credit cards

*SCREAM*

ShittyBank's Web Site

Just got off of the phone with a credit card company's representatives. My partner is 2 states away trying to use it at this very moment. However, I and my dumbass self, made the payment 4 days late. I paid them (online) yesterday, but that payment has not posted to my account yet.

Because, according to the company, I have not paid them, my ability to use the card has been frozen, and was frozen the very atomic clock server second that the account became past due. Please understand, I owe less than 800.00 on the account, and have never *not* paid them. In fact, I haven't even charged anything to the account in 5 or 6 *years*.

Also, to remind me of just how horrible my credit crime, I was charged a 39.00 late fee (I suppose the same server tick time, and to the account of course, so that the interest will keep compounding itself.)

I know this shit happens to a lot of people all of the time. It's not a major life event. But! When I called the number for customer service, I was (unknown to me at the time) auto-switched to the Collections Department. Even though I paid them yesterday. And today is 24 hours later.

So, what I'm fuming about is not that I'm getting financially punished, and not that I haven't even received the extra card I ordered last month for emergencies (which they will not address, nor attempt to rectify, until the payment I made yesterday gets to them all safe and sound). Someone could have stolen this card and they refuse to help until they officially receive the payment?

WTF?

So. Anyway.....What really gets me, what makes me so pope-fucking angry that I almost cannot see, and has set me the rocketfuckinship off, is that this company has employed the technological ability to neuter access, and has not employed the technological ability to restore the same access. It's like some made a new building; and the Powerful Ones have built themselves a smooth concrete entrance with no stairs and automatic doors, while they've left a wooden ladder kissing a hole in the wall for the rest of us to use.

I believe, and I swear I swear I swear (and I thought it was not possible) now more than ever, that corporations are truly sociopaths. There is nothing good they are doing for society at all, besides further duping us with the hallucination that somehow, money and markets are vital to life as we know it.

Oh yeah. Now that I think about it, funny how the credit card company will let themselves charge something to my account when it is so, oh what was it? Supposedly frozen.

*SCREAM* OH MY FUCKINASSGOD THIS MODERN LIFE IS KILLING US AND FOR WHAT GOOD REASON???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????*SCREAM*

War. Unloved and scarred beyond fucking belief and not taken care of Veterans. Mortgages. The World's markets crashed when the subprime shit hit over here. The World's. Not even the Bank of England was safe. No really clean water anymore. Just looking at my city's sky shows me that's not clean air I'm breathing. And that's Stateside. I can't even imagine what folks on the Dark Continent are up against, although I try, when compassion lifts her worn out shoulders.

Air and Water are fucking essential to LIFE. Is credit? FUCK NO. It is an invention of man. And has probably caused more problems than it would ever be able to solve. And this one little thing has stressed me out so much; I can only think of what it must be like for those whom credit has seduced so completely that their very LIVES have been ruined. Ah...... the Rules of Man and His God.

It is extremely difficult to find something positive to hope for in these days and times.....

LinkBackToHere

Here is a snippet from:
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Iran_the_new_motivation_for_US_war__04142008.html

/*snip

Bush told ABC News that he had no intention of attacking Iran, but vowed to protect US interests and refused to rule out the use of force altogether.

"The message to the Iranians is: we will bring you to justice if you continue to try to infiltrate, send your agents or send surrogates to bring harm to our troops and/or the Iraqi citizens," Bush said.

Asked to elaborate on this "justice," Bush replied: "It means capture or kill, is what that means."

Bush repeated that "all options need to be on the table, but my first effort is to solve this issue diplomatically," and added that he was amused by unfounded rumors of an impending attack.

"I'm chuckling, because, you know, from my perch, my perspective, these rumors happen all the time ... I wouldn't say they're amusing. It's part of the job, I guess."

/*endsnip


This guy is watching over all of us. And he sees 'justice' this way??? Awwww, for the love of something completely unfuckable, can't he do better???

Hey! You over there! I'm bringing 'justice' to you.

Would you like to upsize your impending funeral or incarceration? Excellent choice, sir.

I do quite like how carnations form a nice casket cascade over folded hands. And just think; you won this bag because you chose to disagree with how 'justice' is applied without equity in this fair nation of ours. Lucky you.

And just for fun, the online search results for definitions of justice on the Web:

the quality of being just or fair

the administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments; "justice deferred is justice denied"

judge: a public official authorized to decide questions brought before a court of justice

Department of Justice: the United States federal department responsible for enforcing federal laws (including the enforcement of all civil rights legislation); created in 1870
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Justice is the ideal, morally correct state of things and persons. For many, justice is overwhelmingly important: "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought." For many, it has not been achieved: "We do not live in a just world."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

US To Employ Overhead Spying Domestically

DigitAl56K writes

"The Washington Post reports that 'The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon' and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said that 'Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement.' Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes. Congress last October delayed launch of the DHS office that would coordinate law-enforcement requests for satellite and other technical data, and demanded answers to legal questions about the program. The administration supplied answers that some Congress members characterized as inadequate and appears determined to go ahead anyway."


From The Washington Post:

Administration Set to Use New Spy Program in U.S.: Congressional Critics Want More Assurances of Legality

By Spencer S. Hsu

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 12, 2008; Page A03

The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon, rebuffing challenges by House Democrats over the idea's legal authority.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department will activate his department's new domestic satellite surveillance office in stages, starting as soon as possible with traditional scientific and homeland security activities -- such as tracking hurricane damage, monitoring climate change and creating terrain maps.

Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement once privacy and civil rights concerns are resolved, he said. The department has previously said the program will not intercept communications.

"There is no basis to suggest that this process is in any way insufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans," Chertoff wrote to Reps. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.), chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee and its intelligence subcommittee, respectively, in letters released yesterday.

"I think we've fully addressed anybody's concerns," Chertoff added in remarks last week to bloggers. "I think the way is now clear to stand it up and go warm on it."

His statements marked a fresh determination to operate the department's new National Applications Office as part of its counterterrorism efforts. The administration in May 2007 gave DHS authority to coordinate requests for satellite imagery, radar, electronic-signal information, chemical detection and other monitoring capabilities that have been used for decades within U.S. borders for mapping and disaster response.

But Congress delayed launch of the new office last October. Critics cited its potential to expand the role of military assets in domestic law enforcement, to turn new or as-yet-undeveloped technologies against Americans without adequate public debate, and to divert the existing civilian and scientific focus of some satellite work to security uses.

Democrats say Chertoff has not spelled out what federal laws govern the NAO, whose funding and size are classified. Congress barred Homeland Security from funding the office until its investigators could review the office's operating procedures and safeguards. The department submitted answers on Thursday, but some lawmakers promptly said the response was inadequate.

"I have had a firsthand experience with the trust-me theory of law from this administration," said Harman, citing the 2005 disclosure of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program, which included warrantless eavesdropping on calls and e-mails between people in the United States and overseas. "I won't make the same mistake. . . . I want to see the legal underpinnings for the whole program."

Thompson called DHS's release Thursday of the office's procedures and a civil liberties impact assessment "a good start." But, he said, "We still don't know whether the NAO will pass constitutional muster since no legal framework has been provided."

DHS officials said the demands are unwarranted. "The legal framework that governs the National Applications Office . . . is reflected in the Constitution, the U.S. Code and all other U.S. laws," said DHS spokeswoman Laura Keehner. She said its operations will be subject to "robust," structured legal scrutiny by multiple agencies.

The AWD writes:

<<SCREAMS>>

Run for your life. Grab your tinfoil hat. Anything you say or do will be misquoted and then used against you. Orwell was more than right- who are the pigs, now?

If you voted for Bu$h, you should be ashamed of yourself. And you deserve to have your dildos and porn and opinions and beer taken away because you're obviously a deviant and a threat to this Great Fucking Society.

<<SCREAMS>>

Disavowed Justice Department Legal Memo: Constitutional Protections Did Not Apply

Memo linked to warrantless surveillance

PAMELA HESS and LARA JAKES JORDAN

Apr 03, 2008 03:37 EST

For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn't apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.

That view was expressed in a Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.

The October 2001 memo was written at the request of the White House by John Yoo, then the deputy assistant attorney general, and addressed to Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time. The administration had asked the department for an opinion on the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity.

The 37-page memo has not been released. Its existence was disclosed Tuesday in a footnote of a separate secret memo, dated March 14, 2003, released by the Pentagon in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations," the footnote states, referring to a document titled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States."

Exactly what domestic military action was covered by the October memo is unclear. But federal documents indicate that the memo relates to the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP.

That program intercepted phone calls and e-mails on U.S. soil, bypassing the normal legal requirement that such eavesdropping be authorized by a secret federal court. The program began after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and continued until Jan. 17, 2007, when the White House resumed seeking surveillance warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Wednesday that the Fourth Amendment finding in the October memo was not the legal underpinning for the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

"TSP relied on a separate set of legal memoranda," Fratto told The Associated Press. The Justice Department outlined that legal framework in a January 2006 white paper issued by the Justice Department a month after the TSP was revealed by The New York Times.

The October memo was written just days before Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, briefed four House and Senate leaders on the NSA's secret wiretapping program for the first time.

The government itself related the October memo to the TSP program when it included it on a list of documents that were responsive to the ACLU's request for records from the program. It refused to hand them over.

Late Wednesday, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said department officials believe the October 2001 memo was not about the eavesdropping program, but he did not explain why it was included on requests for documents linked to the TSP.

Earlier, Roehrkasse said the statement in the footnote does not reflect the current view of the department's Office of Legal Counsel.

"We disagree with the proposition that the Fourth Amendment has no application to domestic military operations," he said. "Whether a particular search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires consideration of the particular context and circumstances of the search."

Roehrkasse would not say exactly when that legal opinion was overturned internally. But he pointed to the January 2006 white paper.

"The white paper does not suggest in any way that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military activities, and that is not the position of the Office of Legal Counsel," he said.

Suzanne Spaulding, a national security law expert and former assistant general counsel at the CIA, said she found the Fourth Amendment reference in the footnote troubling, but added: "To know (the Justice Department) no longer thinks this is a legitimate statement is reassuring."

"The recent disclosures underscore the Bush administration's extraordinarily sweeping conception of executive power," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "The administration's lawyers believe the president should be permitted to violate statutory law, to violate international treaties and even to violate the Fourth Amendment inside the U.S. They believe that the president should be above the law."

"Each time one of these memos comes out you have to come up with a more extreme way to characterize it," Jaffer said.

The ACLU is challenging in court the government's withholding of the October 2001 memo.

Source: AP News

The AWD writes: In the immortal words of some fucked up South Park character that I can't quite remember, "I AM ABOVE THE LAW!!!" What the fuck kinda Crazyville are we living in???