The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the National Cancer Act of 1971, Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, the Voting Rights Act, funding for AIDS treatment, equal funding for women's sports under Title IX, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, the COBRA Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Ryan White Care Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, increases in the minimum wage law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Mental Health Parity Act, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
These are just some of the legislative accomplishments of one, Edward Moore Kennedy. Teddy (as he was called by nearly everyone), may have been the most productive senator who ever lived. He in fact, like Indiana's own Dick Lugar, is a great argument against term limits. Looking at the above list of bills that Kennedy created, sponsored, and guided to passage simply puts the average senator to shame. Hell, throw in the above average too.
And who would've thunk it? In 1962, at the age of 30, he won a special election in Massachusetts to replace his brother John in the senate. Decidedly unaccomplished, it was clear that Ted won on his name not on his merits. On top of that, he had two extraordinary older brothers to live up to. Both of his brothers' legacies have been burnished by time, glamour, and early death. First, the incredibly popular President John F Kennedy and his assassination in 1963. Then the equally untimely death of brother Robert, also by an assassin's hand in 1968 while running for the democratic nomination. Over time both of his brothers would go from beloved figures to legendary, mythological ones. How in the world was the "little" brother to live up to these two giants whose name he carried.
It's not like he always helped himself either. There was the drinking and carousing that seemed as much an inherited trait as it was a choice. His divorce of first wife, Joan in 1982. The paparazzi photos of him having sex with a woman in a motorboat in 1989. All these instances made him look buffoonish and unstable. There was also his devastating loss to Jimmy Carter for the democratic presidential nomination in 1980. Think of that. A Kennedy lost to Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter!
Of course, nothing affected his career like the 1969 death by drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne when the car he was driving went off a bridge in Chappaquiddick. It wasn't just her tragic death that left a negative impact on his reputation. It was the fact that he left the scene of the accident and didn't report it until the next day after Kopechne's body was found. At best, his behavior was cowardly. Some even considered it criminal. He would spend the rest of his life trying to live down this self-imposed humiliation.
Yet, somehow the man persevered. He was on the right side of history so many times that it's hard to fathom. Whether it was the civil rights movement in the 60's, expansion of health care for children and adults, aids research, raising the minimum wage, pushing for fair treatment for women in the workplace, and voting against the Iraq war, his judgement as a senator has been the epitome of soundness.
Kennedy could work the other side of the aisle too. While often referred to as the "liberal lion of the senate," he defied that generalization. He co-authored legislation with Republicans John McCain and Nancy Kassenbaum. He helped George W Bush achieve the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. Hell, the very conservative Republican Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch actually has a painting of Kennedy hanging in his office!
This was a life lived in full. A life so boundless that like Teddy Roosevelt or Muhammad Ali, no single book, movie, or mini-series could effectively encapsulate its measure. Still, I was greatly saddened when he passed away on Wednesday due to brain cancer. Because even though he was 77 and had been gravely ill for long enough that his death came as no surprise, I still felt that he had more to give. It fills my heart with pain that the man who referred to universal heath care as "the cause of my life," will not be here to fight for it or to see it pass into law. What a bitter irony.
But most of all, I will miss what he stood for. He was a wildly wealthy man who stood for those who could not stand for themselves. The poor, the sick, the disabled, and the disadvantaged. He made many mistakes in his life, but I think it's fair to say that in the end he exceeded both of his brothers' accomplishments and quite likely, his own expectations. Imperfect as it may be, he left a true legacy. How many of the people who have walked through the halls of congress can say that? Will we some day look at Mitch McConnell and Evan Bayh the way we do Teddy Kennedy? I think not.
The sad fact is that we live in a country where too many of our politicians would rather be re-elected than be remembered. Well, Teddy Kennedy was the other kind.
Sumo-Pop
August 28, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Where Have You Gone, John Dillinger?
During the 1930s John Dillinger robbed banks. And he was loved for it. Why? Because during the 1920s banks such as JP Morgan Chase and Bank Of America became heavily involved in the securities business, leading to huge investments in short term loans that failed, and in turn, created the great depression. Basically, they took other people's money and put it in high risk investments and screwed their customers. Which forced President Franklin Roosevelt to expand government programs in effort to save the failed financial system. Sound familiar?
I'm sure it does, because that's what we're living with now. I know we'd like to believe that banks are for their customers, but that's not the truth. The banks are for their customer's money. Not to benefit those that bank with them, but to benefit the institution itself.
It's not just that modern banks over leveraged themselves with risky investments or made loans to people that they knew couldn't afford them and therefore created the current recession. No, the most reliable way that banks continue to stick it to their customers is with fee income.
The three most common ways that banks do this is through credit cards, debit cards, and the order of check clearance.
I'll start with credit cards. Many people get a new credit card to take advantage of 0% interest rates for a predetermined length (often 6 months). But a common practice used by banks is that of switching your payment date on you. Say your monthly payment is on the 15th of each month. Then the bank changes your date to the 7th. How do they notify you? Do they put a card in with your new statement that declares that your payment date has been changed? Do they pay you a courtesy call or send a separate notice? No. They simply change the date on your statement in that teeny tiny little black ink that no one looks at. What happens next is you make your payment on say, the 13th. You think you're good. Then on your next statement you find that not only do you have a late fee of $39.00, but that your interest rate is jacked up to anywhere from 18% to 29%. Then, you call customer disservice, er service, and they say there is nothing they can do. Now your 0% rate is gone, you've got a late fee, and they don't care.
Next is debit cards. In the old days, if you attempted to use your debit card and you were short of the necessary cash in your account, then the transaction would reject. Which might cause some embarrassment but at least you didn't overdraw your account. Nowadays, the bank will not reject those purchases and allow you to overdraw at will. Once again this leads to more fees.
Similarly, the policies surrounding the clearance of checks also is set up to cause as many fees as possible. Say you have $600.00 in your account. You pay your rent for $550.00. Say you also have 6 other checks out at $20.00 each for a grand total of $670.00 in promissory notes. So now you're $70.00 short. But what the bank will do instead of paying the items in the order that they came through is wait until the end of the business day and send the check with the highest amount through first. If they were to do you a solid and pay the smaller items first, you would only have one overdraft fee. However, in this scenario you now have three overdraft fees. And just so you know, your debit card works in the exact same way. Highest to lowest.
Now, what the bank will say is "don't you want your biggest check to go through first." Their argument being that your rent is more important than your lunch purchase. True enough, but if you are someone whose money is tight (and nowadays whose isn't), then you may not be able to afford to pay the additional fees and eat too. Of course, they extend this rationale as if they are somehow looking out for you, but don't you believe it.
What they will say next (assuming you haven't accepted the first lame explanation), is that it is the customer's responsibility to know how much money they have in their account. Once again, true enough. But wouldn't it be in the customer's best interest to not create a system that maximizes fees? I mean who do they think they're helping with these policies? I can tell you who they are screwing, the working men and women of this country who are scraping to get by. The only thing they are helping is themselves.
Of course these fee policies aren't what got us in this mess in the first place. That was done by over leveraging debt and offering adjustable rate, "sub-prime" mortgages to people with weak credit. Not every bank was so foolish as Citibank, Bank Of America, Wells Fargo and so on. Although, only one bank really stands out in this morass. That would be JP Morgan Chase. Chase was much more conservative with their balance sheet and did not get nearly as deep in the "sub-prime" market as the other big banks. Which makes them fiscally and ethically superior to their competitors. Of course, that's a little bit like being the tallest midget, but you get the idea. And Chase still has the same awful fee policies as the rest of these ass clowns.
So why did the US government bail these shysters out you might ask? Because they were too big to fail. If these institutions would have been allowed to go down for the dirt nap, the entire financial system would have collapsed. Most everyone knows that if a bank fails that FDIC insurance covers up to $250,000 in deposits for that bank's customers. However, if Citibank and Bank of America had gone down, the FDIC would have needed it's own bailout. So either way, we lose. Let 'em fail or prop 'em up. It's the same proposition.
Now, this doesn't mean that there are no good people working at banks. At the branch level, you will find some decent people who are willing to work with you during trying times. But you should know that they are not encouraged to do so. Banks rely so heavily on fee income that for many institutions it is their make or break point.
So yeah, John Dillinger robbed banks. It was against the law and morally wrong. But people loved him. They understood that Dillinger may have been a crook, but the real criminals had their names on the front of the building. Over 70 years later, ain't a damn thing changed.
Sumo-Pop
August 8, 2009
Full disclosure:
I spent the last 3 1/2 years working for a bank. No more. "Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, I am free at last."
I'm sure it does, because that's what we're living with now. I know we'd like to believe that banks are for their customers, but that's not the truth. The banks are for their customer's money. Not to benefit those that bank with them, but to benefit the institution itself.
It's not just that modern banks over leveraged themselves with risky investments or made loans to people that they knew couldn't afford them and therefore created the current recession. No, the most reliable way that banks continue to stick it to their customers is with fee income.
The three most common ways that banks do this is through credit cards, debit cards, and the order of check clearance.
I'll start with credit cards. Many people get a new credit card to take advantage of 0% interest rates for a predetermined length (often 6 months). But a common practice used by banks is that of switching your payment date on you. Say your monthly payment is on the 15th of each month. Then the bank changes your date to the 7th. How do they notify you? Do they put a card in with your new statement that declares that your payment date has been changed? Do they pay you a courtesy call or send a separate notice? No. They simply change the date on your statement in that teeny tiny little black ink that no one looks at. What happens next is you make your payment on say, the 13th. You think you're good. Then on your next statement you find that not only do you have a late fee of $39.00, but that your interest rate is jacked up to anywhere from 18% to 29%. Then, you call customer disservice, er service, and they say there is nothing they can do. Now your 0% rate is gone, you've got a late fee, and they don't care.
Next is debit cards. In the old days, if you attempted to use your debit card and you were short of the necessary cash in your account, then the transaction would reject. Which might cause some embarrassment but at least you didn't overdraw your account. Nowadays, the bank will not reject those purchases and allow you to overdraw at will. Once again this leads to more fees.
Similarly, the policies surrounding the clearance of checks also is set up to cause as many fees as possible. Say you have $600.00 in your account. You pay your rent for $550.00. Say you also have 6 other checks out at $20.00 each for a grand total of $670.00 in promissory notes. So now you're $70.00 short. But what the bank will do instead of paying the items in the order that they came through is wait until the end of the business day and send the check with the highest amount through first. If they were to do you a solid and pay the smaller items first, you would only have one overdraft fee. However, in this scenario you now have three overdraft fees. And just so you know, your debit card works in the exact same way. Highest to lowest.
Now, what the bank will say is "don't you want your biggest check to go through first." Their argument being that your rent is more important than your lunch purchase. True enough, but if you are someone whose money is tight (and nowadays whose isn't), then you may not be able to afford to pay the additional fees and eat too. Of course, they extend this rationale as if they are somehow looking out for you, but don't you believe it.
What they will say next (assuming you haven't accepted the first lame explanation), is that it is the customer's responsibility to know how much money they have in their account. Once again, true enough. But wouldn't it be in the customer's best interest to not create a system that maximizes fees? I mean who do they think they're helping with these policies? I can tell you who they are screwing, the working men and women of this country who are scraping to get by. The only thing they are helping is themselves.
Of course these fee policies aren't what got us in this mess in the first place. That was done by over leveraging debt and offering adjustable rate, "sub-prime" mortgages to people with weak credit. Not every bank was so foolish as Citibank, Bank Of America, Wells Fargo and so on. Although, only one bank really stands out in this morass. That would be JP Morgan Chase. Chase was much more conservative with their balance sheet and did not get nearly as deep in the "sub-prime" market as the other big banks. Which makes them fiscally and ethically superior to their competitors. Of course, that's a little bit like being the tallest midget, but you get the idea. And Chase still has the same awful fee policies as the rest of these ass clowns.
So why did the US government bail these shysters out you might ask? Because they were too big to fail. If these institutions would have been allowed to go down for the dirt nap, the entire financial system would have collapsed. Most everyone knows that if a bank fails that FDIC insurance covers up to $250,000 in deposits for that bank's customers. However, if Citibank and Bank of America had gone down, the FDIC would have needed it's own bailout. So either way, we lose. Let 'em fail or prop 'em up. It's the same proposition.
Now, this doesn't mean that there are no good people working at banks. At the branch level, you will find some decent people who are willing to work with you during trying times. But you should know that they are not encouraged to do so. Banks rely so heavily on fee income that for many institutions it is their make or break point.
So yeah, John Dillinger robbed banks. It was against the law and morally wrong. But people loved him. They understood that Dillinger may have been a crook, but the real criminals had their names on the front of the building. Over 70 years later, ain't a damn thing changed.
Sumo-Pop
August 8, 2009
Full disclosure:
I spent the last 3 1/2 years working for a bank. No more. "Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, I am free at last."
Thursday, August 6, 2009
A Bag Of Bricks
God help me, I like Taylor Swift. Man, that felt good to say.
All my life I've been called a music snob by friend and foe alike. True enough, but there is something about this faux hillbilly high schooler that I can't resist. Now, before I go further, let me say that the reasons for her nearly unconscionable appeal to me are not pervy. Yes, she's a very pretty girl, but not outrageously so. So before you decide to call the cops or that guy on dateline, know that I have no carnal thoughts about her. In fact, she sort of reminds me of my sister-in-law. Someone I love very much, but could spend hours making fun of or putting in a headlock and delivering the requisite nuggy.
So it has to be something else. Musically, she isn't terribly complex. And her voice though distinctive, is not particularly strong. Her sound is hardly real country and her lyrics are pretty simple. So what the hell is it?
Well, it's honest. Here is a girl who writes her own songs that seem to be informed by her own experience. When you hear a song like 15 by Swift, there can be no doubt that she's singing it from the perspective of a 15 year old girl. She keeps the "genie in a bottle" and trolls no school hallway dressed like a catholic school Lolita. "Hit me baby, one more time?" I think not. She comes off like a classic overachiever whose parts equal a greater than expected whole. She's not necessarily great at any one thing, but put the pieces together and she's pretty damn terrific.
When I hear "Love Story" or "You Belong With Me," I am completely incapable of frowning. And I like to frown. It's like hearing Michael Jackson sing "ABC" or "I Want You Back." Yeah, I just compared Taylor Swift to the Jackson Five. Deal with it.
Now, I realize this may all fall apart and she may be next year's Debbie Gibson or Tiffany. Over the hill in your twenties is a tough thing to take. Maybe she'll go down the same road as those two. Performing at fairs, stripping for Playboy, and hosting VH1's "I love the aughts." But maybe not. Maybe she'll end up like Diana Ross. Ok, bad example. In fact, there are no good examples. There are no former female child stars that I can think of who end up turning out alright. They either sleaze out (Aguilera, Spears), freak out (Ross, Spears again) or fade away. But I'm going to root for this Swift. Because she makes me smile. And what's so bad about that.
So there. I have just confessed my guiltiest of guilty pleasures. But as Al Pacino once said in "The Devil's Advocate" (a guilty pleasure in itself), "Guilt is like a bag of bricks, you just gotta set it down."
KER-THUMP!! I just set it down.
Sumo-Pop
August 7, 2009
All my life I've been called a music snob by friend and foe alike. True enough, but there is something about this faux hillbilly high schooler that I can't resist. Now, before I go further, let me say that the reasons for her nearly unconscionable appeal to me are not pervy. Yes, she's a very pretty girl, but not outrageously so. So before you decide to call the cops or that guy on dateline, know that I have no carnal thoughts about her. In fact, she sort of reminds me of my sister-in-law. Someone I love very much, but could spend hours making fun of or putting in a headlock and delivering the requisite nuggy.
So it has to be something else. Musically, she isn't terribly complex. And her voice though distinctive, is not particularly strong. Her sound is hardly real country and her lyrics are pretty simple. So what the hell is it?
Well, it's honest. Here is a girl who writes her own songs that seem to be informed by her own experience. When you hear a song like 15 by Swift, there can be no doubt that she's singing it from the perspective of a 15 year old girl. She keeps the "genie in a bottle" and trolls no school hallway dressed like a catholic school Lolita. "Hit me baby, one more time?" I think not. She comes off like a classic overachiever whose parts equal a greater than expected whole. She's not necessarily great at any one thing, but put the pieces together and she's pretty damn terrific.
When I hear "Love Story" or "You Belong With Me," I am completely incapable of frowning. And I like to frown. It's like hearing Michael Jackson sing "ABC" or "I Want You Back." Yeah, I just compared Taylor Swift to the Jackson Five. Deal with it.
Now, I realize this may all fall apart and she may be next year's Debbie Gibson or Tiffany. Over the hill in your twenties is a tough thing to take. Maybe she'll go down the same road as those two. Performing at fairs, stripping for Playboy, and hosting VH1's "I love the aughts." But maybe not. Maybe she'll end up like Diana Ross. Ok, bad example. In fact, there are no good examples. There are no former female child stars that I can think of who end up turning out alright. They either sleaze out (Aguilera, Spears), freak out (Ross, Spears again) or fade away. But I'm going to root for this Swift. Because she makes me smile. And what's so bad about that.
So there. I have just confessed my guiltiest of guilty pleasures. But as Al Pacino once said in "The Devil's Advocate" (a guilty pleasure in itself), "Guilt is like a bag of bricks, you just gotta set it down."
KER-THUMP!! I just set it down.
Sumo-Pop
August 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)