Deceptive Credit Cards - Targeted

News tonight includes a big story from the Federal Reserve and other regulators regarding deceptive trade practices in the credit card industry. It's interesting to me that this was a Friday night story, which is usually when the government comes out with stuff they don't want anyone to really notice.

The proposed rules would be the biggest clampdown on the industry in decades, aiming at protecting people from credit card companies that arbitrarily raise interest rates or don't give borrowers adequate time to pay their bills.

The proposals would also restrict such lender practices as allocating all payments to balances with lower interest rates when a borrower has balances with different rates. The Fed board voted Friday to approve the recommendations.

In the long run, this is good news for folks with credit card debt. Note, though, that these rules are not slated to go into effect until the end of the year and are technically only in the "proposed" stage.

Among the new rules would be prohibitions on:

-Placing unfair time constraints on payments. A payment could not be deemed late unless the borrower is given a reasonable period of time, such as 21 days, to pay;

-Unfairly allocating payments among balances with different interest rates;

-Retroactively raising interest rates on pre-existing balances;

-Placing too-high fees for exceeding the credit limit solely because of a hold placed on the account;

-Unfairly computing balances in a computing tactic known as double-cycle billing;

-Unfairly adding security deposits and fees for issuing credit or making credit available;

-Making deceptive offers of credit.

Currently, if you get a zero interest balance transfer but already have a balance on the card, any payments you send are allocated to the zero percent balance while the current balance keeps accruing as usual. Intuitively, you'd think it would be the other way around. These rules would stop that.

Double cycle billing is something I've explained before and it gives me a headache, so I'm glad to see it go.

Over limit fees when a rental car place puts a $500 "hold" on your card that will never actually charge an amount that high - gone.

Raising rates on current balances arbitrarily - gone.

Extra fees and charges for issuing credit, which is something that usually targets folks with bad credit and is a way to effectively raise rates tremendously by increasing the balance that has interest charged against it - gone.

Deceptive offers of credit, which kind of encompasses all of these things - gone.

Until now, the credit card industry has worked on the "disclosure" rule. In essence, if it's in the fine print in legalese and you go ahead and use the card, too bad for you. These rules will hopefully bring about much more transparency.

Now for the bad news.

This is conjecture on my part, but if I'm a bank and I know that these rules are going to likely be put into place by the end of the year, I'm going to do my rate raising or my non-renewing of accounts (thereby demanding repayment within a certain amount of time) before that happens. If you currently carry credit card debt, don't be surprised if you get a notice in the next few months that your rates are rising or (if your card expires in 2008) your account will not be renewed.

What can you do? I'd say keep an eye out for your junk mail. Look for low rate balance transfer offers. Balance transfers are at least bound by the time that they agree to in the offer unless you make a late payment, in which case all bets are off and you'll probably go to a much higher rate. Pay down what you can on any cards that expire in 2008.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they'll think that shenanigans like that will be scrutinized ahead of these changes. Unfortunately, given the flippant tone of the Citicard rep who told me that my rate increase was purely a "business decision," it seems like the companies have taken a pretty combative stance and it would kind of surprise me to see them all of a sudden decide to go the altruistic route.

By the way, the credit card industry is saying that these new regulations are just going to raise rates for everyone. Well - good. The industry has been completely flouting the basic rule of lending - risk vs reward - by offering overextended consumers low interest debt for years now, and it's coming home to roost. And in reality, that threat is more for the government than the citizens. In effect they're saying that without low interest debt, consumer spending is going to slow down. While I know that might hurt in the short term, it's ultimately a good thing for all of us.

Interesting times.

Roger Waters

We went to the Roger Waters concert at the Pepsi Center last night. He's definitely getting a little long in the tooth, but it was still a great show. The first half of the show was old Floyd and his solo work, the second half was the entire Dark Side of the Moon. The old Floyd included Wish You Were Here, Have a Cigar, Mother, Shine on You Crazy Diamond, Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun (that was kind of a surprise) and others. He had a nice picture montage of Syd during Shine On. Waters' own material gave people an opportunity for a bathroom break - sorry Waters, love ya but you know that's how it works.

He did make quite a production about one of his songs, Leaving Beirut. It was a little heavy handed with the politics, and generally just not a great song (in my opinion) but it still had a few cheerable moments, including references to King George and the religious far right.

Although I couldn't bring in a camera, I did have my Blackberry Curve. Our seats were in the upper level and just a little off center to the left, which we did on purpose because his stage show is "big" enough to see from even the very last row and so why spend extra, which meant that there was no way I was going to get any good shots of the little creatures milling about on the stage.

I didn't expect to see a pig since it went missing at the Coachella concert, but of course they had a spare.



The second half of the show went by way too fast. This isn't a good shot, but it was a really neat effect live.



The encore was Vera and Comfortably Numb (no way he was going to leave that out, right?).

Overall, a fun evening and I'm glad we went - you never know how long these older guys are going to be around, right?

Oh, and here's a picture of Ben, just because it was on the phone too.

Have you served in the military?

This morning I had a nice phone conversation with my parents, complete with toddler babbling in the background, and at one point Dad and I discussed a conversation he recently had with some chums regarding our current political landscape. Some of his buddies from college are apparently quite right wing, while dad tilts precariously to the left. He isn't your stereotypical treehugging hippy commie liberal, he's more of what a Republican might have represented 50 years ago - self-sufficient, capitalist, community minded.

At any rate, he said that in a recent conversation about the war and John McCain's qualifications for the Presidency because of his military service and prisoner experience, he voiced his negative opinion about both. After that, the conversation escalated to the point where he was finally asked if he had ever served in the military. The implication was that if he had not, his opinions on any military conflict were meaningless.

I am completely sick of this limp strawman argument.

Now, perhaps my interpretation of the conversation was incorrect. Perhaps they meant that it's important for someone to have relevant experience in order to accept a position. If that's the case, I'm sure his buddies have written plenty of letters to the White House over quite a few of Bush's appointments.

If they really did mean that those without military experience should shut up about the war, however, then - wow. I mean, barring the ridiculousness of that sentiment right off the bat given that perhaps (and I'm being generous) 15% of the living population of the United States is serving or has served in the military, I'm willing to cut a deal with these folks and people like them.

I will stop expressing any opinion about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'll bet Dad would be willing to as well, if the following people with no military experience will do the same:

Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Sean Hannity
Ann Coulter
Ted Nugent
Laura Ingraham
Glenn Beck
Michael Savage
Michelle Malkin

Do we have a deal?

It's a business decision ...

This morning in the mail, I received a notice from one of my credit card companies saying that my rate would be increasing about 50%, from around 12% to 19%.

After a few e-mails and phone calls to find out why my rate had changed, I just wanted to pass along some insight that everyone needs to understand about credit cards and that is this: your credit card interest rates have absolutely nothing to do with your credit scores, your payment record, your overall debt, income, or anything like that. The only thing that the credit card companies care about (and Citibank in particular, in my case) is meeting a certain revenue target and gaming your agreement with them in order to make that happen.

In a nutshell, when I called Citibank to ask them why my rate was changed when my credit score is in the mid 750's, our household debt has gone down, we've never been late on a payment to them or anyone else, the response was, "it's a business decision." Seriously, that was the answer, word for word. I was surprised by the rep's bluntness, but pressed on. "So, it has nothing to do with risk, it's all just about meeting revenue targets?" He said that yes, it had nothing to do with me, it was about hundreds of thousands of clients. I think what he meant to convey was that I shouldn't take it personally, but I very much took it that way.

When you enter into an agreement with a credit card company, understand that you are entering a contract where they are able to change their terms whenever they want but you have no similar option. If I actually had a purchase balance on this particular card, I would have the ability to "opt out" of this rate increase but would have to pay off the entire balance before my card's expiration date in 2008.

Here's the kicker, though. I do actually have a balance on this card. It's from a balance transfer I did a few years ago, and it's at 2.99% until it's paid off. The rep at Citicard assured me that this balance is not affected by the change, but on this notice, there is this paragraph at the very end:

"If we decide not to replace your card that expires in 2008, none of these changes will apply to you. You may use your account under the current terms until the expiration date on your card. At that time, we will close your account. You must then pay the balance under the current terms."

Now, call me cynical but I think that the odds that Citibank will decide not to renew my account past 2008 just went way up. I'm a losing bet for them, you see - a low interest rate, no new purchases at a higher rate, no merchant fees, and no late fees (after which they could raise my rate from 2.99% to 28.99%).

Now wait a minute, you say - people with bad credit have to pay higher rates on debt, right? Yes, that's true, and you'll definitely see this relationship when you buy a car or a house, but it's tenuous when you're talking about credit cards. All it means is that the vast range of possible rates you will pay with bad credit starts a little higher up the scale.

But even when you go buy a car or a house, your interest rate vs your credit score is just a starting point. I knew a girl with bad credit who went to buy a car and the dealer not only charged her an incredibly high 23% interest rate (which she deserved) but he also tripled the price of used car she was buying so that in effect, the "real" interest rate she paid for that car was closer to 90%. Since there are no laws about how much a dealer can charge for a car but a 90% interest rate would probably raise a few eyebrows at a finance company, they just switched around the equation to get what they wanted. Didn't do them much good since she couldn't afford payments that high - but might have been able to if they'd charged her the Blue Book value of the car and based the 23% rate on that instead - and the car was repossessed, probably to be cycled back out to some other poor purchaser.

Buyer (and borrower) beware ...

Why we banned legos ...

Someone recently pointed me to this story (which you'll have to go read yourself) and I am posting a response I gave on a private list here. It's an interesting experiment, no doubt.

This is interesting, and not nearly as infuriating as I thought it was
going to be, but it's written in a manner that suggests that they are
not educating so much as indoctrinating. Sure, these kids came to the
experiencing with plenty of social hypnotism already but assuming for
a moment that they didn't, these teachers were looking in horror at
what appeared to be a natural progression and decided that it needed
to be stopped and rerouted entirely instead of trying to work within
the framework that the kids set up themselves. You can't just "ban"
the means of production and restart with communism, the world doesn't
work that way. They may have taught these kids an interesting lesson
about working together on a small team but they sure as hell didn't
teach them anything about what the world is like. This appears to be
a self-serving experiment using children as the test subjects.

> "Well, I can let other people use the landing strip, if they have
> airplanes," said Oliver. "Then it's fair for me to use more cool
> pieces, because it's for public use."

Natural.

> A group of about eight children conceived and launched Legotown. Other
> children were eager to join the project, but as the city grew — and
> space and raw materials became more precious — the builders began
> excluding other children.

Also natural. They thought of it, they "owned" it, they procured the
resources - why exactly should they open up their vision to the
masses? There might be some good ideas out there but it could just
turn out to be a big mess where nobody's happy with the results.

> Occasionally, Legotown leaders explicitly rebuffed children, telling
> them that they couldn't play. Typically the exclusion was more subtle,
> growing from a climate in which Legotown was seen as the turf of
> particular kids. The other children didn't complain much about this;
> when asked about Legos, they'd often comment vaguely that they just
> weren't interested in playing with Legos anymore.

"They'd often vaguely comment" - that statement is intentionally
implying that these kids were upset and lying when perhaps they just
found something else to do.

> a society that we teachers believe
> to be unjust and oppressive.

And yet your salary comes from your affluent, mostly white,
upper-middle class clientele. Interesting.

> Hilltop is housed in a church, and over a long weekend, some children
> in the congregation who were playing in our space accidentally
> demolished Legotown.

Good opportunity to teach kids about insurance, isn't it?

> From our
> conversations, several themes emerged.

Emerged? I doubt it. Several themes were drawn out.

> * Moderation and equal access to resources are things to strive for:
>
> "We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes.... We
> should all just have the same number of pieces, like 15 or 28 pieces."
>
> As teachers, we were excited by these comments.

I think it sounds ghastly and ridiculously naive.

> All structures are public structures. Everyone can use all the
> Lego structures. But only the builder or people who have her or his
> permission are allowed to change a structure.
> *
>
> Lego people can be saved only by a "team" of kids, not by individuals.
> *
>
> All structures will be standard sizes.

Ugh.

Payday Loans - Predatory Lending Association (PLA)

Predatory Lending Association

Check out this site, Predatory Lending Association (PLA). It's so on target, and so viciously funny. I have a friend who got caught in the payday loan trap, and it was pretty much the end of the road. Between payday loans and getting completely screwed on a car loan, there was no way she wasa ever going to make good on her debts. It may have turned out for the best, though, since it was the "rock bottom" she needed to finally file for bankruptcy. C'est la vie.

A Week in the Life of a Caravan - Day Two

Whew! No Halloween vandalism to the Caravan, which is living in the driveway this week. A few years ago I wouldn't have even considered vandalism a possibility, but our town has seen a bit of trouble lately with bored teenagers, including car windows being shot out and silly spraypainting.

Anyway, I was happy to find all of the windows intact when I went out to make an early morning run to the grocery store for some chili cookoff supplies. The windshield was a little frosty, which had me stymied for a second because I didn't know all of the controls yet. Isn't that always how it is with new cars? New cars and rentals. Can't tell you how many times I have turned on windshield wipers when I meant to hit a turn signal. I did find the defrost, but didn't wait to see how long it took - just hit the windshield wipers with a squirt of washing fluid and off we went.

I suppose I should mention the rear view camera. I have a friend who has had this for a few years and it took her way longer than a week to get used to it, so I'm not even going to try. I'm OK with the trusty old "look in the mirror" or "turn your head around" method. I did notice the night before last that the car beeped when I was backing up in a parking lot, I think because I got close to a curb. That's great, but I didn't realize that's why the car beeped until I got home and read about the "rear park assist" feature that is supposed to warn you about hazards beyond your line of sight in the back. Since cars have so many beeps and blips nowadays, it might be nice for that particular one to be something more distinctive, like an enthusiastic "LOOK OUT!"

Back to the day ...

The Chili Cookoff for our local MOMS Club was a great success. We only had six entries, and it was hard to disguise which one was mine because I made green chile. If you've never spent a lot of time or just don't green chile often, here's a little tidbit of information - it's always a surprise to see how hot your particular batch of green chile stew has turned out. In this case, I tried it early in the morning and my lips almost melted off. I like spicy, but this was crazy. In an effort not to maim my friends, I drained all of the liquid off and poured in a fresh box of organic vegetable broth. In the two hours between the broth transfusion and the cookoff it still picked up plenty of heat, and was pretty much perfect. I didn't win, but that's OK - I think a few people got to try something they'd never had before, so that's great!

The recipe, you ask? Sure ... but it's an approximate recipe. If you don't want to roast, peel and chop your own green chiles (and I don't blame you) or are not in an area where green chiles are easy to find from local growers, check the freezer section of your grocery store. Go for medium heat, at least. The mild ones in the cans in the Mexican section of the store are pointlessly mild.

Slow Cooker Green Chile

1 pound pork, cut into small pieces
2 Tbsp vegetable oil, or enough to brown the pork
2 Tbsp flour
3 Russet potatoes, cubed
1 small onion, chopped
2-3 cloves garlic, chopped
6 Anaheim chiles, roasted, peeled and chopped
Chicken or Vegetable Broth

Toss the pork with the flour and brown in oil in a heavy skillet. Transfer pork to crockpot, add potatoes, onion, garlic and chiles. Add enough broth to cover. Cook on high 4 hours or on low ... pretty much as long as you'd like.

Check for flavor and add salt or a boullion cube if you'd like.

If you would like to thicken your stew, mix a little cornstarch or arrowroot to a very little bit of cold water. Add to slow cooker, turn to high and cover - the stew will need to come to a boil to thicken.

That's it! HOW EASY can you get? Serve with shredded cheese, sour cream, and flour tortillas. I think the next time I make it, I'll toss in a bag of frozen corn just for some more texture.

I didn't have the Caravan for the rest of the day because my husband decided he wanted to take it in to work, mostly because he found a Sirius radio station that is all Grateful Dead, all of the time. Since I'm not a Deadhead and he's not going to get to listen to it when we're all out together this weekend, it was the least I could do for the guy, right? When he got to work, he mentioned the Dead channel to a fellow fan who said that he had been trying to decide whether to go with Sirius or XM radio, and that channel just made the decision for him. We might not help Dodge sell any Caravans, but we created a new Sirius customer!

As for today's thoughts on the vehicle in general, I have to say that I'm not fond of the key at all. It's not a key, it's more like a plug. In a way, it reminds me of the little keys you can get at some arcades instead of tokens, or a locker key. This is a completely irrational dislike, I'll freely admit - and it's partly because the key made me feel like an idiot on the first day.

You see, the rep had shown me the function that allowed you to start the car remotely, which I tried out later from the kitchen (in the back of the house) just to see if it would work and to startle my older boys, who were out waiting in the car for me to get my stuff together to run errands.

I go out, get in the car, and try to put the car in reverse. No go. I press the brake (which I have to do on my car to get out of park) - nope. I check the doors, thinking maybe there is some overzealous protection thingie - that's not it. It didn't occur to me for a few minutes to actually insert the key into the ignition since the car was running, but that was the problem.

In hindsight, this makes perfect sense - you wouldn't want to have your car out in the front driveway ready for anyone to come, bust out a window and drive off. Still, when a car is running, I expect all of the usual "car" functionality, including the ability to move. Call me crazy.

Two days down, five to go! We're having fun!

A Week in the Life of a Caravan - Day One



A few weeks ago I was made aware of a marketing campaign offering the use of a 2008 fully loaded Dodge Caravan for week. Participants were asked to simply drive the minivan for a week and write/talk about their experiences – “Word of Mouth” advertising.

Now, I am not a naïve girl. I know that our family was chosen because I have three kids, lots of activities, and (most importantly) said that we were looking to buy a car within a year. I am sure the expectation is that after spending a week in the new Caravan, we would be more likely to look in that direction come car buying time. Ideally (from their point of view), a week of Sirius TV, DVD players, video game plug-ins, and swivel chairs would be so appealing to my eight and eleven year old son that they would beg, plead, badger and whine for us to go out and buy a Caravan immediately.

Well, here’s the thing: We ARE planning to buy a car in the next year or so, but only if one of our current cars dies completely. That isn’t entirely outside the realm of possibility, since my husband’s Subaru has about 200,000 miles on it and my Oldsmobile has almost 100,000 miles (anyone want to guess which one we think will die first?), but what IS impossible is that my kids will whine me into submission. Regardless of how much we might like this minivan, there’s no way we are going to go out next week and drop $40,000 on a comparably equipped one for ourselves.

That being said, we decided that we were going to have fun with this project and go whole hog into the “word of mouth” bit, so for the next week or so I’ll be posting regularly updates on our doings, starting with yesterday, Halloween …

Our Caravan was dropped off at about lunchtime, and the most important requirement for me was met immediately – RED! Technically, I believe it is “Inferno Red Crystal Pearl,” a darker red than the typical Dodge red, and an improvement.

It’s a boxy looking minivan, I guess decent enough looking – but very few cars make me good “ooh” and “aah,” so my opinions on the exterior are pretty worthless.

Immediate positives – the swivel chairs and tables. I know that for longer trips, including jaunts to Broomfield for sports games, my boys would enjoy the ability to turn the chairs around a central table to play games.

We found pretty quickly that the swivel doesn’t work well with our toddler seat, at least as it’s installed currently – the recline makes it necessary to move the front seats up into knee cracking range. I don’t think either of us are really above average in height (I’m 5’8” and he’s 6’0”), so this would probably be a fairly common problem. If he was still rear facing in that seat, I’m not sure the front seat could be moved far enough forward to accommodate the swivel. Even though he can’t participate in games with his older brothers, he definitely wants to be able to watch!


This picture was taken with the chair swiveled about 45 degrees – NOT in a locked position, just enough for a photo op. He’s Roo, by the way. As we found out when we went to our elementary school for Halloween parties, Roo is not a recognizable character. Everyone thought he was Piglet, Pooh, a rat, or a dog. I guess that’s why there is a big “ROO” written right on the front of the costume, which you can’t see in this picture.

Another immediate positive, for the boys at least – the DVD/Satellite TV. Sirius knows who sits in the backseat, so they’ve chosen to use their bandwidth for Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Cartoon Network. My husband rode around in the back seat to play around for a while and said that the picture isn’t that great compared to the DVD we popped in, but he’s in broadcast and is a total video snob. I’m sure most kids don’t care if Spongebob is in high def. Then again, if I was paying for a subscription to the service, I’d probably want a pretty good picture. I’ll update later with reviews from the youngsters.

After our Halloween parties, we came home and did the trick or treating thing, and then the baby and I went out after dark to run a few errands, which brings me to my first negative – the interior lights. This isn’t really a negative because I’m sure I’ll get used to it, but the interior lights are a blueish LED that just threw me off. I think the intent was to provide a light that wouldn’t distract the driver, and the targeted lights are definitely an improvement in that arena, but … it’s blue! Can’t really explain it, just a different kind of light. I’m such a creature of habit.

I didn’t drive around nearly as much as my husband probably would have if he’d been able to skip work last night, but we have big plans for the week! More later, as events unfold …

Tony Snow resigning - for financial reasons?

Mr. Snow is reportedly resigning soon, although he has not confirmed this himself. In a recent interview, he said:

"I'm not going to be able to go the distance, but that's primarily for financial reasons." Snow said. "I've told people when my money runs out, then I've got to go."

Tony Snow makes $168,000 a year. He has had health problems and I wish him the best with that, but I have to believe that he has a pretty rockin' health insurance plan.

People close to Snow said that he felt he needed to make some more money to help his family, which includes children readying for college.

If this doesn't let people know that the folks running the country are completely out of touch with the situations of average Americans, I don't know what will. The average American household brings in a little under $60,000/year. These are families with mortgages, kids who want to go to college or trade school, and in many cases, no health insurance.

How are we supposed to believe that we should just be more responsible with our spending choices, our mortgages, our career and education goals, when this guy says he can't take care of his family on $168,000 a year?

President for Life

Last night, I sent some information and a blog response for a site that promotes the idea of genocide and Bush becoming President for Life to a friend who has a much more popular blog than my little ramblings, and his post covered anything I would want to say, so I'm just going to repost it here. Read on ...

___________________________________________________________

A friend sent along this link to a Google cache of an essay that was on the website of a group called Family Security Matters. The article has now apparently been pulled. I'll post a long excerpt from the cached essay, which actually encourages President Bush to nuke Iraq and declare himself President-for-Life, below the fold:

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable - for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome - thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming "ex-president" Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

Now ordinarily I would just dismiss this as the lunatic ravings of some right-wing nut and laugh it off. But this blog, run by someone named Mark Parent, discusses the contents and contains some background on this organization, which I'd never heard of. And if the information there is true, this may not just be the fringe ravings of a nut but the opinion of much of the conservative foreign policy establishment. Parent writes:

Well, it turns out that "Family Security Matters (FSM) is a front group for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a conservative Washington think tank "committed to the time-tested philosophy of promoting international peace through American strength." (The phone number listed on the FSM website is answered by the CSP.)

Here's the Center for Security Policy webpage. Parent then goes to Sourcewatch to find out who is involved with the Center for Security Policy. The Center's leaders, particularly those on the National Security Advisory Council, are a virtual Who's Who of the conservative foreign policy establishment, including the architects of the war in Iraq and much of Bush's foreign policy team: Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney and many others. And then there's this:

Dick Cheney, Vice President of the U.S. under George W. Bush, was an early member of Center's Board of Advisors (which is now called the National Security Advisory Council).

Not only has the Atkinson article disappeared from the website, so has everything Atkinson wrote on that site (or at least, the search function on the site turns up only one of the more than 100 pages with his name on them that Google shows, and that one is an essay by someone else that contains a quote by him). That certainly suggests that they realize what a problem his writings were and they're trying to disappear them down the memory hole. That makes for plenty of smoke; is there fire as well? If anyone has any more information about this, I'd love to hear it.

"OMG like totally, what are you going to wear tomorrow?!?

I'm sure there will be some super extra awesome "patriotic" Americans who think this is amusing and completely appropriate, but the idea of Padilla jurors spending time deciding what to wear to court makes me a little nauseous.

In a color-coordinated display of their patriotism, the jurors wore red, white and blue clothing to court before breaking for a July 4th recess.

Seriously? I mean, yay July 4th and all, but is this the place to really be doing that? Are juries supposed to be chatting each other up before deliberations begin (I seriously don't know and am asking), and wouldn't everyone showing up in red, white and blue kinda communicate a message about their intentions? I mean, being patriotic doesn't necessarily mean that you can't hear the evidence and make a decision based on the facts, but it's been my personal observation that the type of people who would wear cutesie "patriotic" clothes - and would agree to wear a certain color based on what ROW they're sitting in, for goodness sakes - are much more likely to lean to the right than the left. That is in no meant to imply that lefties aren't patriotic, just that I don't see as many of them wrapping themselves in flags (which - another topic, but could be considered desecration if you really wanted to split hairs, and amusing since it's those same people who have fits if anyone even suggests thinking about the possibility of maybe lighting a match anywhere near a flag).

But anyway, this isn't the only time they've done it. They've had an "all black" day, and a "boys where blue, girls wear pink" day as well.

Tacky, tacky, tacky. I'm embarrassed for them.

The Trial

Recently I got caught up in a little debate on You Tube re: the meaning of "The Trial" in The Wall.  It's difficult to get into the meaning of that song in the You Tube comments section because you're restricted to 500 characters, and ... I can't do ANYTHING with 500 characters, but I've been thinking about it so ...

I've seen that movie about 4,302 times, give or take, and Pink Floyd is one of my favorite bands.  When life gets to me, it's not uncommon for me to revert to the scripture of Floyd ... or my other Bible, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (and subsequent books).  So, I feel a need to break down the song tonight.  I'm sure others have different interpretations, and so be it ...

Good morning, The Worm, Your Honour,
The Crown will plainly show,
The prisoner who now stands before you,
Was caught red-handed showing feelings.
Showing feelings of an almost human nature.

Pink is coming down and having a rock bottom moment, hallucinating and generally freaking out.  He's spent his life bottling up his emotions after the death of his father, living with his overprotective mother, and going through the mind-numbing process of rote "education."  The Wall that he has built has served to fuel his creative side in a manner, but has resulted in a disastrous life in terms of personal relationships and growth.  He's been turned into a commodity by the music machine, and his fans don't even really understand what he's singing about anymore.  They're just hedonistic little sheep.  Google any interview with Roger Waters in relation to this album and you'll see where this all comes from, there isn't a lot of interpetation necessary.

This will not do.
Call the schoolmaster!
I always said he'd come to no good,
In the end, Your Honour.
If they'd let me have my way,
I could have flayed him into shape.
But my hands were tied.The bleeding hearts and artists,
Let him get away with murder.
Let me hammer him today.

The schoolmaster is an object of scorn, as is the mother, because he had no other goal but to whip Pink into conformity ... and no will or strength to do otherwise, since the schoolmaster was a cuckholded little man who probably had an overbearing woman (assumed, never actually shown to Pink) ruling his every move.  He took it out on the children, had no vision of them ever being any more than what he was doomed to be.

You little shit, you're in it now.
I hope they throw away the key.
You should've talked to me more often than you did.
But no! You had to go your own way.
Have you broken any homes up lately?
Just five minutes, Worm, Your Honour,
Him and me alone.Baaaaaabe!

There is no indication in the movie or the album that the wife was anything like the hateful caricature portrayed, but can you blame him for thinking of her this way?  She left him ... just one more person who left him.  And worse, she was the one he chose (unlike his family, his teachers, or his fans), the one he at one point thought could be different ... his dad left, his mother was emotionally distant after his dad died, his agents didn't give a rat's ass.  Part of The Trial is him seeing that his belief about her "betrayal" is flawed.  She didn't leave him, he left her - if he was ever there to begin with.

Come to Mother, baby.
Let me hold you in my arms.
M'Lord, I never meant for him to get in any trouble.
Why'd he ever have to leave me?
Worm, Your Honour, let me take him home.

Mother could take him home, but it would be to the same empty shell.  She didn't want him for him, she wanted him for the surrogate he provided after her husband died.  He was an afterthought, completely ignored except in the context of her own need to protect someone after she was unable to protect his father.

Bars in the window.
There must have been a door there in the wall.
For when I came in.

He realizes at this point that if he got himself into this state, he can get himself out.  Huge breakthrough.

The evidence before the court is incontrovertible.
There's no need for the jury to retire.
In all my years of judging I have never heard before,
Of someone more deserving of the full penalty of the law.
The way you made them suffer,
Your exquisite wife and mother,
Fills me with the urge to defecate!
No, Judge, the jury!
Since, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fear,
I sentence you to be exposed before your peers.
Tear down the wall!

He realizes, finally, that he has allowed a lifetime of other people's issues to mold who he is and how he reacts to the world, and that it has destroyed him.  It was a valid reaction, really, given his circumstances, but it was killing him.  People were able to use that barrier to their advantage - he was just a drug addled genius who could be manipulated into making them money, after all. His fans loved him for his entertainment value, but didn't care about his own personal trials ... without his troubles, he would be of no use to them because he never would have been able to produce the music that they chanted to in their own little angst.  For him to heal would be his undoing, in a sense, but the only way to escape that is to strip away the wall he has built to protect him from everyone and to take the financial and "superstar" repercussions.

And then the movie ends. 

All alone, or in twos
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall
Some hand in hand
Some gathering together in bands
The bleeding hearts and the artists
Make their stand
And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall after all it's not easy
banging your heart against some mad buggers.

There were always people out there to help him, but they couldn't get through and some of them gave up ... but some are still there to help him recover, and those are the true. 

I don't think this is uncommon in the superstar world.  Cobain clearly felt it, and although she isn't quite the genius of either Cobain or Pink/Waters, I feel a certain amount of sympathy for Lindsey Lohan in the same vein.  The public feeds off of her (their) weaknesses in a heartless and predatory way. 

And that's all I have to say about that.

Why are we paying these guys?

I'll admit, I don't spend a lot of time looking at US House of Representative roll calls for voting records, but last night - a particularly exciting Saturday evening, as you might guess - I found myself looking up a House vote last week.

Why was I looking? Well, there was a news article that mentioned something about prescription drugs being allowed to be imported, and the vote was 237-18 in favor. A friend of mine wanted to know how to find out who voted against it and since I have this strange compulsion about researching silly things like this, I went looking.

His problem was that although the news article was about allowing prescription drug imports from Canada, Europe and Australia (which I support), it was actually part of a big Agriculture bill that has gotten lots of press over the last few weeks because of things like subsidies and such. He wasn't looking for agriculture, he was looking for prescriptions ... but they're all lumped together because the Ag bill includes spending for the FDA. Didn't take long to find it, except for the incredibly slow speed of the government site, and there was the 237-18 vote.

What didn't occur to me when I first started looking at this incredibly lopsided vote was how obviously low it was. 237-18? That's only 255 votes! Anyone remember how many members are in the House of Representatives? It sure isn't 255 ...

So after I got him his 18 names, I went back to the roll call and looked again.

In summary:

226 Democrats & 11 Republicans voted Yay.

3 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted Nay.

13 Republicans noted that they were present but did not vote.

2 Democrats and 163 Republicans DID NOT VOTE.

Excuse me? I'm sure there are votes where Democrats have pulled something similar, so I'm not picking on the Republicans here - this just happened to be the roll call that I saw. Obviously this is a political statement, but it's a wimpy one. If they're against the bill, they should have voted against the bill. Instead, they don't want to make their constituents mad ("you voted against helping farmers and less expensive medications?") so they chose to just not vote.

That's simply not acceptable. There are valid reasons to vote against subsidies and prescription drug imports, and if they're going to vote that way, they should be expected to explain their reasoning. The media will excoriate them, no doubt about it, and their constituents will write letters and make calls, but that's OK - that's the process.

We PAY these people to REPRESENT US. Part of representing us is to actually VOTE. If the vote is scary for them, don't take the job. Period. If there are too many bills coming through, too many details, too much to possibly understand and vote with a comfortable level of understanding, then hire more staff or stop introducing so many bills or find a generally more efficient way to operate.

The simple fact of the matter is that if I hired an attorney to represent me in court, I would expect him to show up and do his job. If he decided that my case was just a little too controversial for him and didn't show up for the trial, I'd expect my money back and certainly would not continue to pay him. That is, in effect, what we're doing here - isn't it?

Things I'm NOT mad at ...

1. Baby Ben for sneezing all over me right when he finishes eating or drinking something.

2. Jake for delaying our trip to the Farmer's Market this morning because he was incredibly distraught and a big sobbing mess over letting his "pet" cricket, Cricketoon, go free at my request.

3. The fact that we're about to take a 15% pay decrease because my husband has an opportunity to get off of his overnight shift after three years.

4. My partner at work who is not going to be able to go to a few appointments this week (that I can't go to) to set up classes, because he got in a bicycle accident last week and cracked his collarbone and several of his vertebrae.

5. Al Gore for not announcing his candidacy (can ya blame him?).

6. WalMart for jumping on the compact fluorescent bandwagon and really bringing this alternative to the masses - although I'll still be mad at them for other stuff.

7. Mutual funds that hold stocks for companies that produce weapons or tobacco or other "vice" type things.

8. Lakewood Church in Texas, even though it's a megachurch - I love the 30 minute Osteen shows on Sunday morning.

9. Reality TV, even though it's rotting my brain.

10. My friend at my old company who said she was going to come to this new company with me and who would have been incredibly helpful ... but it just wasn't the right thing for her to do at the time, and I'm sure it was for the best for me too. Somehow. :)

Things I'm mad at ...

A friend posted a blog, inspired by another blogger, of things she's mad at. So I'm going to do same. Google if you'd like, I'll add links tomorrow. Maybe. And more explanation. Maybe.

1. The federal government offering carbon offsets in what amounts to a subsidy to the forestry industry. And carbon offsets in general as an alternative to just cutting consumption.

2. Blaming China for substandard imports.

3. People who blame immigrants for their joblessness while they shop at Walmart.

4. Americans for allowing "Dancing With Celebrities" to survive but "Firefly" to fail.

5. Bottled water and diamonds.

6. Pharmaceutical ads being allowed on television and print, but bans on tobacco ads, alcohol ads, and marijuana in general (and I don't smoke pot).

7. Ethanol.

8. Zero tolerance in schools, which infantalizes our children.

9. NCLB, which still allows for the exclusion of undesirables but lowers everyone's education to the lowest common denominator as well.

10. Iraq being associated with 9/11.

11. Bush's ubiquitous smirk.

12. Our inability to think beyond energy alternatives instead of energy reduction.

13. "Hate crimes."

14. Religion as a basis for violence more often than a basis for love.

15. Anyone who would hurt a child.

17. The mindset that we deserve without merit or are entitled to anything without action.

18. Democrats.

19. My friend who continues to believe that the solution to her debt problem is to take on more debt.

That's about it for the moment, more tomorrow probably.

Ladies Nights are Unconstitutional?

Folks, we have achieved a new low in frivolous, pathetic lawsuits. Men are now suing bars who host ladies' night promotions, calling them unconstitutional.

Roy den Hollander, an attorney from New York, says that ladies' night promotions are unfair, a violation of his rights, and are causing him distress. Barring the obvious questions of how much an Columbia Business School graduate and George Washington University law school graduate who is able to practice in New York City could possibly be suffering, and also wondering if this guy maybe has general problems getting laid, how in the world is this suit a prudent use of our judicial system?

Poor Roy (you can learn a little more about him on his MySpace page - it's illuminating, and by the way, Roy, if you're going to sue the Copacabana, maybe you should take the reference to them out of your profile) says that his rights under the 14th Amendment are being violated. I'm not a Constitutional scholar so I won't even try to assess whether that might be true, but here's a little common sense for ya, Roy - ladies' night promotions are there to HELP you, not to hurt you, so shut the hell up.

I mean really, why don't you ever see "mens' nights" where women pay a cover but men don't, and men's drinks are less expensive? Answer: Because the women wouldn't show up! Generally speaking, at least from my personal experience, we care a lot less about men being in a club than men care about women being in a club. If a club had a mens' night, we'd just say good for them and leave them to some nice male bonding, and the club would repeat that little promotion exactly never again.

You know what else chaps my have-to-wait-longer-in-line-to-use-the-restroom butt? That this MALE attorney is crying about being treated as a second class citizen. Raise your hand if you think you might know which gender makes more money in the field of law in New York City? Surprise! In 2004 at least, "The median income of male lawyers is $107,000; for female lawyers it is $75,000." So pardon me, Roy, if I'm not terribly upset that you have to pay a little more for drinks when you go to the Copacabana.

Roy thinks men and women should pay the same amount for drinks and admission that equalizing that expense will mean that men have more money to buy women drinks. Barring the questionable math here, listen to what this guy is saying. He needs more money to get women drunk. He even says as much:

"Each guy that walks into that club will have more money to buy her a drink, and the more she drinks, the more fun she and the guys will have," he said.

There is so much in this story that is pathetic and sad and limp, but at least it gave me a chuckle. Poor Roy. Poor, poor Roy.

Keep Fiddling

Here's the thing.

As long as we hand over our thinking to the media bobbleheads, we have no reason to question why our nation is a big fat mess. If you only believe Rush Limbaugh, you're an idiot. If you only believe Truthout, you're an idiot. If you can't be bothered to try to find any opposition to your own opinion, YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

It's pathetic, and it's another symptom of a society that is completely fat and lazy and has never had it this good. We see refugees and we go spend our money at Macy's for a 20% discount that will get donated to an African AIDS fund. We worry about our energy consumption and we buy pointless carbon offsets and flex fuel SUVs. We crow about our freedom as we invade sovereign nations. We buy bottled water while billions starve. We watch commercials for pharmaceuticals that our own citizens can't afford to buy. We groan under the weight of obesity while we subsidize the industries that promote it. We demand low prices because we have allowed our jobs to be outsourced and can no longer afford anything of quality. We frantically throw ourselves into debt to prove that we are not struggling. We pay for the privilege of being brainwashed into every purchase. We buy into being socially conscious by people who tell us that a $100 organic spa treatment is responsible.

Ugh. Come on, folks. Wake up.

Be warned - oppose Bush's efforts to promote stability in Iraq, hasten reconstruction, and provide humanitarian relief at your own peril.Bush released an Executive Order on Tuesday that basically says that if you make a donation to an organization that he and his lackeys deem to be supportive of anything other than the Bush party line, you could have your assets frozen, and the organization and those who run it most certainly will have their assets frozen.

I'm sure that he means well. He'll certainly freeze the assets of the Saudi royal family immediately, right? And since smoking pot promotes terrorism, we'd better sieze all of the assets of everyone in the country who spokes dope. That'd take a little budget pressure off of the poor commander guy. I'm not sure Halliburton is really helping, so let's take their stuff (and Cheney - if we can find him now that he's in some bizarre Executive-Not Executive branch space warp).

You know what, though? The first assets to be siezed should be a certain someone's ranch in Crawford. Seems like he's done the most to destabilize the area, doncha think?

Sleazy Car Dealers

I know car buying is a negotiated market, but this is just absurd. I have a friend in dire financial straits who recently had to buy a car and this dealership bent her over big time.

I'm going to post a letter that I wrote for her to send to a local loudmouth, but we haven't heard back from him - I'm not surprised, since this dealer did nothing technically illegal, but am still disappointed. If nothing else, I'd love for a network to do a segment on how sleazy Kids Auto in Denver is to do this to someone. If anyone has any connections that could make that happen ...

In late May, 2007, I purchased a 1996 Mercury Cougar V8 XR7 at Kids Auto on Alameda. The car has 112,000 miles, power windows/steering/seats, moonroof, ABS, airbags, half leather/half cloth, and A/C. Besides a broken interior lamp cover, the car is in very good condition.

According to http://www.nada.com/, the "clean" (middle range) retail value of the car is $3125. According to http://www.kbb.com/, this car in "excellent" condition and with these features is has a suggested retail value of $4755. Using http://www.edmunds.com/ appraisal tool, the dealer retail is about $3500.

I paid a cash price of $8800, plus $816.00 for a 12 month warranty, plus tax. My final financed amount was $9909 at 20.5% interest for 43 months, equaling a payment of about $330.

I did not realize how much they had overcharged me for this car until after I had gotten home, but at the time did not feel that I had any option but to take whatever they would sell me.

I know the automobile market is a negotiated market and that I signed the contract, but also feel that this dealership took advantage of a single, desperate woman. They already knew my credit situation, so they knew my options were limited. They knew I had no transportation home and they had my old car -my previous car had a trade-in of only $100, but they could only credit me $40 because they charged me $60 to have it towed in (someone tried to steal it and broke off something in the ignition, it was totalled). It would have cost another $60 to tow somewhere else.

I am just now beginning to get my life back together. I finally have a steady job that I like, have worked through serious depression without the medication insurance provided before my divorce, and have gotten back into an apartment after a period of homelessness. These car payments are really more than I can afford, so I took out a payday loan with a 360% annual rate and am worried that I will not be able to pay that back. If I do not have a car, I will have a very difficult time keeping my job and my apartment. This would also impact my 15 year old son, who splits his time between me and his father.

I do have a friend who is a financial planner and she is now working with me to figure out how I can make these payments without falling any more behind on my rent and without taking out more payday loans. She does not believe I have any recourse against Kid Auto because the Colorado Attorney General does not investigate ethics or business practice issues, but suggested that I contact you because of your consumer advocate reputation.

I cannot stress how much you would impact my life right now if you could get them to rewrite the contract, even if it was just down to the highest estimated price (the http://www.kbb.com/ price of $4755). The 20.5% interest rate was not a surprise because of my credit, which is very bad after several years of personal issues for which I take full responsibility, but it seems like the price of the car should not have been that high.

Even if you are not able to persuade Kid Auto to adjust the price of my car, I hope you can use my story to warn your listeners about this dealership and also to tell them about how difficult it is to pull yourself out of poverty when there are businesses like this out there who know you are desperate and will take advantage of you.

Farmers Market

Jake and I just got back from our weekly trip to the farmer's market. I read recently that the number of farmer's markets in the country has doubled in the last few years, which I think is fantastic, but I wonder if most of them are like ours - not a lot of farmers. There were two produce farms represented today with a wide range of vegetables (we picked up some Yukons, peaches & cream corn, and tomatoes), a couple of peach stands, a guy selling roasted green chile (worth going to the market just for that smell alone), and a guy selling herb plants and other yard plants. That was it as far as fresh food.

What other booths were there? Let's see if I can remember. Two or three selling gorditas/burritos, four selling supplements (Juice Plus, some mangosteen stuff, bing cherry something or other, and flax), three with pastries/desserts/artisan breads, one pasta, one rice (where we get our black glutinous rice, which you MUST try sometime), three with flavored oils and vinegars.

Then there were several selling salsa (two Caribbean), a kid selling pickles, a family with a honey booth.

A rancher selling beef. Awesome beef. $900 for 125 lbs of beef.

Cotton candy, ice cream, shaved ice, coffee, doughnuts, roasted corn, one standard run of the mill festival food type trailer ...

Jewelry, purses, hats ...

Candles, salt lamps, potpourri ...

Houses (a developer was there) ...

Is this really what farmer's markets are and have always been? I really don't know. Seems like a farmer's market should be a market full of farmers, not all of the this other stuff. When I lived in Albuquerque there was a year round store farmer's market in a permanent storefront. That place was AWESOME and probably the single most difficult thing to leave when we moved, which is saying a lot because I loved New Mexico. I don't necessarily need that here, but then again, why the heck couldn't it be here? The produce there was much less expensive than the grocery stores, it was unbelievably good, and it supported local farms. There has to be a way to do that here.

Uh oh. Sounds like another project coming on. Bill's not going to be happy.