why don't they get it?

or maybe they do, and just don't care. via say anything, which i hadn't visited in awhile, i learned that congress is looking at capping ATM fees. which sounds nice... but as far as i'm concerned, that's none of congress' business. i worked in the banking industry for about four and a half years, and while ATM fees are annoying, they're not generally big money makers. the bank i worked for charged $2.00 for non-customers (it was free if you were using one of our debit cards), which in my experience is right about mid-range as far as fees go, and we actually ended up pulling one of our ATMs out of a local community because the cost of keeping it stocked and maintained wasn't worth it. as far as i'm concerned, a bank can charge whatever the hell they want for a fee; if people don't like it, they can go elsewhere. it's not as if there's a shortage of banks out there. even the little podunk town i live in (population ~1100) has two banks to choose from, and if you're willing to drive half an hour into a larger city (which most people have to do for groceries, medical appointments, and entertainment anyways, as well as work for quite a few) you've got more than a dozen different banks and credit unions to choose from.

note to congress: businesses exist to make money. if you take that ability away from them, why should they bother to continue their existence?

or, maybe not

"so everyone can get their fair share of funding." yeah, sure. fuck you, census bureau. it's not your money to play around with, it's ours.

really?

flipping through the bbc website over the last couple of days, i've run across a couple of fairly interesting articles.

in the first, i discovered that the EU wants to regulate the maximum volume of mp3 players... apparently too many people are losing their hearing from listening to them too loud. whatever happened to personal choice? if somebody wants to be an idiot and blow their eardrums out, then we should let them have at it, and deal with the consequences themselves. my opinion? if this does pass, all it's going to do is create a market for mp3 player amplifiers.

article two: the lack of common sense is not restricted to one side of the atlantic. the US House of Representatives just passed the CALM Act, which would regulate the maximum volume of tv commercials; the Senate is working on a similar bill. really? yeah, those are a bit annoying. but last time i checked, your remote control (even this little guy) comes with volume controls a mute button. or maybe you could even change the channel. or use the commercial time to grab a snack or take a bathroom break.

on the bright side, i suppose if politicians are busy with crap like this, they've got less time to do something really stupid, like sacrificing the economy on the alter of gaia.

i'll take what's behind door #2

door #1: obamacare, which would cost roughly $1 Trillion over the next 10 years

door #2: the republican plan (yes, they actually came up with one), which would cost roughly $61 Billion over the next 10 years, cut the federal budget deficit by $68 Billion over that same time period, and reduce insurance premiums as well.

decisions, decisions....

see here for more info.

h/t AoS/HA

best entertainment i've had all week

true, it's only tuesday, but still... good times.



h/t say anything

Quote of the Term

i have always been a fan of the following quote; and as our government prepares to blow roughly 57 zillion of our tax dollars, it once again proves the wisdom of our founding fathers:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

written by Benjamin Franklin, and appearing in the November 29, 1766 issue of The London Chronicle.

quote of the day

"In my many years I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress." --John Adams

brilliant!

only in europe. hopefully. depending on who you talk to, between 1 million and 2.5 million french workers decided to protest the threat to their jobs caused by current economic conditions. the form their protest took? not going to work. if you're not even going to bother showing up for your job, why should sarkozy worry about it?

absorbed!

that title might make sense to some people.

anyways, today the bbc brings us the story of the youngest ever member of cuba's national assembly, 18-year old liaena hernandez. key quote: "Having young Cubans in parliament shows that the revolution continues. It isn't just something from our history." the continuing revolution began on january 1, 1958, when fidel castro seized power. for reference, here are some other revolutions that come to mind:

american revolution: ~8 years, depending on how you count
result: the best country ever
french revolution: ~10 years, again depending on how you count
result: two of the greatest military leaders ever duking it out, and lots of dead people.

both marked major turning points in world history, and took less than 20 years between them to complete. 50 years later, the cubans are still right where they were--fleeing to america on whatever floats--only without soviet assistance and no more botched invasions of their island. cuba, i submit that your revolution is ineffectual, and it's time to give it up.

various and sundry things

wow, i've been slacking lately. but it's been slow at work as well, so i've had a bit of time to peruse the BBC website for news... here are a few things i thought were interesting.

1) obama has already managed to piss off al-qaeda, so he can't be all bad. it was definitely in poor taste for al-zawahiri to refer to obama as a "house-slave" though. regardless of what may have brought the insult on, basing it on his skin color--which he has no control over--is pretty lame.

2) gays in california are still pissed about proposition 8; apparently "majority rule should not set the law." which, who really wants that messy democracy stuff anyways? they may actually have a pretty good case; if the courts deem this a revision to the state constitution instead of an amendment, it would have required a 2/3 vote in the legislature before being passed on to the voters. which brings us back to the majority thing; the gay rights folks got a majority of judges to agree to hear an argument that the proponents should have got a supermajority to vote in favor of prop 8 before the regular majority got to vote in favor of it. so apparently majorities are okay, as long as they agree with the gay rights people. personally, i'm going to side with sir elton john on this one. i don't remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of "marriages are for straight people, civil unions are for gay people... if you're getting the same basic rights, why should you care what it's called?" one is a relationship between two people of opposite sexes, and one is a relationship between two people of the same sex; they are, in fact, two different things.

3) philosophical questions for the day: number 1 is the only one i actually came up with an answer for, so i'm going to go ahead and post the whole thing and then give my answer and reasoning.

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)

If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.

But then why not kill Bill?

no, we don't kill bill. in both situations given, at least one person is going to die regardless of what happens. in the original question, if we don't "harvest" bill, he continues living his happy, healthy life. besides which, we really don't know if his organs will actually save the people they're intended for. they could be rejected by the host, or the doctor could screw up the operation, and there are probably several other things that could go wrong as well. also, back to the first example they give... if the hostage taker gives me a gun to shoot one of the other hostages dead, the first thing i'm going to do is shoot the guy that took us hostage, and we're all free. the end.

bummer dude

congratulations, mr. obama. i really hope that i was horribly wrong about you.

with a grain of salt

that's the best way to view any poll results.

the good, the bad, and the ugly

the good
senator cantwell (D)
rep. hastings (R)
rep. inslee (D)
rep. mcdermott (D)
rep. mcmorris (R)
rep. reichert (R)

the bad
senator murray (D)
rep. baird (D)
rep. larsen (D)
rep. smith (D)
rep. dicks (D)

the ugly
h.r. 1424, on which i'll have more to say later

random thought

obama '08: hope. change. hopechange. and with that, a side of vice presidential candidate who's been in the senate for over half his life... since nixon was president, mccain was still a "guest" at the hanoi hilton, and obama was 12 years old.

obama '08: hope? maybe. change? not so much.

candidate nicknames

i'm sure there are some out there that are more clever, but to me, the election this november looks to be a contest between BO and Old Spice.

i wish i were good enough to come up with this

the story of the obamessiah.

good news!

from the cuba front: the government is planning to allow more private ownership of land. it seems like it's mostly a practical measure, designed to cut down on the amount of food that cuba needs to import. but whatever the reason, it's a huge step forward for freedom on the island, especially if coupled with this:

"He [Raul Castro] has also announced that workers can earn productivity bonuses, doing away with the egalitarian concept that everyone must earn the same...."

so wait... if i work more, i can get paid more? sign me up! if these reforms go through, it will definitely be time to start easing our trade and travel restrictions on cuba.

context is overrated

we actually ran into this one while designing the whitworth college republicans t-shirts, but didn't end up using it:

"A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left" (Ecclesiastes 10:2, NASB)

i had been looking for that one for awhile, but couldn't remember exactly where it was. and then the other night, i randomly opened my bible up right to it. that's gotta be a sign of some sort...

whoops

the trend continues

with more conservative governments being elected to power, this time in the UK. the tories picked up quite a few council seats (+256), as well as winning the mayoral race in London and taking control of the city assembly. i still have very little idea of how the election system over there works though, so i have no idea what this means for the long run.