No, it is NOT a Paris HIlton Tax. It is an Aristocracy Tax. For instance, the Walton Kids tried to be Kingmakers, despite the fact they aren't worthy of such, their father was. They ran two candidates for President in 2008, former Arkansas Governor Huckabee and former first lady of Arkansas and the US Clinton. Arkansas is the home of Wal-Mart. No one did better than Wal-Mart in the 1990's when the Clintons ran Washington's executive branch.

Thom, I don't know where you get your daily quotes, but I just Googled your Madison quote from a few minutes ago and stumbled onto a treasure trove at http://www.antiwar.com/quotes.php. They're alphabetical by authors' first names.

A man in Iraq after the "liberation" held a sign as Americans entered Baghdad: "Thank you. Now Go Away."

BP controls scientific reports?

From the American Association of University Professors email newsletter: BP's strategy to control scientific information developed from studying effects of their massive spill:

------------------------------------------

BP and Academic Freedom

On Friday, July 16, Ben Raines, a reporter for Mobile, Alabama’s Press-Register, published a story detailing extensive efforts by BP to employ scientists engaged in (or likely to engage in) research about the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Inside Higher Ed has since conducted independent interviews for its own coverage. The contracts offered by the giant company, according to both sources, restrict the scientists from publishing research results, sharing them with other scientists, or even talking about them for as long as three years, a serious restraint in the midst of an ongoing crisis.

Both during the immediate crisis and for an extended period as government leaders and the courts figure out how to respond to the Gulf tragedy, the work these scientists do will essentially belong to BP, which will be free to suppress it or characterize it in any way it chooses. Faculty members under contract to BP, meanwhile, would be unable to testify against the company in court and would be available to testify on the company’s behalf. Several faculty members in the area have confirmed to the American Association of University Professors that they have been offered contracts by BP in exchange for restrictive confidentiality clauses. A notably chilling provision directs contracted scientists to communicate through BP’s lawyers, thus raising the possibility that research findings will be constrained by lawyer-client privilege.

The oil spill is not only a catastrophic economic and environmental disaster for the Gulf region; it also has major implications for energy policy in both the United States and the rest of the world. The ability to share research results promptly and freely is not only a basic tenet of academic freedom; in this case, it is also critical to the health of the region and the world. While more investigative work is needed, the very prospect of an interested corporation worth billions of dollars blocking the free exchange of university research and controlling the work scientists choose to do is deeply disturbing. If knowledgeable scientists cannot testify in court, the ability of injured parties to win just compensation is also jeopardized. But the long-term threat to American society is still more grave: we need independent faculty voices, perhaps more so now — in a knowledge-based society — than ever before.

In its founding 1915 Declaration, the AAUP warned of the “danger of restrictions upon the expression of opinions” that “call into question the moral legitimacy or social expediency of economic conditions or commercial practices in which large vested interests are involved.” Our 2004 “Statement on Corporate Funding of Academic Research” establishes the fundamental standard: “Such contracts should explicitly provide for the open communication of research results, not subject to the sponsor’s permission for publication.”

Universities that prohibit faculty members from doing research that violates this principle, in my view, are protecting academic freedom, not restricting it. Of course in recommending that universities enforce this principle I am going beyond current AAUP policy. The world has changed. The increasing impact of corporate funding on the integrity of faculty research is among the changes higher education must confront. The decision about whether to sign restrictive contracts is not simply a matter of individual choice. It has broad implications for higher education and for the society at large.

At least one university has refused an institution-wide contract with BP for exactly these reasons. Many individual faculty members are declining BP offers or withdrawing from existing ones. Perhaps this is the time to reexamine the increasing role corporations are playing in funding and controlling university research. Universities should work with faculty to set ethical standards for industry collaboration that champion the public interest and discourage faculty members from selling their freedom of speech and research to the highest bidder.

Meanwhile, we urge other news media to join the effort to interview area scientists, gather copies of BP contracts, and publish the results. This story needs to be told in full. Universities should also consider where the public interest lies before permitting faculty members to sign contracts that limit the free exchange of information and bar public testimony. BP itself should certainly invest in research related to the spill, but it should do so without curtailing either faculty members’ free speech rights or their academic freedom. To do otherwise could prove hazardous to all of our health.

I am counting down the five days until Blue Shield of California destroys over two decades of continuity of care just to protect the executive bonus of Bruce Bodaken (Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer) . . . Who cares if Cedars Sinai actually saved my life and my only child was born into and lived her entire life under Cedar Sinai’s care.

Side Note: The government NEVER came between me and my doctors but Blue Shield of California blazes that trail with a vengeance.

I'm not sure it will make a difference if we have a Dem or a Repub; I'm not too impressed with Sotomayor or Kagan. Obama should have appointed justices as progressive as Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are conservative. I think we need a Supreme Court strategy.

First of all the progressive groups like PDA, Public Citizen, ACLU, PFAW, etc. should be doing what the right did and searching for justices to recommend when the next vacancy occurs. Bader-Ginsburg may be the next to retire and Scalia and Kennedy are in their seventies. If Obama is re-elected and he can be influenced to appoint progressive justices based on the recommendations of the above organizations, there is a possibility of taking back the Court.

The first test case should be on corporate personhood and, perhaps, it can be reversed.

As it stands, the Supreme Court is the greatest threat to our democracy. The corporatization of America and The Second Gilded Age are bipartisan efforts. This court is perpetuating our government of business, by business and for business. We need democracy, not corporatocracy.

I was appalled that the President dared to urge progressives at "Netroots Nation" to "keep up the fight". We have gotten nothing but more of the same....More and larger genocidal wars, more $Billions for the Banksters and militarists, more poverty for working people, more surveillance and repression at home and more Patriot Act.

And the so called "Health Care Reform" bill is just another casino for the insurance companies. The man is a fraud and a Goldman Sacks puppet. No rationalizations can explain away his sellout to those most responsible for the near destruction of our country and the carnage of the last nine years.

At the Democratic Convention in his acceptance speech he roared "Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough!"

Enough indeed. Enough of him already. I voted for him (much to my everlasting regret) and now despise him.

There are a lot of things we must understand about abused children, and children of war- there is no difference.

Lorne

The East Moline Public Hospital served many mentally ill patients. When Raygun emptied it, the logical choice for the hospital's mission was to turn it into East Moline Correctional Institution and take back the former patients as prisoners.

Prison guards are far less expensive than medical staff.

National Shanda: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/senate_strips_funding_for_black_farmers_from_war_b.php

Perhaps Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington should get some air-time on this: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/rangel_ethics_commitee_investigated_more_alleged_v.php

Simply FABULOUS!!!: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/ted_haggard_i_over-repented_for_my_meth-gay_prosti.php

May roommates become cell mates: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/coburn_turns_over_emails_to_feds_investigating_ens.php

BARTERING:

This is just another way the wealthly avoid paying TAXES! Having known a Dentist, also head of School Board, in Redlands, CA. The company I worked for bartered over $20,000 in building materials in trade with the owner's and their family member's dental work.

This was done during the Pappy Bush Years secretly. Now the GOP boldly are spreading this form of tax evasion!

BTW: Not that this has anything to do with this tax evasion, but this Dentist's son murdered another child while in High School....This is just another example of "Family Values"!

Sec'y Vilsack acted like a Democrat who retreats to the fetal position every time Fox Noise screams about anything, which is every day.