A different kind of credit card fraud

Here's a screen shot of an email that I received yesterday from HSBC (minus my account info, of course), the financial institution through which I have a credit card:

In case the print's not legible, here's what the email says:

"You asked... We listened." says the big red header.

"Now make online payments to your HSBC Credit Card on weekends and holidays at no cost, plus no same day payment fees when you use Online Bill Pay!"

At first glance, this sounds like confirmation that HSBC is in the business of putting its customers first.  We the customers asked for better online payment methods and HSBC, being the practically-home-town-Main-Street lenders that they are, have gone the extra mile for us, because they value our business.  Right?

No.  The changes in bill payment, as much as HSBC wants to pretend otherwise, are actually due to the implementation of the Credit CARD Act of 2009, a bill signed into law last May, and which took effect February 22.  One of the provisions of the new law?  No more bullshit fees tied in to making a payment, and no more bullshit late fees (which were previously subject to double-cycle intrest) tacked on if the payment's made during an undesignated window of time.  This is just one of many changes the bill introduces, introduced to prevent credit card companies from screwing customers out of every cent they have.  It should be noted that credit card companies fought the passage of  this bill tooth and nail.  It passed right through the U.S. House with 357-70 support (69 of the nays were Republicans) and in the Senate, 90-5 (4 nays from Republicans).  President Obama signed it into law May 22, 2009.  Since passage, credit card companies have scrambled to jack up rates and generally put the screws to their customers while they were still legally allowed to.

Don't let the ads fool you.  Credit card companies don't like you.  They don't want to help you out.  They want to make as much money off of you as they possibly can.  Since the president and Congress took away some of their ability to screw us over, they've settled with rewriting history a little, to make it seem like they're really the good guys, going the extra mile for the customer.  But really, they're the soulless exploitive fucks they've always been.

On Pots Claiming Tea Kettles are Black

Here’s a fun little political story from my neck of the woods. People for Progressive Transportation (PPT) have filed a lawsuit against Whatcom Transit Authority, challenging the language used in the framing of an upcoming ballot measure. The full text of the measure reads thusly:

“Shall public transportation services in Whatcom County be maintained and improved by authorizing the Whatcom Transportation Authority to impose an additional two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) sales and use tax effective October 1, 2010?”

Now before I get into what the PPT find so irksome about the wording of the question, let me give you a little background info. Bellingham and a good chunk of Whatcom County have a great public transportation bus system. Buses start early in the morning and run until around 10 pm seven days a week. They’re used by a plethora of residents, including students, low-income workers, bicyclists (there are bike racks on the front of all buses, many cyclists will hop a bus to avoid the really steep hills), and people who just don’t feel like trying to find a parking spot or feed the meter downtown. Being at the mercy of a temperamental pickup, Kristen and I have become old hands when it comes to buses. And while, like everything else, there are downsides to public transportation (the weird, the loud, the stinky, etc.), we both agree that a dependable bus line is pretty fucking great.

And with the economy the way it is, public transit has become more popular than ever. Buses are a great way to save if you’re strapped for cash. Paying $30 a month for unlimited bus rides is a solid alternative to throwing down hundreds for car payments, insurance and gas each month just to get around. Sure, it’s nice to go where you want when you want, but it’s also nice to pay the rent on time.

Thing is, even with the surge of riders over the past couple of years, the WTA is in a major funding crisis. If I recall correctly, funding for the WTA used to come primarily from a vehicle-related tax. When motorists complained that they shouldn’t have to pay for non-drivers to get around, too, the funding was changed to be reliant on fare charges and a pittance from sales tax (I read this somewhere but I’m too lazy at the moment to dig up the article and cite my sources, so if you locals notice I have my facts wrong, please let me know). Initially the WTA just tightened its belt and got by. But when the recession really started getting nasty, revenue generated by sales tax took a tailspin. As did programs which rely on sales tax, like public transit. In an effort to make up for the nasty budget deficits, WTA raised fare rates from $.75 per ride with a free transfer to $1. They hoped that with the dramatic uptick in riders, an extra quarter per fare would help get the red out. But even with ridership at an all-time high, WTA budget shortfalls are still huge. So WTA’s been forced to do one of two things to balance their budget; either they cut out a good chunk of county routes and all Sunday service, or they go to the taxpayers and ask for a 2/10th of a percent sales tax increase.

So that’s why the proposition will be on Whatcom County ballots in April. Asking for a tax-increase is never an easy thing, especially not in a recession. But the WTA has taken an admirable position; they’ve laid everything on the table. They’re essentially saying that hey, taxes suck, and they really suck right now. But if you the taxpayer want to keep this branch of public service viable and able to meet the demands of increased ridership, you’re gonna have to pony up. The alternative is a loss of service.

Getting back to PPT, the group is upset because of two words within the ballot question: “maintain” and “improve.” According to the PPT lawsuit, “[t]he public will be easily be misled by the ballot title into believing that this tax increase will improve services…”

Basically the PPT is alleging that even though the WTA is planning to use the money (if the measure even passes) to maintain and improve bus service, the question on the ballot shouldn’t say that the money will go toward maintaining and improving bus service, because then voters might get the idea that using tax money on maintenance and improvement toward bus service would be a good thing, and the idea of using tax dollars on good things could sway their vote.

Yeah.

The idiocy of this suit pretty much speaks for itself, I won’t waste time dissecting it in detail. But since the PPT has started the whole “misleading titles” argument, let’s look at one more. Remember, the PPT actually stands for People for Progressive Transportation. Progressive Transportation. Progressive. This is a group of rightwing anti-tax Teabaggers calling themselves People for PROGRESSIVE Transportation in an area whose political leanings are collectively, solidly and consistently left of center. And they’re the ones complaining about misleading titles? Give me a fucking break.

Maybe blatant hypocrisy is just the new calling card for the Right now? That could be why pretty much all of the GOP is up in arms against a healthcare bill that’s pretty much exactly what they wanted to push during the Clinton era and pretty much exactly like the public health bill 2008 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney authored and oversaw into legislation while he was the governor of Massachusetts. And maybe that’s why Neocon icon Sarah Palin can call for Rahm Emanuel to resign when he calls a group “fucking retards,” and then excuse fellow rightwinger Rush Limbaugh for saying the exact same thing to the exact same group because he was being “satirical.” Or why GOP Congressmen denounce the Democrats’ stimulus bill as Socialist legislation one day, then take credit for bringing funds to their constituents the next.

Maybe they should just change their motto to “GOP: The Party of No… Wait.”

[Photo 1 via localism.com, phot 2 via the Bellingham Herald]

Remember Bill Watterson?

It's hard to believe that this month marks the 15th anniversary of the final "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strip. In 1995, Creator Bill Watterson abruptly retired his beloved series at the height of popularity, citing his reasons for doing so being "the constraints of daily deadlines and small panels," according to an article in the Plains Dealer. And that was it. No comeback a year or two later, no animated series, no new Watterson projects. Just some ludicrous copyright infringement cases in the form of window stickers of a Calvin-esque figure taking a piss on a truck emblem or praying at Calgary.

Even as a kid I can remember thinking that Watterson wasn’t like the other syndicated comics artists. Whenever I read anything about the guy it was generally something about how he was convinced that newspaper syndicates were attempting to steal his creation, or how his threats of pulling Calvin & Hobbes out of syndication were used as leverage to get him more panel space in Sunday comics than any other comic strip artist. He had a good thing going and he knew it.

That’s why it was such a surprise to see him suddenly walk away from his ten-year run. My preteen self took the news pretty hard, as I recall. I spend most of 1995 mournfully reading and rereading worn-out collected editions and trying to figure out the actual logistics of Calvinball with my friend Chad.

While it was a tough time to be an adolescent fan during Watterson’s last hurrah, I think I can kind of understand why he left when he did. Calvin and Hobbes were the undisputed kings of the Sunday funny pages. Watterson’s stuff was leaps and bounds above his contemporaries, in terms of quality, content and layout. And after ten years of blood, sweat and ink, instead of compromising his work to syndication demands or anything else, Watterson asserted his total control over his creation and wrapped his work up his own way.

While I understand his motive and respect and applaud his decision, I can’t help but wonder what another ten years worth of “Calvin and Hobbes” would have looked like.  More snow monsters, more G.R.O.S.S. (Get Rid Of Slimy girlS), more Revenge of the Babysat and transmogrification rays.

Fifteen years after the last “Calvin and Hobbes” strips hit the funny pages, Watterson granted an interview with the Plain Dealer’s John Campanelli. Aside from the anniversary, the interview’s also a pretty big deal considering it’s apparently the first one the reclusive Watterson has taken part in since 1989. Here’s the text of the interview from the Plains Dealer's page. Campanelli’s questions are in bold. Campanelli also wrote and interesting article about Calvin and Hobbes' 15th anniversary, which I linked to earlier.

With almost 15 years of separation and reflection, what do you think it was about "Calvin and Hobbes" that went beyond just capturing readers' attention, but their hearts as well?

The only part I understand is what went into the creation of the strip. What readers take away from it is up to them. Once the strip is published, readers bring their own experiences to it, and the work takes on a life of its own. Everyone responds differently to different parts.

I just tried to write honestly, and I tried to make this little world fun to look at, so people would take the time to read it. That was the full extent of my concern. You mix a bunch of ingredients, and once in a great while, chemistry happens. I can't explain why the strip caught on the way it did, and I don't think I could ever duplicate it. A lot of things have to go right all at once.

What are your thoughts about the legacy of your strip?

Well, it's not a subject that keeps me up at night. Readers will always decide if the work is meaningful and relevant to them, and I can live with whatever conclusion they come to. Again, my part in all this largely ended as the ink dried.

Readers became friends with your characters, so understandably, they grieved -- and are still grieving -- when the strip ended. What would you like to tell them?

This isn't as hard to understand as people try to make it. By the end of 10 years, I'd said pretty much everything I had come there to say.

It's always better to leave the party early. If I had rolled along with the strip's popularity and repeated myself for another five, 10 or 20 years, the people now "grieving" for "Calvin and Hobbes" would be wishing me dead and cursing newspapers for running tedious, ancient strips like mine instead of acquiring fresher, livelier talent. And I'd be agreeing with them.

I think some of the reason "Calvin and Hobbes" still finds an audience today is because I chose not to run the wheels off it.

I've never regretted stopping when I did.

Because your work touched so many people, fans feel a connection to you, like they know you. They want more of your work, more Calvin, another strip, anything. It really is a sort of rock star/fan relationship. Because of your aversion to attention, how do you deal with that even today? And how do you deal with knowing that it's going to follow you for the rest of your days?

Ah, the life of a newspaper cartoonist -- how I miss the groupies, drugs and trashed hotel rooms!

But since my "rock star" days, the public attention has faded a lot. In Pop Culture Time, the 1990s were eons ago. There are occasional flare-ups of weirdness, but mostly I just go about my quiet life and do my best to ignore the rest. I'm proud of the strip, enormously grateful for its success, and truly flattered that people still read it, but I wrote "Calvin and Hobbes" in my 30s, and I'm many miles from there.

An artwork can stay frozen in time, but I stumble through the years like everyone else. I think the deeper fans understand that, and are willing to give me some room to go on with my life.

How soon after the U.S. Postal Service issues the Calvin stamp will you send a letter with one on the envelope?

Immediately. I'm going to get in my horse and buggy and snail-mail a check for my newspaper subscription.

How do you want people to remember that 6-year-old and his tiger?

I vote for "Calvin and Hobbes, Eighth Wonder of the World."