Don't get the wrong idea for this pic--I'm not singling out the USD. :)

More back-dated drawings are on their way! I'm all caught up! I just need to upload the images and post 'em to the ol' blog.

So why all this hubbub about SOPA and PIPA when the bills have yet to pass either house of Congress? Where was all this hubbub when the NDAA of 2012 was passed? This is my main gripe about all these sites going dark today.  Which is a bigger threat? Stopping us from using the Internet the way we want or a violation of one of the most basic human rights our constitution guarantees?

Of course, SOPA/PIPA need to be protested, but there has been MUCH more of a net-wide freakout over these two unpassed laws than is required at this point in time.  Wouldn't humanity be better served by spending our energy and effort on protesting the more infringing law that is already on the books rather than laws that are three very large steps away from being laws?

Maybe we should ask ourselves why there is such a bigger outcry against SOPA/PIPA.  Is it just because these laws could give corporations the ability to effectively shut down some our favorite websites?  In the great scheme of things, that seems pretty minor.  What's your Internet freedom compared to your actual freedom?

So what is it, then? My only guess is that it's all for the money.  Think about all the money those sites will lose if they are blocked from American users.  Since they would be blocked Google would probably have trouble indexing them and if they had trouble indexing them, they'd have trouble putting targeted ads on their sites.  In theory those sites could go under entirely, robbing Google and other b2b service providers of a lot of income.  Of course, when you or I get detained indefinitely at a protest, that doesn't have any effect on these companies' bottom lines, so why should they care?

From Tumblr today. Really? The WHOLE Internet needs to be saved?

Maybe it's a stretch, but why else would such Internet powerhouses as Google, and Wikipedia care about a law being passed? They didn't seem to give a shit when a law was passed that would allow for the legal indefinite imprisonment of people. So, when human freedom is at risk, they're meh. But what gets these big guys motivated? Lost revenue. Then you see them marshaling their Internet forces and suddenly it's as though the entire Internet was at risk--literally, that's what Tumblr is saying today.

"SAVE THE INTERNET" any page on Tumblr reads right now.

It's as though the Internet always existed or as though we couldn't live without it.

Do I think SOPA/PIPA are worth protesting? Of course. Do I think it's a waste of resources because there's a bigger threat out there? Definitely.

I've plenty more to say about this.

Part Two coming tomorrow....

I also wrote a negative review in the App Store. Where you get your money from does matter, doesn't it? (I'm honestly asking.)

This is the Absurd Disconnect buying the souvenir mug right here--the above "quote of the day" comes from the NYTimes daily top headlines email. Just so Google can see it, here it is in the text:

QUOTATION OF THE DAY

"To say that I'm enjoying a millionaire's lifestyle - well, I can tell you, I guess a millionaire's income doesn't go very far these days."
ED PASTOR, an Arizona Democrat who is among 250 members of Congress with a net worth of $1 million or more.

What a douchebag. Um, hey man, you want to try trading incomes with me? Because I'll gladly take the tough life you've got going on and then you can see how the other half lives--er--the other 99% lives, I mean.

Ed Pastor is profiled in an NYT article today where his comments clearly show that, Republican or Democrat, money makes you stupid--or at least amoral, or maybe both--I mean, how, in today's economic climate, do you talk about being a millionaire and that a million doesn't go very far these days??? Did Pastor even stop for a split second to consider how that sounds to himself, let alone the rest of us?

The article also reports on how the income gap between our leaders and us is more dramatic than it has ever been. It even goes so far as to refer to Pastor and other millionaires in Congress as "aristocrats." That sure sounds accurate to me. These guys need to wake up and smell the reality that their corporate overlords/golf-buddies are robbing us to pay them. If they can't make a million go very far then maybe they should try giving the money to people who will put it to better use. For instance, shelters, hospitals that can't afford to stay open, schools, charities that provide relief to disaster-stricken areas or ANYONE who isn't a rich, jerk-off, politician.

Why don't you go purchase one? I'd really appreciate it because it helps me and lets you have a cool shirt.  Don't like that shirt? Check out my Zazzle store to see what else I've got.

The following cutting comes from a recent Bloomberg article (here: goo.gl/ngVjc ) reporting on the real amount of money the Federal Reserve "loaned" to banks back when the financial shit first hit the fan (seen in the above screencap from last Thursday's Daily Show which was running footage from CNN):

"The amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising even to Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, who says he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year."

What is also disappointing to me is the Daily Show's reference to the Federal Reserve as part of the USG. Effectively, it is not. It is run by a board that is appointed by the POTUS (read more on Wikipedia here: goo.gl/DICqs ) and we all know how money-smart recent Oval Office Inhabitants have been (they usually take advice from industry insiders and are never critical of Fed policy or behavior). So if you have an effective idiot deciding who runs an agency of the government, it's a bad idea to act like said agency can actually be controlled by the USG or, even less likely, by We the People.

While the Fed must appear at hearings in front of Congress (Wikipedia: goo.gl/fIQhk ), it must only do so twice a year and, as with the POTUS, one must wonder how said Congresspeople would be qualified to oversee such hearings. These are the same group that counted Ted "the Internet is a Series of Tubes" Stevens as a member. And even if there are people in the Senate and the House that do have a clue about money, remember the Fed only has to show up TWICE year. In odd years the Fed Chairman appears before the House and in even years, the Senate.

That really doesn't sound like a lot of control the USG has over the Fed, does it? No wonder they could slip $7,770,000,000,000 by the USG. That's about half the National Debt! What the fuck is wrong with our leaders? When that much money is loaned out, don't think it has no effect on the value of the dollar. I can't imagine that much new money getting paid back, either.

Of course, calling these "loans" at all is a joke since, as the Daily Show reported, the $7 trillion+ was loaned out with an interest rate of 0.01%! (go to the Bloomberg article here: goo.gl/ngVjc and find this fact underneath the "Below Market" heading.)

Saying this indicates a serious logical disconnect between what our leaders' priorities are and what they should be is an understatement. But allow me to explain how:

So, to keep these banks afloat, they basically give trillions to banks like it's candy. Meanwhile, how many people die from a lack of adequate health care that they can't get because they can't afford it? Beyond that, how many people died this year of cancer, a disease that saw the USG throw less than $2 billion at it in 2010 (goo.gl/eHdOR )? This is a disease that one in three women will get and one in two men will get. I don't know about you, but I'd happily trade huge banks for small ones and not get cancer, but hey, that's not where the USG's priorities are.

AMERICA: Where we save the banks, save the corporations, indefinitely detain suspected terrorists and let the citizens die.

"If you look at the troubles which happened in European countries, this is purely because of the accumulated troubles of the worn out welfare society. I think the labour laws are outdated. The labour laws induce sloth, indolence, rather than hardworking. The incentive system, is totally out of whack.

He also said:

The welfare system is good for any society to reduce the gap, to help those who happen to have disadvantages, to enjoy a good life, but a welfare society should not induce people not to work hard.

This from a guy representing a country with some of the lowest paid workers in the industrialized world. Planet Capitalism is really starting to worry me. If China will be the one determining how workers are treated I think I'm going to start looking on Craigslist for good deals on spaceships.

I just LOVE how these rich assholes can just blatantly lie about the causes for the economic woes around the world. I don't know the specifics of the EU's problems but should a system that doesn't treat humans well be supported? Should hard work be forced on every last citizen? This system is really getting out of control. Now where would "used spaceships" be on Craigslist?

motherjones:

The Outlaw Josey Wales FTW.

Uhhh, sure, just don’t ask him how he feels about the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Back in 2000 he called lawyers who took on ADA lawsuits ”morally corrupt.”  Right, morally corrupt for suing on behalf of a disabled person who was accusing Eastwood of violating a law that protects the rights of the disabled?

Oh yeah, those ADA lawyers are real horrible people.

/sarcasm

Clint Eastwood may be a brilliant filmmaker but he’s a huge fucking douchebag.  I refuse to watch his films and I lose respect for actors who work with/for him because they don’t seem to mind working for a guy who still thinks the disabled should have no right to not pee their pants in his restaurant (which would you respect more human rights or “the heritage and antique value”?).

I was really surprised that Leonardo DiCaprio would appear in one of his films.  Leo is supposed to be a conscientious guy and he isn’t aware of Hillary Swank’s fate in “Million Dollar Baby”?

Full disclosure, the “morally corrupt” lawyer who sued him back in 2000 is my father-in-law.  But I’m preeeeetty sure that doesn’t make me unfairly biased toward the rights of the disabled. ;)

Is Eastwood's attitude about gay marriage wrong just because his attitude toward disabled rights is?  No, but it's a little frustrating when he is praised for a positive stance while a seriously negative stance is ignored.

See, you've got to understand that he doesn't seem to care about individual human rights.  He's probably a Libertarian.  He wants government to allow people to marry who they want AND discriminate against who they want.  His isn't the voice of freedom but the voice of freedom-from-responsibility.  The same kinds of laws that "protect the sanctity of marriage" are the same kind of laws that "protect the rights of the disabled" and it seems like he'd want those kinds of laws gone.  That's what scares me about Libertarians.  I'm worried that once one got into the White House all programs that help the common good would get scaled back or wiped out entirely.  Those programs are not in great shape as it is.  (Remember, in most countries you don't have to pay for all of your health care.)

In Libertarianism, and in much of America, really, there is this belief in the impossible that I think John Hodgman nailed in a segment last night on the Daily Show. He explained the belief that, if you work hard enough and long enough, everyone can be part of the 1%.

Not only is that mathematically impossible, it ignores the fact that shit happens.

Hard work and perseverance does not guarantee success.  Believe otherwise and you might as well believe in magic.

I mean, how many disabled 1%ers are there, anyway?  Maybe there's a reason for that?

It comes down to values and power. The fate of America turns on the outcome of a contest between forces aligned behind two competing economic systems with dramatically different values, structures, and agendas. One is the greed-driven, money-serving corporate-ruled Wall Street Economy that measures its success exclusively by the financial profits it generates for the already rich. It neither acknowledges nor accepts responsibility for the economic, social, environmental, and political devastation it leaves in its wake.

The other economy is comprised of the democratic, community-rooted, market-based life-serving Main Street economies that ordinary people are rebuilding across the nation and around the world. This emerging New Economy measures success by its contribution to securing adequate and meaningful livelihoods for everyone in a balanced relationship to nature.

Huh. Interesting take, but the first paragraph seems to be an “Incredible Hulk” version of the second paragraph since the second paragraph describes what the Western World was like for quite a while.

This is why I always take issue with people telling me I’m anti-corporate—I’m not. I just believe in moderation.  I’m 99% sure that if we go back in time with how corporations are run (not just to make as much money as possible, aka, not to the extreme) we’d see a return to the good old days of the American economy.  I think we need to regulate the shit out of corporations, passing laws that prohibit any outsourcing of ANY and ALL jobs, ban tax incentives for businesses completely, make it a jailable offense to hire illegal immigrants, force environmental and worker safety standards, require products be made with materials ONLY found inside the country and put caps on executive salaries.

Will this kill a lot of businesses in the US? Damn right it will. But only the assholes.  Good people who run businesses are already doing this sort of thing.  RIGHT?

Oh, you say you’re a good person who is running a business that would be killed by this draconian, sweeping changes? Well, good riddance then.  Because if you’re not caring about your workers, your customers, the environment, and you’re only in it for the money you can’t call yourself a good person.

We need to grow up and face the music.  Our economy is falling apart around our ears and we’re mostly pretending it isn’t.  Only sweeping changes like this will make a difference.  We need to pull back from the extreme we’ve let the corporations get to. 

Oh and the “emerging new economy” the original post refers to? I have no idea what the fuck they’re talking about.  Nothing “market-based” ever has a “balanced relationship to nature.”  We need to constantly ride the levels of regulation.  Sometimes we need a bit more and sometimes a bit less, but clearly, we need a LOT more right now as corporations are just a bunch of sociopathic Godzillas.

The Associated Press brings us a helpful roundup of fees charged to customers by major consumer banks.

Bank of America: “A new $5 fee to replace debit cards took effect in September; a rush overnight order costs $20. Previously, both services were free.”

Chase: “In February, Chase introduced a new basic checking account with a $12 monthly fee, up from the previous $6. The fee is waived for customers who make direct deposits that total $500 a month or maintain a minimum balance of $1,500.”

Citibank: “Starting in December, Citi said it will raise the fee on its basic checking account to $10 a month, up from $8. Customers will have to maintain a balance of at least $1,500 or sign up for direct deposit and online bill pay to avoid the fee.”

Wells Fargo: “The bank also plans to test a $3 monthly debit card fee starting Oct. 14. The fee will be applied to checking accounts opened in Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington. The fee would be in addition to the fees ranging from $5 to $30 that Wells Fargo already charges.”

It’s a real shame banks have completely lost sight of what they’re core job is: to take our money and loan it to other people with interest.  That interest is supposed to be how they make money.  They’re not supposed to charge us so they can make money off of our money.  It’s that sense of entitlement that the rich always accuse everyone else of having.  So blatantly hypocritical.

But not all banks are abusive like this.  I switched to an online bank which charges no fees period and, in fact, pays me interest. I’ve made 70¢ since I signed up in April. How much has your checking account made you?

The bank is called Ally.  They used to be GMAC but rebranded at some point.  They’ve been good to me so far.  It’s a huge pain in the ass to deposit money, though.  You have to mail a check in or do a wire transfer.  I have an account with Square and it still takes a week (or so) to see the money, though Square claims a “next-day payout” on their site.  I suppose I could transfer money from my Paypal account, but that would take 3 days still.

One of the nice things about Ally is that they refund all ATM fees.  Since they don’t have any ATMs, you’re going to get charged for using other banks’ ATMs but this bank will refund those fees at the end of the month.  So, there are alternatives to the BABs (Big Asshole Banks).

The sad thing is that I tried to go to a local bank—as in, a bank that only exists in the city I live in.  Sadly, they wouldn’t let me open an account because I didn’t have a state ID at the time.  This is a very odd requirement as Washington Mutual, a bank with ATMs all over the country, didn’t seem to mind my California ID when I opened my checking account with them back in 2008.  Of course, WaMu got swallowed whole by Chase, whom I left earlier this year because they added fees.

We’re facing a world that is less and less favorable for the individual.  But there are choices you can make that can save you money.  You just have to hunt for them.