The American Consumer, Part the 2nd - The AT&T situation, and its Swift and Calculated Resolution

Hey kids.  Wanna know what ever happened to the evil corporation of A, T, and T, mentioned in my previous blog?  My revenge and resolution of the same were swift and calculated.

I wrote the following letter to the management of the store that handled my sale:

3/22/2014

Around a little more than a month ago, we visited your store.  We were heartily greeted, and served by a gentleman named *un-named* (Sorry, I can’t remember the guy’s name).

He helped us pick out phones, and drew up our contract for us.

Now, when we purchased this service, we were told that, after a quick computerized estimate, that each bill would be around $200 a month.  Looking at my contract, I see that to be the truth.  However, when I signed up, I was told that for each line of service, I would receive a credit worth $100 per line.  I was going to be the only person using the service, but for $100 per line?  I signed the wife up as well, and added a hot spot line.  $300 in credits in all.  There was absolutely no discussion whatsoever about when these credits would appear in my billing.  I was never told anything about how much the first bill would be or that there were extra activation fees.  When he informed me that the bill would be around $200 a month, I balked slightly, and asked if there was any way that this bill could be reduced any...maybe by removing the hot spot from the contract?  He then told me that the discounts I was to receive on my service would not be in place if I removed the hotspot, and that it would reduce the bill as far as the third line was concerned, but would increase the bill back up to around $200 if the discounts were removed.  So no, there was no decreasing the bill.  The salesman then offered me phone insurance.  I looked him  dead in the eye and said these words exactly:  Sure, why not?  It’s not like I’ll have a bill to pay for the first month anyway?”  He smiled, without a word of negation to that statement, and I signed on.

Then, a couple of days later, I started to observe a commercial that said, if you were to activate up to 4 lines of service (of which I had 3), with 10 GB of Data (which I had, but I didn’t really hear that at this time) and that my bill would be $160 a month for 4 lines.  I immediately contacted the store.  The salesperson, looking this up, stated the reason we didn’t get this deal was because of the amount of data we signed up for...10 GB.  Confused, we took this answer and we went home.  Again, the commercial aired, I listened and heard exactly that these folks signing up would indeed receive a shared 10 GB of data.

This time I called customer service.  When I stated that we did indeed receive all the commercial offered, the customer service rep then stated to me that this offer was only good to existing customers of AT&T.  If you watch this commercial (and I have, diligently, over and over again), no place in this commercial does state, say, or show type that says that this deal is only applicable to existing customers.  It also presents itself in such a way that you would believe that you, as a NEW customer, are to receive this offer.  The customer service rep pacified me by offering me a $100 credit.  I believe, now, after having my service connected with nary an attempt at saving my patronage, that this was a payoff to make me look the other way as far as this commercial was concerned.  I took this in stride and continued on.

I received several text messages from customer service on my phone, stating that my bill was available for view, and asked me to contact customer service because of my data overages.  I did at one time contact them, and informed them that I had $400 in bill credits...so why would my data overage matter?  They laughed and I hung up.  Then 4 days after one month of service, I received, in the mail, a letter stating that I owed $220, and if I did not pay it immediately, my phone service would be promptly disconnected.

I looked at my bill online, and it said there that my bill was $532.97.  I was furious.  $200 of this new amount should be our bill.  There was 4 added gigs of service added to our data, at $15/GB, granted...but there’s an additional $60 charged here for what reason, I have no idea.  I called customer service.  I was told that my credits per line would not show for at least 2-3 more billing cycles.  I was told that the first bill is always higher because of activation fees.  I asked about why these things weren’t covered in our sale, she said “I’m sorry, you’re absolutely right, that should be said”...with mention that we might be able to use a split bill payment resolution.  She led me to My AT&T online, and asked me to press the Make Payment button.  It didn’t show a split payment option.  She said this was because I was too new of a customer.  I told her that I wouldn’t be able to pay the past due amount until the following week, and she said that our service would be disconnected by then.  When I mentioned that I didn’t know that our first bill would show up in just a week, and be due in less than another week or so, and that in an exact additional month we would be charged yet another month at the promised $200, the pacification came in the form of “this is all in your contract”.  Needless to say, I discontinued the conversation not long after that.

So, today, you’re going to get two options.  Either you will find a way to turn on our service again, at the promised $160 a month, give us until the date of March 31st to pay our past due bill, then immediately apply the $300 in credits that you promised me on our current due bill of $332.97 (after our service reduction per month, and the additional $60 that shouldn’t have been charged, this figure should actually be $232.97; and after $300 in credits, it should really be around -$68.97), or option 2, you will disconnect my service, wipe out both bills, as well as any termination fees that might apply and I will, today, box up and return all of your equipment to you, after you call.

If you do not honor either of these choices, I will haunt the sidewalks outside of your store from business open till business close every weekend of my 2 year contract, with detailed signs that express everything this store lied to me about and omitted upon selling me your service, and it will, I guarantee you, cost you business, I will also write scathing reviews on every site I can find that concerns cell phones.  I am also a blogger, and because of you, have started a new section on the American Consumer, and have already posted a story concerning your business, and will continue to slam you there as well.  Finally, I plan to bring suit against your company for misrepresentation and fraudulent business actions.  I am a legal student, so be prepared for a fight.  This is no idle threat.

When you decide which option to go with, you can contact me on my new prepaid phone that I had to purchase yesterday, at 515-865-3589 to tell me.  I’ll let you be now, since you now have some work to do.

Thank you.



Christopher Bruce.

Needless to say, I received a call within the hour.  I will be updating this blog with the resolution in a few minutes...hold your breath please...

******************************************************************************

OK, and the results are in !!!  I spent a grand total of 10 minutes on the phone and another 15 minutes at the store picketing (I told them they had best decide or I would, remember...I didn't get a single call the rest of the day).  The phones will be back on within the hour, my current bill of $532.87 will be wiped out, the bill will be $160 a month, and the more minor issues will be resolved.  Just goes to show you.  Open your mouth wide enough, and the people who don't hear you will still notice you when they fall into it.  Don't roll over America, STAND UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!

The American Consumer, Part Eins - Cell Phones

WARNING:  The reading of this post may cause diarrhea, difficulty in breathing, violent convulsions, and, quite possibly, death.  Yes, it's another one of those hour long posts.  Best saved for times such as the-hour-long-lunch...the weekend, that sorta thing.  I'm really sorry America, some days it's just like that, right?  This particular subject may run into more parts...I'm not sure.  One thing I will guarantee, is that I promise you'll be the 2nd to know about it.

"Ah.  What's that?  New cell phone, eh?  What is that, a Samsung Galaxy S LXIX you got there??  Wow, who would have thought that the number would ever get that high, especially in just 5 short years.  Yeah, I remember back in 2011 when the Galaxy S I came out.  And it DOES have the kitchen sink included with it as well?? Well, I can't say as I'm surprised."

It would seem that the cell phone industry has not only caught up with the Flat Panel TV and Laptop/Pad industry, but passed it running at full speed.  "The Next Big Thing" slogan, which can be heard (and seen as well) as Samsung announces each of their newest phone generations as they appear on the market, would seem like it's being said about every other month these days.  This of course refers to their big seller, the Galaxy S, their entry for an Android competitor to the Apple iPhone.  You just get done plunking down $500-$800 for a new one, and a month later they're already talking about the next one.  The T-Mobile Sidekick, which was the iPhone of the 00's, at least waited two years before re-issuing as a new model.  The new Galaxy S models seem to come out just about the time you're either just done recovering the money back into your bank account that you spent on the last one, or about the time you finally get the older one figured out and are completely comfortable with it.  It also seems to always coincide with the time period directly following your purchase of the very last accessory you need for it (case, home charger, car charger, screen protectors, charger cords for your computer, etc.).

What really irritates me though, is that, even though the industry races along at 4G speed and beyond (noting the expiration time period of the other G speeds we've experienced in our pasts, shouldn't we be at 5 or 6G speeds by now?), the contracts and service that go along with them are either the same or a hell of a lot worse.  And not only do the 4 major cellphone companies still pretty much pull the exact same crap on you as they used to back when they first became a necessary evil, when selling them to you, it doesn't give me a lot of hope.

What takes away even more hope is the fact that we still haven't quite come to the logical conclusion, as yet, that cell phones were, back at their inception, right up to this very day, a luxury item.  They cost about 10 times more legs and arms than they used to even, and still we clunk around in the dark for the money to get them, like we don't have a clue what's happening.

I imagine, oft times, a mental picture of the head of household plowing through the door to his home and, after announcing that Samsung is coming out with the new Galaxy S VI in a couple days, and, since they've only served 6 months of their 2 yr. contract sentence and aren't eligible for an upgrade, they have to pay cash for them.  And, when they realize that they don't really have the $2400 handy to pay for new phones for him, the wife and his 2 daughters, he brings out the "sign here in blood" contracts that require that each member of his family give up his/her soul to be able to get them, so they can keep pace with the rest of the world.  Why do you think that the price of your service has dipped to almost nothing these days?  It's because you more than make up for it when you buy the phones at today's outlandish prices.  You have to practically take out a small loan!  $2400 is pertineer a down-payment on a car, for chrissakes.  A good laptop or pad is oodles cheaper!!

Cell phone companies, along with the cells they sell, have always been ridiculous on their contract service rates and service.  Sprint, the first ones to ever upset me on a massive scale, will never again see me darken their doorway after I got what would be my first contract phone ever, nearly 11 years ago.

Ah yes, I remember it well. 'Twas a winter's day, February 2003, and I was the proud owner of a cell phone, finally.  Sprint was running this great promo, where people with not so wonderful credit were given a cell phone, on contract, with a $125 deposit (this was kind of a fore-runner for pre-paid service, I'm thinking) for a certain amount (I can't even remember what it was...that's how long it was before I ever got on contract again), and as long as the bill remained under $125 a month, your service was safe.  In other words, as long as your bill never went over $125 a month, your service didn't get immediately shut off...which, by the way, happened 5 times in a week's time before I called them and told 'em exactly what they could do - with their contracts, with their phones AND with their crappy service.  This was, of course, long before text messaging would be unlimited, or even a gleam in the eye of the phone company.  Matter of fact, if I remember right, I didn't know anything about text messaging back then, and if I did, I wouldn't have had any idea who else in the world would have had such a similar service that I could have texted.  Nor do I believe, even if I had, that I would have even tried to text them.  "Why" I'm sure I said back then, "would I ever text anyone, especially if I could just call them???"  Funny how things change so very much in a decade.  I don't think I've ever typed so much on so many different things...well, EVER.  Even when I did it for a living.

Sorry...back to the story.  I had it for barely a week, and the phone went dead.  This was, of course, back in the day when plans were pretty ridiculous as far as how many minutes you received, as opposed to how much you were paying.  I think I was on a plan with around 450 anytime minutes, and your evenings and weekends were free.  Cell phones were, of course, still very much a luxury back then.  Ownership was still pretty much a new thing.  In 2003, somewhere around 148 million people had cell phones in the world, which, if you think about it, really wasn't a whole lot of owners.  Now, ownership levels are at around 82%, and 97% for people under 44.  I would have to say however, that of that 97%, I'll bet a good portion AREN'T on contract anymore, and for good reason too.

Moving RIGHT along, I called customer service immediately.  Remember, this was also before the days of 611, so I had to look up the number in the phone book and call them.  If I recall right, my problems with Sprint were rather numerous.  Though not necessarily in this order, I had all of these conversations with them, concerning these problems:  minutes used, information calls, data time use, extra charges and apps I supposedly "signed up for."  I probably had to call customer service just about every time I got a bill to get rid of just about every app I ever tried to use on the older style wireless phones.   After getting my phone service disconnected 5 times in a week, with five subsequent customer service calls to follow each one, I quickly tossed that wonderful Sprint phone in the nearest garbage can after conversation five, and swore that I would never again own a cell phone.  Needless to say, I had no idea that they would become an additional organ on your body in the coming decade.

A couple of years later, I finally gave in, and bought another cell phone.  I went with PrimeCo, an outfit I ran into during my time in Madison Wisconsin.  They were wonderful.  I was in Cell Phone Nirvana.  Then, my other #2 arch-enemy, Verizon, bought them out.  I had already, prior to that, experienced Verizon's wonderful land line service, and was none too happy with the takeover.  Verizon, needless to say, brought a few new ideas (and a higher price) to the table that I didn't rightly care for.  So, their phone, not unlike Sprint's, found its permanent resting place in the garbage as well.  Again, I swore buying a cell phone again would probably be a while off for me.

Not nearly so long as between Sprint and PrimeCo, I once again thought about getting yet another cell phone.  Owning one by this time was very nearly a "necessity" (maybe it's just people my age or older...but is it, or has it ever really been this?), only this time, it was the lure of the "Pre-Paid" Cell phone that brought me back around to it...no, I had most certainly learned my lesson with contract phones.  I bought my first pre-paid phone with AT&T, their "Go Phone".  I had that phone a very long time.  I loved it....and I should have stuck with it too.  I'd still have one of the easiest phone numbers I've ever had.  I noted another company that sported an amount that was considerably less than what I was paying, with a heck of a lot more minutes.  It was then that I became an official Virgin user and dedicated fan.  Little did I know that my #1 arch-nemesis in the cell phone world, the company I swore I would never go back to, Sprint, was the owner of Virgin Mobile.  Had I known that, I would have never even looked at the box.

Around the time that I found out that Sprint owned Virgin....at which time I more or less shrugged my shoulders and said "really?  wow!" and kept on talking like I'd never heard the words, they did me wrong, and I decided I was once again going to go elsewhere.  Prior to that, if I had found out that Hitler owned the company, you would have had to rip the Virgin phone out of my cold dead hands.  There was no way I was giving it up.  This would not, however, be the last cell phone company I would ever lie with, thanks to the invention of the smartphone.

Oh, don't get me wrong.  I tried my hardest to resist.  Had Virgin not finally made me mad enough to give them up once, I would still be on one to this day.  Not quite seeing the need for such an expensive phone at that time, I scouted around for a nice compromise...something between smartphone and flip...and ended up with one of those phones that was an MP3 player, had key driven menu items...and yet wasn't too expensive, one of Samsung's first phones.  It was also pre-paid, and belonged to Verizon Wireless, a company I swore I'd never go back to as well, after the PrimeCo incident.  It didn't take me long to remember why.  I think I might have had that phone for a grand total of 2 months before I was looking to go elsewhere.  I gave them up because they wanted me to pay to access my e-mail.

I ended up with T-mobile.  This time, I was talked into going with their contract service.  I might want to add here, that even though I didn't stick with them long, it wasn't because of their service.  No, it was because I had been on pre-paid for so long and was so dead-set against contracts that I chose the path I did.  I dumped 'em because of the cost for the most part.  Why should I spend $100 a line, with limited data, when there were prepaid phones out there at $45 a month with unlimited everything??  I stuck with the company, I just dumped the contract.  Why I continue to fall for sales pitches for contract is beyond me.  It's usually the phone that sucks me in, it's never anything else, that's for sure.

Funny thing enough, if you just save your money up to buy a super good pre-paid phone ahead of time, you don't NEED A CONTRACT.  Oh sure, if you're a family of 4 or more people, then contract phones are the way to go.  2 or less?  No way people.  When two are both on prepaid, you could, feasibly, get a month's service...for both lines, mind you...for as little as $70 now.  Yes, that was indeed SEVENTY DOLLARINOS.  The most in extra charges?  Tax on SEVENTY DOLLARS.  And that seriously covers EVERYTHING.  Unlimited minutes, unlimited data, unlimited messaging.  And Boost Mobile?  Even includes free directory assistance.  I guarantee that, if you're 2 or less people?  You're paying an average of around $100 on contract.  Per person.  Check into it.  Why the world isn't on prepaid is still a mystery to me.  Usually, I believe it's due to the fact that no one wants to dish out $500 for a phone before they even get the phone turned on.  You just don't understand!!  You're still paying for the same phone people, you're just paying for it in other ways.  Trust me, you're still dishing it out, just not all at once.  Here's a suggestion.  Start saving for that phone now, while you're on contract.  Then when it runs out, buy that Galaxy S4.  Sure, you'll pay $600 dollars for it.  But think about all that money you'll save not being on a contract.  And if you don't like the service??  You just let your month of service run out, sell the phone, and go with another one.  Why doesn't everyone already do this????  Hard to say.  Good salespeople.

Right.  Lying little salespeople.  U.S. Cellular was the next to trap me.  Oh, this is one of my favorites, to be sure.  Normally, when I signed a contract, I had a month's service, easy, before I received a first bill.  Then I usually had around 2 to 3 weeks to pay it.  I signed with them, and they told me exactly what my first bill would be, somewhere around $300.  What they DIDN'T tell me was that I would get that bill in around a week, and only have 2 more weeks to pay it.  Those went to the garbage pile REAL quick.

Then finally, we have the one that's about to go the way of all of my other contract phones.  AT&T.  When I bought into their plan, told me that I could have 2 lines of service for $200 a month.  The phones were "free", as usual (meaning I would be paying for it other ways...this, of course, was a given).  What they didn't tell me was, that my first bill, which of course is usually always higher, would be about S320, and would also be given to me about 2 weeks into my service and be due in another 2 weeks.  Funny how this always seems to slip their minds.  Oh, but AT&T decided to take my pain one step further.  You see, I knew this might happen, sure, but when I signed up....and the ENTIRE reason I even went for it...was because they told me I would receive a $100 credit for each line.  3 in all.  That's $300.  Wow.  I signed.  Bet you have no idea what happened next.

Well, you guessed it.  I got the bill.  I didn't even look at it.  Why bother?  I had $300 in credits, I don't owe anything.  Matter of fact, I was POSITIVE I didn't.  This was because AT&T had been airing a commercial that said you could get 4 lines of service with unlimited calls and messages (like I had), and 10GB of data (like I had), for $160 a month (mine was sold to me at $200).  What they have in small print on the commercial is (evidently...I've yet to see this) is that you have to be a current customer to get that deal.  Huh?  So anyway, I called and complained about it, and they pacified me with yet another $100 credit.  Nice.  Then I get, two weeks later, a letter stating that I now have a current bill for the amount of $520, and that, if I don't pay $220 in 3 days, that my phone service will be terminated.  WHAT???

I looked on the web at my account, and discovered that we had, by five days, passed another billing period (funny how every time I sign up for a contract of late, the billing period is always 3 days away), so that was fine.  But what of the $300 in credits I was to receive?  I called them up, and discovered that our $300 in credits per line of service wouldn't show on our account until the 4th billing period.  Funny how they sorta forgot to tell us about that one.  When I mentioned that to the customer service rep I talked to about that?  Their oh-so-obviously adopted response is now "But it was in the contract you signed, didn't you see that?".  Oh sure, I should know that by now.  But really?  My response to that is "IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SALES REP TO SELL EVERYTHING AS REPRESENTED BEFORE I SIGN".  As a matter of fact, I remember, expressly, saying these words, right in the face of the smiling representative holding the pen I was to use:  "Hey...no big deal, I'll go for the insurance!  It's not like I'm going to owe a bill the first month!"  Did they say a word?  Nope.  They continued to smile during my entire signature.

As I will smile during every 1-800 collection agency call I get after I let the service run its course, and the phones are disconnected.

Now here's the thing that really bothers me the most.  Landline service is dirt cheap now.  It was more expensive, sure, when it was active...but it was nowhere near what we're paying now for cell service.  So why did we move to cell phone service again?  Believe me, I'm looking very hard at reviving my land-line.  The novel convenience of being able to take my phone with me and to make and receive phone calls wherever I go?  Not nearly as novel now, mostly because a.) I just realized that I'm getting about as many calls and messages that only serve to annoy me (i.e., companies in my email and on the web that I was forced to enter a phone number for, etc.) as I used to get on my land line, and b.) because where I used to be able to just ignore people I didn't want to talk to, I can't do that anymore.  Now they blow up my phone because they KNOW I take it everywhere.  At $9.99 - $14.99, it might just be my next move.  Unless of course, they ban all land-lines...it's in the works, from what I'm hearing.  :(

Your Credit...As a Condition of Your Employment?

Greetings, America, and thank you for visiting my corner of the Earth.  My hope in the fare you receive by reading the blog posts I've written thus far, is, at the very least, mild entertainment, with a side of having you plop down hard in your chair and thinking hard about what I said.  If I can accomplish that even once, I'll be more than thrilled, believe it.  Please note, if you haven't already, that my opinion has been known to bring out the "Defender" in a person, and on occasion I also manage to piss one or two people off, as well.  Know full well that there is a comment box at the bottom of each and every blog page, and that I fully expect you to fill it out and tell me how you feel, no matter how sharp the knife.  If I couldn't or didn't raise an eyebrow or two, then what's the sense in moving on?  At least I'll know there are more people than myself who feel strongly on the matters I cover.  Go right ahead and do that, by all means, I insist.  Note also that I choose not to advertise, though I may find another blog page with a larger reach that I might sign up with, with the intent of acquiring a wider audience of readers and jam their widget on this page to bring them out of their corners.

Here's a small but widely-known and accepted condition to your employment at a job these days, your credit report, prior to hire.  Please, if you don't mind, tell me what your credit situation relates to as far as how well you can do a job?

To be fair, let's look at this little gem from an employer's point of view.  It's said, that if your credit sucks, you're more likely to steal from your company.  You know, to pay your bills.  Really?  Yep, that's gotta be the whole reason I applied to work at Burger King, just so I could steal from the register while no one of the 10,000 people that go into Burger King daily, or my management, or my fellow employees, or the cameras are looking; then run immediately to my local grocery store after work so I can pay my delinquent phone bill.  Right.

First of all, if my moral compass is such that I'm going to steal from the company I work for (and then lose my job, and possibly get thrown in jail for it), improving my credit score, or even paying my electric bill before I buy the 70" Sony flatscreen TV I've never been able to afford before I stole from you, is not likely. Second, according the the "We can't hire you because there's a theft charge on your record" standard that's been in place for over 11 years is going to prevent me from getting another job, anywhere....ever.  So what do you think the chances are that I'm applying to work for you just so I can steal from you and pay off my gambling debts?  Zero to none, I'd say.

I'm sure that there's been past occurrences where, somewhere along the line, there have been theft issues at every company in America.  If I reach far enough, I might just investigate the record of any one of these thieves, and will probably find that their credit really does suck.  I'd have to say that anybody that steals, of course, is probably going to have sucky credit, so isn't this really a given?  Then I'm guessing that it was the brilliant idea of some research company somewhere in the United States where someone said "Hey.  Since that guy had crummy credit and stole money from the cash register, then surely ALL thieves have bad credit...so hey, let's just suggest we do employment credit checks!  That way, if someone has terrible credit, then we can immediately pigeonhole him as someone that shouldn't be hired because he might steal from you...and here's researched proof in our favor!  What's more, I'm sure that if we can get one huge respected company to ask for these, then pretty soon we'll have a standard on our hands, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, and we, as the credit checking company, can make a lot of money doing it!"

Now really America.  Let's go there, shall we?  First of all, have you ever noticed, that if you Google a credit score average in America, that no one can give you a real answer?  That's because no one WANTS you to know that answer.  That's also because there are four...count 'em, four different scales.  So really, because there is no regulated national standard for credit scoring, you could have a good score with one company, and a lousy one with another.  I love these sites that tell you what the average score is for people with loans...of course they're going to have good credit scores...that's why they have LOANS!!  And, the average credit score, according to FICO (the leader of the "credit score industry"), is over 700, and in the "Excellent" category.  You've got to know this is insanity.  There is no...possible...way.  I'll bet you if I average everyone in my neighborhood alone?  We'd be hard-pressed to hit 600.

Those of you out there with perfect or near perfect credit scores are going to brush this one off.  Of course you will.  It's all about how responsible you are, isn't it?  That's what these companies are really trying to find out about you.  I have only this to say about that.  I am a person who doesn't play the credit game.  My credit is neither bad nor good.  How does this make me a risk?  I'm a hard working, responsible, dedicated and loyal employee.  Does the fact that my credit score is zero make me a thief by default?  If you go to your pond, and you find 10 green frogs, does this mean all frogs are green?

So essentially, America, if you're bill pile is bigger than your paid file?  Kiss that management position good-bye.  If your electric bill was not paid on time last month and it dropped your credit score by 100 points, I don't see you getting that promotion.  And, God forbid, if you have no credit at all, bad or good (then you're like me, and don't play the credit game), then I don't see you getting that job at Wells Fargo as a credit specialist.  According to this way of thinking, you might just decide to start writing down customer's credit card numbers, steal their identities, thinking you can get away with it, and that this, of course, is infinitely more important than paying your bills and putting a roof over your children's heads.  Also, isn't it pretty much fair to say that some of our biggest thieves, con artists and scammers are some of the very billionaires out there with absolutely perfect credit scores?  I don't think we have to go any further than Enron to see that.

The solution to this madness?  A.  File this under discrimination where employment is concerned, ban asking about people's personal credit situation as a condition of employment, and let's put these research companies that are making a mint off of our lousy or non-existent credit scores out of business.  You can't put a finger on anyone's moral behavior because of their credit score.  B.  If you're going to keep playing (or insist that we Americans keep playing) the credit game, then have a branch of government federally mandate that we go by one scale and one scale only.

The Law...Itself! Part Last

Hey People!!  I was pretty sure I was all fired up to do new articles again in this blog...and I am!!  Really!!  Except for today.  No, today, I'm simply going to re-do this one, with a significant bolster in the number of paragraphs, from it's original version.  Sorry, it's the best I can muster.  This time.

OK, as promised, we're going to cover the rest of the Constitution's Amendments, the ones immediately following the bill of rights.

Amendment 11 states that any U.S. Citizen can sue the state.  (1795)  Keep in mind that nowhere does it say you'll win, or even have a chance of winning.

Amendment 12 Is an Amendment that specifies the Electoral College, used and key in electing the President and Vice President of the United States every 4 years.  This was put into effect in 1804, and the votes of the electoral representatives do NOT have to represent the popular choice.  \Instead, the electors (the people assigned to vote for each state, dependent on the number of representatives each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives) are generally pre-pledged to vote for a candidate.  There are a couple of states that vote according to the popular vote, but the rest work on the pre-pledged vote system.  OK?  Then why do we vote at all?  Wasn't it silly then to ask for a recount of the state vote in Florida back in 2000?.

This method of voting for the 2 highest offices has been, many times, accused of being un-democratic, and I agree whole-heartedly.  The representative electors should, as the term is defined, represent the way the state votes, not by the person the electors think should be in office.  This has caused a ruckus a couple of times in our history, especially the afore-mentioned 2000 Bush election.

If this system of voting for the President and Vice President were ever in place for a good reason, it isn't any longer.  This method is outdated, unfair and NOT the way of the people of the United States.  This system also leaves too much room for corruption, and if it seemed that the electors didn't favor the candidate, even though it was obvious that the candidate was the people's choice, it could, someday produce some nasty results.

Amendment 13 is the Amendment that covered the freeing of all slaves, and abolishes all "servitude."  (1865).  

Amendment 14 Defined U.S. Citizenship and what was required to qualify for it, and defined also and put into place "Due Process", "Privileges and Immunities" and "Equal Protection".  (1868).

As for those of you unfamiliar with Due Process, Due Process means that you are, entitled, when accused of a crime, to go through the system, fairly; in other words, you are entitled to be heard and have a fair trial before your life or liberty are taken away from you.  These days Due Process could be detailed as you not having to say a word, you can retain an attorney (and if you can't afford one, we'll assign you one), then you have the right to your arraignment, then your day in court, then you have the right to appeal if you feel you didn't get the right judgement.  The only thing I have trouble with, is prior to your your being jailed, and most definitely prior to your being jailed upon sentencing (after being found guilty) you are supposed to be heard first...so why are we always jailed while we wait to be heard?  Isn't that depriving you of your life or liberty?  I think so.  Like I said, guilty until proven innocent.  Oh sure, you can pay your unreasonably high bail and be free til your trial.  For most this usually involves having to give up your first born male child, your left leg and anything you have of value, along with anything your family has of value, your friends have of value, etc.  Essentially, it would seem that high bonds are issued to the people the courts don't want to go anywhere.  This is hardly democratic OR constitutional.

Privileges and Immunities basically states that you, as a citizen of the United States, in each state that you as a citizen reside in, are entitled to the same privileges and immunities no matter where you are in the U.S., and without prejudice.

Equal Protection just means that the people of each state shall receive equal protection where the law is concerned.  This means that one person doesn't get treated any better or worse than the next.  However, I have real issues with this rule as well, which means, of course, that we'll be back to this as well.

Amendment 15 states that no one is to discriminate against any voter because of race, color, creed. (1869).

Amendment 16 says that congress is allowed to tax incomes (1913).  Where I haven't really had many issues with the prior Amendments in this post, this one deserves an entire post (or posts) all on its own.  We'll be back, naturally.

Amendment 17 Specifies that congressmen are elected by the people directly, and not by representative officials for that particular state, as it had been prior to that. (1913).

Amendment 18 Prohibition of Liquor (1919).  This one could be construed as controversial (and it was later extremely so), when it's put in the light of other abused substances that we had then and have today.  Later, this Amendment was repealed, because it was feared that liquor being prohibited would cause more issues than the Amendment solved.  Of course, we shall return to this subject at a later date.

Amendment 19 gave women the right to vote (1920).  Right!

Amendment 20 expresses the duties of the outgoing, as well as the incoming Presidents, and the time that their offices ended and began.  It also covers congressionals as well, and when their terms began and ended officially (1933).

Amendment 21 repealed the 18th Amendment (1933).

Amendment 22 defines how many times a person can be the President of the United States and covers any special circumstances, such as if a vice president took the place of the current President for any reason (1951)

Amendment 23 simply allowed the District of Columbia (barely the size of some major cities and not a "state of the union" per se, to carry the minimum amount of electoral representatives (1961).

Amendment 24 only prohibits revoking a voter's right to vote because he didn't pay the poll tax (1962). There were only 5 states that still had a poll tax at this time, and this amendment essentially brought the tax to its end.

Amendment 25 basically re-enforces Article 6 of the Constitution, and explains in more detail the process and times when replacement of the President and/or the vice president is necessary (1965).

Amendment 26 Made it legal for 18 yr. olds to vote (1971).

Amendment 27 Delays laws concerning congressional salaries from taking effect until after the next election of representatives.  This is one I love.  This law was brought to the table in 1789 and not ratified until 1992.  Gee I wonder why.

By the way...I did NOT know some rather disturbing facts concerning the office of the President of the United States, unbelievably, 'till I was almost 50.  Because of this, I feel it's my duty to inform you, America, to regrettably point out where a great deal of your tax dollars are really going.

For one, while he's in, our President pulls down a cool $400,000 a year. I always believed it was $200,000, so I was quite surprised (in it's defense, the salary was $200,000 until 2001.  Evidently that was the last I'd heard of the salary going up, until this year).  But that's not all.  We also give him an additional $169,000 more for expenses he might incur during his term(s), such as travel, a tax-free expense account and an "entertainment" account.  I know, myself, that the base $400,000 would have more than covered these extra expenses for me, to be sure.  I was wowing at $200,000 a year, I sure didn't think it was anywhere close to $569,000.

I also never knew that, once the President steps down, that we pay him a pension until the day he dies totaling $200,000 a year, charged again to the taxpayers.  We take care of him until he kicks the bucket.  FOR REAL AMERICA?  This has been going on since I was born, did you know that?  I sure didn't.  Here's another one, he also gets security personnel to watch out for him (it was for only 10 years after you stepped down...another Grand Obama Executive Order) for THE REMAINDER OF HIS LIFETIME!!  Unbelievable.  Did I agree to any of this?  I'm pretty sure I did NOT.

So lemme get this straight.  It's not enough that we paid this guy $2,276,000 in total pay for four years, or $4,552,000 for eight years.  Then, we gotta pay EACH president that's still alive, probably averaging around 4-5 a year, $200,000, or, a million or better dollars a year, out of our pockets.  Oh, I'm sorry, lest we forget, also, the pay, health insurance and other benefits provided for the post-Presidential security staff for each of these ex-Presidents until the day they die.  I'd love to see what kind of pay they're getting for this!!

And the cherry on top?  If they were Senators prior to the Presidency (and we all know that most of them were indeed), they not only get the Presidential Pension...they get an EX-SENATOR'S PENSION TOO!!  Wow.  Most of us Sheeple don't receive pensions until after we've worked for 30 or 40 years...depending, also, on whether the guys at the top are crooks or not; and this guy gets TWO, after only 4 or 8 years!!??  And even if all is legit, we grunts usually have to put in at LEAST 20, if not 25-40 years to get ours.  It's possible that it MIGHT be enough to live on, depending on what we did for a living. Granted, my job probably wasn't nearly as hard or stressful as the President's job...but then I'm not getting paid $400,000 a year plus expenses, either; nor is it likely that I will ever see that kind of pay.  Think about this, while you let all of that sink in:  We've been paying Jimmy Carter....for NOT being the President, for 33 years.  Yes, that's right. 33...long...YEARS.

C'mon kids!!  I can see giving these guys some unemployment for a year, and, if they were awful Presidents, maybe we'll pay for a year or two's worth of security for them (if you were an a terrible president, I can imagine that it'll take one or two years afterwards for everyone to quit being pissed off and blaming you for their lives, granted).  It's going to be hard for some of these guys to get another job, I'm sure!  I can see that, especially after he cost America jobs during his term and more than likely lost people money or their businesses.  It's really too bad when you have to put something like that on your resume, or when you have your new job call the White House, and they receive a less than stellar reference of your job performance.  Who wants to hire a guy that screws things up that badly, on a national scale, after all?  But that's really no excuse to willingly cover for him and every need he has until the day he dies, especially for this sum of money.  Let him get back out there in the trenches, let him fall back on what he used to do before he was famous, right here with the rest of us; and our 10% or better unemployment rate; and have him get another job!!

Let's wrap this up, OK?  As you can see, for the most part, a good portion of our Amendments are insignificant, and don't carry much weight or cause much controversy, the more blatant exceptions being Amendments12, 13, 14, 16, 18. 26 and 27.  Yet, these Amendments are all, in their way, important or influential in some way to our life as it is today...and a good portion, aren't so much.  We will, of course, be revisiting these Amendments as we come to reference them later, no question. Some are real conversation starters, and can lead to good heated debates.  I myself LOVE a good heated debate.  To all a good day, and see you tomorrow!!

WAR UPDATE!!!

Well kids?  Here we go.  I just couldn't stand it, I HAD to do something new.  I feel like I'm just resting my laurels, and I just can't take it anymore.

Russia.  Notice anything new?  I like to call  it "Frogginess"...the flexing of the political muscles, if you will.  China?  Same thing...chest puffing.  Stickin' out your chest and sayin'..."See?  See what you gotta deal with, if you mess with us?"  Noticed another thing, I did, I did.  I notice they're both doing the same thing at the same time.

Call me crazy, but I see WWIII on the very near horizon.  I also see Obama being its catalyst.  China?  Russia?  Given, they're different regimes with different social structures, but what would be the real harm in working together here?  China's been busy piling people on top of each other for decades.  They are, quite literally, bursting at the seams.  A wing spread is very much needed there.  The move to catch up, concerning industry and business has been in massive large swing.  Singapore and Hong King are slowly getting to be forces to be reckoned with in those areas.  And the military, of course, is the scary part.

These people, as soon as they can talk, are brought into the fold.  They live, breath, eat, dream and excrete the military.  All I see is Roman Communism here.  The people know what's up.  They can't continue on in cramped style.  I'm sure they're behind their leaders whichever way they desire to tread.

Then we have Russia.  A world power that we pretty much destroyed in our quest to eliminate communism.  Those people DESPISE US.  Watch the movie "Hostel".  It's not that far-fetched, in a lot of ways.  Where do you think they get the ideas for movies like that, they just whip it out of thin air???  Hardly.  They're in economic ruin, and have been for years.  Putin?  Mr. Popular in Russia, and I'm sure the people are just as fired up there to get back at us for what we put them through.  NOTE:  Funny thing.  Obama's actions here in our country almost directly mirror Putin's when he took office in Russia.  Be, and make yourself popular.  Elevate yourself to demi-god status, and the people will follow you like lost sheep.  Blind lost sheep, no less.

The next step?  Act independently (we wouldn't want to raise any suspicions, now would we), but let's do some muscle flexing and see what the U.S. does in reaction.  These guys are acting together, mark my words America.  We're heading into a big one, of this there is no question.  And worse yet, we're barely recovering from bullying the Middle East...what kind of competition are we going to be with the likes of China, who hasn't been involved in a war in some time, and has the entire population militarized???  The best we got is our fingers on a whole lot of nuke buttons, which, if we're smart, we'd never even think of pushing...and China and Russia both know it.  If they decide to bluff us and push theirs however...

Last but not least, they leave no stone un-turned for their military force.  Women...Children, are all trained to fight.  Sure, we have women in the military here, but seriously, if I were in a war, I'd have a real problem shooting women...let alone CHILDREN.

And for those of you that believe that, just because they're "A democracy" now, Russia wouldn't go back to being Socialist in 2 seconds.  Under those past regimes, Russia was a force to be dealt with.  Now, we're sure we got 'em right where we want 'em.  Don't be stupid, naive or ignorant America.  Wake up and drink the coffee, don't just smell it.  Russia's been doing their military drills and keeping up, don't you believe it any other way.

America, keep your eyes open.  The Red Dawn may not be as far off as you would be led to believe. We're not all that, nor are we a bag of Doritos. WAKE THE HELL UP!!

For more information, and the numbers we're up against, see this world discussion.  It's a hell of a read:

http://globaldiscussion.net/topic/2744-chinas-war-machine-new-challenges-and-opportunities/

...and that's just the China side.  I don't believe I even have to look at Russia.

But here's the picture, just in case you're in the mood to do some digging on them as well...I mean, really...how much do you see of us doing this in our city streets?  And we're thinking of lowering our military personnel, here and abroad...sheesh.  If anything, we should be doubling it.

The Law Itself!! Part Tre

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Law itself!...Part Deux

Ok, kids, we're back.  I believe we were on Article 6, right?

Ok, this one starts making me mad.  The Constitution?  It's the law of the land, judges shall adhere to this, govern us with this, and shall not go against the grain.  If it's not working out for you?  See Article 5.  That's what I see here.  We can change it as we go.  The Constitution has been Amended to suit our needs 27 times now.  I think I see a pattern here.

On to Article 7, before I get upset.

Now here's one I can get on board with.  Ratification.  At least in this definition, and what it entails.  We wanted to ratify the Constitution before we let it rule us.  Send it out to the people, and let the people decide. We probably pretty much skipped the "Let them fully understand what they're reading and what they're getting into by doing so" part, but hey, this way, we have NO one to blame but ourselves if we didn't really put the effort into getting it first, right?  This is the way things concerning our government were meant to be...and should ALWAYS be people!!  At no time should we let so many people who represent our state change our Constitution or elect our presidents for us.  This essentially breeds possible corruption.  Get rid of the Electoral college...it's not needed.  Funny how that's the only thing we have a "college" for as far as elections go.  We are allowed to personally elect everyone else...but our head?  We have people for that.  Uh uh.  Give it back to America and it's people. We don't need no steenkeen' college to tell us what's happening.

All I have to say about ratification is, if they sent it out to us to ratify on the original?  Should have been done for every...single....Amendment as well.

Now, before I move on to our last 17 Amendments...let's visit the Bill of Rights, shall we?  (For those of you who don't know it, the Bill of Rights consists of the first very quick Amendments, 10 in all, needed to pacify the people and fast, so they'd accept the Constitution.)

Right #1 - Freedom of:  Religion, Speech, Blogs (the Press), and the right to complain about the Government without worrying about the Government getting pissed off and spanking us.

Freedom of this stuff?  Right on.  Encore.  Wunnerful.  No problemmo Muchacho.  Let's talk about that last one though, huh?  What about the situation when we let our government keep too many secrets, let it get crazy with power, or just roll over too much?  Think about that one.  We'll get back to that one too.

Right #2 - The right to bear arms

Ok people.  Here we go.  This Amendment served only one purpose in its day.  Make sure the Government doesn't get too big for it's britches.  Doesn't have a damn thing to do with your personal arsenal, or your right to have a gun in your possession.  Don't get me started on this, I will go on all day.  It served its purpose in 1791, it needs to be shucked in favor of new law.  Gun-happy conservatives will have you sure that this means you can keep enough guns to make your own army at home, we gotta nip this gun-happiness in the bud before it gets any worse for us.  Another one we need to get back to.

Right #3 - No Letting the Government stash soldiers in your home in order to make sure we don't rebel.

See Right #2.  Like Right #3, #2 should have never been seen as controversial, and should never have been ruled by a supreme court.  It's outdated, as is right #2.

Right #4 - No waltzing into someone's home just because they believe they should have that right.

This is one gonna be huge someday, and sooner than you might imagine.  I really and truly need to get back to this one.  By the way...right to privacy, or expectation of privacy, here's one I bet you didn't know.  Let's say you're super paranoid...and you cover all your windows with thick black garbage bags...but you don't get one...little...2 inch in diameter hole covered...and the police come along, and they happen to look in this hole, and it shows something they believe to be illegal...drugs, guns, anything...they can come into your home without a warrant, did you know that?  We'll come back to this...

Right #5 - Thou shalt not be required to tattle on yourself, and you shall not be tried 2x for the same thing.  What's more, you shall be informed of your rights before you're interrogated by an enforcer of the law.

This one bothers me in oh so many ways.  Another one I could go on all day about.  By the way, that last part was decided in Arizona v. Miranda (Arizona 1996), and wasn't part of the original Amendment.  But we can change things as we go, remember?  And I don't know about you, but law enforcement officials start interrogating me the minute they come into view.  Those rights should be shouted out before I even get within earshot.

Right #6 - The Right of the Accused to enjoy (I love the use of this word here...and the fact that I've yet to enjoy this, whether I enjoyed it or not) a speedy trial by an impartial jury (decided impartial, not by me, but by the lawyers, who are the next best thing to Judges).

Not only is this the most Bullshitty right, it's also just plain old wrong.  First, no one in this day and age has "enjoyed" a speedy trial, nor has there ever been an impartial jury, nor has the jury ever understood one bit of what's going on in a courtroom.  See, here's the problem.  You're called to jury duty.  You show up, and 5 minutes later you're being told to go home, because you don't fit the bill, as far as one or the other lawyers is concerned.  Or worse yet, you're kept because you DO fit the bill.  I would be very afraid of this.  As far as we know people, the lawyers are keeping me because my IQ barely broke 50, and I'll roll over when the lead juror says "GUILTY"...how do I know??  I don't.  Impartial jury of my peers?  I don't THINK so.  This to me means we send out 12 random letters.  12 people show and are the jury.  THAT'S an impartial jury. Not that it matters what we say anyway.  The judge can overrule, it's called "Judgement notwithstanding the Verdict"...look it up.  We will oh so get back to this one.

Right #7 - In civil matters concerning more than 20 bucks, the judge can't overrule the jury's decision.

Another bullshit right.  Why is this even here?  It's not ratified anyway.  If this doesn't scream "Constitutional Revamp", no right does.

Right #8 - There shall be no unusual bails or fines, and no capital punishment.

Except when we think there should be.  Bullshit right number 3, this one is one of my favorites.  Doesn't this mean no 1,000,000 dollar bails?  100,000 dollar fines?  No Gas Chamber?  I think it does.  We will, of course, get back to this one...

Right #9 - The rights we haven't talked about ever here in our constitution shall be protected.

Huh???  Ok, Bullshit right #4.  What the hell people?  So if I just come up with the right to pick my nose in public, this right is defended by the Constitution?  OK, so maybe picking your nose is reaching a little.  This Amendment was fundamental in deciding the right to abortion, that sort of thing.  Yup, you got it, we'll be back.

Right #10 - The rights not delegated to the Government are then passed on to the states, then to its people.

Okaaaaaay.  This is the one I'd love to address and soon.  Basically, this is where I think someone was really brainstorming about the role of the government.  See, here's the thing.  The Government was ALWAYS supposed to be there to service us, not the other way around.  This Amendment didn't come from "We the People", I bet.  What's more, someone stuck this one in as a safeguard for the government.  What this says is, the Government is king, and the people get the last say-so, if we're lucky.  What "We the People" don't understand is, the government wouldn't be the government if it wasn't for the people.  Please see Article 3 immediately, and see also Article 7 where I slam the Electoral college.  We'll be back!!

All right.  Part III will, of course, cover the other 17 "CHANGES" to our Constitution...See ya!

The Law, Itself! - Part I

Hey America! What you're about to view is a blog that I've written, about America's Deadly Sins. This is the preamble to the worst of them, and I'll lay them out to you one letter at a time.

First, however, I'd like to start with my favorite subject, the Law; American Law, itself. As a student of law (I took pre-law in order to be a paralegal, which I later shucked for the better idea of becoming a politician, in the very near future), the law has become one of my favorite subjects (coughs...then sputters a little). I didn't want to overdo it however, since I believe, personally, that our law is lacking some essential nutrients that we need in our daily diets.

Let's start with our current grand-daddy, the paper of all papers - yes, I'd like to examine what we talk about pretty regularly, The Constitution of the United States.

Here we have a paper written in a small, poorly lit room, by a few guys who wanted to take the land they "discovered" (years before this, of course) away from some passive Indian fellas they met, because England was just too damned small, in 1790, some 235+ years ago...and you know? The king sucked, the way they run things over there...that sucked too. It should be said that, up to that time, America was broke, the money they had been printing was worthless, the army was being deserted, and the money they had borrowed up to this point from international sources was due to be paid...and we defaulted on our loans (sound familiar???). So they pounded down a few pints of ale, adjusted their wigs, and proceeded to score out for us the way things were, and the way they should be instead. Then, when they were finished, they handed the pen over to the most overbearing and self-conscience one of the bunch, John Hancock to sign it first.

By the way, the language you've read over and over again? We borrowed it mostly from England, the Iroquois Indians (I'm surprised these guys even gave us the time of day) and, my favorite, LATIN...the dead language of the ages. 

By the way, I've always wanted to know...how can a language be dead if it's being used? Never did understand that one...

So anyway, George, Ben and the boys got together, ordered pizza and brew, then slammed it out. Let's just essentially cover the basics, shall we?

First of all, let it be known, that the country we hated so much, England, was the main influence to our new paper.  Ideas like their judicial system became the backbone to the way the law would work.  Things said, like "Innocent until proven Guilty?"  A wonderful set of words; I'm still waiting to see that in operation, as yet.  If there were any truth to that being the way of things, house and citizen's arrest would be a lot bigger than they are.

Let's start with the preamble.  America?  This paragraph represents us at our best moment...our finest hour, our best day, and from what I understand, it won paragraph of the year.  In this writer's opinion, this is about the only thing that shouldn't ever change about the Constitution.  This is constitutional grace at its best.  Don't go changin'....As I might just bring up later though, this is when we chose to start bullshitting the U.S. Populace, and misrepresented things a wee.  In particular the phrase "All men are created equal", as they took their breaks, and asked their servant slaves to bring them a snack.

Not un-like the weather in my home state of Iowa, where we have a nice day one day, and a blizzard to follow it up, well, we move on to Article one.  This is the article that defines congress, representatives, how many each state needs to have, their qualifications, their limits of power and terms in office.  Article two addresses our President, his qualifications, his term, and his power.  Please note:  Nowhere in the constitution does it say this man or woman (the President) has to be wealthy, old, spoon-fed, well-schooled, or perfect.  The one thing I love is that it says that the president shall preserve, defend and protect the Constitution.  He/She takes an oath everytime he/she takes office, that he/she is not allowed to change what it says, the way I interpret it.  How well did we stick to that?

So, from what it says, then, anytime a President is in office, and approves a modification or an Amendment to the Constitution (or employs the "Executive Order"), he/she would be breaking their oath, I would think.  I also like that they aren't able to raise their compensation while in office...but on the other hand, why aren't they allowed to lower it?  That doesn't make any sense, does it?

Article 3 blah-de-blahs about our judicial system and how it works, pretty much all stuff we learned in Poli-sci a million years ago.  Funny thing though, you ask most people how our system works, and what the hierarchy is?  They couldn't rattle it off to save their lives.  Another thing I love about our Constitution and the law that it defines, is that most people do NOT understand a word of it, unless they're involved in the legal field in some way...and even then I wonder.  Trust me when I say that this will most certainly be the focal point of many future blogs, since I have studied the law myself.

Article four rattles on concerning the relationship of the fed to the states, and produces such standards as "the full faith and credit" act (Bet most of your family has no idea what that is), and the "priveleges and immunities" clause (and I GUARANTEE most of your family doesn't know what THAT is).

Now we come to Article 5, which allows the Constitution to be Amended.  In other words, you can change the Constitution.  What?  Wait.  Ok, no...huh?  Now just a minute.  The Constitution is to be protected...defended...and preserved...but if we wanna change what it says, that's OK.  If we don't like what the first guys had to say, it's no problem.  We can just smooth it or tweak it, as long as we have a majority vote.  I'm sorry, but this to me is anti-preservation.  Black and white, we just change what we don't agree with.  But in this fashion, we just do it with more subversion and finesse.  Nice.  I'm not going to get into this right now, because it would take more brain power than I wish to expend at this time.  We'll come back to it, I swear.

TO BE CONTINUED