From CNN.com:

“Indeed, the survey found that upwardly mobile, middle-class families were among those who had the most debt stress. Others were women, couples with small children, low-income working families, Democrats and those who graduated high school but haven’t taken college courses. Those least likely to be stressed from debt include men, retirees, empty nesters, college graduates and Republicans.”

How’s that again? Your level of stress about debt is tied to your political affiliation? Using someone’s political party as a filter just doesn’t seem relevant in this situation. That’s like saying people who own cats are more likely to use two ply toilet paper than those who own dogs. I imagine you can make almost any statistic like that work, simply because traits and behaviors don’t divide up nice and evenly amongst the population. The point remains that its not a relevant statistic. No one is going to say “Oh, I’m going to become a Republican so I don’t have to worry about money so much!”

Thank you mainstream media, for once again blinding the masses with meaningless data.

Well, it’s been nearly a whole month since I managed to post. Where in the world did the time go? Between getting ready to move and catching up on random tasks (finding and registering for classes, spending hours at DMV, etc) the days have been flying by. I’ve also been hesitant to get into the ridiculous game that is U.S. politics any more than I already have. Since that’s been a large part of recent events, my motivation to write about anything has dwindled.

Fear not, however. With the primary season essentially over, I’ve found a renewed desire to read the news again.

On that note, something of interest out of the tech world this morning; Crysis (a very high-end game) appears to run quite well on a 1.8 GHz VIA Nano CPU. Since Crysis states its minimum requirements as 2.8GHz (or 3.2GHz if you’re running Vista) this is quite impressive. Even better, the Nano uses far less power than most current CPUs. You can read more here.

Also of interest, it appears the hated (at least by me) Blackberry platform has found another reason to continue to exist. If you’re an E-Trade customer, they now have an application for Blackberries that will allow instant trades from your phone. I dislike Blackberries because of this very type of thing; they still manage to remain a proprietary, no-options platform. How they still manage to thrive when there are much easier and better ways of doing everything a Blackberry does (and more) mystifies me.

I will be posting more soon… and soon does not equal thirty days this time.

A few months ago, I overheard someone talking about a new gin being produced by Anchor Distilling (a.k.a. Anchor Brewing) in San Francisco. I finally had the chance to try it a few weeks ago, as Ben’s Fine Wine started carrying it. So far, it’s the only place outside of the Bay Area that I’ve seen it. It’s called “Junipero”. Not the most creative name, but who cares.

After mixing some up with a little tonic, my first impression was that it lacked flavor. As I had another sip I realized that all the flavors I’d expect from a gin were still there, just a little more muted than I’m used to. Overall, I’d describe Junipero as having a fairly complex but smoother flavor, and being slightly less acidic than the average Tanqueray or Bombay gin. Definitely something I’ll drink every now and then, but it won’t replace Beefeater as my basic gin of choice.

http://www.lolcatbible.com/

Why, why, why. My brain hurts now.

David Colborne wrote a response to my last post regarding Hilary’s statements on Iran. While I don’t totally disagree with his take on the subject, I still stick by my opinion that the U.S. has no right to take the action of obliterating anyone.

Just for clarity’s sake, Dictionary.com defines obliterate as “to remove or destroy all traces of; do away with; destroy completely.”

I didn’t, as David says, miss the point that Hillary was referring to a nuclear attack on Israel. I still don’t think we have any right to “obliterate” a country, even if they nuke the living hell out of their neighbor. If Iran chooses to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, they have proven that they are hostile and have nuclear power to back it up. At that point, it would be prudent for several countries to take an interest in disarming Iran. Because as David says, we don’t want to live in a world with nuclear war. I’m with him on that.

Here’s where I disagree:

1. Any disarming action against Iran or anyone else should not be obliteration, unless every other option has failed, and should not be taken solely by the United States. Other countries have an interest in preventing nuclear war too; we are not the world police.

2. Telling a country that we have the capacity to obliterate them if they use nuclear force is horrible foreign policy. Making it known that we’ll wipe someone off the face of the earth if they use a nuke may very well discourage them from using it. However, we can’t really assume North Korea or Iran or whoever would do what we think is logical; it may just as well encourage them to wipe us of the face of the earth first. Did we learn nothing from the cold war? Mutually Assured Destruction doesn’t do anyone good.

David recently mentioned the legalization and taxation of marijuana, an idea I thoroughly support. It really amazes me that we even still waste time debating this, and it amazes me even more that so many people are so vehemently against it.

Here are my reasons for supporting it:

1. I can’t think of a single way it could be considered more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. When was the last time you heard about someone beating their spouse after they got stoned?

2. Revenue! If marijuana were legalized and taxed, the increase of government funds would not be small.

3. Time, money and lives saved by removing it from the illicit market. Our prison systems would also stand to experience a significant reduction in load. Without doing any real research, here are a few numbers to think about:

$7.6 billion - the amount spent in the US anually on marijuana law enforcement.
45% - the percentage of the 1.5 million drug arrests annually for marijuana.
20% - The percentage of state prisoners held for drug charges.
53% - The percentage of federal prisoners held for drug charges.

I can only imagine what the reduction in crime would be, both violent and petty.

I’m thinking that it wouldn’t end up like tobacco, since marijuana is much easier to grow. I forsee something along the lines of beer. Microbrewery equivilents, some type of licensed establishment, would serve the small local markets. There would of course be some large Budweiser types, and the homebrewers homegrowers. Any quantity grown that exceeds personal use would require a license and would be taxed if sold. I think it would work.

Anyway, on to my second topic.

There has been an uproar lately about Hillary’s comments regarding Iran, and her promise to “obliterate” them if they were to attack Israel. At face value that comment makes me really mad. The idea that we, as United States Citizens, feel the need to preemptively destroy things that are not currently direct threats to us is ridiculous. I’m not advocating that we wait until the nuke has been launched to do something either. I’m just saying that in and of itself, Iran attacking Israel does not directly threaten us. It does not give us the right to “obliterate” a country because they have attacked another country and thus proven they have the ability.

Now, that’s my reaction at hearing the sound bite. Here’s the transcript of the actual question and answer:

April 22nd

CHRIS CUOMO: You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be ‘massive retaliation.” Scary words. Does ‘massive retaliation” mean you’d go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that’s supposed to suggest?

CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that. Because that, perhaps, will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic.

It sounds a little less insane when read in context, but the basic concept is still the same. I believe that, unless there is proof of a direct threat to U.S. soil, an “obliteration” of a country is not warranted. That’s not to say that there isn’t evidence of a direct threat, and that a nuclear attack on Israel would prove that Iran had the means to carry out a previous threat. I have a feeling this is what Hillary believes, and why she’s saying it. I’m going to assume she has better data on the reality of the Iranian threat than I do. Regardless, it’s not my favorite statement to come from her recently.

In a bi-partisan display of short-sightedness, both Hillary and McCain are endorsing a plan to suspend the federal tax on gas for the summer. I’m sure this has been beaten to death by the media already, but this ranks so far up on my stupidity meter I can’t resist saying something. Why do I think this is stupid? One, because the savings would be so minimal that they would have no effect. Two, because it sounds like nothing but a half-assed marketing campaign to get working-class votes. I’m sure many people will see the headline and think “Wow, how considerate of them, that will save me some money!”

Wrong. Let’s do some math here. I use more gas than most people I know, since I drive around town for a large portion of the work I do and travel frequently on weekends. My average is 3-4 tanks a month, or 60-80 gallons. Taking an average of 70 gallons at a price of $3.75, that’s $262.50 a month. Reduce that by 18.4 cents a gallon and its $249.62. So for the three months of the summer travel season, I’d save $38.64. Which is less than half a tank of gas in savings, as Obama keeps bringing up.

The effect this thirty some odd dollars in saving has on me is so much less than the effect the billions in lost revenue to the federal government would have. The trade off simple does not make any sense. I can’t imagine any way to spin it that would even come close to rationalizing the idea.

Personally, I hope gas prices continue to go up. It will motivate everyone to use public transportation, buy fuel efficient vehicles, etc. I’d be willing to bet rising gas prices will do more to reduce emissions from vehicles than any other effort to date.

Take a read of this article at CNN Money that compares gas prices from a few other countries. While we’re not really comparing apples and apples since economies differ and a dollar here is definately not a dollar there, its still worth reading. Gas consumption has dropped or stayed stable in most of Europe over the past few decades. Instead of dropping the federal gas tax, let’s double it and use that money to fund public transportation. It’s a win-win situation; get more money to build public transportation all while encouraging people to actually use it because its cheaper. Well, that may not work either, but its a noble idea.

Note: It helps to click the “Publish” button when finished typing a post, not the “Save” button. Thus, this post is being back-dated to when I meant to publish it.

This weekend marked the second occurrence of the Firefighters Association of Nevada City’s Spaghetti Feed. This is one of two major fundraising events we hold every year, the other being the November Pancake Breakfast. This year was immensely more successful than last, in that we actually paid for the cost of the food we bought and made a few bucks.

Last year was an utter failure. We purchased far too many ingredients (we could have fed 500, we had less than 100 people actually show up), didn’t have much advertising and held the event on a day when there were several other major events going on around town. All these factors, combined with the fact that it was the first year and no one knew of the event, contributed to us actually spending money instead of making it. Being a mostly volunteer department with not nearly enough tax base to support our needs, fundraising is fairly essential. It has provided money to purchase equipment, outfit engines, build a new station and much more. You can imagine our disappointment when we loose money instead of making it.

It was quite refreshing this year when around 230 people showed up. We had a very good advertising campaign this time around (with five days of coverage in the newspaper), banners on two of the busiest streets in town, and a much better idea of what we were doing. All said and done, we managed to pull in somewhere north of $2,500 (minus food costs). While still not a tremendous amount considering the cost of what we want to purchase ($300,000 fire engine), its a start.

All of this required quite a bit of pre and post-event work, from cooking and cleaning the day before, to setup and tear down of tables, chairs, etc the day of. All in all it came off with no major issues, but as the title of this post indicates, it was one long weekend. 

Out of Florida comes the story of a cat born with six legs. The article says that the extra legs and some duplicate intestine need to be removed, and the family who owns the cat can’t afford it. They are seeking donations to fund the process, which is expected to cost upwards of $2500. Yes, they even have a website, “hexfoundation.org”. Really? For $3000?

Sorry, but there must be thousands of better causes to donate money to. If the family can’t afford the necessary care for this cat, or if the cat will not be entirely normal afterward, it should be euthanized. No I don’t hate cats, I just cannot see the purpose in keeping something alive that would not survive in nature or will not have a good quality of life.

On another note, since when is it proper to write numbers as “$24-hundred” or “$3-thousand?” Oh wait, its Florida.

Apparently the smaller traditional telcos in the US, those who haven’t adopted any sort of Voice over IP technology, are whining that they’re loosing money because the big bad VoIP providers are cheating.

The basis of their argument seems to be that they can’t tell where some incoming calls are coming from because the VoIP providers aren’t complying with traditional call identification standards. Thus they can’t decide who to bill or whether to bill them as local, long distance, etc.

Billing (except for the base fee for having the phone line) is one-sided in traditional telecom; the originating telco gets to collect the money for the call from the caller; while the destination telco doesn’t charge its customer for receiving the call. Carriers have deals with each other as to how much one would pay the other for connecting a call through their network, thus passing part of the income from the call down the line.

With VoIP, calls are not travelling from one telco to another; they likely travel over the internet for a large portion of the transit. Since the VoIP calls are coming over a IP switched network and getting dumped onto the PSTN at the point nearest the destination, the call may look like a local call to the destination telecom, and thus not incur any charges for the VoIP provider.

While I can understand the frustration of the small telecoms at losing revenue, they also need to realize that they have to adapt their technology to changing times. Complaining about lost revenue due to new technology is just not a valid argument. If the business is viable and proper investments are made, the end result should be a majority of satisfied customers and a reliable income base.

If your company can’t tell where incoming calls are coming from because your technology is too old or not updated, then maybe you should consider investing in equipment that not only allows you to identify calls, but allows better or increased service offerings to your customers. Negotiate deals with connecting telcos that makes it easier for everyone to establish a call, and cost savings are bound to appear. Offer new services to your subscriber base, or expand that base by offering other options such as high speed internet (remember, we’re talking mostly about rural telcos here).

Yes, the initial investment might be high. Every business faces this, and those that deal with it properly tend to succeed. Most don’t have the FCC to complain too about unfair rules or competitors, they must overcome it by innovating and working to make sure they have the best product.

So what’s the moral of this story? Grow up, learn how to run a business properly, offer products that consumers want, and embrace new technology. Don’t complain when you’re trying to keep a impractical business model going with government subsidies and inferior or inadequate equipment. Probably not likely, but I can hope can’t I?