Obscanity: You'll know it when you see it

Are Your Gadgets Making You Sick?.

New Phishing Attack Spreading On Facebook. This Time From FBstarter (Updated).

Typeface Inspired by Comic Books Has Become a Font of Ill Will – WSJ.com.

The Bilerico Project | Rick Warren operatives trying to whitewash his anti-gay positions from Wikipedia entry.

Gmail: Google’s approach to email.

I would love to be the person whose job it is to come up with Google’s April 1 project releases…

Viral: Omegle! This Teenager Wants You to Chat with a Stranger.

Weird, and yet… so very AOL circa 1997-1998, after the golden years and before random IMs from strangers were completely supplanted by porn bots.

Bicycle Built for Two Thousand.

Wow. I think I might actually have nightmares after listening to this.

Facebook changes coming in response to user complaints – CNN.com.

FINALLY.

Amazon to Sell E-Books to Read on the iPhone and iPod Touch – NYTimes.com.

With Twitter Envy, Facebook Adds (Near) Real-time Web Capabilities.

The question is, will we LIKE the new capabilities?

So You Want to Boycott Israel?.

Facebook faces furor over content rights – CNN.com.

Fans bid farewell to Polaroid film – CNN.com.

YouTube – Roomba Driver.

Obama may have to give up e-messaging – CNN.com.

Not the Crackberry! NOOOOO, DARKNEEEESSS! CHAARRLIIIEEEEE!

My guess is he’ll keep the thing, and just switch it out somewhat frequently. You can’t just give that up. You’ve gotta ease out of it over a period of like… you know… a decade or so. Or until the Next Great Thing comes along to replace it.

Testing Google’s Drunk E-Mail Protector – TIME.

I love it! It’s an amusing article.

I LOVE it. So funny.

Official Gmail Blog: New in Labs: Stop sending mail you later regret:

Sometimes I send messages I shouldn’t send. Like the time I told that girl I had a crush on her over text message. Or the time I sent that late night email to my ex-girlfriend that we should get back together. Gmail can’t always prevent you from sending messages you might later regret, but today we’re launching a new Labs feature I wrote called Mail Goggles which may help.

Official Google Blog: Our position on California’s No on 8 campaign.

Sticking to their corporate motto: Don’t Be Evil.

Thanks, Google!

You might remember Jay Leno’s recent interview with John McCain, in which Leno asked him how many houses he owns, and he answered that he lived in a prison cell for 5.5 years. Well, the McCain camp strikes again.

Obama’s campaign recently put out an ad targeting McCain as computer illiterate and out of touch with modern times. His spokespeople point out the crucial role the Internet plays in the economy.

Well, I’ll give you three guesses as to the excuse being put forth for McCain’s utter computer illiteracy.

If you guessed “Noun, verb, POW,” you are RIGHT! Karl Rove, dough-headed mouthpiece of the Republican party, is now arguing that John McCain can’t use the computer – because he was a POW.

Karl Rove recently blasted Obama’s campaign for criticizing McCain’s inability to use a computer. Found among his word vomit was the following chunk: “But they then say he doesn’t …send e-mail. Well, this is because his war injuries keep him from being able to use a keyboard. He can’t type. You know, it’s like saying he can’t do jumping jacks,” Rove said. “There’s a reason he can’t raise his arms above his head. There’s a reason he doesn’t have the nimbleness in his fingers.”

What the hell? Is this supposed to be accepted as a legitimate excuse? We’re supposed to just accept that McCain has some sort of unnamed disability called POW that he only talks about when it’s politically convenient, and while he’s been able to do just fine as a Senator for some twenty-odd years (collecting a a healthy tax-free disability pension even while voting against similar benefits for current and future disabled veterans), when it comes to modern technology his disability just won’t let him do it?

Seriously?

SERIOUSLY?

Okay, I understand that he doesn’t like to use the computer. Some people are just like that. Why doesn’t he just admit it, instead of saying that his disability prevents him from learning how to use a computer? The computer, and subsequently the Internet, is the most influential non-medical advancement in technology since the creation of television and radio – and perhaps more so, depending on who you ask. It permeates, nu, dominates every level of our economy, and increasingly, much of our society and culture. If all the computers were to shut down tomorrow, mass chaos would ensue. COMPUTERS ARE IMPORTANT – and so are the “Innernets.” A President of the United States should be computer literate, even if he chooses not to use the computer on a regular basis for whatever reason, be it indifference or pain with repetitive motion. The next few presidential terms could see Congress drafting legislation regulating the Internet. The President needs to understand what that means.

So why is it that John McCain somehow “can’t” use a computer – is it really because of his war injuries forty years ago?

So he has a disability. Okay. He tries to avoid repetitive motions. Great. He says he lacks nimbleness in his fingers. Only Cindy McCain can tell us if that’s true, and frankly, I don’t want to know. That’s really not the point.

The issue is not whether he has the manual dexterity to type however words per minute. The issue is not whether his shoulders start to ache if he types for too long. Nobody’s challenging his claim of disability (or maybe they are – but that’s another post altogether, and it’s not coming from me). That’s not the problem here. The problem is that this brushing off of computer ability / literacy as unnecessary and impossible because of physical disability is a slap in the face and a harsh, unnecessary smear against those of us who have disabilities and are not only able to use computers, but are damned good at it.

How is it that so many millions of Americans experiencing disabilities ranging from carpal tunnel and tendinitis to blindness and quadriplegia have managed to become not just literate, but FLUENT on the computer, without relying on their wives or staff to operate it for them? How is it? Oh, yes, I know. THEY CHOOSE TO LEARN TO USE THE COMPUTER.

There are TONS of devices and applications that create accessible workstations for people with a variety of disabilities ranging from ergonomic/pain complaints to access issues for the vision-impaired. Those with typing issues, like McCain, can use voice-recognition software to draft anything from a quick email to a dissertation (or legislation, in this case). People with disabilities can be computer programmers, web designers, writers, engineers, statisticians, and everything in between – if they want to. It’s true that many people with disabilities are not able to use computers because they cannot afford the technology necessary to accommodate their needs, but I guarantee you that John McCain does not have that problem. Many people with disabilities are also unable to use applications that are not accessible. That is most likely not a problem McCain faces either. He can’t say it’s his age either; plenty of elderly Americans are perfectly adept at this newfangled tomfoolery. So what is his problem?

He simply doesn’t want to learn to use the computer.

So why doesn’t he just admit it, instead of insulting disabled Americans by blaming his self-proclaimed “illiteracy” on his disability?

I’m not some able-bodied chauvinist mouthing off about whining disabled people. I have physical disabilities, including a chronic pain syndrome. Up until a car accident a few years ago, my primary complaint was related to my arms, wrists and fingers. I get it. I understand how much it can hurt to type. Hell, I gave up handwriting because it just got too painful. I use the computer instead. I’m not saying this to somehow absolve myself of any possible incorrectness; having a disability doesn’t qualify me to speak for people with disabilities, nor does it qualify me to speak for anyone else. It just means I have a perspective on the situation that a completely able-bodied person might not have. That’s all – and it’s entirely possible I might get railed on by other folks with disabilities who disagree with what I’ve said here, and that’s fine, because as I said, I don’t claim to speak definitively for a disabled population.

That said, there’s a difference between a preference for not typing and a stubborn refusal to learn the basics of computer literacy. I certainly don’t think that it’s fair for one disabled person to tell another disabled person what s/he can or can’t, or should or shouldn’t do in relation to disability and accommodation, especially when it comes to pain management. That’s not what this post is about. I don’t care whether McCain chooses to use a computer on a daily basis. Hell, I am always talking about how necessary it is to approach pain management from an economic standpoint, weighing the factors and determining when the cost of performing an activity outweighs the benefits.

But we’re talking about learning here, not about doing. McCain doesn’t have to touch a keyboard in order to know the basics of how a computer works, how the Internet works, the dynamics of computer-mediated communication, etc. Hell, you can learn all that without even being in the same room as a computer. He has simply chosen to stay illiterate, and blames this illiteracy on a disability that simply does not preclude his use of a computer if he had any interest whatsoever in using it.

Nobody says McCain has to sign onto Facebook or start playing WoW to prove that he’s “hip” to the computer age – but the president of a modern and technologically advanced country should have a working knowledge of computers and the Internet, and McCain does not. He just doesn’t want to admit that he is out of touch with modern times, and at (many) times intellectually lazy, like his predecessor, G-Dubya. How can we have somebody as our President who can’t be bothered with the most influential technological advances of our time? How can he understand our economy if he doesn’t understand the first thing about the technology that keeps it going?

Some free shipping and other deals from Target.com. The free shipping is where the real discount is; Target’s shipping fees are so high that sometimes the cost of shipping cancels out the economic benefit of shopping at Target’s website. Take advantage of the free shipping offers whenever you see them!

• Spend $125, save 15% on Furniture. Exp. 7/26
• Spend $125, save 15% on Patio Furniture. Exp. 7/26
• Spend $125, save 15% on Lawn and Garden. Exp. 7/26.
• Spend $50, get Free Shipping on Home Items. Exp. 7/26
• Spend $50, get Free Shipping on Home Décor. Exp. 7/26
• Spend $50, get Free Shipping in Men's. Exp. 8/2
• Spend $50 in Women's, get Free Shipping. Exp. 8/2
• Spend $50 in Shoes, get Free Shipping. Exp. 8/2
• Spend $50 in Accessories, get Free Shipping. Exp. 8/2
• Spend $50 in Jewelry, get Free Shipping. Exp. 8/2
• Spend $50 in Beauty & Fragrance, get Free Shipping. Exp. 8/2
• Free Shipping on Select Baby Gear. Exp. 8/9
• Free Shipping on Select Luggage. Exp. 8/9
• Free Shipping on Select Kitchen Items. Exp. 8/16
• Free Shipping on Select Appliances . Exp. 8/16
• Free Shipping on Select Electronics. Exp. 8/23
• Free Shipping on Select Toys. Exp. 8/23
• Free Shipping on Select Hardware. Exp. 8/23
• Free Shipping on Select Storage & Organization Items. Exp. 8/23
• Free Shipping on Select Sports & Outdoor Items. Exp. 8/23

Found this great and useful article on Hubpages, entitled “How to Make Money WRITING Online.” The nice thing is that it’s actually a pretty honest and accurate assessment of making online writing your career; it’s not a “set up a single page loaded with keywords and watch the money tumble into your Adsense account” deal like many of the articles I come across – ’cause I think for the most part, those are bogus. This is not. Check it out!

Have you come across the “5 computers” error in iTunes? You know the one – it tells you that you have already authorized five computers and can no authorize new machines to play your iTunes-purchased songs and videos? If you’re like me, you’ve probably got a few “authorized” machines that died long ago, or maybe you forgot to deauthorize your work computer before you left your last job. How are you supposed to clear them now?

Well, it turns out that you CAN deauthorize your computers within iTunes without going to each computer that’s authorized to play your songs. The catch? 1) You can only do it once a year, and only if all five slots are already filled, and 2) doing it will deauthorize all five computers. If that’s fine with you, then here’s how to do it – it’s super-easy.

1) Log into the iTunes store in the iTunes application.
2) Click on your email address in the top right corner to bring you to your account page.
3) Enter your password when prompted.
4) You’ll be taken to your account page. In the top box, the last option in that section is “Computer Authorizations.” If all five computers are authorized, you will see a button labeled, “Deauthorize All.” Click it, and you’re all set. Just remember that you’ll have to reauthorize the computers you do want to use with the files.

That’s all!

I published this article over at Hubpages, and thought you might like to read it. I’ve included the text for archive posterity.

Five Myths About Same-Sex Marriage

Over the past several weeks I have seen a huge number of articles spring up in protest of last month’s CA Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriages. I want to address some of the arguments and claims that I’ve seen in those articles.

Myth #1: Four liberal activist judges overruled the will of the people.

What You Should Know: The California Supreme Court, a conservative court, struggled with the issue, looked to the CA Constitution, and concluded that equality means equality for ALL – and that includes those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

Many have argued that legislatures, not judges, should be responsible for making marriage law. The CA legislature has twice passed the Religious Freedom and Marriage Equality Act, which equalized civil marriage rights among couples but explicitly stated that no religious institution shall be compelled to preside over a same-sex marriage. The bill was passed by two different assemblies of the legislature, since one passage was prior to a major election and once occurred after. The bill was twice vetoed by the Governor specifically because he believed it WAS an issue for the courts, not for the legislature.

Of the seven CA Supreme Court Justices, six were appointed by Republicans. The CA Supreme Court is traditionally known for being fairly conservative. If you think “CA” and think “liberal judges,” you might be mistaking the CA Supreme Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit. They are two very different courts. Incidentally, one of the dissenters is personally in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. Judges can and do go against their own personally-held beliefs in favor of upholding the CA Constitution.

The Supreme Court decision did not create a “new right” – rather, it acknowledged prior decisions stating that every person has a right to choose his or her life partner, and determined that this right cannot be abridged based solely on sexual orientation, which the Court views as akin to race and religion as far as discrimination practices are concerned. The judges did not come to their decision easily; they struggled with it, and that struggle is documented in the extremely lengthy opinion released last month (most court decisions are NOT this long – the Massachusetts marriage decision was less than a third of this length). If you think all it took was a stroke of a pen, I challenge you to read the 172-page opinion. I did.

Myth #2: The people of CA already spoke on the issue of gay marriage by passing Proposition 22

What You Should Know: Only 29% of registered California voters (21.5% of eligible voters) voted in favor of Prop 22. Is that an overwhelming majority?

While Proposition 22 was a statewide ballot initiative, it was not an accurate reflection of all of CA, for two major reasons:

First, contrary to popular belief, Prop 22 was not approved by an overwhelming majority of CA voters. Prop 22 was passed by an overwhelming majority of the voters who came out in March of 2000 to pick between John McCain and George Bush, since there was no true competition in the Democratic race, with Vice President Al Gore being the assumed winner. True, more Democrats than Republicans voted in the election, but if you count by who they voted for instead of their party identification, you get 2,654,114 voting Democratic and 3,702,487 voting Republican. In a consistently blue state, these statistics are not representative of the true population (about 30 million people). Overall, the election had a pretty low turnout rate. That primary election had around 7 million voters out of about 15 million registered voters. This past February primary (2008) had about the same number of registered voters, but more than 9 million actually turned out – and THAT was with closed primaries, which we didn’t have before, and no real contest in the Republican race.

In a state of more than 30 million people, only 4,618,673 voted in favor of Prop 22, and 2,909,370 voted against it. With only about a third of eligible voters, and barely half of registered voters, having voted on Prop 22 (that’s overall, not just in favor), it’s hard to use the word “overwhelming” to describe the outcome. Basically, 29% of registered voters (21.5% of eligible voters) voted in favor of Prop 22 – and that was eight years ago. The world has changed since then. People have changed since then. I know a LOT of people who voted for Prop 22 and are, in retrospect, utterly ashamed of themselves for it.

Second, Proposition 22, while appearing simple, was actually quite misleading. It came as a response to DOMA, which allowed states to refuse to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, and the entire campaign was centered around the notion that CA should not be forced to recognize other states’ marriages. The argument was framed in such a way that many people who had no particular opinion on same-sex marriage voted for Prop 22 because they believed CA should be allowed to make the decision for itself and not be forced into it by another state. While this same Supreme Court ruling ultimately determined that Prop 22 did apply to all marriages and not just those performed out of state, the “yes” campaign intimated otherwise, and countless voters were duped in the process.

Even if Proposition 22 HAD passed with the approval of most Californians (which it didn’t), the CA Supreme Court had the responsibility to ensure that it complied with the CA Constitution (which it didn’t). The Court here didn’t ignore Proposition 22; it attacked it head on and found it to violate the spirit of the California Constitution. Courts have declared other initiatives unconstitutional as well, and in the 1960’s the US Supreme Court even invalidated a voter-approved CA constitutional amendment which sought to overturn a recently-passed legislative act banning housing discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, physical handicap, or familial status. Propositions don’t just glide into law just because the voters approved them. They still have to meet the rigorous standards of our great state and federal constitutions, and Proposition 22 violated what both the CA and US Supreme Courts have called a basic human right, the right to marry and create a family with your chosen spouse.

Myth #3: Marriage is a sacrament and has always been between one man and one woman.

What You Should Know: Read Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, by Stephanie Coontz. You’ll learn things you didn’t even know you didn’t know.

I could go on for pages about the ways in which marriage has changed over the years. One man can no longer have eight wives. Women are no longer subsumed by their husband’s identity and viewed as property. Couples are no longer barred from marriage based on their racial makeup. Most importantly, however, couples do not have to have their marriage blessed or sanctified by a religious institution, and they do not have to be married by a member of the clergy. This is the key to the constitutionality argument for same-sex marriage. The court cannot, and must not, and WILL not force religious institutions to officiate marriage for same-gender couples. Religions have the right to dictate their requirements for marriage, and the government may not interfere.

However, the state does not “recognize” religious institutions’ marriages; it creates the official status itself, and it officiates marriages outside the religious sphere. We call this civil marriage. It is an entirely different institution from religious marriage; it just happens that the state grants clergymen the status to officiate civil marriages at the same time as religious ones, for convenience’s purpose, so that a couple can be married in a single ceremony. A couple that goes to church and exchanges vows before witnesses is NOT married unless they fill out the necessary paperwork for a civil marriage. Likewise, a couple can obtain a civil marriage license and be married by a judge, a marriage deputy, or other civil servants acting as agents for the state, and never even interact with a religious institution.

Religious institutions can discriminate against certain couples; for example, most rabbis will not officiate at a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew, because Jewish law only recognizes as valid a marriage between two Jews. However, the STATE cannot discriminate in the same way and purport to be upholding the Constitution, state OR federal. If the STATE offers civil marriage, it must allow it to all adult couples, not just those who fit religious descriptions of propriety. After all, can you imagine the chaos if the state refused to issue a marriage license to a couple because one of them was Jewish and one was not? It is not the state’s business to uphold or enforce religious restrictions on marriage. (In fact, considering the VAST number of religious institutions and clergy who submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in support of same-gender marriage, I would argue that the state would have been in violation of the Establishment Clause had it NOT allowed the marriages to take place, since barring same-gender couples would have been equivalent to expressing a preference for some religions over others, at the expense of individual civil rights.)

If you want Biblical proof that it hasn’t always been about men and women, read I Samuel, not just the lines I have provided below, but the entire story – and read a translation that is as close to the original Hebrew as possible, as modern versions have diluted the story, often explicitly changing words entirely to tone down the relationship. Think about what it means to make a “covenant.” In nearly every other case in the Bible, the word “covenant” refers to the relationship between God and people, or to people promising to serve God. A covenant is an eternal promise – why else would some states institute “covenant marriages,” which are not as easy to dissolve?

1 Samuel 18

1. And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

3. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

1 Samuel 23

18. And they two made a covenant before the LORD: and David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house.

Myth #4: Allowing same-sex marriage will lead to legalization of incest, pedophilia, and polygamy! Next thing you know, people will be marrying their dogs!

What You Need To Know: It’s far too late for that.

Let’s get this one over with: A dog is not and will never be a consenting adult. Nor will a goat. In addition to being morally and utterly repugnant, sex with animals is always rape, because an animal cannot consent. Likewise, a paw print does not suffice as a signature on a marriage license – and no matter how sure you are that your dog is trying to tell you something, absent a licensed dog-to-human translator, “Arf arf” cannot be properly construed to mean “I do.” Get your mind out of the gutter and stick to the issue at hand.

Incest is already legal in the 26 states where individuals can marry their first cousins. Cousins are the next degree of siblings; they are the children of your parents’ siblings. The great irony of today’s marriage laws is that I can marry my black cousin, the son of my aunt, but I can’t marry my wife. Or rather… I couldn’t. Now I can.

Pedophilia is already legal in the 1/3 of states that allow children under age 16 to marry, with some allowing marriage as early as age 13 with permission from the court. I’d be willing to bet that in most cases the men marrying adolescent girls are not also in their teens. If you want to protect children, you can start by lobbying states to prohibit children from getting married before they are old enough to see R-rated movies.

Polygamy is a separate issue because it doesn’t involve marital prohibition so much as it involves individuals trying to “double-dip” on the marital property and tax systems, among other things. A marriage is a union of two individuals into one economic unit. You can’t “become one” with one person if you’re already “one” with another person. There’s an argument to be made for allowing “threesomes” of people to marry, but I highly doubt anybody would take the economic risk, considering that one individual could wind up paying alimony to everybody else in the group if s/he decided to leave. I think the specter of alimony would be enough to prevent anybody from seriously raising this concern – not to mention that it’s an extremely rare arrangement in the first place.

Myth #5: Gay couples don’t need marriage in order to get their legal matters in order. Calling it “marriage” does nothing but devalue the sanctity of marriage.

What You Need To Know: Allowing committed couples to marry encourages and promotes monogamy and family responsibility, two crucial family values. As a result, federal and state governments have instituted a system of rights and responsibilities that have become necessary and irreplaceable for two people sharing their lives together. These rights are not replicable in private legal arrangements since most of them have to do with third-party or government recognition.

First, I have to point out that same-gender couples can’t possibly do more harm to the institution of marriage than that already inflicted by the heterosexuals who have held a monopoly on it for so long. (Hello Britney; hello “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?”) With more than half of all marriages ending in divorce, marriage needs all the good role models it can get. Many of the couples that are getting married in California this week have been together longer than most heterosexual marriages ever last. In fact, some social scientists believe that studying the way same-sex couples communicate and deal with conflict may actually help decrease the divorce rate among heterosexual couples by helping them overcome conflict.

Whether you like it or not, same-sex couples will have children. Children fare better in life when their parents are married. Why would you deny these children the right to be raised by married parents? Studies show that there is no substantial difference between children raised by gay parents and those raised by straight parents. They do, however, show that two parents are better than one. Marriage encourages two-parent childrearing, and provides economic safety-nets for situations where one parent abandons the family. Without marriage, the protections are substantially reduced. Marriage also encourages personal responsibility and shifts economic support responsibilities from the government to the individual and the private sector; with gay marriage legalized, many people will no longer have a need for state-provided benefits because they will be eligible for benefits through their spouse.

Children tend to thrive when they have one parent at home and one parent working to support the family; in an ideal world, families could afford to live on the salary of only one working parent (this is becoming less common as the cost of living skyrockets). Federal marriage recognition encourages parents to stay home with their children; spouses are entitled to their deceased spouses’ Social Security benefits if their own are insufficient. Gay couples do not receive this benefit, effectively removing this incentive to keep one parent at home. Additionally, federal marriage recognition keeps families from being uprooted in case of the death of a spouse; the property passes from one spouse to the other without tax repercussions, which means that in the tragic event of one spouse’s death, the other spouse and their children will not be forced to sell their home to pay estate taxes. Gay partners are taxed on bequests as though they were granted by any acquaintance; a partner of 55 years could be forced to sell her home to pay the taxes on property inherited from the deceased partner. Finally, the federal tax system actually penalizes gay couples who choose to have one partner remain at home to care for the children; the wage-earning partner is taxed on her income as a single person even though her salary is supporting both partners and their children. Stay-at-home moms should relate to this – imagine if your husband had to pay taxes as a single person!

I could go on forever, but I think it’s time to wrap up this article. However, I am happy to answer any questions you might have. As for me, my wife and I got married this past Tuesday, on the one-year anniversary of our religious wedding. We were already married in the eyes of God – it was time for the state to catch up.

Today on CNN Political Ticker: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson told CNN that drilling is not the answer, explaining, “You can’t drill your way out of the problem.” He criticized Bush and McCain for emphasizing offshore drilling as the best solution to the energy crisis, adding, “What is needed is a comprehensive strategy of fuel efficiency, 50 miles-per-gallon vehicles… mass transit. What is needed is investments in renewable energy and solar and wind.”

Before comments were closed for the news entry, four people managed to insert their brilliant contributions:

Ron, NY June 22nd, 2008 5:07 pm ET
Now Bill Richardson is an energy expert -he says we can’t drill our way out of the oil problem – gee that makes sense -so let’s not drill our way out of the oil problem.

Walt, Belton,TX June 22nd, 2008 5:10 pm ET
McCain’s plan must have some real merit if the ultra liberal Hindsight Bowery Boys think the idea stinks!

Bill, Miami June 22nd, 2008 5:10 pm ET
All of a sudden Bill Richardson has the answer to our energy problem isn’t that politically convenient? where was he when we needed the answers 10-20 years ago????? Where were they all 10-20 years ago???? Funny how they all become experts in an election year.

Former Clinton Supporter June 22nd, 2008 6:40 pm ET
We must allow new drilling as well as increase fuel efficiency for new cars and increase use of public transportation. Only doing one thing will not help much.

Hey geniuses: Where was Bill Richardson ten years ago? He was UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF ENERGY, you nitwits!

Richardson is not “suddenly” an energy expert; his focus has been energy all along, and he has the credentials, achievements, and plans to prove it. At least do your damned research before you start tossing around insults and accuse people of being amateurs who are posturing in an election year.

[edit: comments were finally reinstated and maybe one or two people got around to noting Richardson’s qualifications… for the most part, people seemed to ignore it.]

Use this link to get your ING Direct Orange Savings account now!

I would like, once again, to extoll the virtues of ING Direct, my FAVORITE BANK EVER. And that’s saying a LOT!

My favorite ING Direct services:

Orange Savings: Get 4.5% APY with NO minimum! This account is KILLER, and simply cannot be matched anywhere else! If you use this with your Electric Orange checking account, the transfers are immediate; you don’t even have to wait a few days.

Electric Orange Checking: FANTASTIC, WONDERFUL electronic checking account. You can get paper checks if you need them, on a check by check basis, but most transactions are completed entirely online, which is how many of us already do our banking. Better still, you get about 4% interest on it, and overdraft fees are charged more like finance charges on credit cards, so you don’t get an obscenely high bank fee for a $3 overdraft! This has got to be my FAVORITE feature.

Orange CDs: High interest CDs ranging from a few months to a few years, with no minimum balance. You can get a rate over 5%!

In general, ING has some of the highest interest rates around, especially those Orange savings accounts with no minimum balance. Right now it’s at about 4.5%, but it goes up fairly frequently.

Use this link to get your ING Direct Orange Savings account now!