apapazukamori

I posted the full article beneath the cut, with the important stuff as an excerpt. It's from here, but you need to be registered at the Washington Post's site to view it.

---

It's Time to Retire Mandatory Overdraft Fees
By Michelle Singletary
Thursday, March 26, 2009; D02

In its proposed change to Regulation E (electronic fund transfers), the Federal Reserve is considering two alternatives:

First option: Institutions would be prohibited from automatically enrolling customers for overdraft protection services. Instead they would have to first give customers notice and a reasonable opportunity to opt out of the service.

Second option: Institutions would be required to get a customer's permission upfront to provide overdraft protection. Customers would have to choose to opt in before any fees could be assessed for an overdraft authorization.

The proposed rule change would apply only to overdrafts for ATM withdrawals and debit card purchases. It would not affect overdraft protection for checks or recurring debit charges.

"After evaluating the comments and conducting additional consumer testing, we expect to issue a final rule later this year," Sandra F. Braunstein, director of the Fed's division of consumer and community affairs, told a House subcommittee recently.

The Fed wants to know what consumers think. You only have until Monday to submit a comment. The easiest way is to respond by e-mail or go online. E-mail your comments to: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Put "Docket No. R-1343" in the subject line. Online you go to http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.

( Click for Full Article )

I fully support this idea: Phelps-A-Thon

I wanted to create a positive atmosphere where our side was smiling and laughing, instead of yelling and crying, filled with hate and fear. I had heard of the idea of holding a Phelps-A-Thon, where people pledge for every minute the Phelps' crew protests. I decided that this tactic would be the perfect way to counteract Phelp's hate.

I pledged to donate during the protest at George Mason University, on March 30. I wish I was able to give for all four protests those idiots are going to conduct in my area, but I'm at least doing something.

If you can participate (either by pledge or by submitting dates), that would be shiny.

From UN Dispatch: Public Diplomacy in Action

President Obama issues a special message to the Iranian people on the occasion of Nowruz, the Iranian New Year. Be sure to watch to the end in which President Obama issues a send off in [F]arsi.

How awesome is that? I mean, really, how awesome is that? Whoever on his Communications and/or Foreign Policy staff thought of this needs a raise. I knew about Nowruz because it's on my calendar. (I have this amazing calendar that lists non-Western and Pagan holidays like Losar and Imbolic.) And then the Farsi at the end? Anyone know enough to say if the accent was good? I bet it was, because that would be important to him.

While I love the fact that the message was given at all, the best part is that Obama gave the message. Not Robert Gibbs or Hilary Clinton or whoever the Press Secretary at the State Department is. The President gave it, and he didn't have to. But he did. Because he's awesome.

So...

Pat Boone is decrying America's "sexual jihadists" over on World Net Daily. Because those evil homosexuals want to blow up the Mormons for funding Prop 8. Or something. I dunno.

First of all, who the hell is Pat Boone? o_O;; Aside from an old, white, straight dude who warbles into a microphone for money, that is. Is there a good reason he's serving as the mouthpiece for the "gays = terrorists" movement?

Second of all, I think there's an eponymous law (or a jurisimprudence law) somewhere that says if you have to quote the dictionary to make your argument, your argument automatically fails:

Not just the Bible, but Webster's Dictionary, defines this covenantal relationship called "marriage" as a commitment between one man and one woman.

Thirdly, it's spelled "DeGeneres". Proofreading fail.

And finally, he's whining because gheis won't accept the will of the people in taking rights away from people and and because the gheis are intolerant to homophobic viewpoints. LOGIC, PAT. YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.

This seems to be the pervading line from the gay-fearing, bible-beating wackos recently. Saying that gays are hypocritical because they think homophobes should shut the hell up, yet ask for tolerance and acceptance of their own viewpoint. It would make sense, if it weren't completely ridiculous. The argument against gay civil marriage is fundamentally wrong. Just like arguments against interracial marriage, just like arguments against interfaith marriage. Full stop. End of story. Mr. Boone, you are wrong. Your pundits are wrong, your interpretation of Scripture is wrong, and your holier-than-thou attitude is wrong.

Actually, your attempt to compare the Prop 8 protests to the Mumbai attacks (aside from being loathsome) reminds me of the Chinese government's attempt to call the entirety of the Lhasa protesters "terrorists" because one group got out of hand. It was shallow and dishonest, and so are you.

This is sort of rambly, so I put it behind a cut.

Prostitute to Spitzer's wife: 'I'm sorry'

( Thoughts )

... I'm not sure anyone but bonolicious will be able to answer this question.

The Maurice Chevalier bit = "No! I'm Ethel Merman!"

Y/N?!

Follow up question: THIS = THIS?

Think about it.

So, Keith Olbermann? The pundit I adore on MSNBC for representing the liberal voice and having the balls to yell at people like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld? That Keith Olbermann?

Didn't vote.

California voters approve Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages.

Dammit, California.

Exhausted, but still elated and still proud and still hopeful for the future. Trying to get tickets to the Swearing-In ceremony on Inauguration Day, since I will have that day off. (My branch of the company is smack dab in the middle of DC, trying to get to work that day would be a nightmare; so this branch will be closed.)

Last night I watched Obama's speech and was moved to tears; of joy, but also of relief. It's finally over. The awful campaign, the unrelenting negativity, the last eight years of disappointment and frustration with an administration that has damaged my country so badly. It's all over, or will be soon.

Watching the news this morning while I was getting ready for work, I was pleased to see people lauding Obama and the historical nature of the moment. But the best thing about watching the TV today? No political ads. Oh my god, it was beautiful. No more RNC bullshit, no more local election sniping. I look forward to two years of no political ads. Don't take them for granted; god only knows when the campaigning for 2012 will start.

The U.S. took a historic step forward, but the success is not without it's Pyrrhic side. Prop 8 is still a toss-up in California, and a ban on gay marriage passed in Florida. Step forward, quarter step back.

Probably my last election-related post until the results are in. :)

( Why I Voted )

I would happily do anything she told me to. >3

Hoax Email Tells Virginia Students To Vote Tomorrow

Those people? Also going to the bad Hell.

California GOP Files FEC Complaint Over Obama Visit to Grandmother

Those people are going to Hell. The bad Hell. (Not the one for people who laugh at Helen Keller jokes and who have dirty minds. That's the Hell I'm going to.)

But press release timing FAIL. Way to continue to look like total assholes, RNC. Keep it up. Polls aren't open in California yet.

Vote! Vote! Vote!

This is ends today's Public Service Message. ♥

I should stop, because I know most of them will just make me want to bang my head against the desk. Like this one:

Guy's Guide to Her Halloween Costume

Seriously, wtf? I didn't realize Halloween's sole purpose for women was to find a man, and that her costume should be the advertisement. Also: a) how does one dress up as Carrie Bradshaw (or any of the Sex and the City women) anyway? and b) the Mickey Mouse suggestion = creepy.

Edit: The corresponding article Gal's Guide to His Halloween Costume is pretty ridiculous as well.

Given my political and ideological leanings, this really shouldn't be a surprise. However, I just wanted to go on the record.

I hate Kathleen Parker.

Here's the latest reason: Tragic Flaw: John McCain, man.

A study in Canada, published in New Scientist in 2003, found that pretty women foil men's ability to assess the future. ‘Discounting the future,’ as the condition is called, means preferring immediate, lesser rewards to greater rewards in the future.

[...]

That men are at a disadvantage when attractive women are present is a fact upon which women have banked for centuries. Ignoring it now profits only fools.

[...]

It is entirely possible that no one could have beaten the political force known as Barack Obama — under any circumstances. And though it isn't over yet, it seems clear that McCain made a tragic, if familiar, error under that sycamore tree. Will he join the pantheon of men who, intoxicated by a woman's power, made the wrong call?

[...]

If McCain, rightful heir to the presidency, loses to Obama, history undoubtedly will note that he was defeated at least in part by his own besotted impulse to discount the future. If he wins, then he must be credited with having correctly calculated nature's power to befuddle.

"OMG GAIZ ITS TTLY THE WIMMINS FALT!"

It's also ironic (though no less infuriating) that her argument is the same as the argument used in Iran and by the Taliban to force women to wear veils/hajib/burqa. ("Women were required to wear the burqa when in public since it was believed the sight of a woman's flesh served as a forbidden temptation to men, and was thus a corruption.")

Nothing like some good ol' batshit to steer me toward the weekend.

Edit: The Canadian study cited by New Science had a sample size of 209; 96 men and 113 women. The volunteers were between 17 and 22 years old. How anyone could use that sample size and that age range to predict a trend in the global population as a whole is beyond me. Anyone looking at that sample and taking the study as anything other than a first inquiry that doesn't prove anything is also beyond me. But I predict Ms. Parker probably didn't actually read the study itself.

Adventuring Party Politics: The Campaign is Getting Ugly by somehedgehog.

Go read it. XD

Connecticut Ruling Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage (NYT)

Hooray for Connecticut!

The usual grumbling from the homophobes is starting, but I thought I'd highlight this comment from the governor of Connecticut:

"The Supreme Court has spoken. I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision, either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution, will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling."

As I said to kay_willow, I will give Governor Rell props for recognizing the futility of challenging the ruling.

However, where did anyone get the idea that laws are supposed to be things people liked? The law isn't about popular opinion. The law is about what is fair and equitable. I know I sound like a broken record, but in the 1960s, Southern whites were perfectly happy to have blacks completely removed from their presences. Again, a situation where the majority were satisfied, but the situation was not fair. But you know what? The Supreme Court didn't give a shit about the majority's opinion, nor should it have. The law was unfair. That was all the Court needed to consider. That's why we have a judiciary in the first place.

Another analogy: Caveman Ur is hungry. He has no fish. Caveman Ug has two fish he caught. Caveman Ur wants Caveman Ug's fish, so he tries to take one away because he is hungry. Other Cavemen think this is a good idea, because why does Caveman Ug need two fish? But Head Caveman Ud said Caveman Ur can't have Caveman Ug's fish because it's Caveman Ug's fish. Caveman Ur and his supporters aren't happy about this, but it doesn't make the ruling unfair.

(And for the sake of argument, we will assume Caveman Ur and his supporters don't just beat Ug and Ud with their clubs and take the fish anyway.)

Most people would say a confession from a murder suspect should be allowed into evidence regardless of how the police got it. The Court said in Miranda v. Arizona that that isn't fair.

The majority doesn't always rule, especially when the government isn't a direct democracy. The responsibility of a representative republic is to protect the minority from the majority when necessary. A functioning and independent judiciary is integral to that process. Go, go, you bench-based "legislators". Thank you for doing your job.