this is pretty awesome. :D

What You Need to Know to Enjoy This ’30 Rock’ Alignment Chart

4:30 pm Wednesday May 4, 2011 by Caroline Stanley

For those of you unfamiliar with Dungeons and Dragons, here’s an extremely simplified version of what you need to know to enjoy and/or debate the merits of this 30 Rock alignment chart. All characters are one of nine alignments, different combinations of lawful vs. chaotic and good vs. evil. According to third edition D&D rules, being lawful is linked to “honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability” while chaotic characters embrace “freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.” Good characters exhibit “altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.” Evil characters, on the other hand, are more prone to “harming, oppressing, and killing others.” So what do you think: Did they get it right? [via I Love Charts]

Hmm. As I was just saying recently, imagine if we as a country defined national security as the health, well-being, education and gainful employment of our citizens, and not as the ability to deliver bombs on targets.

I'm not surprised that someone else came to the same obvious conclusion -- only that it's two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying so:

On Friday, April 8, as members of the U.S. Congress engaged in a last-minute game of chicken over the federal budget, the Pentagon quietly issued a report that received little initial attention: "A National Strategic Narrative." The report was issued under the pseudonym of "Mr. Y," a takeoff on George Kennan's 1946 "Long Telegram" from Moscow (published under the name "X" the following year in Foreign Affairs) that helped set containment as the cornerstone of U.S. strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union.

The piece was written by two senior members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CAPT Wayne Porter, USN and Col Mark "Puck" Mykleby) in a "personal" capacity, but it is clear that it would not have seen the light of day without a measure of official approval. Its findings are revelatory, and they deserve to be read and appreciated not only by every lawmaker in Congress, but by every American citizen.

The narrative argues that the United States is fundamentally getting it wrong when it comes to setting its priorities, particularly with regard to the budget and how Americans as a nation use their resources more broadly. The report says Americans are overreacting to Islamic extremism, underinvesting in their youth, and failing to embrace the sense of competition and opportunity that made America a world power. The United States has been increasingly consumed by seeing the world through the lens of threat, while failing to understand that influence, competitiveness, and innovation are the key to advancing American interests in the modern world.

Courageously, the authors make the case that America continues to rely far too heavily on its military as the primary tool for how it engages the world. Instead of simply pumping more and more dollars into defense, the narrative argues:

By investing energy, talent, and dollars now in the education and training of young Americans -- the scientists, statesmen, industrialists, farmers, inventors, educators, clergy, artists, service members, and parents, of tomorrow -- we are truly investing in our ability to successfully compete in, and influence, the strategic environment of the future. Our first investment priority, then, is intellectual capital and a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services to provide for the continuing development and growth of America's youth.

Please don't forget about our donation drive.

How debates are framed is critical because the “center” or “middle ground” is supposedly halfway between the two extremes.

We continue to hear that the Great Budget Debate has two sides: The President and the Democrats want to cut the budget deficit mainly by increasing taxes on the rich and reducing military spending, but not by privatizing Medicare. On the other side are Paul Ryan, Republicans, and the right, who want cut the deficit by privatizing Medicare and slicing programs that benefit poorer Americans, while lowering taxes on the rich.

By this logic, the center lies just between.

Baloney.

According to the most recent Washington Post-ABC poll, 78 percent of Americans oppose cutting spending on Medicare as a way to reduce the debt, and 72 percent support raising taxes on the rich – including 68 percent of Independents and 54 percent of Republicans.

In other words, the center of America isn’t near halfway between the two sides. It’s overwhelmingly on the side of the President and the Democrats.

I’d wager if Americans also knew two-thirds of Ryan’s budget cuts come from programs serving lower and moderate-income Americans and over 70 percent of the savings fund tax cuts for the rich – meaning it’s really just a giant transfer from the less advantaged to the super advantaged without much deficit reduction at all – far more would be against it.

And if people knew that the Ryan plan would channel hundreds of billions of their Medicare dollars into the pockets of private for-profit heath insurers, almost everyone would be against it.

The Republican plan shouldn’t be considered one side of a great debate. It shouldn’t be considered at all. Americans don’t want it.

Which is why I get worried when I hear about so-called “bipartisan” groups on Capitol Hill seeking a grand compromise, such as the Senate’s so-called “Gang of Six.”

Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, a member of that Gang, says they’re near agreement on a plan that will chart a “middle ground” between the House Republican budget and the plan outlined last week by the President.

Watch your wallets.

In my view, even the President doesn’t go nearly far enough in the direction most Americans would approve. All he wants to do, essentially, is end the Bush tax windfalls for the wealthy – which were designed to be ended in 2010 in any event – and close a few loopholes.

But why shouldn’t we go back to the tax rates we had thirty years ago, which required the rich to pay much higher shares of their incomes? One of the great scandals of our age is how concentrated income and wealth have become. The top 1 percent now gets twice the share of national income it took home thirty years ago.

If the super rich paid taxes at the same rates they did three decades ago, they’d contribute $350 billion more per year than they are now – amounting to trillions more over the next decade. That’s enough to ensure every young American is healthy and well-educated and that the nation’s infrastructure is up to world-class standards.

Nor does the President’s proposal go nearly far enough in cutting military spending, which is not only out of control but completely unrelated to our nation’s defense needs – fancy weapons systems designed for an age of conventional warfare; hundreds of billions of dollars for the Navy and Air Force, when most of the action is with the Army, Marines, and Special Forces; and billions more for programs no one can justify and few can understand.

If Americans understood how much they’re paying for defense and how little they’re getting, they’d demand a defense budget at least 25 percent smaller than it is today.

Finally, the President’s proposed budget doesn’t deal with the scandal of the nation’s schools in poor and middle-class communities – schools whose teachers are paid under $50,000 a year, whose classrooms are crammed, that can’t afford textbooks or science labs, that have abandoned after-school programs and courses like history and art. Most school budgets depend mainly on local property taxes that continue to drop in lower-income communities. The federal government should come to their rescue.

To think of the “center” as roughly halfway between the President’s and Paul Ryan’s proposals is to ignore what Americans need and want. For our political representatives to find a ”middle ground” between the two would be a travesty.

A few weeks ago, Mad Men fans had to face the news that we wouldn't be able to watch our story until 2012, if ever. Assuming you've already devoured season four of Mad Men on DVD, where can you turn for your fix of flawed people in flawless outfits? To the movies of the Mad Men era, naturally. These six pictures, all made between 1957 and 1965, all wrap complex characters, sharp dialogue, and engaging stories in the stunning visual style of the age...

Illustration: Jonathon Rosen

How our brains fool us on climate, creationism, and the vaccine-autism link.

by Tim on January 13, 2011

Updated As of April 19, 2011!

Ever wonder if you’re going to get ripped off when you use your credit card overseas? The only information available out there (until now) is what the banks claim they will charge you in terms of “foreign transaction fees”. However, if you’re a cynic like me, you may wonder if they charge you hidden fees and unfair exchange rates.

But first, here’s a selection of credit cards that charge no foreign transaction fees at all:

Credit Cards With No Foreign Transaction Fee

• American Express Platinum and Centurion (will take effect in the first quarter of 2011)
• Citi ThankYou Premier and Citi ThankYou Prestige (as of December, 2010)
• Chase British Airways Card (as of November 2010)
• Chase Priority Club Rewards Signature (as of July 2010)
• Chase Hyatt Card
• Continental Presidential Plus from Chase
• United Mileage Plus Club Visa from Chase (this is the $375 annual fee version, the cheaper versions are still 3%)
• Chase Sapphire Preferred
• Marriott Rewards Premiere from Chase (as of March 2011)
• Pentagon Federal Promise (currently offering 4.99% balance transfers for life) AND PenFed Premium Travel American Express (5x points on airfare & VIP lounge access when you spend $15k+ at 600 lounges worldwide)
• Capital One, including the very excellent 2x Miles Card, Venture Rewards
• Harvard World MasterCard
• HSBC Premier (you have to have something on the order of $100,000 deposited with them to qualify)
• Schwab’s Invest First Visa (one of the best credit card deals of all time, but no longer available)
• Most credit unions offer up no fees other than the 1% Visa charges them. Some even have “no foreign transaction fee”, including
  • Northop Grumman Federal Credit Union (anyone can join by making a contribution to the Southern California Historical Aircraft Foundation)
  • Vystar Credit Union (must live in FL)
  • ESL Federal Credit Union (must live in upstate NY)
  • Texas Dow Employees Credit Union (TDECU) – anyone in the metro Houston area can join
  • Addison Avenue Federal Credit Union (anyone can join by donating $5 to the Financial Fitness Association)
  • Truliant Federal Credit Union (membership open to many regions of VA, SC, and near Greeneville, SC)
  • Associated Credit Union (membership is open to everyone)
  • Kirtland Federal Credit Union (membership is tough here, you have to be affiliated with the military in Arizona, either on Kirtland AFB, Reserves, or NM National Guard)
  • Aerospace Credit Union (you have to work for Aerospace Corporation, or on Los Angeles AFB)
  • CoastHills Federal Credit Union (for residents of San Luis Obispo and northern Santa Barbara counties in CA)
  • Stanford Federal Credit Union (Anyone can join by donating $15-20 to one of two organizations)
  • Pacific Oaks Federal Credit Union (Open to residents of Ventura County, California)
  • Burbank Community Federal Credit Union (Open to residents of the City of Burbank, California)
  • Elga Credit Union (Open to residents of the Michigan Counties of Genesee, Saginaw, Lapeer, Shiawassee, Oakland, or Livingston.)

In case you're looking for a good card for international travel.