Sometimes corporations ARE evil

You might notice that many, if not most of my blog posts are full of whining. That's because I don't get to whine in real life because no one listens to me. In fact, I spend a large part of my day listening to other people whine. So I think it's only fair that you should have to tolerate the expression of my discontent, don't you?

So, in the spirit of the current economic crisis, I'm going to bitch about bank fees.

I understand overdraft fees. Of course you should be charged if you write checks that you don't have the funds to cover.

But why do some banks always clear larger checks first?

Let me tell you why. Better yet. I'll just quote this USA Today article from 2006.

Here's how high-to-low check processing works: Say you have $50 in the bank. And suppose three checks come in on the same day: for $20, $15 and $45. The bank would clear the $45 one first. That way, it could charge you a fee, of up to $35, for each of two checks bouncing. If it had cleared the lowest-amount check first, you'd incur only one bounced-check fee.

So, if your account is running low, they get to make more money. That's why they do it.

I once asked a bank manager about this. He tried to tell me that they always clear the large checks first because they assume that the bigger checks are the most important things, such as a mortgage payment, and that most customers would prefer that those checks clear. They must have all had a big meeting to come up with that BS, because the USA Today article says the same thing.

But we know better, don't we?

Here's another bank fee I love. A "deposit correction fee". That's right. If you bank at Suntrust, and you make an error on a deposit slip, they charge you $6.00 to correct it. At any other bank I have used, the teller would total up the checks, inform me if I had made an error, and simply correct it right then and there. At Suntrust, they do the totaling at the end of the day, and you are charged for your screw ups.

If you suck at math like I do, this could get really expensive.

But the fees that make me really angry are the "uncollected funds" fees. If you have a business account at SunTrust, and it ever gets a little low, you might get charged this fee. You can make a large deposit and they will make it "available" the very next day. Yep, you check your account, and every bit of it is available.

HOWEVER, you will be charged $32.00 PER TRANSACTION, because the money is not actually "collected" yet. They will claim that it takes anywhere from 2-7 days to collect your money. One month, we paid almost $1000 in uncollected funds fees. And it was all because SunTrust just would not make our money available to us.

We have since switched banks.

So what sparked this rant today?

Well...

This afternoon, I found a charge on my personal credit union account that I couldn't understand. It was called a "bad address fee". I called the bank and was told that they mailed something to me and it was returned. I verified my address with them, and they had the correct one. It's a post office box, and it's been the same one for years. But for some reason, the post office returned something that was mailed to me, and I got charged for that.

$5.00. Because a piece of mail was returned. Unbelievable.

Contrary to what liberals want you to think....

It's not all George Bush's fault. The current economic crisis, I mean.

(I can't believe I'm actually blogging about the economy.)

I had to search high and low to find a reference to this, and to find one that explained it in a way that even this ignorant Southerner can understand it. I alluded to it in my last post, but I didn't know the name of the act, and not surprisingly, I haven't heard it mentioned on the news at all. I've known about this for a while, and was a little surprised tonight to find out that my husband, who usually stays caught up, was not aware that there was an act passed regarding this. So I thought I'd post it here, to make sure that the thousands hundreds....okay, eight people who read my blog are aware of it, too.

From Kurt Schulzke at ipercieve.net:

1. In 1977, Democrat President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This act forced banks to “provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under-served populations”.

2. In 1993, Democrat Bill Clinton asked his Treasury Secretary to come up with reforms to increase the expand the CRA.

3. In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%. Fannie’s and Freddie’s combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clinton’s term in office - a five fold increase.

4. In 2005, Bush attempted to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) but he was rejected along party lines despite warnings by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.


How did Clinton seek to enforce compliance? In 1993, Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen explains:

“In a nutshell, what we’re proposing to do is to make it easier for lenders to show how they’re complying with the Community Reinvestment Act. …the changes we’re proposing are important because banks now have a very clear, quantitative standard by which their compliance can be judged. And that is very important to banks when it comes to ask regulators to approve mergers, new branches and the like.”

Under Bill Clinton and his Democratic Congress, the CRA was reborn and inserted into the very fabric of our financial markets. Yes, some institutions were happy to make money doing CRA loans but they would not have made them if the Clinton Administration hadn’t forced them to in order to get new branches and mergers approved. We know this because before Clinton, CRA loans were almost non-existent.

So, the bleeding heart liberals made sure that no one was "discriminated" against by not being granted a loan. We've been lending to people who couldn't pay it back, and there was never any reason to think they could. But it wouldn't have been fair not to do the same for them as we were for people who were in a position to pay, right? After all, shouldn't everyone have a house?

Yet Nancy Pelosi can stand there and place all the blame on George Bush and his failed economic policies.

I used to have a writing mentor

For a whole two weeks, that is.

I never actually met her. She did an article in a local magazine about our business. She found out I like to write for fun, and that I also write a column for another community magazine. She gave me a little advice, and we were going to get together for lunch soon. She told me that it would be easy for me to get a "job" at the magazine she writes for if I wanted.

Most of our communication was via email, but the first contact was a phone call. She told me right away that she is from Boston, and therefore that I should be able to guess where she stands politically. Yes, of course I could. And I told her that I lean the opposite direction. Actually, I'm standing quite firmly on the opposite side. But I didn't discuss it with her AT ALL. In my opinion, there is little point in discussing politics with someone you don't agree with, because it almost always turns heated, and you will never change someone's mind anyway. So why bother?

Anyhow, I just wanted a little guidance and constructive criticism about writing, and she was more than willing to offer her help. I just planned to completely avoid anything political.

She tried to bring up politics several times in our email exchanges. I ignored all of it. Finally, she gave me a "writing assignment". Naturally, it was on a political subject, and the way she phrased it was something like "Tell me your opinion on the fact that YOUR CANDIDATE, and YOUR PRESIDENT did such and such...." She used the ALL CAPS to emphasize how disgusted she is with the entire Republican party. I knew she was making a point. Why, oh WHY, did I continue to have contact with her? I knew it was going to turn ugly.

I was working on the assignment, but hadn't finished. I was really trying to avoid saying anything that might set her off. I'm not afraid to express my opinions (as you might have noticed), but this is someone that I wanted to have a working relationship with, and I sensed her rabid, liberal Pit Bull mentality, even though I hadn't actually seen it. Yet.

So, fast forward to not even 24 hours later. I got another email from her. I guess she couldn't wait to stimulate a political discussion argument. This time, she had yet another writing assignment for me. Well, that's what she called it. What she said was, "Here's an assignment for you. Tell me why to like Mister Obama."

Oh boy. I should have ignored the email. I should have just deleted it. Hell, I should have just deleted my email address altogether so she could never contact me again.

But I didn't. I answered her. I mean, part of me thought that maybe she was one of those liberals that doesn't like Barack Obama. I mean, you could infer that from the way she asked the question, right? Either way, she knew I was a conservative, so she probably assumed that I didn't like the man all that much. Was she really going to be surprised at my answer? And I really didn't think she meant it as a true "writing assignment". I thought she was just making conversation. After all, I was already working on one assignment.

All I said was, "Are you serious when you ask me what to like about Obama? Because I really can't think of one thing." I swear, I didn't say anything else. It was one sentence, and it was the only thing I had ever said to her about politics. Ever.

Even though I guess I expected it, her next few emails really shocked me.

She said that I am not "open-minded". She went on and on about how wonderful it is up there in Boston, and said that the people in the South don't try to understand each other. She went so far as to say that there is a lack of knowledge the closer one gets to the equator. She blamed everything (Yes, she said everything. She probably meant the hurricanes, too.) on the Bushes, and told me to "look up" the word autocracy (because obviously I am too stupid to know what it means), and remember that this is not one. "It's supposed to be a Democracy," she said.

Um, actually, it's supposed to be a Republic. See, this Southerner isn't as dumb as she looks.

"Some day you'll understand," she said, and informed me that she was quoting Lynyrd Skynrd. (I have no idea what her point was there. But hey, maybe someday I'll understand.)

When I responded, I asked her what I have said that is evidence of my "close-mindedness". I let her know that I didn't think it was fair to insinuate (or wait a minute, she came right out and SAID it) that most of us in the South are ignorant. I told her that everything that is wrong with this country couldn't possibly be one person's fault, and gave an example of the Clinton administration's pressure on companies to lend to those who were not qualified, as a suggestion that maybe HE had something to do with the nation's financial market, as well. I gave her some examples to show why I am not an Obama fan, one being the fact that he attended a racist church and called Jeremiah Wright his mentor and guide. I even sent her to the church website so she could see exactly what bothers me about it. (Go ahead. Go there. Click on ABOUT US, and then read about the "black value system". Insert the word "white" in place of "black". Now how does it sound? Would you attend a church like that? What church bases it's values on race?)

I was honestly trying to understand her.

All in all, I think I was pretty damn polite, for a pissed off redneck! ;)

Well, THAT didn't get me anywhere.

She called my response a "rant", and said that she guessed she hit a hot button and "pushed you over some edge somewhere". She started typing in ALL CAPS AGAIN, and told me that it's not all Clinton's fault (never said it was) and (Look out. Hardcore profanity ahead. Her words, not mine.) "if you believe that bullshit, then I believe you deserve every fucked-up-the-ass point of view that this BURNT OUT, BORROWED AND BORING (Gotta love the alliteration) ADMINISTRATION WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE, EIGHT FUCKING YEARS OF AN IDIOT IS ENOUGH!"

She said that I am a product of the "Karl Rove propaganda machine" (are you kidding me) and that all of this talk about homeland security is nothing more than "trumped up scare tactics". (Click here to see some "trumped up scare tactics".)

She accused me of getting all of my information from the internet, then listed all the places she has lived and mentioned how much she has learned about the world because of it. (Clearly, she is soooo much smarter than the likes of me.) She said that Florida steals votes, that I see things through a conservative filter because of where I live, that I am exposed to a bunch of "NOTHINGS" (extreme nothings, apparently, judging by the capital letters) and then suggested that I immediately get on a plane and go to Boston, because "you certainly won't learn anything that isn't dried up or rotten here."

After another quote (Crosby, Stills and Nash this time. Yes, those entertainers are full of wisdom.) she had the temerity to refer to her belittling email as "discourse", and asked if I would please have lunch with her and talk face to face.

Yes, I am serious.

No, I'm not meeting her. I didn't even answer her last email.

At least I don't have to finish the original writing assignment now. :)

Hippos and elephants

I just learned that the release of Britney Spears' new single has been delayed. It was supposed to happen a couple of days ago. As it stands now, the earliest it will be played on the radio is September 29. What a disappointment. I'm crestfallen.

Also, Clay Aiken is gay. Who is Clay Aiken, anyway? And do we really care that he's gay? Is that news?

Why is stuff like this always on the front page of Yahoo.com?

Anyway, that's probably the most celebrity news you'll ever get out of me. Enjoy.

Now let me tell you how persuasive a 3-year-old can be.

I was wondering when Captain Chaos would reach the stage where he started noticing toy ads and wanting everything he sees. And he did about a month ago. "Mommy, look! I want that! I want that race track! I want that butterfly game! I NEED that pirate ship!!!!"

Yes, the commercial breaks during childrens' cartoons are filled with nothing but ads for, what else...TOYS!

For the record, I do not let my child park himself in front of the television for hours. But sometimes I want to take a shower without someone hovering nearby. And occasionally it's nice to be able to sit at my desk and get a little work done.

And yes, sometimes I just want to slack in peace!

So, when Dora the Explorer comes on, I can be sure that I won't be bothered for half an hour. (Is that a girl show? Well, my boy loves it. I don't think there's a rule that says boys can't watch it. Of course, if my husband finds out, he'll be concerned that it will make our kid gay, but that's another blog post.)

So, yesterday we made a trip to Toys R Us. And we are now the proud owners of the Hungry Hungry Hippos game.

Do you remember that one? It's still around. And trust me, you haven't lived until you've played a couple hundred rounds of it.

I guess I should be happy, though, because it's always nice to buy a toy that your child will actually play with for more than 3 minutes.

However, if he really likes the toy, it's always nice if it's something he can play with alone.

On that note, I have to go now. Time to play Elefun.

Don't ask.

Loudmouthed liberals

If you are reading this, you probably figured out that the domain name has changed. I'm even going to change the heading on the blog, but I have to find someone much more talented than myself to do that for me.

Ever since starting this blog, I've been hoping to think of some inspired title for it. And damned if I wasn't inspired last week!

Some people don't like the fact that I work from home. Or, in their minds, "How does she have time to blog? She needs to get a JOB!" Well, I don't feel the need to argue with them the fact that I do have a job. (More than one, if you want to get picky.) There are days that I work from the time the sun comes up until well after everyone else in the house is asleep. Then there are the days that I goof off as much as possible. But even on those "slacker" days, I think that my hobbies are more constructive than some things I could be doing in my free time.

Therefore, I shall henceforth refer to myself as "The Productive Slacker". :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As my life is rather uneventful lately, I don't have a lot to say. So I guess I'll get political again.

I'd give you my take on the economy, but I'm not that edumacated. :)

So (and I'm not sure why I can't let this subject die), let's talk about media bias some more.

Now, I wouldn't watch The View if my only other choice was watching paint dry, but I just saw a few clips of McCain getting barbecued by Barbara Walters and Company during his appearance on the show. However, when the Obamassiah was interviewed recently, Barbara gushed about how sexy he was and asked if he was related to Brad Pitt.

He's not qualified to run the country, but at least he looks good.

Next, I read something online about Oprah. It seems that she has had Obama on her show more than once, I believe, and has even hosted a fundraiser for him. Yet she has stated that she will not allow Sarah Palin to appear, reportedly because she doesn't want to use her show as a platform for one of the candidates.

All of this to end a day off, which I spent at the bookstore reading Glenn Beck's book (that's productive, right?) while enduring an onslaught of liberal blather. Yes, THREE different people were literally shouting their left wing viewpoints just to be sure that everyone could hear.

One guy's reasons for voting for Obama are:
1. He went to Harvard.
2. McCain is going to die soon.

Another man (who doesn't actually look like a hippie, but has a hygiene problem nonetheless), was on a "Republicans are crooks" rant, and ended his diatribe by spewing about how the "religious right" is ruining this country.

A third man (with a British accent, who hopefully is not a citizen and therefore won't be voting) said that America's best chance for making friends abroad is by electing Barack Obama as president! Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not as concerned with making friends abroad as I am about protection from those who hate us, and won't be our friends no matter who the president is!

It's a well known fact (at least among nerds such as myself) that liberals tend to congregate in the bookstore. I used to think that there were no conservatives there at all, but I've met a few. They are usually polite, and if they do discuss politics at all, they are whispering privately to me about how much they love the "Limbaugh/Coulter 08" sticker on my laptop. ;) So I've figured out that the truth is, conservatives are not so rude that they feel the need to bellow their opinions in what is supposed to be a quiet environment.

More media bias

Barack Obama was interviewed by Charlie Gibson of ABC News. So was Sarah Palin. But the list of questions sure was different.

This comparison of the two interviews was actually listed on the Hillary Clinton forum. (Not that I am a member of the Hillary Clinton forum, mind you.) Check out the softball questions lobbed at Obama.

Questions for Obama:


How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to "win"?
How does your family feel about your "winning" breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor's [Clinton] speech?

(Hm. No mention there of his lack of experience. And no questions about global current events or foreign policy? And he's running for president, not vice-president!)

And the Palin questions:


Do you have enough qualifications for the job you're seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren't you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

What is even more frustrating, and more evidence of bias, is the fact that the Palin interview was severely edited. Apparently, ABC News didn't really want you to see how intelligent and capable Sarah Palin really is.

See this link for the transcript of the actual interview, showing the parts that were cut.

FYI

Due to recent events that I won't elaborate on, the web address for this blog will be changing from www.chronicreader.com to....something else. That is, as soon as I decide what that something else will be, and buy the new domain name. This might happen today. Or it might not happen for a week or two. It just depends how long it takes me to think of a new name and get it set up.

If you are subscribed in email, you'll get an email from me to tell you the new address, and you'll have to go there and subscribe again.

I know some people read this blog but don't have a subscription, which means that I don't have your email address. So please email me at chronic.reader@yahoo.com so that I can include you in the list of people to notify of the new domain. (Yes, I realize that I could just put the new domain name here, but that would defeat the whole purpose of moving the blog.)

I know I didn't blog as much over the past 2-3 months. Summer is busy for me and I haven't had as much time. But I'm not giving it up yet. I still have more people to offend. :)

Liberal Media

I went grocery shopping yesterday, and there in the checkout lane were the usual tabloids and Hollywood rags that are so far beneath my intelligence level I refuse to read them. I really don't see why anyone cares who Jennifer Aniston is dating this week or where Matthew McConaughey went on his latest vacation. However, I couldn't help but notice the cover of the latest US magazine.

It was a picture of Sarah Palin, with the headline "Babies, Lies and Scandal!!!" It went on to mention her pregnant daughter, and promised "new embarrassing surprises".

I didn't recall ever noticing a similar cover attacking Barack Obama that way. And it's not as if there isn't plenty of dirt on him.

So I came home and did a little research, and lo and behold, there was a recent cover showing Obama and his wife, next to the headline, "Why Barack Loves Her!" It even mentions how "down-to-earth" Mrs. Obama is, and the fact that Barack calls her "my rock".


No media bias there, huh?

Yet the Democrats want to shut down conservative talk radio with the Fairness Doctrine.

Nerds of the world, UNITE!

There are certain people (and I won't call any names) who have suggested (or just come right out and said) that I am I am a "nerd". They say it as if it's a bad thing. ;)

You would think that by the time you are approaching 40, or even way before that, nerdiness vs. coolness just wouldn't be an issue anymore.

I'm a nerd because I rarely drink alcohol. If that's not enough, I didn't drink alcohol AT ALL in high school, AND I was in the BAND! Never mind that high school was over 20 years ago. (Did I just tell everyone my age?) There is no cure for nerdiness. Once a nerd, always a nerd.

I have upgraded to Super Nerd status over the past few years, by hanging out in the bookstore every chance I get, and by spending as much time as possible online, reading everything from book reviews to political blogs.

Tee Hee. I just love being a nerd.

Recently I was given a bit of a hard time for having a MySpace page. These people apparently "don't have time" for a MySpace page, so they say. This is just a way to insinuate that I have SO much more free time on my hands than they do.

Well, I don't have time to play golf several days a week. I don't have time to sit in front of the television in the evening. I don't have time to lay out by the pool. And I definitely don't have time to sit in my backyard and drink beer all weekend.

The point is, we all have our hobbies. We make time for them. My hobbies are reading, writing AND OCCASIONALLY SPENDING TIME ON MY MYSPACE PAGE!!! Deal with it!

As if we need another reason not to vote for Obama.....

Here's a link to a blog post that explains Obama's healthcare plan in detail.

And here's a good video explaining why we don't want the government controlling our healthcare system.

You mean she's not going to kill it? Those silly conservatives!

When false internet rumors (that Sarah Palin's youngest child actually was conceived by her daughter and that the Alaska governor faked her pregnancy to cover that up) didn't pan out, the libtards jumped on the fact that Palin has an unmarried, pregnant daughter.

Never mind that the daughter isn't running for vice-president.

I guess if you are a Republican, your entire family must be perfect in order for you to be an acceptable candidate.

In my opinion, it just means that they are a normal family with a lot of the same issues many American families face.

She's having the child. She's marrying the father. But what would really make the liberals happy would be if she just aborted the kid and went on with her life. Those libs just LOVE to kill babies.

No crackheads in Alaska (Otherwise titled: P. Diddy shows us how stupid and inarticulate he really is)

A "musician" (not really) gives us his opinion of McCain's VP pick.

Watch this video and tell me you don't agree that P. Diddy (what a stupid thing to call yourself, by the way) is a DUMBASS!

Another dreadfully unintelligent "celebrity" whose opinion just doesn't matter.

Sarah Palin--Victory for the GOP

This one needs no explanation.