Date posted: February 29, 2008 - Friday
Title: TW3 02/29/08
Current mood: contemplative
You're Not Spending Fast Enough
I don't know about you, but I've had it with the Visa check card commercials.
You know the ones I'm talking about if you watch commercial TV. Where people are buying things at a store at race car speed until someone doesn't use a check card and actually tries to pay for something with a check, or (gasp) real cash. Then everything stops dead. People stare at this jerk with hate in their eyes because he is slowing down the speed of their consumption.
The implication of all this is, as consumers we should be buying things as fast as we can. We shouldn't use things like cash or checks that slow down the process and possibly engage the mind.
A check card may make things 'easier', but it also short circuits the need to think about what you are doing. Yep, if you have to write a check or actually count out cash you might give a second thought to whether or not you really need to make the purchase.
Not having one of the little plastic temptations myself, I don't know what kind of fees are attached to its' use. I have to assume there are some or Visa wouldn't be spending the money on the commercials to encourage the use of the card.
We have become an impatient nation. We want everything and we want it right now. Maybe if we slowed down and stopped using things like check cards which make purchases easier we wouldn't also be up to our ears in debt. Developing a little patience might be a good thing.
And Visa can pound sand as I write my check at the checkout stand, or count out my cash.
Nominated For Worst Idea Ever
I heard about it little while ago. I think my jaw dropped to the floor someone would seriously put the idea forward. I guess it came about because of the shootings at various colleges; tragedies all.
Apparently there is a movement coming from colleges to allow students to obtain concealed weapons permits and carry hand guns on campus.
Now, I may come off sounding like some old fuddy duddy and disdainful about younger people, but I don't think a college student should be carrying a gun around campus. I don't think I was mature enough when I started college and I don't think the overall level of maturity for college students has improved in the years since I was in school. And besides maturity, people of college age for the most part still have the illusion of immortality and believe the fiction nothing bad will ever happen to them.
There was a mental image that came to mind when I considered a campus full of students carrying concealed weapons.
A guy in a trench coat enters the classroom. He reaches under the coat and pulls out a shotgun. Then 30 kids in the class reach into backpacks, under sweaters and into the pockets of cargo pants and whip out hand guns. What ensues is like a scene from a Sam Peckinpah or Quentin Tarantino movie.
A little far fetched maybe, but it just can't be a good idea to have a campus full of students carrying weapons while dealing with all the other things going on in college.
And The Winner Is …
No, not the Oscars. The Razzies.
The 'big' winner was Eddie Murphy. He not only captured the Razzie for the worst performance by an actor, but also garnered awards for supporting actor and supporting actress (since he plays a female character in his movie, Norbit).
I have never been a great fan of Murphy. Oh, some of his stuff was OK, but his ego and his need to play most if not all of the characters in some of his films has just been an irritation to me. I actually saw some scenes from his latest, and 'award winning' film, Norbit, a while back on cable. I had to change the channel quick before my gag reflex took over and I lost my dinner.
Not to be outdone on the female side Lindsay Lohan won two awards for worst actress (she played dual roles in the film so was awarded a Razzie for each character). And the film that got her the award, "I Know Who Killed Me", was voted worst picture of the year and set a new record garnering eight Razzies.
I'm kind of sorry to see this award really. I think Lohan has had enough troubles in the last year or so. Admittedly most were of her own creation, but slamming her work at a time while she was also suffering so much personal tribulation seems a little much to me.
Global What?
To the current administration the words Global Warming have no meaning. This is the group that claims the whole issue needs more study. Yeah, sure. Ice caps melting, weather patterns changing and we need to spend more years 'studying'.
If we can't pass the test now, more studying isn't going to help.
All this was brought home again this week. Congressional investigators released documents this week that show some people in the EPA were so worried about the problem they enlisted the aid of a former director of the agency to lobby the current administrator. The issue was whether to oppose the State of California’s effort to impose global warming standards stricter than what the EPA already had in place.
Stephen L. Johnson, the EPA Administrator, says he decided on his own to prohibit California from imposing stricter standards. But there is a fight going on between the administration and California Senator Barbara Boxer because she wants to get copies of correspondence between the White House and the EPA which could show the administration influenced Johnson's decision.
Even with internal memos that said California was "vulnerable to climate change" and an opinion from staff there was "no legal or technical justification" for the EPA to deny California's request, Johnson ruled against the state. That denial is now the subject of a lawsuit by California and 12 other states to overturn the decision. There is also a bill in the Senate which has 23 sponsors to overturn the EPA decision.
Midweek the EPA also came under fire because it wants to drop the requirements factory farms report their emissions of toxic gasses that pose a health threat. The gasses? Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide. Agriculture industry lobbyists and lawmakers from agriculture states have been pushing to have the requirements dropped.
Even though the EPA acknowledges the emissions can pose a threat to people living and working nearby it claims local emergency responders don't read the reports so they are unnecessary.
Say what???
Several groups say the EPA is misrepresenting its’ opposition to dropping the requirements and this is another in a series of efforts under the Bush administration to roll back environmental protections.
Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a nonprofit environmental group, says one of the running themes of the EPA is to pass industry friendly actions which will eventually be overturned in court but which buy time for the industry.
So besides delaying any improvements or halting harm to the environment, the administration spends more of your tax dollars fighting for its' bad decisions in courts; and eventually losing. I just wonder how far down the drain we are going to get flushed before we can reverse this mess? Or, will we be able to save ourselves at all?
Is It Worth The Trade Off?
Ethanol is supposed to be the answer, or partial answer, to older, more polluting fuels. It is also a huge boon to Midwest farmers who raise corn.
But it also poses a problem for firefighters. Ethanol fires are harder to put out and conventional firefighting materials and techniques can't be used.
Most fuel uses for Ethanol in passenger cars don't pose a special problem because there is 10% or less of Ethanol in the gasoline mixture. But things like tanker trucks and tankers on trains which carry high concentrations of Ethanol can cause real concerns if there are accidents which cause fires. Three recent fires involving Ethanol in Missouri, Pennsylvania and Ohio have highlighted the problem.
Normal firefighting foam, used in gasoline fires, can't handle Ethanol. You need a special foam which is in short supply and, of course, costs about 30% more than conventional materials.
So, if we increase the use of Ethanol as a fuel it looks like we are going to have to spend money in some other areas to make sure it's safe.
Here We Go Again
Let me start by saying I'm not a huge fan of Barack Obama. I haven't caught the hype that seems to be sweeping the country and all but insuring him as the Democratic candidate in the upcoming election.
But whatever my reservations, the little item this week that the IRS is investigating the church where Obama is a member is unsettling to me. The United Church of Christ is being investigated by the IRS for violating restrictions on nonprofit groups.
Because Obama was a declared candidate when he addressed the national meeting of the church last year the IRS says this is a violation of the restrictions.
The church insists he addressed the meeting as a member of the church and not a candidate and it had sought legal counsel about the speech before he made it.
I guess I would have to hear the content of the speech before I could decide if it was political or not, but the fact the IRS picks this point in time to conduct its' investigation just seems suspicious to me.
I am sure Republicans would love to conduct their Presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton rather than Obama. I am sure they would find her much easier to attack than him. So, since he seems to be the most likely Democratic candidate at this point, it looks like the Republicans are getting in some early shots by investigating his church. And this is not even mentioning the pictures of Obama in Muslim dress that have been circulating lately.
Guess the Republicans just can't run a political campaign strictly on issues, but have to resort to all kinds of intimidation, fear tactics and smears to try and gain the margin of victory.
Surprise, Surprise!
In the continuing saga of the missing White House e-mail we have a new excuse.
Steven McDevitt, a computer expert who worked at the White House, labeled the e-mail system used at the hub of our nation as "primitive" and that it created a high risk of losing data.
Now I have pointed out before there are Federal laws that require the preservation of electronic messages. McDevitt's written statement said White House staffers turned up an estimated 1,000 days where e-mail was missing. All of this came out in meetings in 2005. E-mail problems had happened in 2003, but they recurred in early 2006 after the meetings.
Theresa Payton, chief information officer at the White House Office of Administration said, "We are very energized about getting to the bottom of this."
Of really! Well, if you were so energized why is the White House operating under an e-mail system that is called "primitive"? And why did the problems recur after you already knew they existed?
We are one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world and the office that supposedly runs this country is working with "primitive" technology. Our government can spend millions of tax payer dollars on the stupidest things, but it can't seem to avail itself of the latest technology. Or is there a more sinister reason at work here? How easy would it be to get rid of things you don't want anyone else to see if you are using a computer system that is out of date and prone to losing data?
A Futile Effort?
The House this week voted on a bill that would roll back tax breaks given to the largest oil companies. If enacted the legislation would take the $18 billion dollars which the oil companies would have to pay and invest it in alternative energy sources.
The White House, of course, has said it will veto the bill if it ever gets to the President's desk. Remember George W. is from Texas and knows where his bread is buttered.
The tax breaks were originally enacted supposedly to encourage oil exploration when the price of a barrel was at $55. With the price of a barrel of oil now at $100 there seems little need for incentives to encourage exploration.
Gas prices in Southern California where I live (the San Diego area) have risen to $3.50 a gallon as the summer driving season approaches. There are predictions it could go as high as $3.70 before the year is over.
Greed seems to know no bounds with the oil companies. And with ole' GW in the White House and the number of Republicans in Congress high enough to sustain a veto there is probably little chance the oil companies will lose their tax break.
Guess the tax payers are going to have to continue to pay through the nose so the oil companies can live high on the hog.
Quickies
Statistics released recently show an alarming rise in the suicide rate of Baby Boomers. Numbers of Boomers 'checking out', those 45 to 55 years old, have increased dramatically and far above the levels of most other age groups. I wonder if a generation which was known for excesses in other areas are now going overboard with things like depression and health worries which lead to them just quitting on life?
Did you miss your YouTube this week. Well, probably not, but a large portion of the world did. Why? Because Pakistan decided to censor YouTube and restrict access to its' citizens. Well, they did it wrong and blocked the site for most of Asia for several hours. Just goes to show how bad programming can screw everyone. And how interconnected we all are whether or not we want to be.
The A.C. Neilson company, concerned over the fracturing of monolithic television viewing and wanting to maintain its' stranglehold on ratings and the use of its' service by advertisers, wants access to more of your life than what's on your tube. The company wants to expand into monitoring what you view on the Internet, who you call on your telephone and what you buy at the grocery store. Without much surprise they are receiving a fairly negative reaction to their requests to monitor all aspects of the lives of people on their panels. Can you say Big Brother?
This week the government issued a prediction that spending on health care in this country would double by the year 2017. Health care spending is rising at a rate of 6.7% a year and that is three times the rate of inflation. Spending is predicted to reach $4,000,000,000 (that's $4 trillion). We will spend one dollar out of every five on health care. Is there any doubt the health care system is broken with those predictions?
A Nobel Prize winning economist this week issued an estimate of what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost. The Bush administration predicted at the outset of the war it would cost les than $2 billion. The economist estimates it has cost $3 trillion. When other factors are added in, things like interest on debt, future borrowing, continued military presence in Iraq and health care and counseling for veterans, the cost is estimated to rise to between $5 and $7 trillion. Is it any wonder we have money problems?
