The surplus goes to not my dad 15 years ago who had 2 kids to raise.

Two: widows can't split their pensions. sure, maybe they've inherited their beloveds wealth, but again, the tax break and the elimination of surplus does not go to them.

Three: women still have a way lower average income than men.
"Men would receive most of the tax breaks from income splitting because their average incomes are still higher than women's (about $43,000 versus $26,000 in 2004).". And under flaherty's plan, there's no obligation to transfer that wealth to the lower-income earning spouse in terms of assets. Unfortunately the conservative government has this ideal scenario in their heads where everyone behaves equally, that 25$ wont be spent on beer and popcorn, that men will be willing to split equally.

Four: The poor and equal earning couples don't benefit at all. This tax break affects those in the top 3% of income earners the most- a group that is predominantly men.

The idea of a surplus going to rich white men and not the poor, not the widows, not single-parent families, not women, not poorer immigrants is utterly disgusting.

Look what happens when the conservatives get going.


(for referential material, see this article)