A day about town

Today was a normal Saturday, I made some calls, got a haircut, went shopping.

Before I get to that though, I have to say one thing: banks are evil. I am deeply unhappy about bailing them out in the way that we are. The last time things were this bad our new President had this to say:

"[T]he rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failures and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men."

-FDR

Hell, yes, and thank you, Franklin for saying that better than I ever could. That is exactly how I felt talking to Chase last week.

Two months ago I made a payment 4 days late. I got dinged with a $40 late fee, plus I had to pay interest on my charges for that month. Fine, whatever. The next month they charged me interest on my purchases again. Long story short, that is how it works. Miss a payment one month, pay interest for two months.

I don't know how that's not illegal, but it's definitely evil. Revolution is looking likelier by the day, so those that are gonna be first against the wall better watch their step. Do you really want to die in a blindfold because you screwed your own customers for a few measly bucks? Was it worth it? That's all I'm saying...

Speaking of new Presidents, the Acme Barbershop was all abuzz about the inauguration. Curt, my regular hair-cutter, told everybody that once Obama is inaugurated, gas will cost four cents-a-gallon and cars will emit perfume & flowers. Brian, my hair-cutter from today, muttered, "I don't know what the fuck that's about. Sometimes I wish I were deaf." Ah, topical banter in a barbershop--just like in the movies!

I don't do a lot of shopping, but it was more interesting with my iPhone. Borders often sends me coupons for 25% to 30% off an item, so I wandered around Borders trying to find something I want that is less than 125% of its price on Amazon. It was not easy. I bought a $45 book (Beautiful Code,) and an $11 CD (Fab Four Suture.) Then I realized that Amazon employees and most of the rest of the country don't pay sales tax on Amazon. Considering that, my net savings was $5. It took me about an hour in the store, and an hour in transit to save that $5.

I guess it's obvious that brick & mortar stores are hurting, but that really threw it into sharp relief. A lot of people have smart phones, and it's incredibly easy and cheap to shop online, so who will buy from these stores anymore? Only people who have time, an obsessive desire to save, coupons for a steep discount, and cheap public transit. (Gas and parking would more than cancel out my savings. Counting my bus fare, savings from today was $3.50.)

In addition to my $3.50, I also got a front row seat to several protests being held on the same block downtown.

There were Christians:

Zionists? (I couldn't get a good picture of the last flag, but I'm pretty sure it's a firefighters emblem, so I really don't know what this person was about.)

And Iraq war protesters. (Not pictured. I did give them a thumbs up though.)

It's ironic for someone to yell, "Jesus loves you!," very angrily at everyone who walks by. It reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw: "Lord, please protect me from your followers."

Frankly though I don't think they're any less effective than any of the other groups out there. I don't want to be mean to the Iraq war protesters, whom I sympathize with, but if massive worldwide demonstrations didn't prevent (or even slow) the war, then handing out fliers on the corner isn't going to end it.

That's okay. This year when I was in California during the Prop 8 battle, I decided that protesting isn't actually about convincing anyone. It's just an outlet for people who care about some issue or another, because they have a voice and they want to be heard. I totally get that. I do blog, after all.

Why have one name when you can have two?

Apologies for not posting since, (gasp) October. I guess the spirit hasn't moved me, or I've grown tired of calling out the Democrats for their obvious fakery.

This morning I rode the bus. I forgot my book, and I didn't feel like listening to the iPod, so I just sat there and took it all in. Lately I've been musing on the nature of perception & consciousness (sorry, no big insights here) but for some reason everything seemed like I was seeing it for the first time. Perhaps because I don't usually ride the 60 to work.

Bringing it back to the title of the post, this is what I saw at one of the stops on the way to Beacon Hill.


Tee-hee. It seems like the second guy they hired to make the English sign came up with a different answer, consistency be damned. This was probably a smart move, since careless white people such as myself will never notice, and everyone in the Hau Hau/How How can read the Chinese and doesn't give a damn what the letters say.

The thing is, unlike the rest of the 60 route, I've seen this sign on an almost daily basis for the past four years. For whatever reason, today I actually looked at it.

I wonder what else is out there that I haven't been seeing?

War-enabler endorses Obama, will take part in his administration

As someone who vehemently opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom from the start, it irks me that Obama claims the anti-war mantle so easily. Hillary's much-derided criticism that all he has going for him in that department is a speech from 2002 is looking more accurate by the day. That speech was virtually a foregone conclusion given his Hyde Park constituency, and since then what has he done to burnish his anti-war credentials?

Obama never challenges the assumption that the surge worked, although there is ample evidence to the contrary. He never challenges McCain's and Palin's assertion that stopping funding for the war is the same as betraying the troops. What do they think will happen if there is no more money for the war? Will President Bush order soldiers to fight without bullets and food, or will he bring them home? Which represents a greater betrayal, asking troops to deploy again and again in an open-ended conflict with no realistic objectives, or bringing them home?

Add to this list Obama's rapturous response to the Powell endorsement:

"This morning, a great soldier, a great statesman, and a great American has endorsed our campaign to change America. I have been honored to have the benefit of his wisdom and counsel from time to time over the last few years, but today, I am beyond honored and deeply humbled to have the support of General Colin Powell."

Exactly how short is our collective memory? Six years ago Powell was the spokesman for the war, and his spurious U.N. speech was instrumental in convincing Americans that military action was necessary.

Whatever resignations Powell had about invading Iraq, he did nothing until he was pushed out by the same cadre that ruined his credibility. Least-evil member of the Bush administration is still a pretty poor distinction, and now the Obama administration is set to benefit from his "wisdom and council." Pardon me if I don't fall all over myself about the power of change-you-can-believe-in to inspire transformative inclusive yadda yadda yadda.

Of course this is good politics for Obama, who I do in fact support over McCain. Based on the aggregate of remarks made by Obama and his advisers, versus the general thrust of the McCain campaign, plus guessing, plus my in-grown Democratic bias, I think that Obama is less likely to lead us to ruination. Besides, Obama is only cavorting with war-enablers. McCain is endorsed by war-criminals.

Nuclear Pintos, the McCain/Obama energy plan

Isn't it great how bipartisan everyone's being this election season? I'm so relieved that we don't have to put up with a lot of bickering over trivial issues like gay marriage, warrantless wiretapping, torture, the surge, Afghanistan, single-payer healthcare, and the $700B bailout.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

• Gays should not be allowed to marry.
• If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you care if the government spies on you/pours water into your lungs?
• The surge worked.
• We can and must win in Afghanistan.
• Single-payer is not realistic.
• The only cure for our financial woes is to give several hundred billion to those at the center of the crisis.
  

Gore Vidal

Mussolini

So now I get to practice my right as an American to choose between purple and violet on the above scale. Yippee.

To the above list of crucial, politically irrelevant issues facing the country, add energy independence. Here's McCain in the 1st Presidential debate:

"Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations. We have to have wind, tide, solar, natural gas, flex fuel cars and all that but we also have to have offshore drilling and we also have to have nuclear power."

Damn right. We have got to stop paying Iran and Venezuela for their precious wind and sunshine and tides. It's time to start producing some American wind and sunshine where it will do the workers in Ohio and other swing states some good!

What's that, Obama? We're not paying them for sunshine?

"We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we're developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States."

It's the oil, stupid, and the problem with both statements is that McCain and Obama apparently think that all forms of energy are drop-in replacements for oil.

Which they are, if your car runs on plutonium and has a sail, like my modified 72' Pinto:

(sail not pictured)

Those of you who do not have a nuclear car and house like me are probably still going to want some gasoline and home heating oil, but you cannot create gasoline from nuclear fuel. You cannot create home heating oil from wind. (You can, theoretically, create both from bio-fuels, but this is only a win if your farm equipment runs on wind, solar, or nuclear. Or if you're the corn lobby. Then it's a big win either way.)

Even better, you could create the infrastructure to convert electricity into hydrogen, which you can then use to generate more electricity, or drive a car, or heat a house, or fly a blimp.

But no one's talking about that, because unlike bio-fuels, solar, and wind, overhauling our energy infrastructure might actually threaten the windfall profits of oil & gas companies that donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to both candidates.

If you read the above quotes and you're thinking that Obama didn't say anything about nuclear and therefore isn't in favor of Nuclear Pintos, here's an Obama quote from last night's debate:

"Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix."

No explanation of why nuclear power is a good idea. I assume it's for more Nuclear Pintos.

Obama seems to be pulling away in the stretch. Good, I'll be happier if I don't have to vote for purple over violet. Nader's on the ballot in more states than ever. If you're not in a swing state, think about it. He's incredible. Wherever you are, you could just thumb your nose at the plurality system and vote your conscience--what a concept!