Join The Din

2006-11-09T11:07:00.000-08:00

If second hand smoke is an absolute bad thing because it kills people and as such requires the elimination of public smoking to protect people, why then isn't public driving of vehicles with internal combustion engines being prohibited with similar alacrity?
My assumption here is that exhaust from automobiles and trucks is at least as harmful as second hand smoke from cigarettes.

2006-11-08T06:16:00.000-08:00

How is it that not voting for Harold Ford in TN is "them thar white boys not wantin' that thar negro in office"
And not voting for Ken Blackwell in OH is "the right thing to do"?

Apples, Oranges?
Am I stoopid?
In the 80's I was told not to 'perpetuate the myth', so what's the myth?
I don't get it.

2006-11-07T03:14:00.000-08:00

703 871 0551
000 000 0000

What do those numbers have in common? Over the last two weeks I 've been getting harassing phone calls from machines telling me to vote for such-and-such individual and this-and-that issue.

Why are politicians allowed to bother me on the phone, but someone hawking their goods isn't. I think politicians should be barred from using the phone as a campaign tool. They should also be barred from using television commercial spots. TV ads are nothing but garbage, not to mention a hurdle that independents and non-incumbents have a more difficult time jumping (money).

A special broadcast station should be available a month before any election. Anyone should be free to place an add there. Most of the ads are lies anyway.

2006-10-20T02:50:00.000-07:00

The Afterlife.

It seems to me that people cling to the thought of an afterlife because they have fallen in love with the only self-aware consciousness they know. They cannot imagine being without it.

2006-10-11T03:20:00.000-07:00

This is funny: Danger!!

2006-09-20T06:26:00.000-07:00

Banks serve a purpose, however some of their practices are, in my estimation, morally criminal.

When presented with the opportunity, I teach that just because something is legal, does not make it right.

I currently bank with National City and have for several years. I have an emotional response to banks; I hate them.

ASSUMPTIONS:
In principle, I do not object to paying a fee for a service a bank (or any other institution ) provides to me; covering a debit that exceeds the current balance, ATM fees, etc. I don't have a lot of money, so any fees my bank applies are glaringly obvious. Also, not being very liquid makes it much easier for me to hit the edge of funds I have available. I believe in the power of the free market; I do not subscribe to the proposition that profit is a bad thing.

FEES:
Non Sufficient Funds (NSF) fees are horrible. I pay $34 for any debit that exceeds my current balance. $34, WTF???!!! Again, I expect to pay a fee when I initiate a NSF transaction, but $34???? C'mon, how do the decision makers at National City justify that? Why not make the fee $200?
Generally speaking, vendors charge customers fees based on what it costs them to provide the service with a little added in order to pull in a bit of profit. I have a hard time imagining that the bank spends anywhere near $34 to cover a $23.57 check that left my account in the red in the amount of $1.34 for a 22 hours. In addition to characterizing covering an NSF transaction as a service, it could also be interpreted as an on-the-fly loan.

If we look at it from a loan perspective, we get this scenario: National City loaned me $1.34 for 22 hours an charged me $34 for the privilege, a simple interest rate of 2537.31%!!! And they do it with a straight face. Some call this usury, I know I do.

If we look at it from a fee for service perspective, this scenario applies: National City's computer transferred $1.34 into my account to allow my check to be covered. The actual cost of the transaction my have cost the bank a fraction of a penny, we'll round up and give them a $0.01 for this. Now, at some point a human had to program the computer to perform the transaction, so the bank has to cover that cost. In reality, that cost gets spread over the whole of computer programming that occurs throughout the organization, which greatly reduces the per transaction cost. Let's say the programming cost per transaction is $2. Add in all the other stuff (audits, personnel, etc.), which are really just the cost of doing business, and we'll throw in another $5. Factor in the interest lost as the $1.34 is no longer available to them for the 22 hours I had it tied up, let's give the bank $0.13 for that ($1.34 * .1). So the bank's cost per a NSF transaction may be in the $7.14 range. Yet, they charge me $34. Say what??!!! That's almost a 500% profit - - and people cry when the oil industry makes a 10% profit. I would call this scenario price gouging.

On another account, I actually have overdraft protection. They'll cover up to a predetermined amount and ding me for $10 for each NSF transaction. This is much more in line with a reasonable charge, however, danger lurks. That overdraft protection is a credit card, so not only do they get the $10, but if I let the balance carry over to the next month, they get to charge me the going interest rate on the balance. So understand this: they charge me to use the card (cover a NSF transaction) and they charge me as if it was a regular credit card. Can you say double-dip?? I wonder how many people would use their Visa cards if every time they used it, Visa charged them $10?

There is yet another account that has some silly scam to hit you up for $15. This game follows these rules: if you make more than 6 transactions in a month that don't include a visit to the bank, BANG!! $15. Why? Because there is some law that allows them to do this (see above reference to what is legal). This is yet another tricky fee rip off.

THE GREAT MAGICAL DISAPPEARING TRANSACTION:
This one is my favorite. I charge a service to my debit card (gas, amazon, etc.), the transaction shows up immediately on my online account balance. I then cut a check for $5.78, which pushes me over the edge and I get the pleasure of dealing with a NSF charge (see above). But wait! Three days pass and the debit card transaction suddenly disappears from my online balance. Why? The paperwork from the vendor didn't come in yet! - you got it, the paperwork. So the charge that put me in a position to have a NSF transaction now never occurred, BUT I'm still stuck with the $34 charge, which was imposed including a transaction that no longer exists!! Freaky, eh? No, more like criminal.

WHY I USE A BANK:
I get checks from people. Checks require banks. Perhaps someday I'll figure out a way to maximize my use of cash, and minimize my exposure to a bank.

Banks suck. They rip you off. The bank that is currently ripping me off is National City. I hate it.

2006-09-15T04:38:00.000-07:00

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
- Robert J. Hanlon

Misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than even malice and wickedness. At all events, the two latter are of less frequent occurrence.
- Goethe

2006-09-08T07:55:00.000-07:00

Zoning laws.

I subscribe to the Libertarian view of private property. As a result, my baseline belief is that zoning laws are philosophically unfounded. However, I understand and support the desired outcome of zoning laws.

My limited experience with zoning laws and how they are administered has left me cold. Here are my assumptions & observations.

Assumptions:
- Zoning boards are advocates for current residents
- Zoning boards try to balance the real or perceived needs of their particular governmental subdivision against the desires of the current residents
- Zoning laws mean something

Observations:
- Zoning boards tend to advocate for external (to the governmental subdivision) entities
- Zoning boards are afraid of legal action
- Zoning boards can be myopic - change is always good, keeping something the same is always bad
- Zoning laws are things of whimsy

Zoning laws give rise to a silly game.
1. Developer requests a zoning change.
2. Zoning board says "do this, do that and we'll grant it".
3. Citizens protest.
4. Zoning board rejects the change.
5. Developer goes to court and argues "best use".
6. Zoning board represents the citizens with little passion.
7. Court demands the change be granted.
8. Zoning board grants change with ass sufficiently covered.
9. Developer develops, sells, reaps the benefit of the low capital gains tax rate & leaves the community while incrementally reducing the desirable nature of the community which drew the developer to the area in the first place.
10. The citizens are then left to deal with reduced property value and quite often unfulfilled agreements from the zoning board and the developer.

So, I'm lead to believe that developers operate from the perspective that they'll get what they want; the only variables are how long it will take and how much it will cost. If they have time and money, then the people who live in the community don't stand a chance. The dance described above is just that, a dance. It's the cost of getting laid, and if you want to get laid bad enough, you'll pay the price.

Zoning laws are a joke, the boards are powerless & the citizens are delusional. The developers just do what developers do.

2006-09-08T07:48:00.000-07:00

I've decided to add my voice to the cacophony of others out here.