Dirty Cash

Ever since I became an adult, I've hated cash.  Money is fun for kids, but as an adult it is a royal pain in the ass.  First off you have to get it, which here in America usually involves driving to an ATM, realizing that your vehicle is either too low or too high to reach the buttons easily.  Then you get your cash, if you're travelling you usually get screwed some fee for getting your money, and then you get a bunch of filthy bills, covered in bacteria, drugs, and all that is nasty.

Then you get to carry this filthy smelly money around until you need to spend it.  At that point, you invariably get more bills, and a bunch of change that jangles around in your pocket, until it eventually pokes a hole in your pocket, or gets stuck in the dryer at some point in the future.  The rest of the day you get to walk around sounding like a court jester with bells on his shoes.

Personally, I just toss my change into a jar when I get home that night, and don't think about it until I have enough to take to the CoinStar machine for conversion into an Amazon gift card (yet more hassle and time).

Ultimately I find the whole operation irritating, which is why God invented the Debit Card.  Now I get to buy whatever I want either by typing my PIN, or signing a screen (we have yet to catch up with the chip and PIN systems of other countries, but I'm sure we will eventually).

The reason I am talking about all this is because tonight I decided to buy a small bottle of wine from the liquor store next door to the Thai restaurant who was cooking my food.  I walked around for a while, selected a cheap bottle of plonk for $8.99, and waited for the woman to ring me up.  I had to wait a while, because there was apparently a 'special' on certain wine that day, and they decided it was worth holding me up for a few minutes to discount my purchase.

Sure enough the wine was randomly and for no reason I could understand discounted to $6.99.  Even better. I hand over my card, only to be informed that they don't take credit cards.  I explained that I was offering to pay with a debit card, only to be told that ALL plastic was forbidden in their store (a sign might have been useful here).  Helpfully, the old man behind the counter told me there was an ATM across the street, where I could procure the necessary evil cash, and bring it back to him in his store.

Fuck, while were are at it, why not just have me drive to the supplier, pick up the wine there, and save him the hassle of actually getting the wine delivered to his store, and placed on the shelf.  Perhaps he'd also like his fucking car washed too.

I explained that this was 2010, and I'd simply take my business to a store that was aware that it was no longer the 1950s.

I just cannot for the life of me understand what the fuck is wrong with businesses like this.  This kind of shit used to be common in England, but they've moved on, and America it seemed was always willing to take your money in any form.

But now, perhaps due to greedy banks, some small businesses are rebelling against fees on credit cards and debit cards, and forcing people to use cash.  That's all well and good, but what happened to good old fashioned customer choice?  I'd already agreed to pay $8.99 for the wine when I picked it up and walked it to the cash register.  I'd have even paid a dollar more to use my debit card, which would have more than covered the bank fees.  Instead they wanted to discount the wine to $6.99 and make me walk across the street on a hot and humid Texas evening, pull money out of the ATM, pay $1.50 for the privilege of using the ATM, then travel back to the hotel with jangling coins in my pocket, that I would then have to transfer to my suitcase and remember to put in the jar when I got home.

It's just bullshit.  You wanna take issue with the banks about the fees, fine.  But in the meantime, how about you just realize what century this is, and give me a choice.  I'll pay the damn fees if I have to, just so I don't have to mess with the cash.

Burn Baby Burn

A house fire in Tennessee has recently lit up the web with left versus right ideological arguments about personal responsibility and other such stupidity that seems to be on the rise in America.

I'm not sure I even have the energy to throw my opinion into the ring here.  But basically, some dude lives in a county where there is a $75 fee for fire protection services.  The aforementioned dude did not pay this fee, and unfortunately for him, his house caught fire.  Fire crews rushed to the scene in response to the 911 call, and once they arrived, they stood there, and watched the house burn to the ground.  The only time they turned on their hoses was to protect the neighbors home, because that guy had paid his fire protection fee.

The hose Nazis were not even moved into action when the unfortunate homeowner offered to pay any fees or costs associated with putting out the fire.  They simply did nothing, despite having the equipment, tools and ability to stop the fire.  They were only following orders.

Right wingers have jumped on this as an example of how personal responsibility is king, and those who do not take responsibility deserve everything they get.  The left has described the issue with the obvious human element to this.  The fact that the system is okay with this level of indifference to human suffering and personal tragedy is pretty sick in my opinion.

I see it as the encapsulation of what's wrong with America today.  The right wing increasingly seem completely ambivalent to the human costs of any argument.  Which is especially ironic when so many of them also profess to be Christian.  Libertarians and Tea Baggers bleat on about small government and every man for himself, until it comes to a hot button issue like abortion, when they appear to want the government at national, state, and local level to intervene in personal liberty and a woman's right to choose.

The issue, at it's core, is a departure from the state of mind, 'do unto others...'  We are in danger of becoming a petty and small society, where everyone cares only about themselves, and no one looks at the bigger picture.  We dump trillions of dollars into our military, while our roads fall apart, our schools produce ignorant and uneducated people, and allow stupid small minded people to set up a system whereby a person can lose their home to a fire, because they didn't pay for the fire service to come.

And let's not even get on the subject of health care.  As long as people are relatively healthy, and can afford their health insurance, they seem to have little stomach for making the tough decisions necessary to rebuild our failing health care system so that every American can enjoy quality service, and not have to lose their home and everything they have if they get sick.

My big question to America is this.  If we are going to campaign for prayer in schools, and have God in the Pledge and on our money, shouldn't we at least begin with REAL valuing of other human beings, and show actual compassion and love for our fellow human beings?  Isn't that essentially the message of Christ?  Or are we just becoming a nation of selfish hypocrites?

Religiousness & Silliness

I recently had a discussion about the nature of religion with a person who had a masters degree in divinity.  This is the second debate I've had in recent times with a person with those kind of credentials, and on this occasion a thought occurred to me that has been bumping around in the back of my head for quite some time now.

It seems that anyone with a degree in some form of religious studies has been taught the following techniques.  If you yourself wish to argue convincingly as a Christian, simply use the following examples, and save yourself the money you would have spent giving to the estate of some TV evangelist who conned so many people out of money they could afford to build a 'college.'

The secret to forming a religious argument is simply to include the supernatural and claim that the opponent doesn't understand.  God cannot be understood.  God moves in mysterious ways.  I've studied the Bible in college for years etc. etc.  The person making the incredible claims of the supernatural tries to back foot his or her opponent by calling upon them to disprove their claims, despite the reality that they are the ones making crazy claims in the first place.

***

"The Bible says that..."

"Ah, see, now that's a common misconception.  The passage actually means [insert desired meaning], and it was mistranslated from Latin a few centuries ago.  Having looked at the original scripture, we see that it actually means the very thing that I want it to."

"But isn't the Bible pretty clear about this?  Here it says I should stone my children if they are disobedient..."

"No, you are wrong again.  You are taking that word/sentence/paragraph/page/chapter out of context."

"How about here where the Bible says I should beat my kids with a rod?  Doesn't that contradict the part that tells me to stone them, and is spanking okay?"

Liberal Christian: "This is a common mistake, the rod of correction is a reference to scripture and is calling the parent to teach their children scripture to correct them."


Conservative Christian: "Yes, this is a clear message from God that we need to beat our children.  We don't have a rod handy so we use a belt, paddle, or other implement."

"Doesn't that contradict another part of the Bible that says..."

"Sorry, no it doesn't.  The part of the Bible you are referring to was really agreeing with my position, you just have to understand the culture of the time, and the way they write.  Man is fallible you know.  God didn't write the Bible, He merely inspired it.  Humans make mistakes."

"Doesn't the Bible talk about mythical creatures like Unicorns, that never actually existed?"

"Well it does use the word Unicorn sure, but that was a mistranslation which we've just been too lazy to correct in the past few centuries.  Oddly the same mistranslation doesn't happen in other parts of the Bible, but that's just one of those pesky human mistakes..."

"How about the Earth being created in six days 6,000-10,000 years ago?  You know that unless the laws of physics have changed, including constants like the speed of light, this isn't possible right?"

"Sure, the Bible says six days, but it also makes some vague reference to God existing outside of time and space, so the time specified in the Bible isn't actually a day at all.  Even though the Bible does clearly define a day as the total of a day and night combined, it doesn't specify how long those time periods are.  The entire universe might have conspired to work differently back then, and perhaps plants didn't need to sunlight to survive.  Which would be handy since Genesis tells us that God created the plants before He created the Sun."

"I've just asked you a question which you don't know the answer to and cannot think of the appropriate excuse you were taught in God college, now what?"

"You have to understand, I just KNOW for a FACT that God is real and I have FAITH that I am right.  I am going to arrogantly shit on any other religion and call the followers misguided, even those who are part of a religion that predates Christianity.  God cannot be questioned, and those that question Him will be punished."

"So God doesn't really give us free will does He?  The choice between obeying His every word or being sent to a torture chamber forever is like me holding a gun to your head and telling you that you can choose to hand over your money or have your brains blown out."

"Well that's just how it is.  Billions of people who have already died, and billions more who don't believe in the exact same way that I do (including those who believe in Jesus, but don't do so in quite the same way as they do in my church) will burn in Hell with Satan."

"Speaking of Satan, God is infinitely powerful and could simply wish that Satan didn't exist and he would cease to be right?  Sure God bet with Satan involving people's lives in the book of Job, but ultimately if God really objected to Satan, why leave him around fucking everything up?  If God lets Satan live, isn't He as guilty as Satan when it comes to the 'crimes' of Satan."

"Oh you silly thing, God can't be guilty of a crime, He is perfect.  He must be keeping Satan alive for some reason that we don't understand.  Perhaps He is testing us."

"Speaking of testing, why does God need to 'test' people or things?  God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen.  The only people who need to do tests are people who don't know what is going to happen and do a test to find out or prove a hypothesis.  What use has God got with testing?"

"God gave us free will."

"Okay, well that doesn't answer the question."

"One day God will answer the question by destroying the Earth and sending unbelievers to the fiery pits of Hell."

"Isn't He supposed to be a loving God?"

"Only to those who follow Him, otherwise He is vengeful.  It says so in the Bible."

"So His love is conditional upon us giving up the free will He granted us?"

"You just don't understand.  I may be in a minority with my beliefs but I know I am right and will not change my mind.  One day God will grant you the wisdom to seek Him out.  I'll pray for you."

"If God knows everything, why pray?  Doesn't He already know what you want?"

"I'm tired of this conversation.  If I am right, I will get a mansion in Heaven, and if you are wrong, you will be tortured for all eternity for your evil ways."

"How can you be happy in Heaven, if you know I am being burned and tortured in Hell?"

"Well that's your choice..."

Eleanor Rigby

I think the most interesting news story I read today was out of England.  It was the one about the British spy Eileen Nearne who died at age 89 alone in a small house in the south of England.

During World War II she was sent to France because of her excellent linguistic skills, and there she was a radio operator for the French Resistance movement, helping to co-ordinate British weapons deployments.  She was captured three times, tortured, and yet on each occasion escaped.  Her heroism earned her an MBE.

Unfortunately her incredible story was never publicized.  Eileen was never known in her community, she never talked or bragged about her wartime service.  She was quite reclusive and had no relatives to arrange her funeral.  However, when her home was searched by the council, they discovered her identity and turned her belongings over to MI5.

The unusual nature of her story has changed the funeral arrangements from a sad lonely affair, with comparisons to The Beatles Eleanor Rigby song to something a little more special.  Efforts are currently underway to provide some military honor to her passing, which seems only fitting.

3D Girl Saves Lives?

Scientists in Canada have developed the new answer to a speed bump.  It's a special optical illusion that is attached the the floor and at about 100 feet gives the 3D impression of a child playing in the road.

In theory the motorist then slows down, and a speed bump is no longer needed.

I think I'm going to have to suggest that this is a bad idea.  While I'm no psychologist, there surely has to be a 'cry wolf' effect here.  If I'm driving around and constantly see images of children appearing in the road, after a time, I'm probably going to be less responsive if a real child happens to be in the road.

"Oh it's just one of those new 3D children optical illusion speed bumps that I blogged about," I'll think.  Then splat, and I'm cleaning bits of child off my front bumper for the next couple of weeks, and explaining to the judge why I didn't even try to stop.

Seems like this idea might have some flaws.

Craigslist Censored

Craigslist has voluntarily censored itself after receiving numerous legal threats from various states around the country.

In the usual 'slippery slope' argument various lawmakers from around the country claimed that the adult services section contains ads which pertain to prostitution, which in turn leads to human trafficking, assault, murder, child slavery, and the destruction of the fabric of space and time.

So after being hounded for some time, Craigslist gave up, probably unwilling to waste millions of dollars on a big legal fight, and they replaced the link to the section with the word 'censored.'

Of course they only did this in the land of the free, in other markets, including Canada, the adult section remains open and unchanged.

I find the whole situation pretty sad.  It's a well known fact that prostitution has been going on for thousands of years.  It's also pretty obvious that much of the negatives associated with prostitution stem from the fact that in most parts of America, prostitution is illegal.  This in turn leads to pimps, organized crime, human trafficking, underage prostitutes, drugs, disease, and many other negatives that generally conspire to make women less safe, and more likely to be victims in one form or other.

I think the fact that lawmakers believe this to be a victory of sorts highlights the fundamental stupidity of their position.  By bullying and threatening this popular web site, they have simply forced both legal and illegal adult services to advertise elsewhere.  The 'crime' of prostitution that they are so worried about is still taking place up and down this country 24/7.  So there is no victory here at all.  A bunch of people will have to rethink their marketing a little bit, but this is nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

Which leads me to this question:  What was the point?  Why are our lawmakers squandering tax dollars attacking some web site?  Have they solved a problem?  No.  Have they stopped prostitution?  Of course not.  Have they managed to prevent some of the evils of prostitution such as slavery, organized crime, child sex crimes etc?  No.

So really all we see is a typical Republican solution to the problem.  Go after the wrong guys, achieve little, and then claim some kind of victory for 'family values.'  But let's call it out for what it is:  This is censorship, an affront to freedom of speech, and a waste of our tax dollars that does nothing to address any of the real issues relating to prostitution.  Thanks for nothing assholes.

Some Say He Is The Stig

If you're British, or you're a car enthusiast, you've probably heard of the TV show Top Gear.  The show began in 1978 on the BBC, reviewing cars, and talking about motoring in general.  But the BBC axed it in 2001 due to poor ratings.  The presenters at the time signed on with other TV channel and launched Fifth Gear, while arguably one of the most popular past presenters of the show Jeremy Clarkson, approached the BBC with a proposal to re-launch the show with his own creative perspective.

In 2002 the new Top Gear was born, still running successfully to this day thanks to a great revamp.  It's been sold to over 100 countries and shows here in America on BBC America.

The show includes a racing driver called The Stig, and his identity has, until now, always been kept a mystery.  When The Stig tried to publish the story of his seven years on the show, the BBC tried to file an injunction against the publishers in order to conceal the identity.  But apparently, at least according to HarperCollins, there has been a victory for free speech; The Stig's identity is a mystery no more.

The Stig has allegedly been played by racing driver and movie stunt driver Ben Collins for the past seven years, and there seems to be quite an uproar in the British tabloids regarding the release of this information.  In fact the previous racing driver played The Stig for a year before being fired when his identity was revealed.  It will be interesting, at least for fans of the show, to see how this plays out.  It's actually pretty surprising to me that this has remained a secret for seven years.  But I'm guessing that a new Stig is going to be born out of this controversy, which is quite a shame.

There Is No Ground Zero Mosque

A very well worded speech about the reality of the Ground Zero Mosque that racists, right wingers and misguided Republicans are upset about.