So the news the past few weeks, besides the horrific earthquakes and nuclear crisis in Japan, has been about the battles in Congress over a budget for FY 2011. It very nearly led to a partial shutdown of the US Goverment and furloughing 800,000 of its workers. However, at the last hour, there was an announcement that a deal was made and that a budget would be passed, so there would not be a shutdown. With that, lots of people started celebrating, thinking this was all over.
I wasn't one of them.
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
April 13, 2011
September 27, 2010
Playing By Your Rules
I am currently filling out my drivers license renewal paperwork and one of the questions is asking if I wish to be an organ donor. Five years ago I immediately checked "Yes" to this question. This time around, I am checking "No."
It is not that I don't believe that my organs could help someone, rather I am playing by the rules that have been handed to me. Since I am a man who loves another man and not a woman, the FDA and other rulemakers automatically assume that I am a walking disease factory who is hell bent on infecting others. It is too bad since my behaviors and testing proves otherwise. However, this assumption means that I am banned for life from donating blood or bone marrow.
Since I am already banned for life from being allowed to donate and help others, fine, you can't have my organs either, you probably do not want them anyway. Just remember that under the current rules, a promiscuous straight person can happily give all the blood and bone marrowthey want, but a monogamous gay person cannot. You had better pray the promiscuous ones always practiced safe sex.
Perhaps if the rules change I will go back to checking "Yes" to organ donation; but I am not holding my breath that it will happen in my lifetime.
Location : 2-34 Parkway, Greenbelt, MD 20770,
March 25, 2010
No Glee Here
I stirred up a bit of a hornets nest on my Facebook page earlier today with my commentary that I was going to have to ban the FOX channel from my TV in April. Why did I say that? Glee is coming back on. I'm going to make it known right here that I have not watched one second of Glee and I have no desire to ever watch it. Here are my reasons why:
The Premise: When I first heard about Glee, the premise I had been told was it was students and a staff member in high school that bring back the Glee club and it's going to be about their struggles with that and with being in high school in general. That's an immediate turn-off for me right there. I'm not interested in a show about high school or about teenagers in general.
The Sitcom Formula: We all know how it tends to work on shows like this. I can imagine that based on the premise that there's an ep where some kid gets picked on for being in the Glee club, his/her glee club friends band together and confront the bullies and somehow stand up to them, and suddenly the bullies see the light and they never start any crap again. Ya know what though? It is complete and utter bullshit. Speaking as someone who took an awful lot of hell and grief in high school just for being in the choir, most folks who will call you a fag for being in the band or choir don't necessarily change their opinions. They just learn not to express them when the teacher or someone who is in the band or choir that can kick their ass is around.
Not a fan of the musical: While I do have one or two specific musicals that I have enjoy watching, I am generally not a fan. I know, that might actually be shocking to some folks but most of the time I end up bored while watching them.
Setting: As I mentioned above, this show takes place in high school. High school was not a pleasant time for me (if you haven't figured it out already). If you know me well enough outside of this blog, you've probably noticed I never talk about my teenage years. There's a reason for that. For me to watch a show about a place I absolutely hated, activities that helped cause a number of problems for me, and during a time that wasn't the greatest in my life, well, let's just say I would not be in a good state of mind.
So no, it's nothing personal, but it is definitely not a show for me, I'll stick with Mad Men.
The Premise: When I first heard about Glee, the premise I had been told was it was students and a staff member in high school that bring back the Glee club and it's going to be about their struggles with that and with being in high school in general. That's an immediate turn-off for me right there. I'm not interested in a show about high school or about teenagers in general.
The Sitcom Formula: We all know how it tends to work on shows like this. I can imagine that based on the premise that there's an ep where some kid gets picked on for being in the Glee club, his/her glee club friends band together and confront the bullies and somehow stand up to them, and suddenly the bullies see the light and they never start any crap again. Ya know what though? It is complete and utter bullshit. Speaking as someone who took an awful lot of hell and grief in high school just for being in the choir, most folks who will call you a fag for being in the band or choir don't necessarily change their opinions. They just learn not to express them when the teacher or someone who is in the band or choir that can kick their ass is around.
Not a fan of the musical: While I do have one or two specific musicals that I have enjoy watching, I am generally not a fan. I know, that might actually be shocking to some folks but most of the time I end up bored while watching them.
Setting: As I mentioned above, this show takes place in high school. High school was not a pleasant time for me (if you haven't figured it out already). If you know me well enough outside of this blog, you've probably noticed I never talk about my teenage years. There's a reason for that. For me to watch a show about a place I absolutely hated, activities that helped cause a number of problems for me, and during a time that wasn't the greatest in my life, well, let's just say I would not be in a good state of mind.
So no, it's nothing personal, but it is definitely not a show for me, I'll stick with Mad Men.
September 17, 2009
Nice Idea, Wrong Reasons
So I got a request from someone I know to go on a certain trip with them. Normally this would be fine since this would have meant traveling to a new place and hanging out with a good crowd. However, it's not one-hundred percent because he wants me along because he's interested in having me hang with him and/or I would mix well with the others. One of the reasons he wants me along is because needs protection from the horny host who despite getting married, can't keep his hands off of other guys.
Normally if someone would come to me with an issue like this, I would try to help them out by being that sort of protection. Of course, this usually happens to someone when they're out at the bars. This time around, I hear this, and I feel a bit resentful that this would be something that I am asked to do. A big reason for this is that this situation could be avoided. Quite frankly, if you know you've been invited to be in close quarters with a group and that one of the people in the group is trying to get you into their bed, you have no desire to, and they can't seem to take no for an answer, then don't go. If you still feel you must go, then you will just have to make sure to stay busy with other activities, and make sure to keep your wits about you. That means no getting hammered out of your mind on alcohol.
The person who asked me this, while it's a nice gesture, it's for all the wrong reasons. If he still feels he must go, perhaps this can be a lesson in how to deal with people, especially those who are too pushy.
August 31, 2009
You're Not Helping
A while back I wrote about learning the hard way that by being a gay man, I am essentially banned from donating not just blood, but also bone marrow. I went into a tear about how I hated the assumption that because I have a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend, that must mean I have HIV/AIDS and therefore I should never ever be allowed to donate blood. Never mind that my own personal behaviors lean much towards being safe rather than being stupid, and I have been tested and know that I'm clean. I know I'm not the only one who has felt this way and want to have the rules changed, especially because I did give blood for a number of years before I came out.
So I find it extremely distressing when I start hearing the media report on remarks and reports coming from places like the CDC about new HIV infections, and the numbers are not good at all. What the media is saying is that when it comes to gay and bisexual men, they are fifty times more likely to catch HIV than those who are straight. Now one thing I could argue here is that they don't report that a comment in the CDC written report is that one reason the numbers could be going up is that more people are getting tested for HIV. However, still looking at the raw numbers, the highest groups are the ones who have had male-to-male contact every year.
Either way though, when you look at the numbers, they're not good, especially the numbers for people who are getting HIV through male-to-male sexual contact. Those numbers are going back up again after declining for a few years.
The point here is that it certainly isn't helping my cause to want to change the minds of those who help decide guidelines for things like blood donations. How can I convince them that someone like me when the numbers are coming back that people who have a similar background as I do are not only the ones who are catching HIV most often, but the number of new infections is going up?
So long as people continue to be reckless, then it's just going to give those who write the discriminatory rules and policies a justification to do so. They read these reports as well and in their minds, it tells them that it will continue to be better to do things like ban gay men from being able to donate blood because their donation will likely fail the disease screening and have to be thrown out anyway.
For fucks sake people, if you're with someone and the relations are relatively new, wear a condom, and/or make your partner wear a condom, period. Don't go off and have unprotected sex unless you and your partner both get tested and you're both monogamous. After that, if you two want to go at it raw, then by all means go for it, but only as long as it's just the two of you. Realize that only you can protect yourself from catching a disease, don't rely on a sexual partner to do it for you. Your actions do have consequences that can be far reaching and they do affect everyone.
So I find it extremely distressing when I start hearing the media report on remarks and reports coming from places like the CDC about new HIV infections, and the numbers are not good at all. What the media is saying is that when it comes to gay and bisexual men, they are fifty times more likely to catch HIV than those who are straight. Now one thing I could argue here is that they don't report that a comment in the CDC written report is that one reason the numbers could be going up is that more people are getting tested for HIV. However, still looking at the raw numbers, the highest groups are the ones who have had male-to-male contact every year.
Either way though, when you look at the numbers, they're not good, especially the numbers for people who are getting HIV through male-to-male sexual contact. Those numbers are going back up again after declining for a few years.
The point here is that it certainly isn't helping my cause to want to change the minds of those who help decide guidelines for things like blood donations. How can I convince them that someone like me when the numbers are coming back that people who have a similar background as I do are not only the ones who are catching HIV most often, but the number of new infections is going up?
So long as people continue to be reckless, then it's just going to give those who write the discriminatory rules and policies a justification to do so. They read these reports as well and in their minds, it tells them that it will continue to be better to do things like ban gay men from being able to donate blood because their donation will likely fail the disease screening and have to be thrown out anyway.
For fucks sake people, if you're with someone and the relations are relatively new, wear a condom, and/or make your partner wear a condom, period. Don't go off and have unprotected sex unless you and your partner both get tested and you're both monogamous. After that, if you two want to go at it raw, then by all means go for it, but only as long as it's just the two of you. Realize that only you can protect yourself from catching a disease, don't rely on a sexual partner to do it for you. Your actions do have consequences that can be far reaching and they do affect everyone.
August 13, 2009
Argh, Stupid Archaic Rules!
Nearly 2 years ago, I essentially fired Comcast (AKA Comcrap) as an entertainment and Internet provider when I moved into my own apartment. I decided to stick with rabbit ears and DSL to get what I need when it came to services. One of my major moves was not only to use Netflix, but to get a Roku box so I could stream any Watch Instantly movies to my TV.
If you have Netflix and can't already output your computer desktop to your TV, get a Roku box, it is one of the most awesome inventions. Besides the Netflix, you can also stream Amazon Video-On-Demand videos that you have rented or purchased to your TV as well. This week they have just added a new feature. If you subscribe to MLB.tv, you can now stream the games you would watch on your computer through the Roku box. Sounds great, especially if you're say, an Arizona Diamondbacks fan, but you live in Mobile, Alabama. However, there's one problem with the service...
MLB.TV is subject to MLB's blackout rules when it comes to TV broadcasts. What that means is that local TV broadcasters get priority for showing a game, and if another channel would be showing that game or a baseball game for another team, they will be blocked out from showing that game. In this case, it means not being allowed to watch any Baltimore Orioles or Washington Nationals games online.
Here's the stupidity of the blackout rules. I can't see any Orioles or Nationals game as it is because they don't put baseball games on over-the-air broadcast TV anymore. It only comes in via cable, usually through Comcrap's dedicated sports channel, or ESPN. Since I have no cable, I can't watch games as it is, and because of blackout rules, they will not show Orioles or Nationals games on the Internet for me.
So what is the freaking point then to getting streaming games to my Roku box if I can't even see my local team? From what I hear, more and more people are cutting the cable as it is and going completely Internet, but many more say the only reason they keep cable is to watch sports. It would be nice if MLB would realize there is a market for people who want to watch any game at any time, including their local teams live.
I suppose I could mess with running my Internet through a proxy server to trick the MLB servers into thinking I live across the country or something, but then it doesn't give them incentive to change their rules if they're still getting my money for MLB.tv. I'd rather send a message by not subscribing and letting them know that until they lift the blackout rules for MLB.tv, they're not getting a freaking dime out of me.
If you have Netflix and can't already output your computer desktop to your TV, get a Roku box, it is one of the most awesome inventions. Besides the Netflix, you can also stream Amazon Video-On-Demand videos that you have rented or purchased to your TV as well. This week they have just added a new feature. If you subscribe to MLB.tv, you can now stream the games you would watch on your computer through the Roku box. Sounds great, especially if you're say, an Arizona Diamondbacks fan, but you live in Mobile, Alabama. However, there's one problem with the service...
MLB.TV is subject to MLB's blackout rules when it comes to TV broadcasts. What that means is that local TV broadcasters get priority for showing a game, and if another channel would be showing that game or a baseball game for another team, they will be blocked out from showing that game. In this case, it means not being allowed to watch any Baltimore Orioles or Washington Nationals games online.
Here's the stupidity of the blackout rules. I can't see any Orioles or Nationals game as it is because they don't put baseball games on over-the-air broadcast TV anymore. It only comes in via cable, usually through Comcrap's dedicated sports channel, or ESPN. Since I have no cable, I can't watch games as it is, and because of blackout rules, they will not show Orioles or Nationals games on the Internet for me.
So what is the freaking point then to getting streaming games to my Roku box if I can't even see my local team? From what I hear, more and more people are cutting the cable as it is and going completely Internet, but many more say the only reason they keep cable is to watch sports. It would be nice if MLB would realize there is a market for people who want to watch any game at any time, including their local teams live.
I suppose I could mess with running my Internet through a proxy server to trick the MLB servers into thinking I live across the country or something, but then it doesn't give them incentive to change their rules if they're still getting my money for MLB.tv. I'd rather send a message by not subscribing and letting them know that until they lift the blackout rules for MLB.tv, they're not getting a freaking dime out of me.
July 23, 2009
Thoughts on Dating
It seems that shortly after I wrote about how I couldn't watch the video for Beyonce's Halo because it made me go to the "I need a BF" place, God/Karma/Fate/Evil Bunnies/etc. decided to remind me that I had better damn well take my time with being on my own and finding that right person, or I am going to screw myself out of years of happiness.
To make a long story short, after watching several couples in action and discussions where I have been the listening ear because someone is completely and utterly unhappy with their partner in more ways than one (I'm not counting sex issues, everyone seems to have those), it makes me wonder just how many people were in the position I was in of feeling that bit of loneliness or vulnerability and just settled for the next person that came along. I've made that mistake, I've repeated that mistake, dammit, I am not going to do that again.
I've just also reached this point where I really don't feel like getting into serious dating with anyone right now, and it's purely for selfish reasons (I am a Scorpio after all). It would be hard for anyone who knows me (friend or more) to deny that I am a giver, meaning that I give a lot more to another person than I take from them. That would be fine and dandy, except at times I've become too concerned about the other person and stopped taking care of myself so much. That has got to stop because I really should take care of myself first before I give to someone else. I am liking that right now I pretty much have the freedom to do what I want, when I want, and for the most part if there's anyone who doesn't like it, they can kiss my ass. It's why that despite my bitching a while back about the people who look at me in horror that I was going on travel by myself, it hasn't stopped me from continuing to go, because deep down, some of them are probably jealous that I'm not tied down like they are.
If one hasn't figured it out already, I'm very independent, and it has driven past boyfriends and girlfriends crazy. Going back to that I tend to give much more than I take, they get used to that I am pleasing them so they figure that I'll always do what they want to do, and then they get a nasty shock when they discover that if there is something I really truly want to do, I'm going to do it. If they say they don't want to do it, I have no qualms about doing it on my own. They can't seem to wrap their brains around the concept that I may get an enjoyment out of pleasing them, but I'm still my own person.
Until I find the person that can respect the fact that I will act independently of them when I so choose, and that they also have their own sense of independence, I will just continue to go along as I am doing now and doing it for myself only.
One thing I have noticed though when it comes to the dating life and the gay community in general in DC is that it's more like a small town than a bigger city. Seems like everyone knows everyone else, and many know (or think they know) far too much about other people's business and have no problems with telling everyone and their mother about it. It's a behavior that I don't particularly care for, and because of that, I tend to proceed with caution with most folks in order to stay off the radar. I've dealt with being on the receiving end of how damaging something like gossip can be, and I'd like to not put myself in a situation where it happens again. Yes, it could happen again, but at least if I watch myself, it limits any of the potential damage that could come of it.
Perhaps that's also why I tend to be friendlier with folks when I am on vacation somewhere else, I know I'm not going to be in that area for very long, and so even if something goes wrong, it will drop off the radar quickly.
By the way, if most of your social networking profile is devoted to telling everyone how much you love the person you're with and how great your relationship is, what the fuck are you trying to gloss over and/or hide? That person is likely not the right one for you and it's made you insecure enough that you're trying to convince yourself that everything is okay. It's one thing if you do a write-up about your other half when it's an anniversary or even a birthday, but if it's every other day? Problem.
To make a long story short, after watching several couples in action and discussions where I have been the listening ear because someone is completely and utterly unhappy with their partner in more ways than one (I'm not counting sex issues, everyone seems to have those), it makes me wonder just how many people were in the position I was in of feeling that bit of loneliness or vulnerability and just settled for the next person that came along. I've made that mistake, I've repeated that mistake, dammit, I am not going to do that again.
I've just also reached this point where I really don't feel like getting into serious dating with anyone right now, and it's purely for selfish reasons (I am a Scorpio after all). It would be hard for anyone who knows me (friend or more) to deny that I am a giver, meaning that I give a lot more to another person than I take from them. That would be fine and dandy, except at times I've become too concerned about the other person and stopped taking care of myself so much. That has got to stop because I really should take care of myself first before I give to someone else. I am liking that right now I pretty much have the freedom to do what I want, when I want, and for the most part if there's anyone who doesn't like it, they can kiss my ass. It's why that despite my bitching a while back about the people who look at me in horror that I was going on travel by myself, it hasn't stopped me from continuing to go, because deep down, some of them are probably jealous that I'm not tied down like they are.
If one hasn't figured it out already, I'm very independent, and it has driven past boyfriends and girlfriends crazy. Going back to that I tend to give much more than I take, they get used to that I am pleasing them so they figure that I'll always do what they want to do, and then they get a nasty shock when they discover that if there is something I really truly want to do, I'm going to do it. If they say they don't want to do it, I have no qualms about doing it on my own. They can't seem to wrap their brains around the concept that I may get an enjoyment out of pleasing them, but I'm still my own person.
Until I find the person that can respect the fact that I will act independently of them when I so choose, and that they also have their own sense of independence, I will just continue to go along as I am doing now and doing it for myself only.
One thing I have noticed though when it comes to the dating life and the gay community in general in DC is that it's more like a small town than a bigger city. Seems like everyone knows everyone else, and many know (or think they know) far too much about other people's business and have no problems with telling everyone and their mother about it. It's a behavior that I don't particularly care for, and because of that, I tend to proceed with caution with most folks in order to stay off the radar. I've dealt with being on the receiving end of how damaging something like gossip can be, and I'd like to not put myself in a situation where it happens again. Yes, it could happen again, but at least if I watch myself, it limits any of the potential damage that could come of it.
Perhaps that's also why I tend to be friendlier with folks when I am on vacation somewhere else, I know I'm not going to be in that area for very long, and so even if something goes wrong, it will drop off the radar quickly.
By the way, if most of your social networking profile is devoted to telling everyone how much you love the person you're with and how great your relationship is, what the fuck are you trying to gloss over and/or hide? That person is likely not the right one for you and it's made you insecure enough that you're trying to convince yourself that everything is okay. It's one thing if you do a write-up about your other half when it's an anniversary or even a birthday, but if it's every other day? Problem.
June 07, 2009
What's The Point Then?
A few weeks ago a health fair was held at my place of work and I did go down there to check it out. One of the offerings was to get on the bone marrow registry to be a donor if someone needs it. Now this is something that I would get behind, so I started reading the paperwork. It was when I got down to the eligibility requirements that I got a nice slap in the face by the cold wet rag of old-school overprotective thinking.
I was cheerfully informed by the paper that because I am a male who has had sex with another male, they don't want my bone marrow, period.
I hate that implication, I really truly do. What it makes me feel like is that they have decided to assume that because I am attracted to other men and have been in relationships with them, it must mean that I am a walking disease factory, or worse, that I must have HIV/AIDS. Never mind that I don't engage in high risk activities, nope, I must be this dirty person who is going to just go and infect other people.
What kills me about it is that folks like me are the ones actively being discriminated against. Perhaps the medical folks have forgotten, but straight people are just as capable of catching deadly diseases from their relations as well. It's not right that I'm not allowed to donate blood or bone marrow despite taking every precaution, but that these organizations will gladly take the same products from a straight person even though that person could be promiscuous, or even have caught something from a partner who lied to them because they didn't take proper precautions. Seriously, what the french toast is this?
So what does that leave me? I can't donate blood, I can't donate bone marrow, and hell, I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't allowed to donate my organs either if I was killed in a car wreck. Unless of course I just lie to the screeners, but I just can't do that, it's a personal violation of my own ethics. Just remember that folks, I'm not allowed right now to save someone elses life because according to the current rules, I'm going to end up killing them with something else.
Too bad, but I think when my drivers license comes up for renewal I'll just have to remove my permission to be an organ donor, they don't seem to want me.
April 11, 2009
Worst. Timing. Ever!
What the fuck is it with DC clubs scheduling major DJ's and events the night before Easter?
Tonight one of my favorite DJ's, DJ Chris Cox is spinning at Town, and the 9:30 club is holding Blowoff, and so I am getting invites to head there as well. It figures that it is on a night when I have other obligations, namely that I am participating in the Easter Vigil at church. Besides that, I will be attending services in the morning.
So what the hell? This is a night when many folks could be out of town visiting family, or if they're like me, they're attending Easter services. Bad timing there DC clubs, not all the gays are against organized religion or hate their families.
Too bad, I would have given them my business.
April 04, 2009
Bar Annoyance
Every so often I like to head out to the bar with friends to have a few drinks and partake in socializing. Yet at times there are some things that go on in bars that remind me of why I don't visit more than about once a month.
Crowding is the biggest problem. Yes, I know it's a small space, no I am not claustrophobic, but goddammit if I am trying to walk through to get somewhere, don't stand in front of me and stop every 2-4 feet to chat it up with someone or stand there because you're too timid to move forward in the crowd. I have no problem with shoving you out of the way, and by that point you have no right to try and shoot me a dirty look for doing so. You're contributing to the problem.
Along with that, I have to laugh at when an organization tries to do a "bachelor auction" to raise funds. Typically it's guys standing up there and they offer some sort of prize for bidding on them. As the price goes higher, they typically will strip off their clothing (at least to underwear since most bars aren't licensed for anything more). You as the audience member are not bidding on a date with the person, you're bidding on the prize behind them. My friend BG isn't particularly fond of them because what's the point of watching them on stage when all you're really bidding on is a prize like tickets, memberships, or gift certificate?
Personally I don't mind seeing them on stage, but what I can't stand is those who act all embarrassed for being up there, or even for doing some of the eventual stripping. Maybe it's just me but it makes them look timid, and I am not big on seeing a guy be timid. Come on, if you volunteer for this, you know what you're getting into, and as much as you don't want to admit it, you probably enjoy that people are looking at you, so look like you're enjoying it. Don't be a damn pussy.
At least the guys at Omega don't act all embarrassed when they're up on the bar.
February 19, 2009
Fraud
I have a routine of checking my bank accounts every day, and my credit card account about once a week because I like to keep tabs on what is going on. It was a good thing I did yesterday after the discovery I made.
I pulled up my credit card account and there was a charge on there from SegPayEU along with a fee for an international transaction, which was something I didn't recognize. I googled the company and discovered they were a credit processor for Europe, similar to Paypal. They had a customer service number and also a live chat function, so I got on the live chat with them. I asked the agent about the charge, they asked for my name and E-mail address. He comes back and asks if this mailing address is correct, and lists my current address. I say it is so he then informs me that I signed up for an account with some website, this is the charge, and it's set to be autobilled every month. The URL is unfamiliar to me so I tell him it's a fraudulent charge and I want it to be removed immediately. He says they will refund the charge within a week and put my information into their "negative" database so no more charges go through them.
I googled the website he named. It was porn, some fuckhead got a hold of my credit card and address and used it to buy porn. Motherfucker.
I called my bank and immediately told them it was a fraudulent charge and my account had been compromised. They closed my card, put a block on the number, and are sending me a new one along with dispute forms. Since I didn't know what else this crook could be doing with my information, or how much more they have on me, I put a fraud alert on my credit reports as well. From the one that I was allowed to see online, nothing compromised there, but I'm not taking any further chances.
I also have to say this, if I am putting a fraud alert on my credit report, I not want to be prompted multiple times by the bureau's online or phone systems to purchase a credit score for "only $7.95" I am not calling because I got denied credit, employment, or a mortgage, I am calling because some stupid cumdumpster compromised my information, that was the option I selected. I could give less of a shit about knowing my score at this time. Just send me my report.
Whoever stole my CC, hope you enjoyed the porn for the whole day you got to view it, and I hope when you try to use my card again that the merchant calls the cops on your ass.
February 18, 2009
Justification in Firing
I fired Bank of America as my bank a few months ago.
These were my reasons:
Recent events have brought further justification for firing Bank of America as my bank. I had cashed a few savings bonds with BofA a few months ago when I had a car repair emergency; since the interest is reported to the IRS, I needed a form 1099 from them so I could put it down on my taxes. Just like a W-2, a 1099 has to be mailed out by the 31st of January. Well today is February 17, and I still have no form. I had checked the BofA website and they said if I had not seen my form by the 15th to call BofA for it.
I called them this morning, explained I was no longer a customer but I had cashed savings bonds while I was a customer and had not seen my 1099 form. She told me I had to call the savings bond department and gave me a number to call. I called it...it was the phone number to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, where you could get information on current bond interest rates, the mailing address, and the web address of the savings bond department. That was not what I needed! Now it was time to kick it up to another level.
I invoked BofA's presence on Twitter, telling the help guy that I still had no 1099, was given a bad number, and I was pissed. Within minutes, I was given a phone number to call, the number that the banking associates use when they're calling about your account. After calling and them asking me a few questions, supposedly they're going to send out a duplicate, and I should get it in five days. We shall see if it happens.
Before I got the number, I called the IRS to see if there was a way I can get my 1099 from them. Apparently if I have no 1099 and if I have made a reasonable effort to try and get it from the "payer" I can make a formal complaint to the IRS. If I don't see my 1099 by next Wednesday (that gives a time frame of six mailing days) I am giving them a call. I want to get my taxes done, and this is what is holding me up. I got all of my other forms about 3 weeks ago, and if I didn't have to wait for this one, I could have been done already!
So between having to call BofA in the first place, then being given bad information because the rep only heard the word "savings bonds" and followed a quick script to get me off of the phone, and still having to wait additional time because they don't send these forms electronically, it was the right decision to fire them as my bank.
These were my reasons:
- During the first days of the financial crisis, Bank of America had bought Countrywide, which made lots of bad loans, plus they ended up buying Merrill Lynch since they were in trouble as well. I was afraid these now bad decisions were going to come back to haunt them and screw up my finances if they were taken over.
- Because of their merger with Countrywide, Bank of America decided that they needed to integrate all of their computer systems together so everyone was under one umbrella. Apparently their Military Bank was not under that umbrella, so I was going to have to have my accounts moved over. That meant I was going to be forced to get new account numbers, checks, and debit cards from them.
- Their savings account rate, which was already crappy, got even crappier.
- They are beholden to their stockholders, so they care more about turning a profit than about providing good service to the ones who are funding their operations, the customers.
Recent events have brought further justification for firing Bank of America as my bank. I had cashed a few savings bonds with BofA a few months ago when I had a car repair emergency; since the interest is reported to the IRS, I needed a form 1099 from them so I could put it down on my taxes. Just like a W-2, a 1099 has to be mailed out by the 31st of January. Well today is February 17, and I still have no form. I had checked the BofA website and they said if I had not seen my form by the 15th to call BofA for it.
I called them this morning, explained I was no longer a customer but I had cashed savings bonds while I was a customer and had not seen my 1099 form. She told me I had to call the savings bond department and gave me a number to call. I called it...it was the phone number to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, where you could get information on current bond interest rates, the mailing address, and the web address of the savings bond department. That was not what I needed! Now it was time to kick it up to another level.
I invoked BofA's presence on Twitter, telling the help guy that I still had no 1099, was given a bad number, and I was pissed. Within minutes, I was given a phone number to call, the number that the banking associates use when they're calling about your account. After calling and them asking me a few questions, supposedly they're going to send out a duplicate, and I should get it in five days. We shall see if it happens.
Before I got the number, I called the IRS to see if there was a way I can get my 1099 from them. Apparently if I have no 1099 and if I have made a reasonable effort to try and get it from the "payer" I can make a formal complaint to the IRS. If I don't see my 1099 by next Wednesday (that gives a time frame of six mailing days) I am giving them a call. I want to get my taxes done, and this is what is holding me up. I got all of my other forms about 3 weeks ago, and if I didn't have to wait for this one, I could have been done already!
So between having to call BofA in the first place, then being given bad information because the rep only heard the word "savings bonds" and followed a quick script to get me off of the phone, and still having to wait additional time because they don't send these forms electronically, it was the right decision to fire them as my bank.
January 28, 2009
It Works...Or It Doesn't...
If you haven't figured it out by now, I work for the feds at one of their many BGA's. As part of trying to be secure, we all have badges with our name, picture, and all that jazz. There's also a chip in there that I get to wave by certain scanners to get into the building, or use to get up the elevator. It's great and all when it works, but boy does it suck some major ass when it doesn't.
I've had this new badge for a bit over a year now, and it has decided to randomly not work at some of the scanners. It can be rather frustrating when I'm trying to get up to my floor and of course I can't until I try another elevator.
Tonight took the cake. I got downstairs, got out of the building and was on my way to Metro when I realized I didn't have my cell phone with me. I go back in, scan in at the front door, then get to the elevator and try to scan to go up. The scanner doesn't even register that I am waving my card at it. I take the card out of it's tinfoil holder and wave it over and over, still nothing. I try a second elevator, again, nothing. I go to security and they tell me I'll have to go to the badge office in the morning since the card seems to be dead. They call for another guard to escort me to my desk and so I wait, and wait, and wait. Finally they get someone there and I get to my desk, retrieve my cell phone, and then am escorted back downstairs.
I understand we need to be secure and all, but it suck serious ass when the badge chip manages to fail in a year and I am normally supposed to keep it for five years. Apparently I'm not the only one this is happening to according to the guard. My SmartTrip card uses similar tech and it is still going strong after three years.
When I go in tomorrow to get this fixed, they had better not charge me for a new one.
I've had this new badge for a bit over a year now, and it has decided to randomly not work at some of the scanners. It can be rather frustrating when I'm trying to get up to my floor and of course I can't until I try another elevator.
Tonight took the cake. I got downstairs, got out of the building and was on my way to Metro when I realized I didn't have my cell phone with me. I go back in, scan in at the front door, then get to the elevator and try to scan to go up. The scanner doesn't even register that I am waving my card at it. I take the card out of it's tinfoil holder and wave it over and over, still nothing. I try a second elevator, again, nothing. I go to security and they tell me I'll have to go to the badge office in the morning since the card seems to be dead. They call for another guard to escort me to my desk and so I wait, and wait, and wait. Finally they get someone there and I get to my desk, retrieve my cell phone, and then am escorted back downstairs.
I understand we need to be secure and all, but it suck serious ass when the badge chip manages to fail in a year and I am normally supposed to keep it for five years. Apparently I'm not the only one this is happening to according to the guard. My SmartTrip card uses similar tech and it is still going strong after three years.
When I go in tomorrow to get this fixed, they had better not charge me for a new one.
January 15, 2009
Copyright Issues?
One of my hobbies is to take pictures, especially of the things going on in my life. To satisfy some of my blatant attention whoring, I have a Flickr account where I post my pictures for folks to look at. The pictures I put up there are copyrighted by me since I am the original photographer, and on occasion I do get asked for permission by someone if they can use a photo I've taken for their website or whatever. I have no problem with doing so, as long as I get credit for being the one who took it.
Therefore, I was very disappointed to learn from another Flickr user that my sports pictures were being lifted and put on a website as part of their own galleries without my permission, and without credit to me. I am not the only one this is happening to as other users are finding their pictures on this series of sites as well.
If you are a Flickr user and you have sports picture that are publicly accessible on your photostream, you might want to take a look at the following and see if any of your photos are on the sites:
NFL
MLB
NHL
At the bottom of the sites (once you can get past the barrage of ads) are links to individual teams so you can check your teams out. They seem to be swiping the photos and using the same titles you used on Flickr, so just use your titles in searches and they should come up. If you find any, you could try E-mailing the webmaster to complain. I would also complain to GoDaddy by E-mailing copyright@godaddy.com since won't be happy to hear that some of the sites they are hosting have blatant copyright violations on them. I have already filed my complaint and hopefully GoDaddy will either kick their asses so the photos are gone, or just take down the sites. I kind of hope for the latter because clearly they're just a way for someone to try and make money off of ads, plus then it means I don't have to spend another few hours trying to search for all of my Caps and Orioles photos.
So I'll say it again, if you want to use my photos for something, you've gotta talk to me first.
November 25, 2008
Clerical Error Not In My Favor
One has to love when a typo nearly gets you sent to collections.
I just received in the mail today a bill from my doctors office. Here's the thing, the last time I was at the doctors office was in April. So this bill is a final notice that my account is over 120 days past due and if I don't pay it by December 19, they're sending my ass to collections.
Now how the hell did this happen? I always pay my bills on time, however, I never got notice of this bill, and why? They screwed up my address number. Someone over at 3A has been getting my bills for the past seven months; instead of it going to 5A, where I live. It just happened to be that today the bill was sitting in a spot where you couldn't read the apt number, but you could read my name, so it finally got to my Inbox.
So for seven months, I was likely being sent bills that I never got. Yet not once did I get a phone call informing me that I had a bill that was past due. The ultimate kicker? The bill is $5.64, so it's not like they would have sent the bill and I would have been unable to scrape together the cash to pay.
They are so getting a nasty letter with my check. Morons.
I just received in the mail today a bill from my doctors office. Here's the thing, the last time I was at the doctors office was in April. So this bill is a final notice that my account is over 120 days past due and if I don't pay it by December 19, they're sending my ass to collections.
Now how the hell did this happen? I always pay my bills on time, however, I never got notice of this bill, and why? They screwed up my address number. Someone over at 3A has been getting my bills for the past seven months; instead of it going to 5A, where I live. It just happened to be that today the bill was sitting in a spot where you couldn't read the apt number, but you could read my name, so it finally got to my Inbox.
So for seven months, I was likely being sent bills that I never got. Yet not once did I get a phone call informing me that I had a bill that was past due. The ultimate kicker? The bill is $5.64, so it's not like they would have sent the bill and I would have been unable to scrape together the cash to pay.
They are so getting a nasty letter with my check. Morons.
October 02, 2008
WTF Yo?!
I am just curious, how many of you actually read the text of the bill of the bailout plan that was passed by the Senate tonight?
Want to hear of a good reason why it ended up being passed, despite reports that many Americans are still opposed to the bailout plan and were telling their Senators so.
It was attached to the "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act" (H.R. 1424). That was the bill that recently passed the house and would have required insurance companies to consider mental health on the same level as physical health, and to prohibit discrimination in employment based on genetic information.
If the Senate killed the bailout plan, they would have killed this bill as well, and then people would have really been up in arms because they killed off a perfectly good piece of legislation.
I don't recall the media mentioning this dirty little detail, I only stumbled across it because I decided to research the details of the bill.
Unfuckingbelievable, they took a perfectly good bill and attached this pile of shit to it. Doesn't this mean it now goes back down to the House in this form? Now either they will have to pass it, or risk the political hit when people find out that they just killed off the mental health benefits bill.
*shakes head*
Want to hear of a good reason why it ended up being passed, despite reports that many Americans are still opposed to the bailout plan and were telling their Senators so.
It was attached to the "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act" (H.R. 1424). That was the bill that recently passed the house and would have required insurance companies to consider mental health on the same level as physical health, and to prohibit discrimination in employment based on genetic information.
If the Senate killed the bailout plan, they would have killed this bill as well, and then people would have really been up in arms because they killed off a perfectly good piece of legislation.
I don't recall the media mentioning this dirty little detail, I only stumbled across it because I decided to research the details of the bill.
Unfuckingbelievable, they took a perfectly good bill and attached this pile of shit to it. Doesn't this mean it now goes back down to the House in this form? Now either they will have to pass it, or risk the political hit when people find out that they just killed off the mental health benefits bill.
*shakes head*
October 01, 2008
This Crazy World
I am so totally done with hearing about the economic crisis. Every day there's yet another claim that the world is basically going to explode in a firey holocaust because some asshole bankers made stupid choices when it came to loans, and now we must save them from themselves. Yeah, what the fuck ever.
No matter what happens, we'll deal with it, and I hope to God that Congress doesn't rush through a decision on the economy just because Paulson and Bernake are all ONOEZ PANIC!!!! due to the interest rates that banks are charging to loan money to one another are now higher than the average home mortgage interest rate (6.750%).
However, one idea that is being pushed absolutely floored me today, it made me angry enough to write to my House Representative (House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer) and tell him "Don't even think of doing this!" The idea is to increase the FDIC deposit limit from $100,000 to $250,000. Now I am all for extra insurance for when things go absolutely wrong, but this is something I just cannot get behind.
First of all, who does this really benefit? I can't think of anyone I personally know that has over $100,000 in their checking, savings, and money market accounts at their local bank. Therefore, they're already covered by current FDIC deposit limits. Hell, even if they weren't, there's other insurance that could kick in from a private company to make sure that people recover their money. I have also heard (but have not confirmed) that the FDIC on good faith tries to give all the money that a person had back to them, even though that portion is not guaranteed.
As banks have begun to fail and the FDIC has taken over, there has been concern that the FDIC won't have enough money to cover all of the deposits of all of the accounts, especially if several large banks fail at once. They have tons of money folks, but it's definitely not unlimited. So why the fuck would you raise the FDIC limit, which means the FDIC has to pay out even more money to depositors in the event of a bank failure, and therefore would deplete their funds even faster?! It makes absolutely no sense! Let's not forget where the FDIC gets their funds...that's right, Joe Taxpayer.
Finally, the claim is that by doing this it will bolster confidence. Confidence in what? If a person is going to panic and pull their money out, they're going to do it, whether they have $100,000 of coverage, $250,000 of coverage, or $10 gazillion of coverage. At the same time, most of the people making a run on the bank are people who have assets well under $100,000, so they're already covered by FDIC.
In my opinion, this doesn't do shit for the average person, except put us at greater risk as taxpayers to shoulder an even larger burden of the poor financial decisions made by so called "experts." I hope that Congress lets this idea die on the floor of the House.
No matter what happens, we'll deal with it, and I hope to God that Congress doesn't rush through a decision on the economy just because Paulson and Bernake are all ONOEZ PANIC!!!! due to the interest rates that banks are charging to loan money to one another are now higher than the average home mortgage interest rate (6.750%).
However, one idea that is being pushed absolutely floored me today, it made me angry enough to write to my House Representative (House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer) and tell him "Don't even think of doing this!" The idea is to increase the FDIC deposit limit from $100,000 to $250,000. Now I am all for extra insurance for when things go absolutely wrong, but this is something I just cannot get behind.
First of all, who does this really benefit? I can't think of anyone I personally know that has over $100,000 in their checking, savings, and money market accounts at their local bank. Therefore, they're already covered by current FDIC deposit limits. Hell, even if they weren't, there's other insurance that could kick in from a private company to make sure that people recover their money. I have also heard (but have not confirmed) that the FDIC on good faith tries to give all the money that a person had back to them, even though that portion is not guaranteed.
As banks have begun to fail and the FDIC has taken over, there has been concern that the FDIC won't have enough money to cover all of the deposits of all of the accounts, especially if several large banks fail at once. They have tons of money folks, but it's definitely not unlimited. So why the fuck would you raise the FDIC limit, which means the FDIC has to pay out even more money to depositors in the event of a bank failure, and therefore would deplete their funds even faster?! It makes absolutely no sense! Let's not forget where the FDIC gets their funds...that's right, Joe Taxpayer.
Finally, the claim is that by doing this it will bolster confidence. Confidence in what? If a person is going to panic and pull their money out, they're going to do it, whether they have $100,000 of coverage, $250,000 of coverage, or $10 gazillion of coverage. At the same time, most of the people making a run on the bank are people who have assets well under $100,000, so they're already covered by FDIC.
In my opinion, this doesn't do shit for the average person, except put us at greater risk as taxpayers to shoulder an even larger burden of the poor financial decisions made by so called "experts." I hope that Congress lets this idea die on the floor of the House.
August 19, 2008
They Can't Help You
All of us at one point or another have gone through a breakup, and I would say that 99% of you listened to certain songs as your "breakup" mix. Hell, if you look at many of the pop songs out there, they're focused on love, relationships, cheating, and/or breakups. Since love, relationships, and breakups are something we all go through, we can relate to the songs, and that's why they sell so well.
I have noticed two major threads when it comes to the songs that relate most to breakups. There's the "We're not together but I want him/her back" song, or there's the "He/she dumped me, but I'll be fine (opt: and he/she is an asshole)" song. I prefer the latter, especially because I am a strong person, and my favorite music artists tend to be "strong" as well.
However, there's one "breakup" type song I have heard lately that just drives me up a fucking wall. If you listen to the radio, watch MTV, or visit a video bar, you've likely heard it. It's called "Damaged" by Danity Kane. I will state that I am not against Danity Kane as a group, there is some talent there. However, the content of this song absolutely makes me mental because it paints one of the biggest mistakes you can make when starting a new relationship in a flattering light.
Here's the video if you want to see what I am talking about before I get into the details.
So the song is basically them saying that the last guy they were with broke their heart, they're still heartbroken, and you need to help them fix their heartbreak because they won't be able to move on and be with you otherwise.
Every time I hear this song, I just want to yell "Bitch, you need to fix your own damn self before you go looking for someone else." Based on my own experiences and the things I have read, you have to be past the heartbreak and okay with being by yourself before you can be with someone else. If you pursue another person thinking they're going to help fix your broken heart, you're probably going to end up chasing them off because they'll view you as a totally different form of "Damaged," in this case as "Damaged Goods." No one wants to be damaged goods, do they?
I'm probably reading into it a bit too much, but I just hope no one who is a fan of this group gets it into their head that it's okay to basically get someone else to fix their personal issues. They can't fix them for you, you have to fix them for yourself.
Of course, as I type this I'm listening to the following:
I love Ms. Janet, and I can totally relate to this song right now, even though I don't have to find someone to call my lover right now as the song sort of implies.
I have noticed two major threads when it comes to the songs that relate most to breakups. There's the "We're not together but I want him/her back" song, or there's the "He/she dumped me, but I'll be fine (opt: and he/she is an asshole)" song. I prefer the latter, especially because I am a strong person, and my favorite music artists tend to be "strong" as well.
However, there's one "breakup" type song I have heard lately that just drives me up a fucking wall. If you listen to the radio, watch MTV, or visit a video bar, you've likely heard it. It's called "Damaged" by Danity Kane. I will state that I am not against Danity Kane as a group, there is some talent there. However, the content of this song absolutely makes me mental because it paints one of the biggest mistakes you can make when starting a new relationship in a flattering light.
Here's the video if you want to see what I am talking about before I get into the details.
So the song is basically them saying that the last guy they were with broke their heart, they're still heartbroken, and you need to help them fix their heartbreak because they won't be able to move on and be with you otherwise.
Every time I hear this song, I just want to yell "Bitch, you need to fix your own damn self before you go looking for someone else." Based on my own experiences and the things I have read, you have to be past the heartbreak and okay with being by yourself before you can be with someone else. If you pursue another person thinking they're going to help fix your broken heart, you're probably going to end up chasing them off because they'll view you as a totally different form of "Damaged," in this case as "Damaged Goods." No one wants to be damaged goods, do they?
I'm probably reading into it a bit too much, but I just hope no one who is a fan of this group gets it into their head that it's okay to basically get someone else to fix their personal issues. They can't fix them for you, you have to fix them for yourself.
Of course, as I type this I'm listening to the following:
I love Ms. Janet, and I can totally relate to this song right now, even though I don't have to find someone to call my lover right now as the song sort of implies.
March 21, 2008
Can I Do This?
Let's see...the FBI admitted that they have misused National Security Letters to obtain informations on US citizens. Now we come to find out that State Dept. employees were accessing passport files they should have not been accessing. Of course, we know that they snooped on the US presidential candidates, but who else have they been looking at?
Personally, I would love to shed some light on this for myself. I wonder what it would take to file a Freedom of Information Act request to both departments demanding to know if any letters have been sent about me, and to find out who has been accessing my passport information and when. Hell, would that even be covered under FOIA?
There will be much research to be done...
Personally, I would love to shed some light on this for myself. I wonder what it would take to file a Freedom of Information Act request to both departments demanding to know if any letters have been sent about me, and to find out who has been accessing my passport information and when. Hell, would that even be covered under FOIA?
There will be much research to be done...
March 12, 2008
Random Thought
I got an E-mail in my spam account that the True Colors tour is coming back again, and that it is to benefit the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
Well let me be the first to say it:
Fuck HRC
That is all.
Well let me be the first to say it:
Fuck HRC
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)