Well, there's two bits. You can put your health insurance premiums in the normal health expenses category. That's what I did initially. But that amount has to be pretty high for it to count at all. So in my case, that was just zeroed out.

The second bit is if you're self-employed, in which case there's an entirely different place where you put your health insurance premiums, which can be deducted 100%. That was (obviously now) what I did last year, and what I have done now. But it wasn't immediately obvious, because it was lumped in an "other adjustments" category, so I could see that it was different, but I couldn't see why.

That's fantastic, Liese!

I was self-employed for half the year, so. Meh.

Oh, Friday Night Lights...

Originally he said it was the weakest episode. But then people mentioned Beer Bad and Bad Eggs.

They didn't mention Doublemeat Palace (or half of Season 7, for that matter)?

Yeah they do.

e_o, thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, not a Costco member and I'd need to try it on (I buy super tight for laps-32/6, not sure what size I'd be for fashion.)

OK, so this weekend, I want to: patch and prime the door. Tomorrow, that and paint the inside, since it will be raining. Also probably clean the exterior side. Which I'll prime and hopefully paint Sunday. And do laundry. And do a round of vacuuming and maybe carpet clean. And, of course, get 4+ miles of swimming in.

Even having done my regular shopping earlier this week, I still have to go to the hardware store to muck with paint and supplies tomorrow morning. Oh, and I need to get a doorstop. And market first.

I may be being overly ambitious.

Allyson, I read that. But I don't understand how you're interpreting the part you quoted... so I'm not sure how to respond beyond saying "it doesn't read to me the way it clearly does to you." But he says that the article is hysterical twaddle, not the authors. I don't know if it's the word "hysterical" that is pinging you; it doesn't do that to me but I know it is an issue for others. As for "twaddle," I'll note again that once the videos went up, it seems like an awful lot of people felt the author's portrayal was inaccurate. I'm using this link because she's another TAM speaker; she wasn't at the conference, was appalled by the description, and then saw the video. [link]

From in the second post on the subject at Blag Hag:

None of us were arguing against the point the MDC illustrates; it's perfectly true that in our society, women tend to be the gatekeepers of sexual activity.

Which is what Sean Savage meant when by "women hold the power over men." (Not "all the power," which I think implies something very different.) In the thread, someone immediately asked what he meant by that, and he directed them to a post earlier in the thread that I won't quote completely because this is going to be long as is... I think the key point is:

Statistical probability in study after study shows there are differences between males and females. [...] One of the differences that have been shown consistently is that women own the womb in our particular species... and as in other species where females control the womb, females are in control of sexual access.

That there is a biological reason for a pattern of behavior does not mean it is deterministic for every individual. It does not mean that there are no exceptions. It does not mean there cannot be social reasons as well. But... those are different issues. When you discuss human psychology and human biology and human behavior, you are by definition speaking in generalities.

And this is the Sean Faircloth talk -- [link] -- not from SERAM, but multiple posters have said it's essentially the same presentation. It's about 40 minutes long; the first 25 are basically about how sexuality, and particularly women's sexuality, has been controlled and abused in the name of religious morality. Then he goes through the million dollar challenge for 4 minutes -- basically as a lead-in to discussing the fact that Kennedy & King were horndogs, and that they've been critiqued for their sexual behavior. His ultimate argument is that "morality" should be about social justice, not sexual conduct between consenting adults.

His presentation has issues, but with all the devil's advocacy I am capable of, I cannot figure out how you could think come away from it thinking the point was "Women should just STFU when men treat them like sex objects."