Halloween Currency Frights

So, today I was at the bank because I couldn't access my savings account online.  I had transferred the rest of the money out of the account to cover a bill, but when I tried to put some back in, poof - no savings account.  I tried to make a deposit through the ATM.  Denied.

*Stomping feet to the car*  Fine, I'll bite.  Off to the bank branch in person.  I gave them my check and asked them to deposit it into my savings account, and... it's not open any more.  A manager came over to try to re-open it, but she couldn't, and so our conversation went:

Me: "So, the account is closed?  There is a minimum balance?"
Manager:  "No.  It was just at zero too long."
Me:  "But there's no minimum balance?'
Manager:  "No."

She was very helpful in opening a new one for me and depositing my check, but now I have a PayPal transaction that's going to have a big, fat FAIL on it when they eventually figure out my savings account had been buried without a proper memorial service.  How does an account close itself if there is no minimum balance?  How does my account cause the bank any grief if it just sits idle for a few weeks?  I think it was at zero for 30 days or so when I realized that I couldn't transfer money to it any more.  Does an empty savings account REALLY cause that much overhead that they have to close it?  It's just a virtual placeholder, for criminy's sake.  Maybe they closed it because they were afraid I was going to use it again and gather that 0.000000001% interest on the balance every quarter.  A penny for your savings, please.

You'd think between the precarious position of the dollar and numerous bank failures, Citizens Bank would at least want to keep the option open for me to put money back into the bank.  Although, Bank of America has no problem with keeping my credit account open after declining an APR increase, just in case I use the card one day, so they have the option of raising my APR to 14% on one card and 25% on the other.  The timeframe for what Obama and his administration signed for the credit laws is simply too long - they should have done a sting operation so the credit companies don't have several months to milk their customers of sinfully high APR percentages, making up new fees and increasing existing ones.  I don't know why they look so pleased when we're still hurting.

Oh dear.  Between a screaming, colicky baby who is teething at four months old and the general state of our economy, I believe I have turned into an unreasonable nitpicker whose foray into this blog has lost a bit of focus.  But what better way to find out what's going on in the national news that to actually live it?  Credit used to be cheap, but when it was made available to every person whose credit score was less than perfect, it spiraled out of control.  Similarly, when every person could get a mortgage regardless of their income or credit history, those who usually could not afford owning a home are now paying dearly for it.

What does this have to do with my closed savings account?  No clue.  Not much about this economy or money in general makes sense these days.  In order to "save" this economy, everyone has a different theory:  Is it spreading the wealth?  Spreading opportunity?  Trade allies?  Ugh, who knows.  All I know is that banks are failing and I didn't have a place to rest the money I DO have.  If anyone can make sense of that knotty mess, I'd be much obliged.

Proof that the U.S. Still Needs a Lesson in Diplomacy

Just reading the first few paragraphs of this column made me think about the exact reason why many nations hate the self-proclaimed "Free World."

Ed Rollins, a frequent contributor to CNN, states in the highlights of his column that Obama says "winning over U.S. foes isn't an important foreign policy goal."  He further goes on to state that President Bush and his team, while making some mistakes, was in office during 09/11 and kept this country safe throughout both his terms, and then explores what happened during the UN National Security Council meeting last week.

*Looking around* First of all, I thought we were past the "everyone play nice in the sandbox" negotiations.  Mr. Rollins, we're dealing with adult men here.  If they have power in their hands, they'll want the big toys that everyone else has, and saying "NO!  BAD LEADER!  PUT IT DOWN!" in your best Lewis Black imitation is only going to make them want it more.  Let's get real here.

At the UNNSC meeting, the 15 countries' representatives approved a six-page measure that would encourage a nuclear weapon-free world.  And who was gathered around that table?  China. France. The Russian Federation.  Britain.  U.S.  No one's giving up those nuclear bad boys.  Neither is Pakistan, Israel or India.  Furthermore, Mr. Rollins suggests that the real goal of the meeting should have been to admonish North Korea and Iran for creating nuclear weapons, and to stop and desist immediately.  France's Nicolas Sarkozy even went as far as calling the Security Council "weak" for not being more forceful about this, especially with Iran flexing their nuclear muscles by testing short- and long-range missiles during the same timeframe of the meeting.  Obama states:

How, before the eyes of the world, could we justify meeting without tackling them? ... We live in the real world, not a virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.

So, Obama is trying to figure out a way to negotiate and be the diplomat.  Something that Bush never really tried to do, even though he had some brilliant minds on his advisory team.  Every time that man opened his mouth, it was stubborn, tight-fisted "THERE ARE WMDs OUT THERE" that squandered whatever steam he had going for the revenge that this country wanted after watching thousands of innocents die at the hands of religious fanatics.

To be sure, I did not mind that we went to war.  Diplomacy in 2001 was not what we needed.  09/11 was an act of war, and we went in with guns blazing.  But eventually we strayed from the path while trying to find the rightful enemy.  We strayed from looking for who we needed to, tripped over our own feet, landed in Iraq and thought we could take this on, too.  Now Obama has a mess in Afghanistan to start all over, which is where we should have stayed in the first place to look for these people.

But I digress, as usual.  Let's get back to diplomacy.  Courtesy of Wikipedia:

Diplomacy:  "The art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states."

Nowhere does it say that it is a means to being chummy the enemy.  No matter how despicable these people are, if you want to talk to them, you've got to play a tiny bit nice.  Look what Bill Clinton did to release those two young ladies from North Korea - he went over there, posed for a picture with the Oriental Elvis (I'm trying to be nice but it's HARD) and got those girls back home to their families.  Kim Jong-il is a bastard and a nut, but that doesn't mean we can just brush them off over and over and shake our fingers at them, because it'll keep pushing them.  They have control over millions of people, and if we succeed at making them more angry at us, they'll keep going in the wrong direction.

For anyone who has kids:  Don't we need positive reinforcement more?  Granted, I'm short on that sometimes with my 4-year-old daughter.  It's easier to yell and say "KNOCK IT OFF" than to encourage them when they are being good and staying out of your hair.  Diplomacy is kind of like that.  We see these other leaders treating their people and countries like garbage, but bullying them relentlessly will not mend their ways.  As long as we haven't been dealt an act of war, we need to figure out a way to start talking to these people.  It's not pleasant, but diplomacy never is.  Dirty and hard work, that is.  But there is no diplomacy if no one is listening.

Let me be clear:  09/11 was an act of war, and I think the response was appropriate.  I think it was misguided as the war went on, spreading ourselves too thin, and I think Obama is right to focus back on Afghanistan and put Iraq to the side now.  But for Iran and North Korea, who have yet to bomb us, we have the power on our side.  We don't need to be bosom buddies with Ahmadinejad and Jong-il.  We don't have to share our peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with them and tell them all our little secrets.  But we've got to find a way to keep communication open so that they will actually listen when we speak.  What is war, really, than a child who tunes out an ever-berating parent to do their own thing without regard for anyone else?  

Barack Hussein Obama, a Man

So today, we watch the inauguration of the first black United States President.  Millions of people have flocked to D.C., a kind of political pilgrimage, to see history made, and around the world, people are saying, "It's about time you got someone other than a white, male president in there.  We've been doing it for years.  Now get back to work." 

Sorry.  Maybe it's not that pessimistic.  Perhaps since the U.S. is such a young country, we can give ourselves a little leeway not electing a female or minority president until 2009.  But I still wonder amid all the hype and partying and celebration, that being caught up in the moment will soon jump up to bite me in the behind later.  Between the outgoing, unpopular President and an incoming President with a message of hope and responsibility, therein lies a country torn to bits by their feelings about war, about economic strife, about whose fault it was that we can't pay our credit card bills and mortgages, and about watching their jobs disappear.  

Let's step back and ask ourselves why we are so excited.  I am, to clear the record, so proud of President-elect Obama (he's still got a couple hours to go before inauguration) that he has made this journey and given hope to a constituency that has long waited for - shall I say it? - justice.  It seems that much of the black population is finally seeing change, seeing retribution for past injustices by a community largely white and middle class.  I don't doubt the historic implications.

However, our excitement lies in many different places.  A well-spoken gentleman from the bitter, embattled Illinois government has preached and taught a message to us, and it goes against everything that we cried for when Bush was in power.  After 9/11, we cried for blood.  We cried for retribution.  Don't think you didn't want revenge; you're lying if you think that the loss of over 3,000 innocent souls on U.S. soil didn't anger you and want you to point a finger at someone.  We screamed for Bush to find who did this and destroy them.  I don't care if you were Republican or Democrat; we saw our lives crumble with those towers, with the Pentagon, with those four airplanes.  

Then war began and we thought it would be over in, oh, six months.  A year, tops.  How sadly we are mistaken.  Do we not remember wars of our past, and how long it took before peace was restored?  Wars are not about turning governments or countries into parking lots and leaving behind the mess.  We made shock and awe and now are trying to teach an Iraqi police force how to do jumping jacks and dealing with Marines ghost riding government vehicles.  We listened to Lewis Black talk about Hans Blix and Colin Powell, and the government's search for weapons of mass destruction or "ice cream."  It quickly turned into a parody of our current President, the big ears and the honky-tonk accent, standing on an air carrier with the banner "Mission Accomplished."  We went from a country scorched to a country scorned, and other countries' support waned through a leaky ideology of "staying the course."  Eventually, we were left with not knowing what we wanted.  People died; we tried to get revenge; it didn't work.  The man likely responsible is hidden in the Afghani mountains, probably passing on ideas or leadership to other sects who scream jiahd, not unlike our screams for revenge after 9/11. 

Is it so hard to understand that we are like those we despise, more so than we'd think?  What makes us so different from President Bush, or Osama bin Laden?  What makes you different from the woman who wears a hijab or a Muslim who celebrates Ramadan?  How are you different from murderers on death row or white supremacists?  In the same vein:  Is it so hard to understand that we are also like those who we love and glorify, more so that we'd think?  Is Obama so much of a political savior that we put him on a pedestal, clamoring for just a glimpse of him as he swears an oath, or is he more like us that we should be able to say to him, "We elected you - enjoy your party today, but please get to work."  I don't doubt he is ready for that, and even doubt further that he will want to sit back and enjoy taxpayer's money on an additional five days of celebrations before starting on his likely first order of business.  

I have anticipated this day as much as anyone.  Like I said, I want the Obama family to be celebrated today and congratulated.  At the same time, however, I wonder how long it will be before we realize his humanity and start screaming for the change he has so long promised.  It didn't take long for Mrs. Biden to open mouth, insert foot, according to CNN; her husband's not even Veep yet.  Will Obama's smooth talking get him better luck with the red tape that blankets our nation's capital like a Sherwin-Williams globe?  Will Obama's withdrawal or re-allocation of troops prove success or civil war in Iraq?  What will we judge are his successes?  Will he be judged less stringently than his past fellow Presidents because of his poorly-liked predecessor or the color of his skin?  Should we take it easy on him because he has such a huge mess to clean up?  

Answer honestly.  The man - and he is only a man - will have to face his own humanity sooner or later, and we will flame him for it, no matter what kind of intelligence he receives, no matter how well he can utilize our military to protect us.  We will judge him based on the end result, not the sleepless nights or the necessity of pissing us off in order to keep us safe.  I would like to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in that regard, but history will write his Presidency soon enough, and those who write history will decide if he was a success.  As will we decide if Obama is truly the Presidential salvation we all voted for. 

Who Deserves the Punishment?

Moore: Automakers never listened to workers, consumers

On my Facebook page yesterday (between watching woot.com with a hawk's eye during the woot-off), I posted this link about was absolutely incensed at the Big Three CEOs. In the time of their "crisis," they flew private jets - separate jets - to beg the government for a bailout. One man in the article compared it to walking into a soup kitchen in a tux. They didn't bother to fly first class, or jet-pool, or even fly like the rest of us peons do.

So, there's the article about that. And then I found Michael Moore's interview with Larry King on the Big Three and his feelings on a bailout. His feelings are mixed - his father worked for GM for nearly four decades, and he watched Flint, Michigan (where auto jobs are in high demand) descend into darkness as GM laid workers off for the past several years. He says the big decision-makers, the CEOs, the high brass should be the ones to pay for this, but not the workers who will lose their jobs if the government doesn't bail them out.

Usually, when I hear Moore talk, I hear bits and pieces; he's not my favorite guy. But then something he said perked up my ears. A lot.

When Roosevelt came in and when World War II faced the country, Roosevelt said to General Motors and Ford, you're not going to build cars anymore. You're going to build airplanes and tanks and guns and the things that we need for this war because we have a national crisis. General Motors had to do what Roosevelt told them they had to do... President-Elect Obama has to say to them, yes, we're going to use this money to save these jobs, but we're not going to build these gas-guzzling, unsafe vehicles any longer. We're going to put the companies into some sort of receivership and we, the government, are going to hold the reigns on these companies. They're to build mass transit. They're to build hybrid cars. They're to build cars that use little or no gasoline.

Can you imagine? I think Barack Obama would be a brilliant man to decide to put the Big Three to work for the betterment of this country. If you want money, then build something that is going to help everyone in the long run. Start hiring smart people to create hybrids. Help boost our train system, improve our subways, and take after Europe with encourage people to leave their cars at home in the big cities and start walking and taking public transit.

No doubt that between the carmakers and the women of WWII that this country actually had to work together during a time of such utter darkness, watching the atrocities overseas and the death toll rise, this country ended up doing something better for the greater good. Have the Big Three gotten too selfish? I think so. They think about the bottom line, for the company, and only care about swelling those numbers to keep their investors happy and their pocketbooks full.

This country is at war, no matter how you look at it. Compared to past wars this country has been involved in, the death toll is so much lower, but the enemy is invisible. They have no organization and are scattered in bits and pieces, like an IED after it explodes. We will never find all the pieces to put away the enemy, but damn it, doesn't our military need the brains and the brawn and the workshops of the American people to help them build technology to keep them safe and hunt these terrorists out? Isn't there a way that we can redeem the names of American auto companies?

I hope Obama takes a tough line on this when he finally gets to office. Throwing another $25 billion at the auto industry will just result them in running out of money by February instead of Christmastime, and then it's off to bankruptcy court for them anyway.

Edited: After a couple hours of brewing (percolating?) over this, I now wonder how the unions are looking at this. They've been surprisingly quiet. Considering Obama needed their support to get elected, now I wonder if they are worried that if the government doesn't bail out the U.S. automakers, they will have no pull in how they conduct the union. They can force a corporation to give raises and such by asking union members to stage a walk-out, but no worker in their right mind wants that right now; keeping an unskilled job is hard enough these days.

So, unions have lost one of their bargaining chips in asking their members to picket. They are also now at the mercy of the government, watching and waiting. It's pretty sad to see that the unions, while trying to put the power to the little people, is still at the mercy of someone else. Somehow everyone lost on this gamble, and I'm sure that the unions are anxious to see what this means for their members, especially if their members are forced to walk for good.

Tough Oats

Hello readers - it's been awhile, and I think I can explain. Between a much-needed vacation to see some friends in Seattle and some life-changing events here at our California Headquarters, I've pushed my poor blog to somewhere in the middle of the to-do list. I've had an article I wanted to blog about for a while, and am just getting to it now.

CNN's Glenn Beck is one of my preferred CNN writers, and last week's article on Michigan and Florida's poo-pooing about not being able to count their votes towards the Democratic primary was something I read with, admittedly, much glee. Glenn, thy name is parental justice!

Glenn's choice of words for telling Florida and Michigan that they had their chance was very simple: Too bad. You broke the rules, you sit in time-out. But my mother had a better name for it: Tough oats. Did your mom ever say that to you? There was probably some two-word phrase that she might have used when withholding your dessert if you didn't finish your dinner. You didn't like the rules of the house? Tough oats. But Mom, can't I stay out until midnight tonight? Tough oats. You're embarrassed by that old fogey car that your father bought? Tough oats. (Side note: I ended up partially buying that old fogey car right after I got married.)

Isn't it strange how this country works? Most people in this country are looking to be able to have their vote and eat it, too. They want to have their voice heard, but when was the last time even 50% of the population showed up for an election? These delegates in MI and FL are charged with representing how the people vote in the state, but alas, the DNC made a few rules, and they broke them. It was all over the news; remember? Michigan and Florida held their primaries way too early, back in January. They flipped the proverbial bird to the parental figurehead of the Democrats, the DNC, and held primaries anyway. To which the DNC put their foot down and said: Well, go ahead. But your vote won't count. Tough oats; too bad.

Just recently, the DNC upheld their decision to not have a new primary in Florida, sending Brother Michigan and Sister Florida to their rooms to sit and think about what they've done, by giving up possibly the most exciting opportunity to participate in a Presidential primary such as this. What a bitter punishment!

What gets me even more is the fact that Sen. Clinton has asked for the primaries to be held in Florida later. Um, Senator? Do you realize you won that state? Of course you want those delegates; you're falling behind. In addition, Michigan did not have Sen. Obama on their ticket. His name wasn't even on the ballot! Do you think it might be fair for either Senator to go head-to-head in a face-off again?

Sure, it would make for some brilliant news. But what was done was done. Those two states made their choice to break the rules; fine. But just as the disobedient, pimpled teenager who breaks curfew on the weekends is stripped of their car and computer privileges, so goes for Michigan and Florida who now sit in their rooms, screaming "IT'S NOT FAIR!" to the DNC. And as all parents know, drawing the line in the sand is the best way to demonstrate between right and wrong, even if we're teaching the lesson to a bunch of adults who feel entitled otherwise.

To wear or not to wear, Part Deux

Remember the whole flap about Sen. Obama taking off his American flag pin? Well, it looks like there are some people trying to catch him again in his "non-patriotic" self.

This is why things taken out of context run rabid in our free press, by the way.

There is a video/snapshot being circulated via email of Sen. Obama at a steak fry in September with Sen. Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson. The picture shows Clinton and Richardson with their hands over their hearts, while Sen. Obama has his at his sides, appearing as though they are looking towards the American flag. Yet the email alleges that at this point in time, Sen. Obama "refused" to say the Pledge of Allegiance or place his hand over his heart.

Ah, the power of photos, right? They're worth a thousand words? But not a thousand sounds. Sen. Obama responded, rightfully frustrated, "During the Pledge of Allegiance you put your hand over your heart, during the National Anthem you sing." Yes, in that photo at that point in time, they were singing the National Anthem. And he's right. You see folks at the baseball games respectfully remove their hats during the Anthem, and some place their hand over their hearts, but usually they're just singing the lyrics off the Jumbo-Tron while a virtual flag flies in the background. But remember in kindergarten, every morning, you had to get up out of your seat and stare at the American flag posted front and center over the chalkboard, and hold your heart and say the Pledge?

Yes, it seems the most important things we learned were in kindergarten.

To wear or not to wear?

Lou Dobbs has written an editorial that defends the reason why he still wears his American flag lapel pin - full article is here.

He defines the controversy around why people are wearing these flag pins as pure "lunacy," and I agree with him on that. Yet again, the pols in this country are nitpicking everything apart to pieces, throwing mud while dodging it at the same time. It never ends, does it? And of course, it doesn't help that this kind of debate has been sparked in both wartime and election time in this country, especially when a Presidential hopeful has put away his lapel pin, and Dobbs has blasted this gentleman's choice and reasoning for doing so.

Sen. Barack Obama has put away his pin and reasons that his words will suffice as defining him as an American. Dobbs counters that this is "arrogant" and Obama is "horribly mistaken." Then there's Katie Couric, who takes exception when Americans use the flag to refer to us as "we," even though we are all Americans here and what singly does unite us is the soil we live on.

All right. Couric and Obama have their points, but I think Couric is ridiculous to say that we can't refer to ourselves as "we" when there is clearly something that unites us all in this country. Further, I believe Obama's quest for being an American versus wearing it on his sleeve is a very fine goal indeed. Show us how to be a patriot by doing and saying, and not by sticking a pin and saying "NOW I'm an American! Found the missing piece to the puzzle, finally!" It's as if by wearing these pins, the journalism and political communities are saying "Look at ME, DAMN IT, I'm a freaking AMERICAN! That's RIGHT! This is BETTER than my damn passport, beeyotches, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!" I'd rather not that be the message conveyed.

Dobbs points out that he also disagrees with those journalists who say the absence of the pin indicates neutrality and utmost objectivity. I must agree on this point. To quote Lewis Black, take a globe and look at it - "See? Countries!" To bear an American flag is to assert your citizenship to one of the many on this globe, but not to wear it doesn't take away my citizenship, and certainly will not take an American's objectivity away. It's in our blood, in our money, in our homes. For Pete's sake, we're watching American news while eating our American dinners in our American homes and working in our American jobs while paying our American taxes. The absence of a pin isn't going to change where we were born and raised or our "American-ness."

Let's face it, guys, whether Obama wears his pin or not, he still an American citizen, for crying out loud. And so are the journalists who don't wear their pins on the air. Further, I find it laughable that our country is so mired in its own culture and not more attentive to others, that we could dare question someone's objectivity on the basis of a pin. How many Americans have truly bothered to research and truly understand Islam? How many know that Ramadan is about to come to a close this week? How many truly know about both the advantages and issues of socialized health care and bilingual countries? You only have to look north to our neighbors, and even then, our American eyes are so short-sighted that we can't get past our own TVs.

But here's my beef, and it includes Mr. Dobbs: This whole issue with the pin is the high school equivalent of who was and was not wearing their school colors on pep rally day. Those who were wearing neutral colors were cast aside and questioned, even though it didn't change the fact that they were still going to the high school. Wearing the American flag pin has turned into a popularity contest, the ultimate trend to be in on, the accessory one should never leave their house without. Again, let's reflect on what Lewis Black says about this war: Just because you are not for the war, it DOES NOT mean you are for the other side. Just because you don't wear your flag pin DOES NOT mean you're for the other side, Mr. Dobbs.

Now that Obama has been questioned as not being "black" enough, and Hillary has been questioned as not being "female" or "feminine" enough (whatever the HELL that means), now we're questioning our candidates and pols as being "American" enough. How many levels of femininity are there? Or blackness, or American-ness? Has anyone counted? Can we pay some scientists to look into this, please, and clear this up once and for all?

Perhaps it is time for us to look at the globe, then, and see that there is one single thing that unites us all - our species, our humanity. The very essence of what and who we are are the very things that make us all connected in some way, even when we set against each other in war. There are no levels of humanity, unfortunately. Even if you're born in America, there's no on stopping you from obtaining citizenship in Canada or elsewhere. But once a human, always a human.

And if you're not wearing a pin, I promise to keep my nose clean, and yours too, of course. Just because Obama isn't wearing his pin does not mean I may or may not withhold my vote from him. I'm more interested in seeing what he does and not what he wears.