Factiva
Dow Jones
Editorial
THE RISE IN HATE GROUPS There's no cure for a nation's hate
Leonard Pitts Jr.
659 words
25 March 2009
The Oregonian
Sunrise
English
© 2009 Oregonian Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
THE RISE IN HATE GROUPS There's no cure
for a nation's hate
Leonard Pitts Jr.
T here are now 926 hate groups in this country.
Take a second and consider that number. It represents an increase of more than 50 percent since 2000. And by "hate groups," I don't mean guys in their bathrobes who go online and pretend their followers are legion. No, I mean actual Klan cells, neo-Nazi sects, gay-bashing "churches," cliques of black separatists, white nationalists, nativists, racist skinheads and other merchants of venom who meet, plot and recruit in all 48 contiguous states. (Alaska and Hawaii have no known hate groups.) Nine hundred twenty-six of them. The number is a record.
We learn all this from the Southern Poverty Law Center (www.splcenter.org[http://www.splcenter.org]) in Montgomery, Ala., which has, since its founding in 1971, become a leading authority on the business of hate. According to the latest issue of Intelligence Report, the SPLC's quarterly magazine, that business is booming.
And maybe you wonder how this can be. How can hate enjoy such phenomenal growth in a nation where a Jew serves as senator from Connecticut, a Muslim serves as representative from Minnesota, a Hispanic is governor of New Mexico and a black man is president? The answer is that we are a nation where a Jew serves as senator from Connecticut, a Muslim serves as representative from Minnesota, a Hispanic is governor of New Mexico and a black man is president. Because if those things strike you as signs of progress, well, they are signs of apocalypse to those who believe only white, male Christians are fit to lead.
But that's not the only reason for the increase. SPLC also cites the debate over illegal immigration that has dominated much of this decade. Though former President George W. Bush offered thoughtful, moderate leadership on the issue, he was drowned out by demagogic extremists competing to see which could most effectively scapegoat undocumented workers. They, too, bear responsibility here.
Finally, there is the economy. When things get tough, people become more receptive to the idea that their miseries are all the fault of some alien other.
I imagine the SPLC findings land like cold water in the faces of those who took Obama's ascension to the presidency as proof that the nation was finally cured of the sickness of hate. The truth, I'm afraid, is more nuanced than that.
Maybe it helps to think in terms of alcoholism, a disease that can, with treatment, be contained, controlled, put into remission --but never cured.
Hate is something like that, a fact some of us have never quite understood. Such folks are convinced there is a goal line out there somewhere, which, once crossed, will allow the nation to declare itself cured. And once cured, we'll never have to grapple with hatred again.
But it doesn't work that way.
In a nation so deeply fractured by culture, race and religion, there is always a temptation to hate somebody, to blame some group of others for the job you lost, the crime committed against you, the fear and uncertainty you feel. There is a simplicity and a seductiveness to it that are all too easily mistaken for righteousness.
So there is no "cure" for a nation's hate. There is only an ongoing process of getting better, not unlike the alcoholic who must daily earn his sobriety anew. This explosion of hate is a reminder of what happens when we forget that, when we are undeservedly sanguine about how enlightened we've become.
It is said that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Well, that's the going rate for tolerance, too.
2009, The Miami Herald
Reach Leonard Pitts Jr. via e-mail at lpitts@herald.com
Document POR0000020090326e53p0001j
© 2009 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
The article reminds me of some of the basic values taught to us in school days, respect your parents, love your neighbors, treat your animals well, bring joy to someone’s face if you can, don’t cause harm to anyone.
I was curious so I went to the SPL site to find out there are 23 hate groups in Ohio itself. A feeling of fear came rushing into me. The next thing was that I wanted to make my own group. Hate is feed from society and social values. Nazism, Soviet communism, fanatic religious groups or ordinary street gangs seek total domination and control. All these groups are due to moral differences.
The article states the three major reasons for increase in the hate groups i.e. believe, illegal immigration and economic downfall. I say that the only thing stopping me from creating my own hate group is the moral lessons taught by my mother. The ethical consequences due to this article can be very constructive. The article motivates all people to do the right thing…simply because it was the right thing to do, would make this earth a better place to live and not just survive. People have to develop a strong sense of moral values and act accordingly. The dire ethical consequences on the other hand would be the end of the world ultimately due to hate.
The vast differences in race, culture and religion makes the word hate comes up very easily. I completely agree with the author that hate is the alcohol which society has to stop consuming. But the temptation and fear are too high. We as a part of society together have to overcome this to make the world a peaceful planet. This needs to be addressed by society at large.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
How does the article demonstrate the ethical, legal and social responsibilities of organizations in society?
Factiva
Dow Jones
Personal Finance
Consumers Vent on Overdraft Fees --- Fed Weighs Change as Banks Take Heat: Costly Waffles, Valentine Woes
By Kelly Evans
1227 words
26 March 2009
The Wall Street Journal
D2
English
(Copyright (c) 2009, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
In recent years, overdraft fees made billions of dollars for banks, but only worsened the hangover for a debt-addicted nation. Now, amid an overhaul of financial institutions and their services, consumers are seizing their moment to cry foul.
The Federal Reserve ends a public comment period this month to determine whether banks' current handling of overdraft fees needs to be changed. In the process, its Web site has become a sounding board for Americans' frustration with all things banking, from billion-dollar bailouts to the average $27 fine for overdrawing on an account.
For example, Brian Shriver in Atlanta, Ga., writes: "Such fees are obscene and immoral. The lesson I learned is that I can't trust my bank to avoid the temptation to rip me off royally."
Overdraft fees usually work like this: A customer makes a purchase -- in Mr. Shriver's case, say, $12.21 at Waffle House -- but doesn't realize his account doesn't have enough for the transaction. Rather than decline his card or alert him, the bank allows the transaction to proceed, so Mr. Shriver isn't aware that his account is negative -- or that he has incurred a $35 overdraft fee -- until he checks his balance online.
"It's deeply unfair," said Mr. Shriver, 43 years old, when reached by telephone. He wrote to the Fed in exasperation after a series of small purchases he made last month racked up $525 in overdraft fees. "I'm mad at my bank but I'm also mad at the system," he said. "There needs to be more oversight so these fees aren't so extortionary."
Most banks and credit unions automatically sign customers up for what they call overdraft "protection," that allows -- rather than blocks -- purchases and ATM withdrawals that overdraw their bank accounts. For this service, the institutions charge customers fees ranging from $10 to $38 per overdraft, according to a study released last November by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Some 86% of banks the FDIC surveyed had overdraft programs in place in 2006, and three-quarters automatically enrolled customers in such programs. The survey also found overdraft fees were most common among young adults, ages 18 to 25, and low-income accounts. A separate analysis from Mike Moebs, who runs Lake Bluff, Ill.-based Moebs Services, a research and consulting firm, shows banks and credit unions earned $36.7 billion in consumer overdraft revenue last year, about three-quarters of their total service charge income.
Several factors contribute to banks' success with such fees, namely the ubiquity of debit cards and the fact that fewer Americans pull out -- let alone balance -- checkbooks anymore, favoring the cards and online banking. The number of debit-card transactions in the U.S. surpassed credit cards for the first time in 2004, according to data from the Nilson Report, and debit usage has grown nearly 50% since then to about 33 billion transactions last year, versus 24.6 billion for credit cards.
Last year, Jennimaria Palomaki, a scholarship student at the University of Georgia who works part-time to support herself, unwittingly racked up nearly $200 in overdraft fees on a series of small purchases she made without realizing her balance was negative. "I live paycheck to paycheck and I always check my balance online," she said, "but sometimes you don't realize a charge has gone through and every one of these little purchases is overdrawing your account." Paying off those charges meant she couldn't afford to buy her boyfriend a gift for Valentine's Day.
"I understand the banks have to protect their own interest. I get that," she said. "But it feels like I'm being stolen from when I get this huge fee for a small purchase."
People like Mr. Shriver and Ms. Palomaki say this isn't fair. They want the option either to opt out of the service altogether or to be told when they're about to make a purchase that will overdraw their accounts and incur a fee. "There's no alert system," Ms. Palomaki said. "That's the biggest problem." She and others also object that when several purchases happen simultaneously, banks process the largest ones first, so that each subsequent smaller charge incurs a fee.
The Fed is considering a number of different approaches, ranging from no change in current practices to requiring banks to give notification on every purchase that would result in an overdraft, but many institutions say the latter isn't realistic. "People think when they're making a purchase it's like a direct line into their account but it's not; it's a third-party processor making the transaction," said Judy Rigwood, compliance director at the TLC Federal Credit Union in Oregon, with five branches and about $90 million in assets. "We don't have the technology to do that."
She and others say the only real option is to allow customers to opt entirely in or entirely out of overdraft service. Those who opt out would see their cards declined on those purchases exceeding the amount available in their checking accounts. "Frankly we offer overdraft service as a way to help our members," Ms. Rigwood said. "Some people rely on it almost like they would a payday loan. It allows them to make vital purchases."
The Fed's 60-day comment period will end March 30, but it will likely take several weeks or months for officials to comb through the 80-plus pages of outcry posted so far on their Web site, under "Regulation E," and issue a ruling.
Mr. Moebs said he wouldn't be surprised to see the Fed require banks and credit unions to break down transactions into four broad types -- ATM withdrawals, automated payments, debit-card purchases, and check purchases -- and allow customers to pick which types they'd like to carry overdraft protection, starting perhaps on Jan. 1, 2010.
"I think that's great, but who's going to pay for it?" he said, estimating the cost of banks' updating their programming and technology to comply in the $25 million to $40 million range. "Since the Fed is saving everyone these days, are they willing to cough up?"
He and others in the industry say it isn't clear how much ramped-up regulation would benefit consumers, especially if it prompts banks to cover the cost of new regulation and make up for the lost fee income by restricting debit-card usage or imposing fees elsewhere, such as on free checking accounts.
"Somewhere or another these costs have to be covered," said William Cooper, chief executive of Wayzata, Minn.-based TCF Bank, an $18 billion company with some 450 branches and 1.8 million checking accounts. He said it could mean the end of free checking, which his bank pioneered over 20 years ago. "Instead of that monthly charge we get debit-card fees, ATM fees and so on that make up the difference. If you take those away it's pretty clear what will happen; we'll have to go back to $10 a month," for checking accounts, he said. "Then everyone will end up paying for it."
License this article from Dow Jones Reprint Service[http://www.djreprints.com/link/DJRFactiva.html?FACTIVA=wjco20090326000059]
Document J000000020090326e53q0001d
© 2009 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
As a responsible organization, banks should have ethical, legal and social responsibility towards society. Most banks sign the customers up for overdraft fee automatically. Is this morally correct on their part? Is charging an exorbitant fee for a minor purchase responsible decision by the banks? I concur with the people (stakeholders) in the article that overdraft fee is unfair!
We keep our money in a bank because we trust in it. But the articles stakeholders due to the overdraft fee lost trust. This reflects unethical behavior, as it gave rise to legal, financial and marketing risk. The text book states the basic ethical business decision making involves should/ought, rights/responsibilities, goodness, fairness, virtue, kindness, loyalty, trustworthiness and honesty. These qualities are never demonstrated in the WSJ article. Rather the article depicts that the organization has made some unjustified ethical decisions.
They lure the customer for profit. The more ethical concern is for banks processing the largest transactions first, so that each subsequent smaller charge incurs a fee. More so, is it legal and social for the banks to do this? There has to be an alert system. The people should have a right to know before the banks take the money. As a social responsibility the bank transactions have to be transparent. The banks give reason that, it is all computerized! And its implementation would cause more cost to the customers. The transactions being third-party processor, it is complex to put on alert system. But I feel these are some reasons which are scripted. The banks are not working for the people but only to make profit.
Also, ramification of the ramped-up regulation would be detrimental. More regulations mean more complex rules and more chances of incurring a fee. If a consumer fills for the overdraft fee, it will be cheaper to give the overdraft back rather than go through the small courts legal proceeding. Do we really want this vicious cycle of unethical values to start?
Dow Jones
Personal Finance
Consumers Vent on Overdraft Fees --- Fed Weighs Change as Banks Take Heat: Costly Waffles, Valentine Woes
By Kelly Evans
1227 words
26 March 2009
The Wall Street Journal
D2
English
(Copyright (c) 2009, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
In recent years, overdraft fees made billions of dollars for banks, but only worsened the hangover for a debt-addicted nation. Now, amid an overhaul of financial institutions and their services, consumers are seizing their moment to cry foul.
The Federal Reserve ends a public comment period this month to determine whether banks' current handling of overdraft fees needs to be changed. In the process, its Web site has become a sounding board for Americans' frustration with all things banking, from billion-dollar bailouts to the average $27 fine for overdrawing on an account.
For example, Brian Shriver in Atlanta, Ga., writes: "Such fees are obscene and immoral. The lesson I learned is that I can't trust my bank to avoid the temptation to rip me off royally."
Overdraft fees usually work like this: A customer makes a purchase -- in Mr. Shriver's case, say, $12.21 at Waffle House -- but doesn't realize his account doesn't have enough for the transaction. Rather than decline his card or alert him, the bank allows the transaction to proceed, so Mr. Shriver isn't aware that his account is negative -- or that he has incurred a $35 overdraft fee -- until he checks his balance online.
"It's deeply unfair," said Mr. Shriver, 43 years old, when reached by telephone. He wrote to the Fed in exasperation after a series of small purchases he made last month racked up $525 in overdraft fees. "I'm mad at my bank but I'm also mad at the system," he said. "There needs to be more oversight so these fees aren't so extortionary."
Most banks and credit unions automatically sign customers up for what they call overdraft "protection," that allows -- rather than blocks -- purchases and ATM withdrawals that overdraw their bank accounts. For this service, the institutions charge customers fees ranging from $10 to $38 per overdraft, according to a study released last November by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Some 86% of banks the FDIC surveyed had overdraft programs in place in 2006, and three-quarters automatically enrolled customers in such programs. The survey also found overdraft fees were most common among young adults, ages 18 to 25, and low-income accounts. A separate analysis from Mike Moebs, who runs Lake Bluff, Ill.-based Moebs Services, a research and consulting firm, shows banks and credit unions earned $36.7 billion in consumer overdraft revenue last year, about three-quarters of their total service charge income.
Several factors contribute to banks' success with such fees, namely the ubiquity of debit cards and the fact that fewer Americans pull out -- let alone balance -- checkbooks anymore, favoring the cards and online banking. The number of debit-card transactions in the U.S. surpassed credit cards for the first time in 2004, according to data from the Nilson Report, and debit usage has grown nearly 50% since then to about 33 billion transactions last year, versus 24.6 billion for credit cards.
Last year, Jennimaria Palomaki, a scholarship student at the University of Georgia who works part-time to support herself, unwittingly racked up nearly $200 in overdraft fees on a series of small purchases she made without realizing her balance was negative. "I live paycheck to paycheck and I always check my balance online," she said, "but sometimes you don't realize a charge has gone through and every one of these little purchases is overdrawing your account." Paying off those charges meant she couldn't afford to buy her boyfriend a gift for Valentine's Day.
"I understand the banks have to protect their own interest. I get that," she said. "But it feels like I'm being stolen from when I get this huge fee for a small purchase."
People like Mr. Shriver and Ms. Palomaki say this isn't fair. They want the option either to opt out of the service altogether or to be told when they're about to make a purchase that will overdraw their accounts and incur a fee. "There's no alert system," Ms. Palomaki said. "That's the biggest problem." She and others also object that when several purchases happen simultaneously, banks process the largest ones first, so that each subsequent smaller charge incurs a fee.
The Fed is considering a number of different approaches, ranging from no change in current practices to requiring banks to give notification on every purchase that would result in an overdraft, but many institutions say the latter isn't realistic. "People think when they're making a purchase it's like a direct line into their account but it's not; it's a third-party processor making the transaction," said Judy Rigwood, compliance director at the TLC Federal Credit Union in Oregon, with five branches and about $90 million in assets. "We don't have the technology to do that."
She and others say the only real option is to allow customers to opt entirely in or entirely out of overdraft service. Those who opt out would see their cards declined on those purchases exceeding the amount available in their checking accounts. "Frankly we offer overdraft service as a way to help our members," Ms. Rigwood said. "Some people rely on it almost like they would a payday loan. It allows them to make vital purchases."
The Fed's 60-day comment period will end March 30, but it will likely take several weeks or months for officials to comb through the 80-plus pages of outcry posted so far on their Web site, under "Regulation E," and issue a ruling.
Mr. Moebs said he wouldn't be surprised to see the Fed require banks and credit unions to break down transactions into four broad types -- ATM withdrawals, automated payments, debit-card purchases, and check purchases -- and allow customers to pick which types they'd like to carry overdraft protection, starting perhaps on Jan. 1, 2010.
"I think that's great, but who's going to pay for it?" he said, estimating the cost of banks' updating their programming and technology to comply in the $25 million to $40 million range. "Since the Fed is saving everyone these days, are they willing to cough up?"
He and others in the industry say it isn't clear how much ramped-up regulation would benefit consumers, especially if it prompts banks to cover the cost of new regulation and make up for the lost fee income by restricting debit-card usage or imposing fees elsewhere, such as on free checking accounts.
"Somewhere or another these costs have to be covered," said William Cooper, chief executive of Wayzata, Minn.-based TCF Bank, an $18 billion company with some 450 branches and 1.8 million checking accounts. He said it could mean the end of free checking, which his bank pioneered over 20 years ago. "Instead of that monthly charge we get debit-card fees, ATM fees and so on that make up the difference. If you take those away it's pretty clear what will happen; we'll have to go back to $10 a month," for checking accounts, he said. "Then everyone will end up paying for it."
License this article from Dow Jones Reprint Service[http://www.djreprints.com/link/DJRFactiva.html?FACTIVA=wjco20090326000059]
Document J000000020090326e53q0001d
© 2009 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
As a responsible organization, banks should have ethical, legal and social responsibility towards society. Most banks sign the customers up for overdraft fee automatically. Is this morally correct on their part? Is charging an exorbitant fee for a minor purchase responsible decision by the banks? I concur with the people (stakeholders) in the article that overdraft fee is unfair!
We keep our money in a bank because we trust in it. But the articles stakeholders due to the overdraft fee lost trust. This reflects unethical behavior, as it gave rise to legal, financial and marketing risk. The text book states the basic ethical business decision making involves should/ought, rights/responsibilities, goodness, fairness, virtue, kindness, loyalty, trustworthiness and honesty. These qualities are never demonstrated in the WSJ article. Rather the article depicts that the organization has made some unjustified ethical decisions.
They lure the customer for profit. The more ethical concern is for banks processing the largest transactions first, so that each subsequent smaller charge incurs a fee. More so, is it legal and social for the banks to do this? There has to be an alert system. The people should have a right to know before the banks take the money. As a social responsibility the bank transactions have to be transparent. The banks give reason that, it is all computerized! And its implementation would cause more cost to the customers. The transactions being third-party processor, it is complex to put on alert system. But I feel these are some reasons which are scripted. The banks are not working for the people but only to make profit.
Also, ramification of the ramped-up regulation would be detrimental. More regulations mean more complex rules and more chances of incurring a fee. If a consumer fills for the overdraft fee, it will be cheaper to give the overdraft back rather than go through the small courts legal proceeding. Do we really want this vicious cycle of unethical values to start?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Simply dilicious
It was fun to have all the food! I was the first to finish off! I think!............
Monday, November 10, 2008
The limits!
What is the limit ? Can anyone tell me the limit of a anything? I am a tolerant person, but lately its been hell for me! The economy is killing the child inside! The fun loving "Sumi" is vanishing; I have become grumpy and vicious! Have I lost it?
I want to enjoy , but cannot! I have fun at time for a short while , then the life drags as if I am not leading it, it is leading me to the depths of hell! BUT there is a ray of hope some where in the dark clouds of the depression, the single light which guides me...... Still Hoping...... So, Help me GOD!
I want to enjoy , but cannot! I have fun at time for a short while , then the life drags as if I am not leading it, it is leading me to the depths of hell! BUT there is a ray of hope some where in the dark clouds of the depression, the single light which guides me...... Still Hoping...... So, Help me GOD!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Kingsisland 08
One of the Water Rides at Kingsisland wich was really fast & furious
Time was all in our favour!
THE INVERTENDO!one of the favorite
Finding the way in the Kingsisland, is really tough!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
