Theft: Arbitrary Credit Card Charges

You don’t have to go far to read about insurance companies whose initial reaction to claims is rejection. Out of hand. Many claimants will just go away. Those who don’t have to pursue it to get any blood from the stone.

And I don’t even want to think about what our current economic meltdown is going to do to that dynamic, but try this one on for size.

Recently we received a gift of a Sears gift card. So we go to Sears and buy some things and in the process get a Sears credit card for a 10% discount or something. Since we pay off credit cards monthly, it’s no big deal. In the back of our minds we hear stories of retail outlets whose profit margin is greater on financing than their core business. But whatever.

So at one point we return something and end up with a $30 credit balance on the card. Fast forward several months.

Today we get a bill in the mail that shows a credit balance maintenance fee of $25 sucking out most of the $30 credit balance.

I’m no lawyer or police officer, but that’s our $30 that they just took. Sounds like theft.

So we phone Sears with a wtf. After the typical 7 minutes on hold we complain and get a reversal of this charge if we go into the store and spend the $30.

While stores may set policies to steal credit balances in 1, 15, 30, 180 or 365 days with impunity, it’s still theft.

But the shocking thing is that upon simply complaining to the first person we encounter on the phone, they are authorized to just reverse the charge.

And if that’s the case, it sure doesn’t sound like it’s a policy that Sears cherishes, perhaps much like insurance companies whose policy is to reject all claims.

So, in case you needed another reason to boycott Sears and any other company that makes a practice of stealing your credit balance, here you go.

Wendy Yuan’s Policy Emptiness is Bad for Vancouver-Kingsway

A vote for the NDP and Don Davies is a vote for progress, humanity and real political representation in Vancouver-Kingsway.

A vote for the Liberals and Wendy Yuan is a vote for the federal Liberal party “brand”, elitist and pro-corporate policies and the Paul Martin-David Emerson gang.

Worst of all, NOT voting is a vote for Wendy Yuan. Here’s why:

As far as I can tell, Wendy Yuan seems like a nice person: earnest, believing in the importance of a prosperous future for Canada [she owns a small business so you do the math] and somewhat down to earth.

But in the context of who we want representing us in parliament, she’s an empty vessel and fully uninspiring on the issues.

Don Davies has actually lived and volunteered in the riding for years, works for human rights and social and economic justice, and is interested in his fellow citizens in the riding and our concerns as opposed to pro-corporate issues or concerns of people who own big homes in Richmond like Wendy Yuan.

And without going into Wendy Yuan’s foibles which you can read about elsewhere:

• the tragic optics of the apartment she rented last fall in Collingwood to go along with her house in Richmond
• her probably good work with SUCCESS, the Richmond Economic Advisory Committee and SFU in Surrey [as opposed to any real work in Vancouver-Kingsway]
• whether she was involved in nomination meeting voter shenanigans, racially-divisive advertising, or supporting or failing to oppose China’s practice of murdering Falong Gong members for lucrative organs,

on what she actually brings to the table, she is a disastrous pick for MP.

You can review it for yourselves in a few places. Her YouTube site has a few vignettes of true policy emptiness that reflect her party’s abject refusal to address issues of real people. Its three features are so free of issues that we hear our anthem, see some pictures of her showing up at public events and trust-based service pledges. Empty otherwise.

She also seemed quite useless at the all-candidates meeting on October 7, 2008. While these videos may have neglected her best moments, what we do see is cringe-inducing.

Here are a few of the highlights:

• She lacks irony as she proudly claims to being the first democratically elected candidate, presumably in this round of elections, while for 2004 she stepped aside to help her colleague Paul Martin parachute the toxic David Emerson into this riding as the Liberal candidate. Whoops. But then we don’t really expect business people to demonstrate much facility with political, moral or social philosophy…and I should know, having been a business major when I first went to university.
• She totally dodged, but not even as “deftly” as Sarah Palin [whoops], a question on the SPP, claiming that among his criticisms, Don Davies’ facts may be wrong and that she would have to research them, so she wouldn’t comment on them. One of the facts was that Paul Martin was one of the original 3 Amigos who signed the deal: hard for her not to be aware of earlier this decade as she was “appointed as Leader’s Representative to the Liberal Party of Canada (BC) by then Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2004.”
• She continually talks about how she understands the issues of constituents, but living in Richmond, that is hard to believe, and given an opportunity to explain what the constituents care about, she shows little knowledge of anything beyond what immigrants and small business owners want [she is both]…oh yes, that and a desire to serve. But the problem is that she evidently wants to serve her party [remember the David Emerson connection] more than the largely poor and working class community of a riding she doesn’t live in.

In short, she is a master of cliche and substance-free “apparent” responses and comments in the all-candidates meeting and her own video vignettes. And she is quite a poor public speaker, with real difficulty framing ideas of any real substance beyond cliches and empty platitudes.

So how will this riding go tomorrow?

Reform/Conservative candidate [in name only] Salomon Rayek will not win. He didn’t even bother to show up at the all-candidates meeting. This was smart and the best option compared to actually being there and suffering the focus of how much everyone hates David Emerson. Showing up would actually end up costing the party votes and tax funding. And judging from the emptiness that Wendy Yuan showed in actual content breadth at the meeting, she should have thought about skipping the meeting too.

Rayek also will not win because his job is just to get out the Reform/Conservative vote. His flyer in the mail the other day also highlights his commitment to his party–instead of our constituents–and its boogeyman crime and punishment initiatives and tax cuts, he’s a blood donor[!], his children once attended schools in the riding and the best part: he’s the “president of a local Electoral District Association for the Conservative Party” which happens to be Delta-Richmond East. So he actually may live as far away from our riding as Wendy Yuan.

Since the Reform/Conservative party will not win Vancouver-Kingsway strategic voting to keep Harper out is irrelevant. A vote for Don Davies does just as much to reduce the Reform/Conservative representation as a vote for the policy-vacant Wendy Yuan.

Green party Doug Warkentin also won’t win. He’s a late entry candidate who admitted to not fully knowing his party’s platform at the all-candidates meeting and showed a distinct lack of breadth of knowledge of federal issues, but he sure sounded like an earnest, caring man. Just like Wendy Yuan. So she earned no more support than he did based on her performance.

No one from the small parties will get much of a vote either.

So that leaves NDP candidate Don Davies as the candidate that should win. During the all-candidates meeting he showed a fantastic breadth of knowledge of issues, with far more policy knowledge than Wendy Yuan. He was articulate, thoughtful and spoke of real people’s concerns, fears and hopes.

But winning means getting the vote out. Democracy in Canada is largely sub-contracted. People haven’t typically been directly engaged or even committed as members of parties. They vote sporadically and let professional political parties, lobbyists and activists do their business, however corrupt and deceitful it can be at times. This is why Wendy Yuan’s little YouTube ads don’t really say anything of substance. It’s all about the party brand, not about mobilized human beings.

And the Liberal Party is no more populist than it was with the sponsorship scandal kneecapped them.

So when we look for how the Obama bump affects Canada we see that individual voter disenchantment with big party politics that has become a social movement after initially crystalizing around Obama in the USA, has moved into Canada raising bazillions of dollars for the NDP, increasing their poll standing and reflecting the reality that the NDP has been the official opposition for two and a half years while over 40 times the federal Liberals abstained on votes in the last parliament, giving the Harper Reform/Conservatives a de facto majority. Why did they abstain? They weren’t confident of being able to win at least a minority government if they opposed the government on a confidence motion.

And why are we voting tomorrow? Because Harper himself crashed his own parliament since the Liberals wouldn’t. If I were Wendy Yuan, I’d be afraid of that too.

And while Harper called this election for many reasons, two of them underscore why Don Davies should win tomorrow:

1. Harper, being a US-Republican American Idol, cannot be re-elected to anything if Obama wins the presidential election. A shift to the populist “left” in the USA will remove his cover of having a more radical soft fascist in the White House. Even though the Democrats are Republicans-Lite, an Obama election is a rejection of the fear-mongering conservatism that has ruled North America this decade. Bad for Wendy Yuan is that Paul Martin’s co-creation of the SPP and the North American Union puts that stink on her, and would have even if she weren’t close to him personally. So Harper has shot for re-election before the US election and the Liberals are no more ready to govern than they have been for the last 30 months.
2. The global economic meltdown hurts everyone with conservative fiscal policies. Even the director of the anti-human International Monetary Fund has characterized this “event” as dire. So who pays for this? Harper’s Reform/Conservative party and the Liberals, whose fiscal platform is so identical to the Harper gang that after David Emerson crossed the floor he justified himself grandly by telling the truth that the parties were essentially the same to him. And Paul Martin spent years making Canada the envy of the world [as Wendy Yuan was eager to keep repeating at the all-candidates meeting] because of the balanced budgets and surpluses created by gutting Canada’s social programs. So Saloman Rayek was wise to skip the all-candidates meeting, but Wendy Yuan didn’t figure that out: the Liberals’ de-regulated fiscal free trade policies are just as much responsible for the economic disaster we’re in now as the Harper government.

So it’s time to vote tomorrow and it’s time to tell everyone you know in Vancouver-Kingsway to get out and vote for Don Davies, unless they are committed to solid, corporate-friendly, 20th century politics that ignores real people and real issues. And if that’s the case, they’re part of the problem.

Poor Bashers Tend to Be Hypocrites

I’ve now received this thing for the third time this month. It makes me vomit. Why? Read on…

This was written by a construction worker in Fort MacMurray …he sure makes a lot of sense!

Read on…

I work, they pay me.

I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to earn that pay cheque, I work on a rig site for a Fort Mac construction project. I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand – I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope.

Could you imagine how much money the provinces would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance cheque?

Jean Swanson is one of my heros. She works in Vancouver’s poorest neighbourhood and wrote Poor Bashing: The Politics of Exclusion, a book that challenges everyone’s assumptions about the poor, assumptions that usually justify why we won’t re-organize society to keep from continually kicking them.

The below response to the above depressingly common attitude is inspired by her exploration of the same issue in her book.

I’m just quite tired of the “don’t get me wrong, I really think we should help the poor, except if they…”

Another good [if not far better] point is that there are hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in tax cuts that go every year to people in the top 20-40% of income earners in our society who can afford and write off RRSPs, stocks, and capital investments.

We don’t ask them to present their urine or a blood sample or prove they aren’t wife/child beaters, embezzlers, speeders, j-walkers, theists, atheists, supporters of gun control or capital punishment, regular voters, hockey fans, cokeheads, neglectors of children, gamblers, pot smokers, contributors to political parties, beer/wine/spirits drinkers or various social miscreants.

We give value-free tax cuts to the well-off [like me] as long as they meet the legal requirements to get tax refunds.

I too can sure imagine how much we’d save if we did similar morality testing on those earning over $57k, double the Canadian average annual income.

Who Pulls John McCain’s Strings?

My Commentary is in fire engine red!

McCain Plans to Almost Double U.S. Nuclear Reactors

Lorraine Woellert Thu Jun 19, 9:23 AM ET

June 19 (Bloomberg) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain will push to almost double the number of nuclear reactors in the U.S. as part of a broad plan to address the nation’s energy woes.

OK, #1 appears to be the nucular lobby, assuming they still pronounce it that way now that w.Caesar is a lame duck.

On the second day of a two-week tour to promote his energy security proposal, McCain told an audience in Springfield, Missouri, yesterday that he would increase research in so-called clean-coal technology and push to add 100 new nuclear reactors, almost double the 104 nuclear plants now in use.

And #2 seems to be McCain having swallowed the clean-coal Kool-Aid.

“I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America,” McCain said. “This task will be as difficult as it is necessary. We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field.”

McCain’s remarks build on a speech in Houston on June 17 in which he laid out the elements of his energy plan. Central to that plan is expansion of offshore drilling for oil and natural gas, a proposal that is under fire from his Democratic rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, and environmental groups.

And strike 3 would be big oil [is there small oil anymore?]

“One obstacle to expanding our nuclear-powered electricity is the mindset of those who prefer to buy time and hope that our energy problems will somehow solve themselves,” McCain said, noting that Obama’s home state of Illinois has more nuclear reactors than any other.

Oh yes, and Obama is personally responsible for all the nukes in Illinois. Right.

Clean-Burning Coal

McCain, an Arizona senator, also vowed to spend $2 billion on research into clean-burning coal.

“This single achievement will open vast amounts of our oldest and most abundant resource,” McCain, 71, said. “It will deliver not only electricity but jobs to some of the areas hardest hit by our economic troubles.”

And GHGs that I don’t want to even begin to calculate.

McCain’s energy plan also includes spending on renewable resources such as wind and solar power.

Right. Probably not to the tune of $2b that clean coal will get.

McCain was joined at the forum by Michael Chesser, chairman and CEO of Kansas City, Missouri-based Great Plains Energy, and Greg Boyce, chairman and CEO of St. Louis-based Peabody Coal, the largest U.S. coal producer, who said a patchwork of state and federal regulations are hampering their ability to build new power generators.

“We need to have a regulatory compact in place,” Chesser said. “There are definitely things you could do as president to facilitate that environment.”

McCain also touted his environmental bona fides at a fundraiser in Chicago last night. In a 10-minute film preceding his appearance at the Drake Hotel, McCain made an appeal to outdoorsmen.

“Our ability to hunt and fish and enjoy the great national treasures of America is something I’d like to preserve,” McCain said in the film. “I’m committed to preserving the enjoyment of the great national treasures of the most beautiful nation in the world.”

Why is he talking about Canada now? :)

The Federal Liberals: Working Very Hard to Do Nothing About the Cadman Thing

Well, by a few hours, someone beat me to this. Since its contents are virtually identical to what I was going to say, I’ll just let you bask in this absolutely spectacular commentary:

Totally Unacceptable Response from Liberals on Cadscam

Comments inserted inside the Liberal email:

The Cadman Affair

Dear Liberal Friend,

Over the last week we have witnessed Canadians’ already fragile trust in the Harper Government dissolve as allegations of the Conservatives’ 2005 attempt to acquire the vote of former MP Chuck Cadman come to light.

If anything, the Conservatives’ knee-jerk reaction has been consistent over the years: when in trouble, intimidate, bristle and threaten litigation.

If the allegations prove correct, this attempted transaction is an affront to the democratic process and possibly a contravention of the law.

What the heck does that mean? If the “allegations prove correct” it’s not “possibly a contravention of the law”. It IS a bribe and HAS to be an affront to the democratic process of the country, if a criminal investigation leads to a conviction in the affair also known as Cadscam.

We Liberals will keep asking for the truth on the Chuck Cadman affair, both inside and outside of the House of Commons.

If your last paragraph is any indication, those questions aren’t nearly tough enough.

Stephen Harper has acknowledged that it is his voice caught on tape admitting there were discussions regarding “financial considerations” between Conservative party officials and Mr. Cadman. Now, Mr. Harper must explain – without any of the ambiguity we have witnessed all week — what the nature of those discussions was.

We need your help to keep the Conservatives’ feet to the fire on this disturbing issue. Canadians deserve the truth, and with your financial support, Liberals like Stéphane Dion, Michael Ignatieff, Ken Dryden, Marlene Jennings and Ralph Goodale will get to the bottom of this.

No way. Did the Liberal President just ask people to pay the party if we want them to continue to get to the bottom of this? What happens if we don’t pay up? Will they stop asking questions in the House? Maybe they’ll avoid more votes? It sounds like they are asking for bribes to do their job! Asking questions in and out of the House of Commons is FREE.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Marie-P. (Charette) Poulin, Senator
President

PS. Visit www.liberal.ca to learn more about the facts concerning this very important issue.

Any why isn’t there an RCMP investigation into Cadscam yet? Did I miss the announcement of one starting? There’s an audio tape confirming the Prime Minister knew that party officials were offering Cadman replacements for “financial considerations”. That’s a BRIBE. You can’t offer a Member of Parliament financial incentives for their vote, it’s against the law. I’m completely ashamed of our country that we can let an entire week go by without formally investigating alleged criminal activity from the most powerful Canadian, caught on tape.

Maybe the new Liberal forum needs to be plagued with people asking the Liberals why they felt a donation request was a good idea in an email talking about politicians using bribery. They are turning a career ending move by Harper, into an “ethics probe”. As if Canadians could give a fig about the ethical status of politicians, it’s rarely been a reason to vote them out before. The Conservatives preach all about criminals serving the time if someone does the crime; Live by the sword, die by it!