How did I go from getting a significant refund last year (which I SORELY needed, it was how I kept my shitbox car running godamnit!) to owing them money? I didn't change my filing status, I made probably LESS than I did last year but according to the dry run (I have to work my way up to actual completion) of doing my taxes I owe the federal government about 400-500 bucks. I have never owed money before, I'm fucking 21, have no assets to speak of and make BARELY enough money to live on. Shit I made maybe 18,000 this year, MAYBE!! Actually when I looked at it, me and my roomates will all owe money, my boyfriend who made 16,000 this year, apparently owes like 600 dollars.

Thats real fucking good.

I'm wondering if Bri will be owing them an even 1000 because shit, she made probably about 7000. Obviously since she didn't make very much, she doesn't really need any of it.
So either the federal government has decided to openly fuck the poor in the ass with the largest dildo I've ever seen, or how you do taxes has fucking changed drastically.

Of course I could always have made a mistake....please let me have made a mistake....otherwise....

I am so fucked.

UPDATE:
K so I'm not that fucked. I just fucked up, totally forgot one of the essential steps of doing taxes. I was saddened at my own stupidity for a moment, then I decided to never again attempt taxes while slightly intoxicated. BAD idea. Stop laughing damnit!

It's wonderful to discover that one of the men your father revere's make's such well-thought out statements as

"In "A Christian Manifesto," he warned against wrapping Christianity in the American flag, but added, "None of this, however, changes the fact that the United States was founded upon a Christian consensus, nor that we today should bring Judeo-Christian principles into play in regard to government." Schaeffer was one of the first evangelical leaders to get deeply involved in the fight against abortion, and he advocated civil disobedience and the possible use of force to stop it. "It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's Law it abrogates its authority," he wrote."

Just....fuck. I hoped and hoped that my dad might be a little more realistic then my mother about political things. Like understanding that freedom of religion means freedom of ANY religion, not just the freedom to practice some bland flavor of X-tianity.

Other great points from these people include:

"Charles Colson accepts one hundred people annually into his yearlong "worldview training" courses, which include meetings in Washington, D.C., online seminars, "mentoring," and several hours of homework each week. "The program will be heavily weighted towards how to think," Colson's Web site says. It's intended for those who work in churches, media, law, government, and education, and who can thus teach others to think the same way."

And here I thought I knew how to think! Guess not, or maybe I just don't kow how to think the 'right' (ha ha terrible pun) way. Seems as if the course is intended to brainwash help you learn to think the godly way. For instance apparently these people know god's opinions on everything!

"The documents outline a complete political program, with a "biblically correct" position on issues like taxes (God favors a flat rate), public schools (generally frowned upon), and the media and the arts ("We deny that any pornography and other blasphemy are permissible as art or 'free speech'")."

But isn't speaking for god kind of blasphemous? Guess it's okay if it's done for furthering the interests of the religious right.

Another gem statement here;

"Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world. Only Christianity."

Please explain these
70,000 Year old Human Rituals
Mini Solar System Could Reveal Hidden Dimensions

I'm sure they would probably have issue's with these people seeing as how I doubt they think in the pre-approved way. Especially considering they probably follow (Le GASP!) Evolution! The theory that's full of holes (says the sieve to the bucket ).

Are you between the ages of 19-29 and aren't married? Well then the government is here to let you know they've got a plan for you! No sex (unless your married of course)! Eh?....Eh, eh? Not gonna go for it are you? Not with such wonderful convincing statements like these?

"For condoms to be used correctly, over 10 specific difficult steps must be followed every time. This tends to minimize the romance and spontaneity of the sex act. (Choosing the Best, p. 25)."

10 steps? Really? Let's see here, I'm gonna try to break it down as much as possible
How to use a condom
1) Open little foil package
2) Remove condom
3) Throw foil package and little torn off bit to the side
4) Figure out which is the topside
5) Roll down over erect penis
6) ENJOY!!
So the most we got was 6...and none of them could be categorized as difficult, trying maybe (ever have an issue with getting it open? Yeah me too) but not exactly difficult. And then of course there are these kick ass condoms, which I am hoping catch on here as they are currently only available in Africa (i think anyway).

"Women need affection while men need sexual fulfillment; women need conversation while men need recreation companionship; women need honest and openness while men need physical attractiveness; women need financial support while men need admiration, and women need family commitment while men need domestic support" (WAIT Training, p. 199).

Where to start? How about the fact that this is educational materials with some pretty amazing grammar, 'recreation companionship'? 'women need honest'? Great proofreading skills on whoever designed that material. Every statement is a broad, misogynistic generalization of both men and women that  equates us with television stereotypes. Women don't want sex only love, have an inherent NEED to talk and require ca$h and babies, STAT! Men just want sex, an active buddy who also happens to be totally HAWT and tells him how manly and super amazing he is while doing his laundry. Good to know.  Please remember this isn't some fundie pamphlet either, these are actual materials they are using to teach abstinence-only ed in schools and now apparently to us slutty 20-somethings.
Now we come to the all important question of why? Why do we need to be teaching abstinence to a group that over 90% has had sex before, likely more than once!

"Government data released last month show that 998,262 births in 2004 were to unmarried women 19-29, the ages with the most births to unmarried women."

Unplanned pregnancy, (which they mean as anyone who has a baby and isn't married). According to the government, if you are an unmarried person under 29 the best way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence. Which is true, just not realistic. Do we really need to be telling adults lies to intimidate them into not having sex? Because I don't think that will work. Does our government really need to be in on our sex lives anyway? Now for the real kicker, because really we all knew how the BushCo government felt about fucking (if you're anything other than a married strictly heterosexual couple), they will be spreading this misinformation with $50 million.
I know, I'm excited too.
Hat tip to Mark Morford and Travels with Floyd as well as Feministe for the great video

My dad called me today to ask me if I remember where we were when we heard about it. I laughed and said of course, how could I forget. We were in the car together on the way to drop me off at school listening to KFAN (local Twin Cities radio station, kinda wingnutty but mostly sports) when they announced it. We stared at each other for a second than I looked away and asked how anyone could be so stupid as to fly into building. Little did we know that the world was about to change.
There's my two cents about my 9/11 experience 5 years ago. For a story that gives an excellent idea of what being in NYC that day was really like, check out the Tomato Nation*

*Hat tip to Feministe

NASA won't allow it's scientists to inform the people even if it is about something that could drastically change everyone's life.

"it appears that several agencies are laboring to silence scientists who are researching climate trends and alterations, especially where they have knowledge about the degree to which human activities are playing a role in the rapid and historically inexplicable heating of the planet's surface and atmosphere."

It's nice to know our government is protecting all of us poor stupid commoners from being terrified by the big bad scary truth about (Le GASP!!) Global warming!

"The case in point is that of Dr. James Hansen, head of climatology research for NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies...He became a whistleblower for two reasons: one, the institution he works for was participating in a campaign to withhold and to distort evidence related to climate science, so his revelations are designed to correct the disinformation; two, he could face retaliatory hostile treatment by superiors just for revealing something no one has a legal right to hide"

here comes the hammer...

"NASA's reaction, in the words of one report, was to place him under "administrative house arrest. It has also been reported by TomPaine.com that "Political appointees boasted they would 'make the president look good' by imposing blanket prior restraint, denying interview requests, announcing that agency-selected replacements would substitute for him, and threatening 'dire consequences' if he disobeyed".

Apparently now NASA=parents, in that they can spank you for "disobediance". WTF? I wonder if NASA will be called out for scientist-abuse?

"He did. Hansen appeared on CBS' 60 Minutes program and other national media. Scientists, academics and journalists formed a wave of support for Hansen and his right to speak openly and freely about public science, and NASA declared its intention to reform its media policy, saying it recognized the rights of individual employees to employ their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression."

What? No spanking? Well at least they are making an effort for free speech and promoting a healthy scientific...oh wait...

"The new media policy still places government scientists under harsh restrictions and still seems aimed to give superiors control over what the media hear and discuss, as related to agency work. This standard seems not only to work against the First Amendment, but its lean toward censorship also violates a number of other federal laws."

I thought they changed the policy? They must have meant to their advantage, not the employees' or the public.

"The policy bans anonymous disclosures, controls the timing of information’s release and institutionalizes prior restraint censorship through 'review and clearance by appropriate officials' for 'all NASA employees' involved in 'preparing and issuing' public information. This means that scientists can be censored and will need advance permission from the 'appropriate' official before anything can be released."

So, no telling the public anything that might make us look bad, oh and be home by 10! Here's the money quote IMHO

"The EPA, charged literally as the agency for 'environmental protection', has a policy that scientists may not disclose any research without authorization and are forbidden from "initiating contact" with reporters, to "prevent EPA management from being surprised by news coverage". This level of control of information clearly runs contrary to the agency's mission to ensure that a clear and objective picture of the environmental impact of human activities be known and that relevant actions be taken to curb any detrimental practices."