| Google and Privacy |
|
|
| 06:10pm 27/01/2012 |
| |
You know I like many was worried about the whole Google privacy thing and how this new system would make it so that they would be using their information about me to make it hard to keep things about my life private.
Then I learned Google thinks I'm over 65 years old...
Suddenly I'm not worried about my privacy anymore. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Why SOPA is getting (or had gotten) government support |
|
|
| 01:06pm 14/01/2012 |
| |
I received an email from the White House in response to signing a petition that made required signatures. Their answer revealed in no uncertain terms the reason they want a law like SOPA. They want to block websites outside the US that are violating US law. So piracy? No Wikileaks.
Below the LJ cut is their response uncut:
( White House's definition of acceptable Internet regulation )
"To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity."
Notice the lack of the word "piracy" there... looks like the bill reaches further then the title suggests.
By the way, with all due respect White House, it seems ironic that you're asking the people to come up with something better, I thought the government had all the answers? What are we paying YOU for? If we're the ones who are going to come up with all the laws that you implement, I want to see a paycheck. How about this, stop whining that we are telling you to kill this bill and kill this bill and start from scratch. Clearly it's broken, and there is nothing more American then taking something broken and replacing it with something new. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Did Newt Gingrich Violate Federal Law? |
|
|
| 08:19pm 13/01/2012 |
| |
If you haven't heard about Super PACs, they are large groups that fund for campaigns and can raise unlimited amounts of money to put up advertisements for campaigns. The catch is this, the person running cannot coordinate in any way with the organization running the ads.
Recently Newt at the final debate in New Hampshire brought out an attack on Romney's Bain record, true or false is not my purpose here. It just seems weird that he happened to bring this out just before his SUPER PAC released an ad about the same thing.
But weather or not he was coordinating with them can't be proved, however as Newt's plan appears to be backfiring and he is making people in the GOP turn sour over it (hey that's Ron Paul's job) he has quote:
"Gingrich, in a written statement, called on the so-called "super PAC" supporting his campaign to either edit or pull ads that portrayed Romney as a corporate raider -- he said the ads contained inaccuracies."
So a presidential candidate has made a written statement to a super PAC supporting him on what the content of the advertising should or should not contain? I'm reading this correctly, right?
Hope you enjoy fines Gingrich. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| The Three Republican options, and my three votes |
|
|
| 05:49pm 04/01/2012 |
| |
If Barack Obama VS Mitt Romney
--------------------------------
This is kind of a meh if you do meh if you don't. It's not doubt that in my mind Obama will continue to do the George W Bush thing and erode our civil liberties and cause weakened enamel for a future president to start putting American Muslims into contraction camps, but HE won't use those powers of course, just put them in our laws. I don't think Mitt Romney would detain American indefinitely either, he's too into his own image and at least appearing sane in front of the public. Though would he repeal these civil liberty injustices? No. He'll keep them around so that he doesn't appear 'soft on terror', kicking the future Holocaust to future generations.
Since there would be little noticeable change I would vote for Gary Johnson in the Libertarian party. I'm done voting for cotton mouthed individuals of either party who'd get nothing done, or that when they do they don't have the balls to stand up to congress when they give the executive branch undo power. And if it's a choice between nothing and nothing, then I'll vote for the one who "doesn't stand a chance" because then I can complain how Americans are idiots by voting for nothing.
Obama VS Ron Paul
---------------------------------
It should come as no surprise that I'd vote for Ron Paul. The reason I would and am not on the fence of this in the least is because of the signing statement Obama placed on the Defense act he signed. A lot of Democrat apologists tried to convince themselves how this act wasn't like the Patriot Act, how it DIDN'T include a clause to indefinitely detain civilians without trial.
Well really? If that was the case then WHY THE HELL WOULD HE NEED THE SIGNING STATEMENT?
You know Obama, even through you think the Constitution is a piece of paper just like your predecessor there is still an amendment in there called the 5th. You know that by saying that you won't use the provision that violates the Constitution you just ADMITTED you signed into law a bill that violates the constitution? That you just admitted you violated your Oath of Office? You know how easily impeachable that makes you? Oh wait, that's right, you didn't have sex with a staffer, so the Republicans won't even try it. Hell, having that in there gives THEM more power to arrest Democrats without trial right before an election. Opps.
So yes, if Ron Paul is in the office, civil liberties would certainly be a high priority, and despite whatever bat shit things he'd do to the economy it doesn't matter, because what good is money when you're in prison for being who you are?
Obama VS Rick Santorum
-----------------------
Obama...
"But wait I thought you just said..."
YES, yes I did. Obama violated the Oath of Office, but here's the thing, he at least said he would not use that provision and I believe him, Santorum is NOT bound by that signing statement and for the love of God (literally) he'll abuse the shit out of that thing.
You think I'm being paranoid? Maybe, but I've seen the interview with Jon Stewart, heard his speech in Iowa, and this guy WILL be the one to fully exploit all those structural weaknesses placed by our predecessors:
Basically this man is the closest thing to a Statist that I've ever seen in American politic: He believes the government should be involved in providing the "optimal solution". In his victory (well he was winning when he made it) in Iowa speech he blamed the state of the economy on poor family structure, many would argue it's the other way around, including myself. Why the hell would I want to get married and have a child in this world? At this rate they'd be drafted by the time they were 18, and I certainly wouldn't be able to afford to put them in college so maybe that'd be for the best.
It's a politically correct way of saying "the tanking economy is the gays' fault". So if the poor family structure is the REASON for the bad economy. The direct quote that made me see the Hitler in this seeming harmless individual was this: "We should have a system that builds around what's best, and that is the tradition natural family". So it's the state's job to make sure we all have blonde hair and blue eyes? Or in a less Godwin Law way, it's the state's job to make sure that people are growing up in "optimal" households? Well you know the easiest way to do that? Make sure the gays are put away, indefinitely so they can't harm our kids. And now that we've gone that far, let's start to send people in to the house and make sure they have a Bible, because if they kids don't have access to a Bible my God, they're harming the growth of the child those atheist/agnotsic/muslim bastards!
And then Google and Savage! (Until they take down that definition in the search results they are defaming the United States of America by attacking their God's Chosen Leader President)
So no, if it's between those two, less of the two evils most definitely. Because Obama might be a little bit evil in my mind for attacking the Constitution, but he won't piss all over it like Santorum would.
----
Conclusion
So ironically we have three different candidates leading in the Republican party, and also interestingly it seems like each party has an opportunity to grab my vote depending on who they finally choose. If Romney, Libertarian Party; if Ron Paul, Republican Party; if Rick Santorum, Democrat Party.
It's all up to you GOP, where should my loyalties be laid? |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| McDonalds VS Bank of America |
|
|
| 08:17pm 30/12/2011 |
| |
Ironically, I was going to write an article about this thought that had crossed my mind when reading an article about McDonald's response to the passing of the San Francisco law banning toys from happy meals.
-http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/idUS57113862420111205
I was going to say how it shows that the people running our fast food industries have infinitely better business sense then our banking industry. I was going to compare how the two companies were both faced with an law that would reshape their business and how they reacted to it.
McDonalds, instead of blaming the government with a "Woe is me" attitude that Bank of America reeked of when the law changed, decided to give the government a middle finger. The San Francisco McDonalds manager saw a loop hole around the law that all this time and effort was wasted upon by the government passing. She said "Well if we can't GIVE the toys away, we'll simply charge for them."
Now of course if McDonalds were Bank of America they would have saw dollar signs in their eyes and went. "Toys are a dollar, and we'll keep the change thanks." Instead... McDonalds did the unthinkable, they went to their customers and asked if a dime was reasonable. Then when they put the charge into place they said that the dime would NOT go to McDonald's bottom line, instead it would be donated to Ronald McDonald charities. So after all that effort, the lobbying, the court dates, the voting McDonalds basically laughed and flipped the government the bird without breaking a sweat or complaint.
Instead of taking this kind of a route in the banking sector we all know what Bank of America did. They went to charge their customer for a service that was touted as free. When their customers had the audacity to get angry they put on their crocodile tears and said, "It's the government's fault, they're the enemy."
They knew this bill was coming, they had plenty of time to figure out a reasonable strategy against it, ask their customers question as McDonalds did. But talking and figuring out your customers feelings? That's for burger flippers not accountants.
The reason I said this was ironic that I was going to write this earlier, and the reason I am posting it now. The changes in share prices came in for 2011. Guess who the biggest winner and the biggest loser were?
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/30/markets/biggest_losers_winners/index.htm?iid=GM
No big surprise by me. Maybe the people flipping our burgers should be the one in charge of the finances of this country. Lord knows all the people in BoA care about is their bottom line, so they'd probably be better at making customers fill out their "bottom line" then making money. McDonalds, however, is apparently better at making money. |
|
| |
|
Read 1 - Post |
| |
| So that's how Ron has been earing Social Conservatives... |
|
|
| 12:03pm 28/12/2011 |
| |
So perhaps I had jumped the gone thinking that bigotry was dying in the GOP, and certainly when it comes to Ron's campaign. Still, is he using the blindness of those who hate as a tool to do good? I don't know. What I do know is that he certainly was mixed with the dark side of conservatism in the early 90s.
But alot of people has said he let that kind of thing go, but apparently not, as a more recent article shows Ron Paul's religion interactive director http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=10485&MediaType=1&Category=26
I still am kind of on the fence here, if Mr. Paul is using this gentlemen to take advantage of the ignorance of the ignorant all power to him. However, at the same time, they will still be ignorant after they vote for him and still ignorant members of society, a society under Ron Paul which would have more power.
So at this part it really is a weight game. Does one have faith that the ignorant are in the minority and won't impose on their neighbors in a libertarian society or does one reject it because the ignorant are in the majority so protections for such neighbors are needed.
Perhaps he is the Goku of the field in that he naively sees the good in absolutely everyone and he thinks he can covert them in time. It is a bit disappointing to me to learn that Ron Paul isn't winning on his own merits and using deception to win over social conservatives. But I'm certainly not going to hate him for it. It just goes to show how easily manipulatable they are, it'd be good for them to be manipulated into doing some good for a change.
However it is clear that the death of social conservatism is still a pipe dream on my part. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Ron Paul VS Trump VS Obama 2012 Part 2 |
|
|
| 01:41am 24/12/2011 |
| |
Last post on the 12th I made a prediction that Ron Paul would gain in Iowa, since then he has. I made a prediction that Donald Trump would run against him as an independent, and guess who just signed into the Independant party?
More interestingly it was an action I was thinking "Why now?" but then this article kind of gave me the laugh out loud moment I hadn't had in a few days with all this SOPA, tax deals and other stressing nonsense.
Ron Paul appeared on Friday’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and was asked about the potential of a third-party Donald Trump run. “To each his own, he may do it. I doubt he’ll do it — if he really wanted to be president, why did he walk away? Why did he become concerned he couldn’t do it as a Republican?” '
Ron Paul getting a little cockier then usual, and Trump appears livid. Even if he doesn't win the primaries he's certainly (which I'm hoping he gets that far to show the GOP that they don't have to attack gays in one's campaign message to get elected, and in fact its been hurting them) making this entertaining to say the least.
But that's two steps down in my prediction, time will tell how close my title is to the actual ticket. Stay tuned. |
|
| |
|
Read 21 - Post |
| |
| Open Letter to John Stewart/Steven Colbert |
|
|
| 07:36pm 22/12/2011 |
| |
Dear John Stewart and Steven Colbert,
I have been a long time fan of your television show and currently watch it on your webpages the day following its airing. You have helped a lot of people through difficult times, you have spoken about power and it's hypocrisies in engaging and educating matters, as well as humorous of course. You have given light to sides of the world which were once unseen and for that you have my greatest of gratitudes.
However, I regret to inform you that this message is not just a fan letter, it is also a letter of dire warning. Your very humor which has made your bosses very wealthy may be being used to attack the nation and its industries that you hold dear. http://www.filmon.com/cbsyousuck/ shows an entrepreneur's struggle against your bosses at CBS and Viacom, it also shows that they (CBS) have had a hand in the pirating industry that they now lash out at the Internet against.
Mr. Colbert I understand is a great fan of the arts, musicians and has brought light unto them as independent as they may be. Mr. Stewart, you have had on your show many celebrities of newly released films. Did you know the money generated from those interviews for your bosses have been going towards the funding of the creation and distribution of pirating software which take they money right out of your guest's pockets? They also had a hand in working and providing "protection" services for content, a market which they generated with the tools they developed to unlawfully distribute these items.
Not only this they have actively enabled this pirating, and exploited children to do it (not too unlike the iPad fish bowl game you did a segment not too long ago). They are now using the very piracy culture they generated to try and sniffle competing information distribution networks such as YouTube, Twitter, Reddit and other content providers. I'm sure you have heard of the SOPA bill, and I'm sure your bosses are passing it during the holiday season because they know you will be on vacation. They know that if you two find out the truth about what is going on in your corporation that you would not stand for it. I know you wouldn't.
We on the internet are trying to get this message out as fast as we can, but we need you. Make history, save an industry, don't be a tool used to destroy free speech in a nation where you prove every day how vital it is. What I ask is of no small service, however you have done this before during the writer's strike, you need to have another strike against your bosses. Have them back off SOPA, a bill which their own actions have caused the "need" for. Make them stop distributing (and getting paid for doing so) what their own lawyers have called pirating software. Stand up for the little man once again. Make a true difference in the world and be brave.
I too will be making a sacrifice, if you don't take this stand I am going to have to, I will no longer be watching your shows and providing funding for piracy. We the Internet users will not stand for a false-flag attack and be blamed for behaviors promoted by your company.
May joy and laughter follow in your endeavors,
(REAL NAME HERE) |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Now I'm scaring myself |
|
|
| 02:04am 21/12/2011 |
| |
You know that post I made on 12/12, well it's happening... didn't think it'd be so soon, but it's happening none the less. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Writer's Block: B.Y.O.B. Holidays |
|
|
| 04:20pm 13/12/2011 |
| |
That the person who defamed the word "War" with this whole "War on Christmas" thing gets their stockings stuffed. I'm sure they've never been in a real war, if they did they'd know it's not a word to use lightly and on trivial semantics they read too much into. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Ron Paul VS Trump VS Obama in 2012 |
|
|
| 06:54pm 12/12/2011 |
| |
I tend to have a nasty habit of keeping pulse on politics, I had predicted Obama's win over Hillary in early June of 2008, and I predicted Obama's win in the general election against McCain in August of 2008.
Now I'm going to make another prediction based upon patterns I have noticed in the primary. For one, have you noticed how there seems to be this rising of an individual to super-stardom in the Republicans and then all of a sudden under increasing media scrutiny they seem to fizzle? I remember the old statement "All coverage is good for business." and how this has come to once again prove that principal wrong. So in a sense, while Ron Paul supporters have been constantly Jonesing for more coverage of their candidate, the lack of coverage seems to be keeping his expiration date pushed back, while those in the spotlight grow mold around their ears and take bites out of one another.
I'm not the only one to have noticed this. Donald Trump who has supported both Romney and Gingrich has said that if the "wrong" candidate was elected in the primary he'd run himself as an independent. So... if he supports both the other front runners, who is this "wrong" candidate? None other then Ron Paul of course.
So my prediction is this, Romney and Gingrich were never popular in Iowa to begin with, in fact Ron Paul placed second under Bachmann by only 159 votes (out of around 16,000 so less then 1% behind). I see Paul taking Iowa, and as he does New Hampshire might very well see that as a signal that he is indeed electable. New Hampshire with its "Live Free or Die" slogan would certainly jump on the Paul wagon if Iowa leads the charge.
What I think would happen then is that you're going to see things get really nasty, the old neo-conservatives are going to be really upset at this turn of events, and the rest of the states are going to make it come really close, but in the end I do think Ron Paul is going to pull through. Like a modern tortoise to the hare he's been consistantly in second place in many areas. Ironically the Neo-Conservatives attacks on Gingrich and Romney, which will certainly have more light shed on both of their flaws, will be the very reason for their role in the party to be diminished.
By which I mean the Republican party is about to go through a very big transformation. About as big as in the time after the civil war. Soon the Neo-conservatives will be shoved out into the Independants slot under Trump's banner.
What happens then? My guess is that we are going to see a three party race. Between a Republican party under Paul who believe in shrinking the role of government in all aspects, Trump who believes in the Neo-Conservative principal that the government should help corporations at the expense of the individual, and the democrat Obama who believes that the government should help the individual at the expense of the corporation.
The general election in that case would be too close to call for me at this point. Liberals would either vote for Obama or (ironically) Ron Paul (if they are against war, and marajuana prohibition which Obama shows no signs of correcting), Neo-Conservatives will stick by Trump, but other more central conservatives might stick with Paul even though he's different. As Paul said, George W. Bush ran on a humble foreign policy to counter Clinton's interventionist style. Unfortunately he ended up birthing the Neo-Concervatives when he went against that word making the Republicans a pro-war party.
So in the end Trump would get the Neo-Conservatives (which if Bush's numbers at the end of his term were any indication is 28% of the country), Paul would get the more central and independent votes, however he would also get the anti-war (and anti drug-war) liberals. Obama would get the mainline liberal vote.
One of two things are possible it'd either split it into three very even segments creating a three party system, or Trump's move could give Obama the election. Though if the media does show that Trump's actions could cause Obama to win, he might back down (as he seems to have a tendency to do do). Because even though Trump hates Ron Paul, he hates Obama more. If he were to see himself as an obstacle to Paul's success against him, he might bow out, maybe even concede his blessing.
But we'll see, if this does come to pass it'll certainly be an interesting election indeed. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Writer's Block: Starstruck |
|
|
| 05:30pm 09/12/2011 |
| |
That lady who played as the bus driver for Forest Gump/The farmer's wife ("Sugar Water") From Men and Black.
I'd tell you how I met her, but that would reveal a bit too much information about myself. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Salvation Army: You're not Jesus |
|
|
| 06:03pm 01/12/2011 |
| |
I read probably the most disturbing quote I've read all year today, made by the Salvation Army's Maj. George Hood in the following USA today article .
""The Salvation Army and the gay community are never going to come to an agreement on the topic," Maj. George Hood, national community relations secretary for the organization, told Christian Today.
Hood told the news organization that the boycott is unfortunate because its clients, including members of the gay and lesbian community, will be hurt.
"If people refuse to give, it's the poor and people in need that will suffer," Hood said."
Hood, that's shameful, you are not the only organization that gives to the poor and most of the articles I read concerning this issue are showing that the GLBT are trying to point to other organizations who don't use the resources donated to them to post such agendas which have nothing to do with helping the poor to their web pages. When people donate to a charity they have a certain place where they believe their money goes. It's like a religion, they have faith that your organization will take the money and give it to those in need. Not use it to pay rent on a post of some political beliefs about marriage on a website, trust me, there's ENOUGH of that on the web, know what there's not enough of? Food in the poor's bellies. So until you figure this out, I am not only going to boycott your red kettles, but also any stores that have allowed you to solicits their customers with that ringing.
Because that quote to me rings of something, it rings of arrogance, and it makes me see your name in a new light. You believe YOU are the path to Salvation when really you are but an organization of men, just as corrupt as any, especially if you believe that you're arrogant enough to say that we're demonic if we don't support you. I support Jesus. You're not Jesus. Jesus didn't believe in using the poor as political hostages.
By the way, being a group of Protestants I EXPECT you to pick up the first ever Protestant Bible ever written and try and find me the line where it says gays are an abomination... oh wait you can't, because it says that about PEDOPHILES. So stop using Christianity to defend pedophilia at expense of the gays. I'm getting sick of it, ignorance is no longer an excuse the fact is out there, you only had to read it.
Good day. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| MFF: The Trip |
|
|
| 12:49pm 22/11/2011 |
| |
This journal is about my travels from and to MFF, MFF analysis to follow.
TRAINS
Taking the train was pretty much the perfect solution, I never got lost going to and from the con, it made it very simple and on top of that I never had to deal with MFF's parking issue (suckers). Of course I'll probably learn to bring something to eat or drink next time, going for several hours without food or water isn't fun, but I figure if people in the deserts can fast so can I. Sleeping wasn't an issue thanks for the extensive training of sleeping on the school bus I did when I was younger.
Ironically though the most talking I did over the weekend was on the trains, typically with older people. I don't know if it's that our generation lost some form of ability, but starting conversations is something I've always had trouble with, and it feels its the same with others around me, like they want to say something but then not sure if they should. In the end, with both parties not really engaging, nothing happens. Older people seem not to worry about that so much, I'm not sure if it's because they don't have to worry too much more about what other people think because they don't have to worry about 'future reputations', or maybe they just have so much story to tell that they can't hold back cascade any further, but what I do know is that the term the good die young is not really accurate. I was fortunate to sit next to good conversationalist on my way in and out of Chicago. An old lady from Toledo, who was defiantly (definitely... definitely definitely definitely) grandmotherly handing me mints as we conversed about the world as she went to visit her family in California. An older man from Indiana who was going to the St. Laurence for Thanksgiving as well.
The elderly lady told me to tell my mother she raised me well. I certainly will, but how I'll go about doing that, I'm still trying to figure out.
SCALPERS
What is it with furry cons and having someone take advantage of my good nature? Well, probably because furry cons take place in cities, I forget that cities work differently then the places I grew up in. Basically, what I mean by "scalping" is having a gentleman approach you and go "Hey man could you spare a dollar? I need it for bus fare." You give them some money and then they ask for more.
This has happen both in Pittsburgh (SelkieGal was with me when that one happened) and in Chicago. The person in Chicago was definitely more practiced and got more out of me, but mostly because the second one I knew was trouble where the first was mostly bumbling as a result the second one got more out of me. I don't recall the details of the one in Pittsburgh at this point, but the one in Chicago that I knew if I didn't give a little more then usual to get them out of my face could mean trouble was when I was fishing out a dollar to hand him he informed me that he had weed, to which I replied "No thanks.", but in my mind I knew now that I was dealing with not a man in need, but some sort of gang member. So now that my wallet is out I know I want to put it away as soon as possible, trying to find a bill would not be the best idea so I just pulled out the first one that my hand fell on and handed it to him (a ten) and then put it away. "Here's a ten, good luck." I said as I put the wallet away, I can't remember if he thanked me or not, because basically he started to move away he turned and asked if I had another ten... to which I responded, "Nope, that's the only one I had."
In these situations, I'm sure with practice I wouldn't have lost as much money, but I was aware of the possible situation. If he was part of a gang acting hostile toward him just because you disagree with their line of work would be deadly, so if you go into a conversation being cordial and friendly and someone takes advantage of that, then it doesn't make me despicable it makes them even more so, ESPECIALLY when you ask for more money when you had already gotten way more then you originally asked for. It's almost sad really, that instead of understanding the blessing of kindness they would take advantage of it, causing it to wither up. Certainly at this point if someone comes up to me and acts like they want bus fare, I'm certainly not going to be doing what I was raised to do. In fact, the two bucks I'd rather give too a bum. Because at least the hobos are more likely being honest in their plights.
I just most have that look of. "There's a good-natured sucker." printed on my forehead or something. And if so I wear it proudly. I'd rather be a sucker then one who needs to suck on the sucker's money tit.
I told this story to the elderly gentleman on the way back from Chicago, he suggested putting a dollar or two outside the wallet to hand off in these situations as opposed to having to pull out the wallet, seeings as this has happened in both trips to major cities I've been to, it probably is sound advise. |
|
| |
|
Read 3 - Post |
| |
| Shifting my finances |
|
|
| 03:41pm 01/10/2011 |
| |
I was on the fence about this for long enough, when I had moved to NJ I had joined Bank of America as a customer mainly because I had to split my cashiers checks into smaller sums just to get into my apartment and the bank I currently did business with had no branches down there.
I have felt their service to be fine, but then again I don't use credit cards, at all. I am a fiscal conservative, I do not spend money I do not have, so I use debit cards. Now unless you are living under a rock you have probably heard about the new five dollar fee that has people upset. That's not the reason I am leaving. Five dollars a month isn't all that much to me, it is something I can afford. No, this is about the WAY the implemented this new policy.
It's the most blatant form of classism I've ever seen come out of a business. Sure, most business like customers that have deep wallets, but at least they have the common courtesy to charge everyone the same price for the same product. Sure poorer people can't afford some things, but typically that's supposed to be because they are not the target audience. That to me isn't classism, some services and products are just more expensive then others.
However, when you have two customers who use a debit card and one person gets charged 5 dollars only because they have less money then the other person, that is classist. That's the fine print people seem to be missing here. There will be a $5 fee to all customers who have less then $20,000 dollars in their account. Have more? Don't worry you won't get charged for using the exact same service.
There is also a second part to this clause which I have absolutely no bones with and that is people who have morgages under Bank of America don't get charged the debit either. I mean, those people are at least investing money into the bank. People who just have an account with 20K? They are not contributing a damn thing, they're contributing just as much as someone who has 10K in their account to the bank's income. In fact, they're taking MORE if they have that money in a savings account because they get more in interest.
So fine, we need to sacrifice because Congress passed a law? Fine. But where is the SHARING in this sacrifice. All I see is you guys trying to milk your poorer customers so that you can give more money to you richer's interests. Now yes, obviously I have less then 20,000 dollars in my accounts, but that is irrelevant here. Even if I had a million in my accounts I would still be leaving. If I had a million dollars I would gladly pay five bucks a month to use a debit card. But I wouldn't be asked to would I? You would instead as my poorer brothers and sisters to pay for me. Haven't they payed enough?
So over the next month I'll be shifting my finances to my credit union, because even if they have a debit card fee, I'm sure they at least charge everyone the same for richer or poorer. |
|
| |
|
Read 11 - Post |
| |
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=88.8){kind=small}
sonious's journal