Not really, no.

It simply reveals that there is a hidden cost to wireless charging that most people are unaware of.

It would be interesting to see how much EU university (hidden)costs have risen in the last 10-20 years and see if they compare at all to the US experience.

"What if I told you that tickling them was like torture?"

Then I'd say: "please explain why this is and how you worked it out so I can contribute meaningfully to the issue."

Genuinely had to check after watching that this wasn't a hoax/satire. I'm not sure it could have come across as much more patronising and manipulative if they had tried.

Really reminded me of G.E.F.A.F.W.I.S.P. thing from brasseye in it's style and presentation. (Poe's law etc.)

Not that I disagree with the underlying point being made (most exotic pets have massive hidden costs to the animals well being), but I think they made it very poorly indeed.

If tickling is indeed torturous to them, then maybe make the flagship advert for your campaign do more than glibly announce "they don't like it!" whilst showing a video of what, to uneducated human sensibilities, appears to be joy/pleasure.

I'm not suggesting they are wrong, but even their website provides no materials or evidence to back up what they are saying. With a term as emotive and loaded as "torture", that comes across as rather disingenuous and makes me naturally somewhat suspicious as to their motives.

i.e. that they are likely ideologically opposed to most/all animal trafficking already and will happily muddy the facts & manipulate emotions if it furthers their higher purposes.

^ I don't want the above to come across as support for the Slow Loris pet trade, their unsuitability to domestic life and the need for pretty specialised knowledge to keep them healthy is reason enough (same as the vast majority of exotics). Chris Packham is one of the supporters and I have a great deal of respect for the guy's knowlage on such subjects.

But this, if anything, makes that advert seem all the more distasteful. YOU HAD EXPERTS! Persuade me better!

I also don't want to come across as suggesting that tickling definitely isn't deeply unpleasant for them for whatever reasons, but a cursory google and inspection of their own campaign site yielded nothing of any substance on the subject either way. (maybe my search-fu was lacking today?)

Again, I'm willing to accept the premise. If it will stand on it's own merits then I would like to understand. I will even advocate for the movement myself! But I'm not going to endorse anything I either can't or don't yet properly understand myself.

For every level headed campaigner with a basic sense of discernment and empathy for other creatures, there seems to be a mob of authoritarian ideologues eager to beat us around the head until we see things exactly their way and deny and semblance of nuance (i.e. PETA).

Fucking ridiculous video hiding a somewhat significant point.

The human race can't break up with fossil fuels...

All the wonderful renewable tech we're banking on just isn't capable of supplying enough energy to support our modern post developmental lifestyle. Sure, solar thermal, PV etc are interesting, but unless you have some developing country (aka China atm, but might be India in the future) absorbing the carbon cost of building the panels and tech, the sums don't work out for people personally, and the return on energy invested doesn't work out for the planet.

If you've seen the current state of the Chinese air quality or general environment, you'll understand that for every clean tech device we set up in the west, there is a terrible hidden cost being dumped somewhere else in the world. Except "global warming" is global, so sweeping this shit under a foreign rug isn't going to save us..

With 1.8bn ppl with zero power and another 700+m with intermittent, unreliable power, and a bunch of countries switching off their nukes (and replacing the load mostly with gas/coal), no matter how much we want to break up with the lousy bitch, we can't and won't...

Okay, I will upvote but I am curious--where the hell are these hidden costs? Just because a sniper shoots you in face it doesn't mean he was hidden.

*I open door, shot in face by sniper two feet away*

The hidden secret of water? Yeah, you can get sick by drinking water with viruses or water that has been contaminated with toxins--but did you know you could also drown?! It's true!!!

Sorry, I could go on and on but I will stop. (And we cannot say the percentages are "secret" because, well, just because you don't know something doesn't mean it's "hidden")

You have to look at how much individuals pay for healthcare, all hidden costs included, proportional to the amount of money they earn and get to keep.

The US government pays a lot for healthcare. When you work for a major university (as I have you), you became acquainted with how much funding their university hospital gets for research from the government. And in countries like Canada, where you can't even find a doctor and have to wait months to see one, of course the spending will be less as they have fewer medical providers and fewer variety of services. But your point is well taken. The US government does spend more "tax" dollars per capita than many of these other socialist healthcare utopias.

I agree with this from the article you posted:

"So what’s the moral of the story? Simple, notwithstanding the shallow rhetoric that dominates much of the debate, the United States does not have anything close to a free-market healthcare system."

Because we have just a partially socialized system, we have only a partial healthcare clusterfuck. But it can get much worse. Ask my colleague why he came to the US for cancer treatment (like Canadian politicians and the rich do) and didn't stay in Canada.

The US government has more money than other governments, so it can spend more. But I was referring to how much individuals pay, not how much a government pays. So, I'm not entirely sure I understand your question fully since I don't equate "Americans" to the US government. Not one and the same.

And look at what's included under "healthcare" costs. Is paying the overpaid humongous US "healthcare" bureaucracy a "healthcare" cost? What about Congressional medical insurance? Or military hospitals?
It's really hard to know, given the lack of economic calculation involved in government spending.

But you can see both sides use the same "US spends more per capita" to come to opposite conclusions. One says, it spends more but because it is not more socialist, it sucks more (not true, though). The other says, it spends more, so it means it is too socialist compared to other countries.

See if you can find data on where exactly the money is spent and the breakdown, more specifically than "healthcare."

@bareboards2 you make a good point, the villification of labor is very bad, I would also add that it's as bad as the villification of profit.

What really should be villified is government stepping in to solve issues with laws.

In a truly free market, unions, cartels, consumer groups, certification services (and many other kinds of associations and corporations I couldn't even begin to imagine) would each fight freely for their own special interests, as long as they didn't recourse to laws and force, which often lead to more problems and injustice. That's the real issue here.

There's a difference between being against unions, and being against unions that use government to get their way with one-sided laws, because the latter is what locks down the labor market imposing all kinds of hidden costs on society.

Liberals and socialists are always blind to the hidden costs and longer term consequences of their well intended actions.

Then poverty, waste, and recession ensues and they're unable to connect the dots. It doesn't register in their reality as anything other than a convenient failure of capitalism and the free market.

I also want healthcare to be accessible. The best way you can make something accessible is by reducing its costs and nurturing an environment of competition, not by forcing everyone to subsidize a single provider, the government, to hand it out for "free". That will only raise costs for the service, and even though some poor might benefit temporarily, the cost to society will be greater, and those costs will come back to hurt the very poor this bill intends to help.

This healthcare bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruling is a joke, and it gives government more power to carry out social injustice.

It costs money to do a credit/debit card transaction. In most cases, this charge is eaten by the merchant. The cost of doing the service have not decreased. In fact, they are going up. The bank has to have systems in place to receive the transaction, record it, log it, verify it, and process it. That takes computers, databases, and networks - all of which have to work quickly and with very few mistakes. That doesn't come cheap. Not to meantion all the audits they constantly undergo as a matter of federal law.

Some brag about credit unions. No offense - but that's like comparing apples to t-bone steak. Credit unions and banks are treated very differently. CUs don't get hit with a fraction of the regulations, taxes, fees, and audits that even small banks do. That's why a CU can afford to run at lower profit margins. It isn't that the credit union is 'nicer'. Banks are treated like a pro baseball team. Credit unions are treated like a 3-year old T-ball team.

Why the change all of a sudden? Well, you can thank (as usual) your Federal government. Obama is putting a cap on how much banks can charge merchants for transactions. I think Obama's "theory" (as usual based on the assumption banks are evil) is that merchants will no longer have to 'pass on' this hidden cost to consumers. As usual, he assumes the banks will just shrug and start coughing up billions of dollars to do transactions for free. He's an idiot.

Banks will charge consumers directly for transaction fees now - or (as BoA is doing) they will charge a yearly fee for the priveledge of a debit card. Congratulations - you've discovered The Law of Unintended Consequences! You can't legislate morality. People will or won't do the right thing on their own. Likewise, you can't legislate 'fairness'. If you think a business is unfair, then don't go there. That is how you punish a business. Relying on legislation just creates an environment of 'whack-a-mole' uncertainty.

A simple rule: If it's a spending bill or amendment to a spending bill, and it includes spending for your state but not for at least 10 other states, you can't vote on it.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Problem is, how do the senate itself determine if something is or isn't something you get to vote on? Seems crappy and arbitrary in cases like the fence and immigration, as the fence could and can be considered spending for immigration related issues, which are a federal context. Imagine a bunch of kids in a playground saying who gets to vote and who doesn't in any given situation, chaos! Like I said, I smell what your stepping in, I like it. But I think it would break more things than it would fix. The fix is to stop people voting for crap that enriches only their state, the hidden costs are not getting to vote on things at all when you should be able to...to much of a risk imo. Perhaps it could work, though, I just think there are better ways than voter suppression for pork.

>> ^jwray:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
What about regional issues? Would Texas, and other boarder states be unable to vote on legislation about immigration, and thusly be left to non-involved parties to decide its fate? I totally agree with the mindset of pork barrel being bad. I just think attacking the problem with denying representation is the wrong course. They had something like this back in Greece. When deciding issues of war, people who lived near the walls would not get a vote. The reasoning is they had a vested interest in not going to war, but who doesn't have a vested interest in any piece of legislation?
I have had this same thought experiment, though, from a different context. I definitely see value is the idea that voting isn't a natural right, and thusly, can be subverted in certain situations. But, to subvert it because it is an issue that directly effects you goes against the idea of having a government that is a representation of your ideals, seemingly.
>> ^jwray:
Federal funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is not pork barrel for a particular locale, so they would be free to vote on that. ACOE is responsible for building levies. Also, they should get it done at the state or local level.

Immigration law isn't pork barrel spending. A giant 500 billion dollar wall on the Mexican border built by companies who made campaign contributions to the senators from Texas definitely would be pork barrel spending.
The federal government exists to serve the interests of the whole nation, not the interests of particular states. If a spending bill that's targeted in a particular location actually serves the whole national interest, then senators from other areas will vote for it. If it doesn't, then it should be a state/local government issue or a cooperative venture between the few state/local governments that have an interest in it.

Problem is, how do the senate itself determine if something is or isn't something you get to vote on? Seems crappy and arbitrary in cases like the fence and immigration, as the fence could and can be considered spending for immigration related issues, which are a federal context. Imagine a bunch of kids in a playground saying who gets to vote and who doesn't in any given situation, chaos! Like I said, I smell what your stepping in, I like it. But I think it would break more things than it would fix. The fix is to stop people voting for crap that enriches only their state, the hidden costs are not getting to vote on things at all when you should be able to...to much of a risk imo. Perhaps it could work, though, I just think there are better ways than voter suppression for pork.


>> ^jwray:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
What about regional issues? Would Texas, and other boarder states be unable to vote on legislation about immigration, and thusly be left to non-involved parties to decide its fate? I totally agree with the mindset of pork barrel being bad. I just think attacking the problem with denying representation is the wrong course. They had something like this back in Greece. When deciding issues of war, people who lived near the walls would not get a vote. The reasoning is they had a vested interest in not going to war, but who doesn't have a vested interest in any piece of legislation?
I have had this same thought experiment, though, from a different context. I definitely see value is the idea that voting isn't a natural right, and thusly, can be subverted in certain situations. But, to subvert it because it is an issue that directly effects you goes against the idea of having a government that is a representation of your ideals, seemingly.
>> ^jwray:
Federal funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is not pork barrel for a particular locale, so they would be free to vote on that. ACOE is responsible for building levies. Also, they should get it done at the state or local level.

Immigration law isn't pork barrel spending. A giant 500 billion dollar wall on the Mexican border built by companies who made campaign contributions to the senators from Texas definitely would be pork barrel spending.
The federal government exists to serve the interests of the whole nation, not the interests of particular states. If a spending bill that's targeted in a particular location actually serves the whole national interest, then senators from other areas will vote for it. If it doesn't, then it should be a state/local government issue or a cooperative venture between the few state/local governments that have an interest in it.

Taxes gotta come from somewhere.... best to tax things that have a hidden cost to everybody. You can make great arguments cattle have hidden costs. Why not exempt family farmers of a certain size to make everybody happy?

Counter argument: They took our jaorbs!!

I say just try to do what you can, where you can, when you can. If you hear a good idea from someone, spread it around. If there's something bad happening, let people know.

If you can do some direct good, or stop some direct bad, do so.

Bleeding heart liberal as I am, it just seems counterproductive to spend too much time worrying over every consumer choice, and its impact on the world. Things like sweatshop labor and environmental damage can't be fixed as long as it's entirely up to the consumer to discern what those damages are, and then as a result pay higher prices for products that are less wasteful.

Not to get too wonky, but that's why I like things like cap & trade, you bring hidden costs (of carbon, in this case) into the market. Today, a locally grown ear of corn probably costs more than one trucked in from Iowa, but that's only because no one pays for the damage to the environment from burning the fuel to haul it here. With carbon emissions as part of the cost of the item, chances are that locally produced produce would be cheaper (and likely higher quality as well), and the resulting profits for local farms would mean they'd expand...

The beauty is that then the consumer doesn't need to know or care about the carbon emissions involved, they just shop normally, and the businesses have a profit incentive to find ways to reduce their own emissions.

A similar thing could theoretically be done with pretty much any kind of pollution, and possibly even with things like disease, poverty, bad labor conditions, etc.

Okay..since my sarcasm didn't quite drive the point home, I'll explain why this is a misguided idea:

Tanning Salons
-Vitamin D is synthesized in the body after exposure to sunlight. Anyone living far enough from the equator is bound to be deficient in Vitamin D. In fact, go ahead and plot cancer incidence by latitude and you'll see what I mean. Vitamin D prevents cancer and heart disease.

Beef
- Read about Vilhjalmur_Stefansson. In the early 1900s he underwent a scientific study where he ate nothing but meat for a year...and came out healthier than when he went in. Also read about all-meat diets and ketosis. Prolonged ketosis is a cure for diabetes, heart disease and cancer - not to mention periodontal disease. In scientific studies, terminally ill patients who were so far gone they were beyond "medical science" had their tumors go into remission and even clear up completely on a ketosis diet. Cancer cells have a lot of insulin receptors - they respond to glucose, take away the glucose and the cancer starves. Read about it.

Pork
- Same as beef.

Alcohol
- In many countries, 1 in 3 people have some form of mental illness sometime in their lives. Alcohol helps a lot of people cope with society. How the hell do you think I cope with all the (50% of the population) sub-100 IQ zombies walking around?

Oil used for deep-frying
- Fat is not unhealthy. Cholesterol does not cause heart disease, nor is it a good predictor of those who will get heart disease. Only ~3% of arterial plague is cholesterol by composition - the vast majority is calcium. Vitamin D helps regulate calcium...this goes back to the tanning salons.

Gasoline -- especially because it gives people an incentive to WALK when they're going less than 2 miles to a store, instead of driving.
- I don't think the cost of gasoline has ever factored into a lazy persons decision of whether to walk. The burning of fossil fuels and the creation of air pollution is a national health hazard (akin to me walking up and dumping toxic waste on you) and so YES this should be taxed because pollution is a hidden cost of industry; but the funds shouldn't go to Medicare they should go to giant air-scrubbers which help de-pollute the air.

Coal
- Same as gas

Natural Gas
- Same as coal.

Sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup, Junk Food in general, & Cigarettes
- Okay, maybe you have some kind of argument here because these are legitimately detrimental to your health, but only used in excess. So unless you find a way to tax "excess" or define "excess" I can't see an argument for taxing the stray cigarette or potatoe chip.