This article is about the media and its slant of events occurring in the "democratically-elected" governments in Iran and Honduras.
I'd like to think that my awareness of international current events are at least equivalent to the average American, because it was something I had to be aware of for thirteen years monitoring foreign markets at one of my previous jobs.
As an American, I trust my news sources, but know that it can be inevitably skewed. Look at the media frenzy leading up to the Iraqi war. And Fox News makes no compunction about being a conservative news outlet.
The Media can be a powerful tool to tell the truth or to hide it.
Let's start with Iran.
Like many Americans, when I first read a byline in a newspaper that there were upcoming elections in Iran and that there was a moderate running against Ahmadinejad, I gave it little thought. Just another election in another Middle Eastern country. Chaos sure to ensure.
I started to wonder when I saw another story about the elections two days later. Why are U.S. papers publishing two stories about an upcoming Iranian election? I mean, what was really going to change? One guy who hates America will remain or he'll be switched out with another one who hates America. The Iranian Supreme Council of clerics are the ones who hold the power. But I was intrigued, so I spread out the paper. As I did so, I wondered if the moderate challenging Ahmadinejad was that guy who used to be president and had given the Supreme Council fits with some of the moderate policies he had enacted. It wasn't. But it turned out this Mousavi guy had been a special advisor to that president and that Mousavi had been prime minister in Iran from 1981-1989. Still, I thought, there is no way Ahmadinejad is going to lose.
Perhaps with my U.S.-biased viewpoint, in my opinion very few countries in the world have clean elections. Look at the U.S. and the hi jinx in Florida and Ohio in recent elections and the convictions in multiple states of voter fraud and other problems during 2008's election.
So far what I've gathered from the media reports and YouTube, is that Mousavi claims the election has been stolen, Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Council are crushing protests and blacking out the media. Pretty much what I expected before the elections.
Of course, Ahmadinejad has been so demonized by the United States (justly or unjustly I can't say), its very easy for the world to swallow the opponents' view of Ahmadinejad's government hook-line and sinker. And it makes it easier for us (and the media) to swallow it when these opponents are supposedly more moderate (therefore supposedly more aligned with our views) and support a candidate who once supported a notion to ask the West for help in rebuilding after the Iran-Iraq war. Don't get me wrong, crushing protests and shooting innocents is bad, but it's not like the only country in the world who has done this. While the U.S. - thank God - doesn't shoot protesters, they have no qualms about smacking them around with batons - think Seattle, Echo Park.
So what am I saying? If the elections were stolen, I wish the Iranians the best in getting the rightful man in office. But, beware of the media. Beware of what you read.
Which brings me to Honduras.
My first hearing of the coup in Honduras was a picture in the Los Angeles Times of protesters throwing rocks at a group of soldiers/policemen who cowered behind a wall of riot shields. So after listening to NPR and reading the updates on AOL, I initially gathered, the leftist president (am I sensing a trend here that our media tends to support moderates and leftist - I wonder how Fox News is reporting it) was removed in a military coup, deported to Costa Rica and if he ever returned he'd be arrested.
So, it was to my surprise, listening to NPR again last night on the way home, that both I and the host on NPR were taken aback when the official ambassador to the U.S. from Honduras said that the president had been removed through due process in accordance to their constitution. My words probably aren't perfect, but the sense was that he was removed legally under their constitution. The Honduran legislature overwhelmingly voted to remove the President out of his office. Acting on an order from the legislature, the military removed the President. Now, I'm not an expert in Honduran constitutional law, so I can't say if what the ambassador said was true, that the president was removed through a legal process, but I found it odd that I have not heard this from anyone else (and the interviewer couldn't seem to believe it either). The ambassador went on to say, be careful of only listening to one side of the story. Learn all the facts. At that point I was home and turned off the car.
I'll take that ambassador's advice to heart and learn all the facts, before jumping to conclusions and raising the riot act.
On a final note, speaking of media, a very interesting take on the current elections in Iran is an updated graphic novel version of the original Persepolis, called Persepolis 2.0.
Attached is a link the 2.0 version. Below that is the 2 minute trailer to the original movie.
Persepolis 2.0
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Bank Stories
I read an article in the Los Angeles Times today titled, BofA’s Sales Tactics Blasted, by Tom Hamburger. The article basically said Bank of America targeted immigrants and the poor with exorbitant fees and high pressure sales tactics as well as prevented the SEIU from unionizing the bank’s workers.
So I thought about some stories I’d heard about banks (in general) and wondered if the article held any credence for me.
Once a friend told me how he bought $30 worth of gas but pulled out his debit card instead of his credit card and used it by accident. His account was subsequently overdrawn. I wondered why the debit card didn’t deny the transaction since it was going to overdraw the account. I mean, credit cards do that when you exceed their limit. He had no idea and to top it off, he was socked with a $35 overdraft fee. I asked him if he called his bank to tell them about the error and see if he could get the fee reversed. He said a few flowery words I’d prefer not to repeat and said they gave him back $20. Since it wasn’t the bank’s mistake they wouldn’t reimburse him the entire amount. After a few more flowery words interspersed with, “I haven’t overdrawn my account in forever,” and “I have money in other accounts,” we changed subjects.
(That conversation still makes me wonder why transactions are not denied when they would overdraw an account. I mean, as a bank I would think logically, if a customer doesn’t have the money and you give it to him, there is a risk he won’t pay it back. Unless of course, the bank thinks the $35 fee they charge their customers more than makes up for the potential of uncollected funds. Does the more stringent bankruptcy laws have an effect here so they know they'll get their money?)
Another friend told me how bizarre it is that people with money in their accounts pay so few service charges. For example, he said, if you have a certain minimum balance, the monthly service charges, fees for check reorders and some other pay-for-services are typically free. When he was in college with little money, he used to have to pay all of the fees (subsequently overdrawing his account), but now that he’s working and can afford the fees, they’re waived.
(Hmmm. People who need a break aren’t getting one.)
A woman once told me she worked at a regional bank in the 80’s. She said while there was an emphasis on opening new accounts and products for clients, when a national bank took them over, she was stunned by the really high sales goals enforced upon the staff. Before the takeover, there was an emphasis on finding out what a customer needed. For example, if someone had a large balance in a no-interest checking account, she would offer them a savings account. She said that changed. Now she was expected to offer clients a product if they didn’t have it and convince them they needed it. If a man has one checking account, offer him another one. If he doesn’t want it, offer him a credit card. And so on, and so on.
(Interesting.)
In conclusion, I know and knew many people who worked at banks: good people, some of which are close friends. As with any job, people have to meet their goals. If they don’t, they’re removed and someone else is ready to take their place. And a bank's goal (so I believe) is all about making money for its shareholders-just like any other shareholder-run business.
A bank’s staff, especially at the branch level, is a sales force, and just like the old cliche, if you walk onto a used car dealer’s lot, expect the hard sell. If you don’t like it, don’t go there.
(Someone I know is jumping up and down with joy seeing me write those final words.)
BUT...I feel there is a blurry line between banks and the national interest. Aside from being guardians of our nation’s deposits, banks provide a vital role to keep the economy humming. Unless of course you live within walking distance of every service that you need and you can pay with the cash you have stuffed under your mattress or barter, you need a bank account - and only a financial institution can provide it. As a result banks' fees have to be fair and reasonable. especially for the financially strapped. Banks can’t be allowed to operate under the same rules as other privately-owned corporations whose focus is on maximizing profit. And to be fair, there are more restrictions on banks and their operations than other corporations because of the vital national role they play. But obviously not enough restrictions are in place as their greed did help proceed to tank our economy and they feel that a $35 fee for an overdrawn account is fair and reasonable.
The executives who probably thought up the $35 fee probably have free accounts and someone at the bank who makes sure that if they make a mistake by pulling out the wrong card, they’re not going to be overdrawn or hit with an unreimbursable fee.
So based on this, I think the overdraft fee - and bank fee structures for retail banking - are directly targeted at the poor who are most likely going to be overdrawn whether from a mistake or hoping the rent check doesn't clear before their next paycheck hits their account or do not have enough in their accounts to reach minimum balance thresholds. As for Bank of America pressuring their sales people to sell, I agree. Every job pressures (motivates) their staff to do better either through rewards or reprimands. Too much pressure? Perhaps for some people, but BofA did state their employee satisfaction surveys were high. On the unions I have no idea.
A final note: That same woman who worked at a bank in the 80’s also said her small bank before the merger used to receive a report of customers who were going to be overdrawn that day. The office staff would then give those customers a "courtesy call" and let them know they had to make a deposit by 10 a.m., otherwise they would be overdrawn and/or any pending checks would be rejected.
Talk about a costly, labor-intensive operation.
Then again, talk about putting your customers first.
So I thought about some stories I’d heard about banks (in general) and wondered if the article held any credence for me.
Once a friend told me how he bought $30 worth of gas but pulled out his debit card instead of his credit card and used it by accident. His account was subsequently overdrawn. I wondered why the debit card didn’t deny the transaction since it was going to overdraw the account. I mean, credit cards do that when you exceed their limit. He had no idea and to top it off, he was socked with a $35 overdraft fee. I asked him if he called his bank to tell them about the error and see if he could get the fee reversed. He said a few flowery words I’d prefer not to repeat and said they gave him back $20. Since it wasn’t the bank’s mistake they wouldn’t reimburse him the entire amount. After a few more flowery words interspersed with, “I haven’t overdrawn my account in forever,” and “I have money in other accounts,” we changed subjects.
(That conversation still makes me wonder why transactions are not denied when they would overdraw an account. I mean, as a bank I would think logically, if a customer doesn’t have the money and you give it to him, there is a risk he won’t pay it back. Unless of course, the bank thinks the $35 fee they charge their customers more than makes up for the potential of uncollected funds. Does the more stringent bankruptcy laws have an effect here so they know they'll get their money?)
Another friend told me how bizarre it is that people with money in their accounts pay so few service charges. For example, he said, if you have a certain minimum balance, the monthly service charges, fees for check reorders and some other pay-for-services are typically free. When he was in college with little money, he used to have to pay all of the fees (subsequently overdrawing his account), but now that he’s working and can afford the fees, they’re waived.
(Hmmm. People who need a break aren’t getting one.)
A woman once told me she worked at a regional bank in the 80’s. She said while there was an emphasis on opening new accounts and products for clients, when a national bank took them over, she was stunned by the really high sales goals enforced upon the staff. Before the takeover, there was an emphasis on finding out what a customer needed. For example, if someone had a large balance in a no-interest checking account, she would offer them a savings account. She said that changed. Now she was expected to offer clients a product if they didn’t have it and convince them they needed it. If a man has one checking account, offer him another one. If he doesn’t want it, offer him a credit card. And so on, and so on.
(Interesting.)
In conclusion, I know and knew many people who worked at banks: good people, some of which are close friends. As with any job, people have to meet their goals. If they don’t, they’re removed and someone else is ready to take their place. And a bank's goal (so I believe) is all about making money for its shareholders-just like any other shareholder-run business.
A bank’s staff, especially at the branch level, is a sales force, and just like the old cliche, if you walk onto a used car dealer’s lot, expect the hard sell. If you don’t like it, don’t go there.
(Someone I know is jumping up and down with joy seeing me write those final words.)
BUT...I feel there is a blurry line between banks and the national interest. Aside from being guardians of our nation’s deposits, banks provide a vital role to keep the economy humming. Unless of course you live within walking distance of every service that you need and you can pay with the cash you have stuffed under your mattress or barter, you need a bank account - and only a financial institution can provide it. As a result banks' fees have to be fair and reasonable. especially for the financially strapped. Banks can’t be allowed to operate under the same rules as other privately-owned corporations whose focus is on maximizing profit. And to be fair, there are more restrictions on banks and their operations than other corporations because of the vital national role they play. But obviously not enough restrictions are in place as their greed did help proceed to tank our economy and they feel that a $35 fee for an overdrawn account is fair and reasonable.
The executives who probably thought up the $35 fee probably have free accounts and someone at the bank who makes sure that if they make a mistake by pulling out the wrong card, they’re not going to be overdrawn or hit with an unreimbursable fee.
So based on this, I think the overdraft fee - and bank fee structures for retail banking - are directly targeted at the poor who are most likely going to be overdrawn whether from a mistake or hoping the rent check doesn't clear before their next paycheck hits their account or do not have enough in their accounts to reach minimum balance thresholds. As for Bank of America pressuring their sales people to sell, I agree. Every job pressures (motivates) their staff to do better either through rewards or reprimands. Too much pressure? Perhaps for some people, but BofA did state their employee satisfaction surveys were high. On the unions I have no idea.
A final note: That same woman who worked at a bank in the 80’s also said her small bank before the merger used to receive a report of customers who were going to be overdrawn that day. The office staff would then give those customers a "courtesy call" and let them know they had to make a deposit by 10 a.m., otherwise they would be overdrawn and/or any pending checks would be rejected.
Talk about a costly, labor-intensive operation.
Then again, talk about putting your customers first.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
I Was So Mad!
During the first fifteen minutes of my son’s kindergarten class, children can pick a book from the classroom’s book nook and have their parents read to them.
Friday, my son picked “I Was So Mad” by Mercer Mayer. My son liked the cover with Little Critter (a strange beaver-like protagonist in Mayer’s series of children’s books) standing beside a bathtub filled with frogs. We’ve read and enjoyed the adventures of Little Critter before, so I thought this one would be fine.
It started off well enough, with Little Critter getting into trouble doing silly things around the house that he thought were okay. Each time he was reprimanded he said he got really mad. After a couple of pages, I thought, okay, this is a book helping children learn that they’re not alone in feeling angry when they’re reprimanded and maybe it'll eventually show them an appropriate way in which to deal with their anger. But after about seven different scenarios of Little Critter getting madder and madder he finally said, “I’m so mad I’m going to run away from home!”
Whoa, I thought and glanced at the three five-year-olds sitting around me. I doubt that any of them had ever thought of running away from home because they had been mad at their family. I looked back at the book and hoped the story would quickly improve.
Little Critter proceeded to put all of his favorite toys in his wagon and pack a box of chocolate chip cookies for the road.
(Worse)
What was Little Critter’s mother doing during all this time? Nothing. She just stood in the kitchen with a smile on her face watching the love of her life prepare to the leave the house. She never tried to stop him or help him understand his feelings.
What finally stops him? His love for his mom? His sudden understanding of his feelings? No. After walking ten feet down the road he sees his friends who invite him to play baseball.
Little Critter agrees, but his final line is, “…but if I get so mad again, I am definitely running away from home.”
And then the book was over.
(And I was so mad.)
What kind of message is that to children? That it’s okay to run away from home when you’re mad? Kids are great imitators and reservoirs of information. I’ve lost count of the number of times my son will say or do something and use the justification of something he read or saw or heard.
With books like this, no wonder some kids are messed up.
Friday, my son picked “I Was So Mad” by Mercer Mayer. My son liked the cover with Little Critter (a strange beaver-like protagonist in Mayer’s series of children’s books) standing beside a bathtub filled with frogs. We’ve read and enjoyed the adventures of Little Critter before, so I thought this one would be fine.
It started off well enough, with Little Critter getting into trouble doing silly things around the house that he thought were okay. Each time he was reprimanded he said he got really mad. After a couple of pages, I thought, okay, this is a book helping children learn that they’re not alone in feeling angry when they’re reprimanded and maybe it'll eventually show them an appropriate way in which to deal with their anger. But after about seven different scenarios of Little Critter getting madder and madder he finally said, “I’m so mad I’m going to run away from home!”
Whoa, I thought and glanced at the three five-year-olds sitting around me. I doubt that any of them had ever thought of running away from home because they had been mad at their family. I looked back at the book and hoped the story would quickly improve.
Little Critter proceeded to put all of his favorite toys in his wagon and pack a box of chocolate chip cookies for the road.
(Worse)
What was Little Critter’s mother doing during all this time? Nothing. She just stood in the kitchen with a smile on her face watching the love of her life prepare to the leave the house. She never tried to stop him or help him understand his feelings.
What finally stops him? His love for his mom? His sudden understanding of his feelings? No. After walking ten feet down the road he sees his friends who invite him to play baseball.
Little Critter agrees, but his final line is, “…but if I get so mad again, I am definitely running away from home.”
And then the book was over.
(And I was so mad.)
What kind of message is that to children? That it’s okay to run away from home when you’re mad? Kids are great imitators and reservoirs of information. I’ve lost count of the number of times my son will say or do something and use the justification of something he read or saw or heard.
With books like this, no wonder some kids are messed up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)