






Hello,
I just wanted to write to you with an appeal to vote "NO" to the proposed $700 billion bailout of financial institutions. This country is willing to bail out the rich for their poor decision making and greed, but the average American is left on their own! I also find ironic that one week ago, the Bush administration and Henry Paulson each said everything was fine while Lehman Brothers was going under. Upon further investigation, I find that Henry Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs and still owns half a billion dollars in Sachs stock. While his competitor Lehman collapsed, Paulson did nothing. But then, his company starts to go and Paulson runs to his good friend Bush to push a huge bailout. Hmmm.
Also, all the talk of taxing the rich and/or cutting taxes to the middle class is a sham. Economics is a one-way street from the poor/middle class to the rich. No matter who you tax or don't tax, the rich win (remember "trickle-down economics?). I don't understand how people and politicians don't get that if you tax the rich, it gets passed to the consumer with higher prices. If you lessen taxes to the rich, they pocket the money and prices stay the same. If taxes stay the same for rich but go down for poor/middle class, we are told to go spend to stimulate the economy. No matter what, the rich will be unaffected and the rest of America pays. For the rich, it is simply good business to do so. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have an answer, only bailouts and band-aids which puts America in further debt to other countries.
Thank-you for taking the time to read this and hopefully taking action.








Remember that Women's Studies class you considered taking in college? Allow us to summarize what you would have learned: All of our society's gender issues stem from the fact that fathers once used their daughters as currency to a) pay off a debt to a wealthier land owner, b) symbolize a sacrificial, monetary peace offering to an opposing tribe or c) buy their way into a higher social strata.
So next time you tear up watching a beaming father walk his little girl down the aisle, remember that it's just a tiny, barbaric little hold over from the days when daughters were nothing but dollar signs to daddy dearest.
And that veil she's wearing? Yeah, that was so the groom wouldn't know if he was stuck with an uggo until it was time to kiss the bride and too late to back out on the transaction. (There is also some superstitious B.S. about warding off evil spirits, but we think you'll agree that hiding a busted grill from the husband-to-be is a more practical purpose.)
The white wedding dress
Technically, today's wedding gowns aren't white. They are "Candlelight," "Warm Ivory," "Ecru" or "Frost." But there was a time when a bride's wedding attire was simply the best thing in her closet (talk about "off the rack"), and could be any color, even black.
To convince her groom that she came from a wealthy family, brides would also pile on layers of fur, silk and velvet, as apparently grooms didn't care if his wife-to-be reeked of sweaty B.O. as long as she was loaded.
It was dear ol' Queen Victoria (whose reign lasted from 1837-1901) who made white fashionable. She wore a pale gown trimmed in orange blossoms for her 1840 wedding to her first cousin, Prince Albert.
Hordes of royal-crazed plebeians immediately began to copy her, which is an astonishing feat considering that "People Magazine" wasn't around to publish the Super Exclusive Wedding Photos, or instruct readers on how to Steal Vicki's Hot Wedding Style.




