Sometimes I think about stuff that I probably shouldn’t

Creditcards

Lately I’ve noticed that the APRs and most especially the Penalty APRs on credit cards have been rising. 

The next time you get a statement from your credit card issuer take a good hard look at the fees and the penalties.

What caught my attention was that many of those penalty APRs are damn close to 30%

Creditscore Propaganda

The credit reporting agencies and the banks consistently tell us that closing credit card accounts is bad for our credit rating.

I think losing your job and being late on a credit card is a lot worse for your overall quality of life (screw the credit rating) because at 30% penalties you’re quickly thrown into bankruptcy. Even a relative low 10,000 combined balance on various cards could screw you six ways from Sunday.

Punishment

Think about it, that’s 3000 a month the banks are going to increase your debt by, every month, because you’re being punished by a shitty economy.

The way the text reads, the banks can increase the interest on the entire balance to 30% regardless of whether you return to making payments on time or not.

$3000 is a house payment in some places. For other folks, that’s their entire monthly take home pay.

It makes me think that I don’t want that kind of exposure. Even though I pay the bills, and have been paying the bills like clockwork, I’m uncomfortable with that kind of exposure should I fall on harder times than I’ve already fallen on.

BUT the banks and credit agencies keep scaring us about damaging our credit scores. So we keep on using credit cards and our balances keep creeping up and we all know in the back of our minds that it’s an addiction.

I find myself wondering if the damage done to my credit rating by closing accounts would be worse than missing a payment.

Addiction

Then you look at the way the banks calculate your credit worthiness and you realize it really is a scam designed to feed an addiction.

Banks and credit reporting agencies say you have a better credit score if you’re using less than 30% of your available credit. 

You can do this by having a single card where you don’t use more than 25% to 30% of the available credit, or you can have multiple cards where you use less than 30% of the combined available credit.

This incentivizes you to get more cards with higher limits, increasing your exposure to major problems if you lose your job.

Most Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck and are less than one month from late payments on a variety of debt. Even if they’re eligible for unemployment benefits, they still won’t be able to pay for necessities much less credit card bills.

So in less than 2 months, someone can fall from the middle class to homelessness and have debt accruing that will in many cases destroy them even when they’re lucky enough to get a job again.

What about the case where you have NO credit cards, a house, and money in the bank?  Guess what? You any not have a credit rating, or if you do, it’s a poor one. 

wad o cash

You’ve opted out of the addiction cycle therefore you must be punished with a shitty credit rating.

It’s even possible that you could have a couple hundred thousand in liquid assets BUT you might not be able to get a cable TV account, because you don’t pass credit muster.

This, in my humble opinion, is a seriously screwed up way of living.

I’m planning to un-addict myself as soon as possible. I realize that switching to a cash economy will also mean that the government will be taking a closer interest in my banking.

After all If I’m using cash… It follows that I must be a criminal doesn’t it?

Last act of defiance

I was thinking about the way I used to live before I had credit cards and bills and all the rest of it. I’ve realized that I’m over the credit economy. I really prefer spending real cash, knowing where I stand, and not worrying about credit scores and all that crap.  

I guess I’ve reached the point where I’m willing to opt out of continuously being terrorized by an arbitrary numerical rating of what is essentially measuring my honorability and honesty.

I find it doubly ironic we’re all held hostage to these numbers, especially when you consider that the housing bubble and financial implosion of 2008 was caused by people with stellar credit ratings, who were inherently dishonest as hell.

I guess I’m feeling like the mouse flipping off the eagle (or cat) in a last act of defiance.

What ever happened to EQUAL?

Boston University FINALLY got around to condemning a Professors Racist Misandric tweets.

donaldsterling

I’m about to talk about that which dare not be spoken of.

NO! Not kinky sex, hell I’ll talk about that!

In this context I’m speaking about Racism & Sexism.

Close your eyes and think “RACIST” What do you visualize? Now repeat the exercise and think “SEXIST”, do yo see the same person?

We’ve all been trained to think of racism and sexism in terms of the racist is ALWAYS WHITE and a Sexist Bastard is ALWAYS a MALE and usually White.

But there has been a growing sexist / racist element in our society which is not always white, and which is almost never male that gets a pass to say things I haven’t’ heard since the ‘60s.

davidduke

Consider this phrase:

Why is black America so reluctant to identify black college males as a problem population?

You read that and think, “OMG that’s SOOO Racist! The man that said that should be punished!” And you’d be right according to the unwritten rules of our society today.

You’d expect a comment like that from Rush Limbaugh, or Donald Sterling, or David Duke.

What was actually said:

why is white america so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population?

tweet1

It’s just as racist.

The “Man” that said this is actually a Sociology and African American Studies Professor named Saida Grundy, who happens to be a black woman.

While Donald Sterling was forced to sell his interest in his basketball franchise, publicly humiliated, and denied his freedom of speech and opinion, this professor enjoys protection of her free speech rights. Frankly I don’t see the difference between the two people.

Boston University is asserting that her first amendment right to free speech while disagreeable, is protected.

Fundamentally I agree. Freedom of speech applies equally to all of us.  So does the public shaming, the loss of career, and all the punishment commonplace in our society today.

We’ll force a millionaire owner to divest himself of a franchise because he used the “N” word (Exercising his right to free speech), but we’ll give this professor a pass to say something equally offensive? Does anyone else see a problem with this?

We’ll force a TV personality like Paula Dean loose pretty much everything because she said the “N” word 25 years ago.

NicoleHe Tweet

But we’ll tolerate an Asian lady in a well known financial organization tweeting that she hates white people.

In her case there was no penalty. Even when other twitter followers demanded a response from Kickstarter there was no apology, & no consequences for this sweet racist.

A person of color is not automatically immune to being a racist anymore than a woman is immune to being a sexist.  Our society continues to choose to look the other way when a non-white person or woman behaves or speaks in a racist or sexist way.

Plain and simple if it’s wrong for one group, it’s wrong for all groups, regardless of the groups protected status or historical injustices committed against them.

We must all be treated with respect, dignity and equality or none of us will ever know equality. That means calling out a woman if she’s sexist. And calling out a person of color, if they’re racist.

It’s well past time for equality to be applied equally.

Hey Comedy Central, Its time for “The Nightly Show” to GO!

larrywilmore

Larry Wilmore is about as funny as a finding out you just went down on someone with an antibiotic resistant venereal disease.

The sad part is that he thinks he’s funny.

I thank God that I have an “OFF” button on my remote control, each and every time I hear this guy open his mouth.

Comedy Central you need to stick with interesting stuff that is actually funny.

Key and Peele for example are experimental and sometimes I plain don’t get it, but they’re worth watching because when they get it right, they’re funny as hell.

I watch your network to laugh, South Park, Futurama, & your stand up comedians usually make my day. Do what you do well, keep us laughing!

SouthPark WavingShot

The Nightly Show is absolute SHIT!

If I want cynical, comedic news, I’ll watch CNN.

Even Tosh.0 is better than Larry Wilmore & The Nightly Show. My fingers burst into flames typing that!

Call this guy and his show a #FAIL and move on.

Or you can keep registering God knows how many people pressing the “OFF” button…

Your Choice.

The 2nd ammendment doesn’t grant the right to bear arms…

Momsdemand1

It is supposed to insure it.

I found an interesting analysis about the 2nd amendment a few weeks ago. The analysis states that the language of the 2nd is straightforward and unambiguous.

It is assumed, according to this analysis that citizens living under the constitution inherently have the right to own arms and that right is not granted by the 2nd amendment but is protected from government interference by the 2nd amendment.

The analysis is far more detailed and can be read in its entirety here.

Everytown1

So without thinking about it too much, I sent the link to an acquaintance on Twitter.

He was, as always embattled with one of the gun control advocates from one of the groups like Moms Demand Action, or Everytown for Gun safety. This analysis made his point and he sent it to the gun grabbers.

Progressives

I’m always surprised by the nasty comments from the gun control crowd. For an “enlightened”, “Progressive”, “Well Educated”, group, you’d think their vocabulary would have a bit more depth.

Nonetheless it got me thinking about the logic the gun control folks are using.

USConstitution

Some of the gun control people absolutely believe that guns should be removed from the hands of people because of the harm some guns might cause.

That led me to this thought;

By their logic, I could advocate bringing back Eugenics Laws because one of their descendants might be responsible for killing a bunch of people.

Their logic is just as flawed about guns as mine is about descendants.

You can’t know a gun is going to hurt someone any more than you can know a descendant is going to be a criminal.

Eugenics1

There is no family on the planet that doesn’t have at least one criminal in the family tree and no family is immune from producing criminals.

I could as easily make the case that preventing people from breeding is likely to be equally beneficial to society and the planet in the long term, as removing guns.

After all, fewer people sucking up resources burning fossil fuel, etc. would be better long term to combat global warming.

I’ve considered invoking the Zardoz paradigm where the primitives were given guns so that they’d war amongst themselves thereby keeping their numbers manageable.

Eugenics2

I don’t think that would add anything useful to the debate other than to offend the fem-nazis by forcing them to view a half naked, hairy, violent, Sean Connery.

Humm… Might be worth it after all!

I wonder all the time, why the “Moms Demand” and “Everytown” groups aren’t also teaching gun safety. I believe that there are too many guns to confiscate, even if I believed that line of illogic. I believe instead, that teaching children gun safety would save more lives.

I absolutely believe the fewer people in the general population who have knowledge about proper handling of, and behavior around guns; the more likely gun accidents become.

Zardoz1

For me its simply pragmatic. If you teach gun safety you can’t go wrong.

The educated gun control folks reject that kind of education. These are the same people that seem content with censoring other knowledge as well.

These folks are content with not teaching children via Chemistry Class about dangerous chemicals in the home. In spite of the fact that accidental poisoning is common.

They’re offended by locker room nudity, but not extremely suggestive nudity & sexuality in movies. They’ll decry playground fights as unacceptable, but will show DVD’s to their children depicting bloody fights and dismemberment.

Zardoz2

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating censorship any more than I’m advocating gun control.

I just wish these groups were consistent in their logic.

Well I’m glad that’s over!

starbucks

Now that Starbucks has ended their “Race Together” bullshit I can end my boycott of their stores.

Really, all I want is my damn cup of coffee!

I don’t care about race shit, racism, or the politics of any of it enough to pay an emotional, guilt ridden, tribute to the person making my coffee.

This is especially true when I’m paying $5 for that coffee in the first place.

My morning coffee isn’t open to discussions of any kind. Never has been, never will.

crackercup

Just serve my Damn coffee Starbucks!