Boing Boing Charitable Giving Guide, 2011 edition – Boing Boing
Boing Boing Charitable Giving Guide, 2011 edition – Boing Boing.
A good list of charities to consider. Some of them I already support and there are a few new ones of interest to look into.
PayPal?
Why @PayPal is wrong regarding @Regretsy, according to their own policies. « greengeekgirl.
After reading the story of the Regretsy nightmare with PayPal, I would like to find some alternative to PayPal to handle my on-line micro-finance needs. I am especially alarmed at the idea that PayPal can freeze my account for 6 months on the whim of an employee. If I ever decide to put a “Donate” button on my web page, it won’t be with PayPal.
Versatile Tool
Search the page for “Versatile tool of questionable quality” for an excellent review.
via Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Black & Decker GR100 Family-Sized Electric Nonstick Griddle.
Give ’em a fair trial
We really do need to give the banks and the bankers ( and their aiders and abettors) a fair trial. Except they seem to be fighting it tooth and nail all the way.
Brinacles
This Creeping Underwater Ice Tornado Kills Everything It Touches.
I agree with one of the comments that this really is not a tornado. Impressive nonetheless. I was not familiar with this phenomenon.
Wow
LG Optimus Hyper Facade in Berlin – Long Version – YouTube.
One of the advantages of living in the big city…
Too good to be true…
EXCLUSIVE: photos of BofA’s new #OWS-themed ad campaign – Boing Boing.
I especially like the “Building a better America, 1% at a time.”
Searching
I have gotten tired of all the nonsense hits I am getting on Google, so I am trying out another search engine -blekko. I made it my default Firefox search engine.
It seems on Google that if you inquire about a subject then you must want to be buying it. No, if I ask about “bookbinding” I want to learn about “bookbinding” not buy “bookbinding”equipment or books.
American Pie
I started thinking about this after hearing PJ O’Rourke on Marketplace. This was an essay answering the question about “If the 1% had less, would the 99% be better off?”
We have a pie that represents the wealth of America. The “1%” controls about 38% of that wealth (2011). The “20%” (that includes the 1%) controls 88% of the nation’s wealth.
If we use a net worth of $56T (2011) then 38% = $21.3T and 88% = $49.3T.
Wealth is not zero-sum. In 2007 American wealth was over $65T and the control percentages were 1-2 percentage points lower. So while the overall net worth dropped 16% the top “20%” lost only -3% of their share of the pie (going from 85% to 88%). I wonder where the rest of the loss came from?
Wealth is not zero-sum. But the pie is. It sums up to 100% whether the net worth is worth $65T or $56T. If the top “1%” keeps a lock on $20T and the net worth figures keep falling, their percentage of the pie keeps going up. and the “99%” keeps getting squeezed as their percentage goes down.
It isn’t a matter of declaring wealth is evil or that reward for success is bad. It is a matter of saying that using wealth to promote a playing field that favors your increasing your wealth is bad. Buying the influence to set the field in your favor is bad. Gaming the system with a disregard for intent is bad. (Fraud is fraud, unless you can do enough semantic acrobatics to rob everyone blind, legally.
I don’t disparage the 20% their wealth. No matter how you cut the pie, there will always be a 20%. But 88% of the wealth seems a bit much for 20% of the population.