I basically have no credit history. Applying for a credit card has been on my to-do list for a long time, but it’s one of those tasks that’s very easily displaced by almost anything.
The more I think about it, though, the more I don’t want to. I need to do something to build up my credit, but I see it as giving in to them. And what scares me most is that I’m not sure who they are. Who determines my credit score? What variables do they use? They won’t say! They made up their own game with their own rules, didn’t tell anyone the rules, and expect everyone to play the game.
If I go to apply for a loan, I don’t like the idea of the bank telling anyone. I don’t like the idea of the bank asking someone about me. And I certainly don’t like them asking someone I’ve never even heard of about me. Especially when that someone is only obliged to tell me what they have on file about me once every three years. (Sort of.)
And so far I’ve only described my issues with credit ratings. That’s the least of my worries.
What scares me most is all the horror stories. Some of them aren’t that big of a deal to me. I’m very averse to the idea of spending money I don’t have, so I don’t see myself ending up in credit card debt, and would expect to pay off my balance immediately. So in that way, the interest rate isn’t a big deal.
But that’s just one of their shady tactics. One company apparently tried just adding a nominal fee to what you owed, so that if you owed nothing, you’d end up accruing charges. Others make it all but impossible to cancel your card.
The overall impression I get from the credit industry, in a word, is deception.
Signing up for a credit card to build my credit history, to me, is basically saying, “Let them abuse you now so that they don’t abuse you later.” I’m sure 90% of people don’t have issues with their credit card companies. (Actually, I’m not sure at all. I’m sure that more than 10% don’t have issues, but I’m not comfortable putting the number at 90%.) But the fact that the majority of people don’t get scammed/abused/raped doesn’t mean that I want to sign up. (The majority of Iraq soldiers come home alive and well, but I’m not going to enlist.)
I have a check card from my bank. I can use it as a credit card, or a debit card, or an ATM card. It’s all I need. The things I can’t do with it are things that I don’t want to be able to do: I can’t buy a car and charge it to my credit card, for example. But it would be financial suicide to do that anyway.
I intensely dislike the idea of playing by their rules. I’m not sure I have a choice, but I’m not jumping up to do it, either.
I can’t for the life of me find the quote, but I think it was Thomas Jefferson, or maybe Lincoln, who said in his inaugural address that, “We are all Democrats, all Republicans…”
I think that is exceptionally important these days. Last night, on campus, we had a debate with the Republicans. We bashed Bush, and they bashed Hillary. In the Senate, Democrats seem to oppose whatever the Republicans do, and the Republicans oppose whatever the Democrats do.
In theory, the parties are really important: much like the three branches of government, they keep each other in check. The country probably won’t go socialist, because the Republicans will oppose it. And we won’t become a fascist dictatorship because the Democrats won’t allow it. (Of course, some would call the current Administration a fascist dictatorship, and at last night’s meeting someone went on about how the Massachusetts government is now truly run by socialists; realistically, though, we’re not even close to either.)
In practice, people are too devoted to their parties. I don’t agree with everything the Democrats do: every now and then, I have to go with the Republicans on something. And I have a lot of respect for some Republicans who have taken the side of the Democrats. (Which is happening increasingly often when Bush is involved?)
So nothing gets done. Bush just vetoed a bill that would have given healthcare to children who can’t afford it. Did we ever renew the assault weapons ban? Michigan’s government almost shut down.
What did we debate last night? Whether or not Hillary could lead the country, and whether she could stare down world leaders. (My question, “Why do we want a president who intimidates world leaders?” got lost in the fray.) What else might we have talked about if we’d had more time? Whether or not we’re ready for a black President? Whether or not Rudy is inappropriately using 9/11 for his gain? The MoveOn ad?
It seems like not many people care about what’s right anymore, as much as whether their side wins. What do I think of the MoveOn ad? I don’t know, I never saw it. I don’t give a crap, really, just like I don’t give a crap about whether Hillary can look intimidating, or whether Rudy’s unceasing talk about 9/11 is inappropriate. I give a crap about children in poor families dying for want of health care. I give a crap about our soldiers dying in a pointless war. I give a crap about us not having an assault weapons ban. I give a crap about the fact that when I was a little kid, America was, without a doubt, the best nation in the world, and now most of the world hates us. I give a crap that our economy is going down while the rest of the world watches their economies soar. I give a crap that the government has such a deficit that we’re borrowing money just to pay off our debt. I give a crap that the big investors are moving all their money into foreign economies. I give a crap that schools aren’t getting the funding they need to keep America competitive. I give a crap that the military is losing talented people because of their sexual orientation. I give a crap that college keeps getting more and more expensive and we’re cutting loans. I give a crap that we’re not giving benefits to soldiers who came back from the war.
Please, politicians, get it. I’m a Democrat. I don’t want the Democrats to “win” in Congress: I want America to win. And we’re not.
John Kerry gave a speech at Faneuil Hall today, focusing on economics. Between being interested, having been a Kerry ’04 supporter, wanting to try my hand at photographing the event, and having no classes during the day, I decided to attend. What follows is a write-up of the event, a combination of photography stuff and politics.
I was worried when I found out it was inside. I have a fairly “slow” lens (f/5.6 when zoomed in, which I knew is where I’d be shooting), so I wasn’t sure how they’d come out. It ended up being fairly bright inside, but shooting zoomed to 200mm still requires a fairly fast exposure. I left the lens wide open (which has the added benefit of helping to throw the background out of focus) the whole time, and bumped the camera up to ISO800. (I spent a little time at ISO1600 to try to get some “safety shots,” figuring a little grain was better than motion blur, but I can’t even tell without looking at the metadata which was which.)
This is not John Kerry, but I’ve still got a few photos uploading so I’ll start with those that are already online. This guy was marching around Harvard Square ranting about his dislike for Jews. I kind of wanted to get into his head: momentarily pretending that hating Jews isn’t crazy in and of itself, I have to wonder what possesses someone to dress up in a ridiculous costume and try to convince a ton of other people that they should hate Jews, too. Does this guy have a job? Is he sane in other settings, or is he always like this? Does he go to the grocery store to buy eggs and ham and rant to the cashier about Jews? Does he have a wife? What’s going on with the couple beyond him to the left?
Upon seeing this guy, someone near me wondered aloud, “Can you say that in public?!” This guy must not have gone to our school, because just a few weeks ago, we handed out about 1,000 copies of the Constitution. He wouldn’t have had to read far, even: we put that part right up front for him.
I had lunch in Quincy Market. Since I was by myself and didn’t feel like looking for a seat, I ate at one of those bizarre troffs tables. I took this shot with my 18-50mm lens, at 18mm. Even with the camera’s crop, 18mm (effectively 29mm) is really wide! This picture should also go in textbooks that talk about barrel distortion.
What are the odds that everyone here would be in orange? (It was pure coincidence.) I really like seeing that it’s not just young college students calling for Bush’s ouster.
The room was really impressive, and was a great place to hold something like this. Of course, there was no shortage of flags. The inscription on the bottom of the pictures behind Senator Kerry reads, “Liberty and Union Now and Forever.”
This breaks one of the cardinal rules of photography. You want the subject looking “in.” It’d have been great had he been facing the right (his left), but he wasn’t. Also, at least for me, the object that my eye jumps to is the woman in green, who was just some random audience member.
The enormous picture behind him wasn’t level. Another “cardinal rule” I’m big on is keeping straight lines. I’m more prone to noticing than most people, but when the horizon is slanting, it really detracts from the picture. I realized early on that my pictures were coming out pretty crooked, so I started being careful to try to keep the bottom of the frame nice and level. But on more zoomed-out shots like this, the stage was pretty slanted. I’d love to fix the alignment of the painting, but when I try aligning pictures on walls, they tend to fall off. I think I’d be in pretty deep trouble if I knocked that painting down.
Here’s the room. It’s on the upper floor of Faneuil Hall, and is incredibly nice. (This was a little before we started; the guy on the right is an usher.)
Any idea who this lady is? She was right near the front and a lot of people were coming up saying hello. I’m assuming she’s either a former politician or wife of a politician, but I didn’t recognize her.
See what I mean? Here I aligned the image so the stage was perfectly level. Look at that sloping painting! Isn’t it distracting?
Kerry talked a lot about health care, and the utter disaster that is our status quo. He actually slipped in what I thought was a hilarious joke… Discussing Romney’s move for universal health care in Massachusetts, he mentioned how he’s now downplaying it. “It’s almost as if he’s saying he was for universal health care before he voted against it.”
He also discussed tax cuts and the preposterous situation of giving the richest Americans huge tax rebates. “Teresa and I didn’t ask for a tax break. We didn’t need one, especially not when 43 million [?] Americans can’t afford basic health care.”
I’m not sure I did such a great job going over what happened, but it was great. My one critique is that he seemed a little too quick to bash Republicans: it’s something most all Democrats are quick to do, but unless we start working together, the schism is going to get wider. We need to work with the Republicans, not against them.
One thing I’ve wanted to do for a long time, but never really had the energy to do, is write letters about big issues. Alone it probably doesn’t make a huge difference, but when people get a deluge of letters either supporting them or condemning their stance on something, it most certainly can sway their opinion.
I think the first of the series of letters is going to Orem, Utah’s city council and police department, after their police department knocked down, handcuffed, arrested, and jailed an elderly woman… for not watering her lawn. The city attorney, most of all, should be written to, as (s)he still plans to prosecute her.
I would love to be wrong, but here’s my prediction for 2008: Rudy Giuliani. He’s not who I’m favoring to win (at all), but he’s who I’m currently convinced is going to win. Here’s why:
Obama: My favorite. But he’s young in the Senate and has no leadership experience (e.g., as governor). I think he’d do great, but I don’t think enough people think that.
Hillary: I’m a Democrat and agree with about 99% of her policies, and yet I’m not too fond of her for no reason at all. I know a lot of people, many who would normally vote Democrat, who would not vote for her. The problem is that I also think that she’s going to get the nomination. Which means it’s going to be down to her and a Republican. More on this in a minute.
Edwards: He’d make a great leader, but he’s not getting much attention right now. Unless this changes, I don’t think he stands a chance.
Bill Richardson: He’d also be great, but at the current rate, his recognition is so low that I don’t think he stands a chance.
Mitt Romney: Not many Massachusetts voters like him, especially since most Massachusetts residents are Democrats. No Democrats would vote for a conservative Republican in 2008. But what Republican is going to vote for the governor of the (arguably) most liberal state in the country, who implemented universal healthcare in the end of his term and was in office when we became the only state to permit gay marriage. He has his followers, but I don’t think he stands much of a chance.
Ron Paul: Some of his policies are good, but I think “out there” is the best way I’ve been able to describe him. While he has a very vocal cadre of Internet supporters, I don’t think he stands a chance “IRL.”
Rudy Giuliani: From what I’ve heard, a lot of NYC residents hate him. But he’s a moderate. I figure the far-right will go for Romney and lose. The far-left won’t vote for him. But everyone from center-right to center-left, and most undecideds, might be willing to consider him. (I’m not diametrically opposed to him yet, though I think I’d definitely vote blue.)
In addition to the whole, “I could be wrong” thing, this could also change over time. For example, if Edwards starts getting a lot of publicity, he stands a chance. Giuliani could fall in popularity. Obama could push his numbers up, or get the media to talk about something other than the fact that he’s black. Hillary could win over some voters by combating the impression that she’s uncaring and cold-hearted.
You refer to government conspiracies. (Actually, let me qualify that. You refer to government conspiracies without showing compelling evidence.)
You refer to “the homosexual agenda” or use the word “infiltrated” to refer to homosexuals.
You believe income tax / the IRS are illegal, and/or have voted to abolish them.
Most of your savings are in some format other than, err, money. (I suppose there’s some logic here, if the economy were to utterly crumble. But if the economy utterly crumbles, who wants your gold / rubies?)
You are an anarchist. (This is 100% irrelevant to supporting smaller government, which is far from being a nutjob. I’m talking people who truly think we should have no government at all.)
You vote to permit torture.
You support an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq.
You support staying in Iraq indefinitely with no exit plan.
Your plan for ‘solving’ illegal immigration consists primarily of “build a really big fence.”
Your plan for ‘solving’ illegal immigration consists primarily of deporting all illegal immigrants.
You write an “erotic fantasy” novel about police officers being gunned down.
This answers something I’ve wondered for a long time: how are sobriety checkpoints not a violation of the Constitution?
The Constitution says that “The right of the people to be secure… against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated… but upon probable cause.” It seems pretty clear to me that the police pulling people over, even if it’s random, to check if they’re sober constitutes a search without probable cause.
It turns out that the SCOTUS has already decided this. In essence, Chief Justice Rehnquist admitted that the stops do constitute a search, but that the public good outweighs the need for probable cause. Therefore, they are legal despite being very clearly prohibited under the US Constitution.
There’s some hope, though, indicated towards the end of the linked article. The case originated in Michigan, which had ruled that they were unconstitutional. The ruling, obviously, was overturned by the SCOTUS. But Michigan’s Supreme Court ruling also said that they violated Michigan’s Constitution. Ergo, they’re still illegal in Michigan even though the US Constitution “doesn’t” prohibit them. (I never thought I’d use quotes in that way…)
I’ve been reading all I could about all the Presidential candidates, and am left with a question. What does “Family Values” mean in the context of politics? The term alone is kind of vague, but in the context of politics, it makes even less sense, since they can’t possibly legislate much of what ‘family values’ means to me.
