Ever since I heard about it yesterday morning, I’ve been casting about for a proper way to talk about the Komen foundation’s decision to stop donating funds to Planned Parenthood (which does a lot of work to make early screenings for breast cancer available to all kinds of women), as a result of their “new administrative rule”, which is really about caving to the pressure of a vocal minority who has a problem with Planned Parenthood in general, and at least one service PP provides (though only makes up about three percent of PP’s total services).

This post is the best I can do. As usual, Scalzi does it better. But more about him later…

Despite the fact that I’m married to a woman, have fathered two of them, know and love many of them, and have had at least one relative who was directly affected by breast cancer, I’ve not thought a lot about the Komen organization. I’m pretty sure I’ve sponsored one or two officemates in one of those walks/races/whatevers they do over the years, and if you’re an American, it’s hard to avoid purchasing something or other with that pink ribbon device on it, but that’s really about it.

However, I, and pretty much everyone in America has some idea what that pink ribbon signifies; the goal of “raising awareness” for breast cancer is pretty much nailed (some might say it’s a case of over-awareness).

The thoughts I do have are generally about that ribbon, and the megolithic PR campaign behind it. Getting that ribbon on every box of cereal and container of yogurt in America can’t be cheap. I wonder if their money could be better spent funding research to “find the cure” or providing services to diagnose early (and early diagnosis is the best way to “cure” this disease right now) than on furthering the pink ribbon brand. According to statistics, Komen spends about 20% of it’s proceeds on “research”, which, while certainly not the worst record, it certainly isn’t the most efficient overhead-to-actual-support ratio for a charity to have.

And this move to cut off Planned Parenthood due to some sort of controversy means that even less money goes toward exactly the kind of services that can lower breast cancer rates and keep women healthier in general.

It’s Komen’s right to spend their money however they want, but it’s the right of everyone who finds the decision boneheaded to donate their money elsewhere, like to Planned Parenthood.

Incidentally, if you’re of the mind to see that Planned Parenthood gets a few extra bucks toward cancer screening and education services, and enjoy reading good books on your ereader or mobile device, you might want to click over to John Scalzi’s blog and make a note of the fact that for the next week, He’s donating his personal income from ebook sales to Planned Parenthood, specifically for breast cancer services. He’s got the details over there, and a great write-up describing his feelings on the whole situation.

Incidentally, both the books and the commentary are worth reading.

I greatly enjoyed this bit submitted commenter “Evan Hunt” regarding this post from slacktivist:

“I see some similarity between automobiles made by Ford and those made by Chrysler, but this is not indicative of a fundamental ‘Chrystlo-Ford automotive tradition’ at the root of American society.”

Like most things in Fred’s corner of the internet, it bears thinking on.

Witness, friends, a ten second teaser released to promote a 30 second commercial promoting a theatrical film?

Okay. This is getting maybe a little ridiculous.

Still, it’s The Avengers. I’m going to be there.

Many people believe that introversion is about being antisocial, and that’s really a misperception. Because actually it’s just that introverts are differently social. So they would prefer to have a glass of wine with a close friend as opposed to going to a loud party full of strangers.

That’s one of the money quotes from a recent NPR interview with author Susan Caine, who recently wrote a book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, which is one of the better descriptions of the difference between the extremes of the introvert-extrovert spectrum.

“Differently Social”. I like that. I think that phrase may have just sold a book, though I expect there probably aren’t many ideas in it that would be particularly new to me. As some of you know, I think about this. A lot.

Still, occasional repetition is useful at getting audiences to internalize ideas. And this is one of those ideas I wish a lot more people would understand.

So, the weekend events proved to be both as enjoyable and as stressful as I expected. I’m really not complaining about any of it, per se; I enjoyed the company of some quite wonderful people, and, somewhat unexpectedly, I had the opportunity to be a bit of company for someone else who maybe needed it.

All in all, not a bad way to spend a weekend, even if my youngest child ended up taking down my wireless network on Saturday afternoon by “cleaning” the router.

That said, I’m kind of hoping for a quiet week ahead <<crossing fingers>>.

In the meantime, I’m going to go ahead and just put my head down. I think the movie theater is calling.

For no particular reason, I provide here a link to the American Top 40 pop charts from the week I was born.

All told, there’s not a lot of quality there, especially #1, which straddles the line between hokey and oddly creepy pretty well (though I suspect there were at least a few jokes cracked along the way). Otherwise, it’s really not very good. Sure, you have Clapton there at #5, but really, for my money, you have to get all the way down to #24 before you encounter something with any real staying power, Elton John’s “Don’t Let The Sun Go Down On Me”.

Seriously, the mid-70s were not a very good time for popular music.

There’s really no meaning here, but something pointed me to the chart archive, so I now point to it as well. Never say I don’t pay things forward.

_________________

* – somebody gets this, right? If not, here. I simply could not bring myself to quote lyrics to the song in question; as it’s really, really awful.

So, yesterday was the day that Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney released his 2010 tax returns. Sure, this sort of thing isn’t a requirement, but it’s one of those things that you do as a candidate, because it’s an indication of trust and openness (“hey, I have nothing to hide!”) and because it gives voters a bit more context about you as a person – lifestyle is, to a large extent, commensurate with income; and it also gives a sense of what you value, via charitable contributions.

Of course, Romney, through his initial reluctance to take part in this rite of electoral passage, has made this a bigger deal than usual. And, you know, it might be, especially given the importance of the economy and class in today’s political climate.

Romney made around $21 million in 2010, virtually all of that from capital gains; that is, dividends on investments. What that means is that although he “made” $21 million, he already had a much larger pile of money sittting there doing nothing but earning interest and dividends. Mitt’s effective tax rate was around 13%.

For comparison, my effective tax rate, based on a much lower income (according to this calculator, Romney made as much as I do in about a day and a half), which came mostly from wages (I made a little over a hundred bucks in dividends from a few stocks I own), was about 16%.

Now, I do pretty well for my community (according to recent statistics, I make a few pennies less than twice the average household income for my congressional district) and I have had the benefits of being able to write off mortgage and student loan interest, and can free up some coin for deductable charitable donations (though not as much as I’d like). This brings my effective tax rate down a bit from the base (last year, my marginal rate was 25%). A lot of people don’t have the means to take advantage of those benefits, many of which require at least some buy-in cost, such as a down payment on a house, which a lot of people simply can’t manage.

But the best kind of advantages go to people who get most of their income from investments and dividends – people like Romney and, say, Paris Hilton. My sixteen percent comes from taking deductions to the marginal tax rate, which is largely based on wages. Romney, had his income been based on wages, would have started at the top bracket of 37% for the bulk of his income, but he really didn’t – the maximum rate for capital gains income in 2010 was 15 percent, then he deducted things like mortgage interest (the guy has more than half a dozen houses) and charitable deductions from his income to get to his even lower actual rate.

I can barely get my mind around the idea of having a net worth of around $20 million; having a net worth so high that your investments can earn that much in a year (especially given the fact that interest rates are so low right now) is a concept beyond my ability to grok. For people at that level, I imagine money ceases to exist as a concept; if Mitt Romney wants something – anything – I’m pretty sure he can just have his people go get it; I have a hard time believing that even the most imaginative, high-maintenance “only the best” person there is would be able to come up with a way to seriously dent that kind of treasure horde. There’s no way that a person with the wealth of Mitt Romney could possibly understand the economic realities of someone like me, let alone someone who’s skating across the poverty line, any more than either of us can really understand his.

But, that’s not really my point. What I really don’t get is some of the stuff I see from my more conservative acquantences on social networking services, immediately leaping in defense to assert the reasonableness of Romney’s tax burden, since so many lower income people (allegedly 47%) “don’t pay taxes at all”.

First of all, the “don’t pay taxes” is flatly wrong; they may not pay “income tax”, but they pay a much greater percentage of their total income to all those other taxes, of which I provide a few examples below:

• the Romney household pays pretty much the same for a gallon of milk in Boston as you would (probably less, as his accountant has probably found a way to deduct the cost of the milk as a business expense) – who do you think feels the 6.25% sales tax that Massachussetts charges more, him or you?
• Romney’s driver pays the same for a gallon of gas as you do at the pump – who feels the cost of the 18.4¢/gallon federal excise tax more?
• Assuming Romney drew a paycheck, he’d pay the same roughly seven percent on Social Security and Medicare. You and I can’t help but see it when when we see all those deductions on our pay stub – would he even notice?

So yeah, even if your income is low enough, or you’re able to claim enough deductions that you effectively pay “no taxes” on income, you’re still hit with all these other taxes; taxes that tend to have a greater impact on people with lower income than on the wealthy.

Yet, people who are truly struggling continue to vote for candidates whose policies continue to reduce the relative burden on the wealthy while increasing it for the rest of us. Why? I think it’s two different things (and a lot of this I swipe liberally from Thomas Frank’s wonderful and insightful book What’s The Matter With Kansas?):

• By paying lip service to (but never actually doing anything about) conservative “values” issues like restricting abortion and gay rights, these candidates are able to shift anger away from economic inequality and toward “liberal elites” who supposedly look down on “Real Americans™”
• Through clever use of salesmanship and the media, politicians who either are, or are backed by wealthy interests, have convinced the low income that although they may not be rich now, they might be someday. This ties in with refrains of “hard work and integrity” and the whole “prosperity gospel” business. It also plays on the common fantasy that playing the lottery is a sound investment strategy.

Here’s the thing: it doesn’t really work that way, at least not when the burden of taxation is getting pushed farther onto the lower and middle classes and off of the upper classes through things like capital gains tax cuts. Conservative economic policy, which was sold by virtue of claiming it would create jobs by spurring investment and business expansion, really hasn’t – it’s kind of stacked the deck in favor of people who already have money getting more, and shifting more of the tax burden to the middle class.

That statement, as well as all of this, really, is a gross simplification, but it’s kind of the way it’s working right now. And I wish more people could see that.

In any case, my point, and I really think I did have one when I started this piece, is that people who are looking to cut Romney slack for paying a “reasonable” amount of taxes (as compared to the rest of us) really need to look a little closer at the way the system works in terms of the way the relative tax burden is distributed, and understand that it’s not in Romney’s best personal interest to change things very much, and that he (or the eventual Republican nominee*, who will, to one degree or another, be of the same economic ilk) will spend a lot of time trying to deflect voters’ attention away from that fact in order to improve their bottom line to the detriment of yours and mine.

___________________

* – yes, yes, “Democrats are the same”, “bought and sold to corporate interests”, etc etc. I know. Nothing’s perfect. Obama could be more progressive economically and otherwise. But then, as they say, the perfect is the enemy of the good, an I’ll wager that the candidate who didn’t grow up as the scion to the fortune that the AMC Gremlin built has a better understanding of how the middle class lives, and will at least factor that understanding in their consideration of economic issues.

Because I always link this, here’s the State of the Union Drinking Game for your imbibing pleasure.

I’m not sure I’ll be watching. I’m really tired.

I did a bit of sleep deficit spending this weekend; such is the toll of a busy weekend followed by a week during which rest did not come easy, followed by another busy weekend.

Mostly it was Saturday that did me in. It was really the two-pronged assault of (1) the labor involved in helping a group of young people I’m quite fond pull off a successful fund-raising event featuring decorations, music and a chocolate fountain; and (2), coming to realize that I’m having more difficulty dealing with a particular long-term stressor than I had hoped I would, despite my efforts to just stay the hell out of the way.

In any case, the fund raiser raised a tidy sum of funds that will fund many worthy service projects (I’m really quite proud of the kids for pulling it off, as it was really their show), though caused me to look a bit like a zombie in a stylish three-button suit by 9pm Saturday night. I then spent a bit of Sunday dealing with some of the stress from point (2) in ways I’m not entirely proud of.

So, I’m hoping this week will be a little quieter and give me the chance to catch up on my rest and maybe process some things.

I also have to do a little bit of planning because, things never ever ending, I’m hosting a dinner and games thing on Saturday and I haven’t figured out what I’m cooking yet (the game, though, is largely planned).

I knew someone had to be looking at this, but nobody really knows why approximately one in four people (including me) experiences photic sneeze response; that is, sneezing when the sun gets in one’s eyes. There have been several different theories about why this reaction exists, and several of them have been considered and abandoned over the years, and at this point (largely because there are so many other things to look at), this particular “mystery” remains largely unsolved.

And that’s kind of the beauty of science – it’s all about observation and drawing conclusions based on that observation and experimental evidence, and can end up being kind of messy. Nothing is ever truly certain, in the sense that no idea is immune to criticism. Sure, there are some things science is pretty damned certain about, but at the same time, “certainty” only goes as far as the available evidence. Learning and understanding is never over, and our understanding of the universe is always developing and deepening based on our cumulative experience.

I actually kind of find that idea comforting. But, back to the sneezing:

I kind of like the current theory that the optic nerve crosses close enough to the trigeminal nerve (the one that causes sneezing), and occasionally overloads it, causing sternutation (sneezing): I’m fond of the fact that this little weird genetic artifact that causes me to sneeze violently when I go outside on a sunny afternoon is essentially the same as the electrical wiring problem I once had with a car – the wiring arrangement was such that the occasional hard left turn would bump two wires against each other, resulting lots of things lighting up on my dash that weren’t supposed to. It really shines a light on how weird and haphazard evolution sometimes is; that the human body isn’t any more intelligently designed than a poorly-engineered mid-90s coupe.

My personal wrinkle is that the whole photic sneeze reaction is related to eye color – I’ve never known someone without blue eyes to experience it (though one only has to go as far as the comments on the article linked to find anecdotal evidence of brown-eyed people doing it…so much for that theory!).