Conformity

One of the biggest ironies in my personal life was being afraid to fly, and then seeking employment with an airline to alleviate my fears. Not only did I conquer my fear in many baby steps, but I was also given the opportunity to meet and be exposed to people from all walks of life. Hence, this is where I get off into a very touchy subject that was spawned from my post on Dallas' recent smoking ban.

I remember my first encounter with a passenger that was pissed off because she couldn't smoke on the aircraft. She recalled the days where she could get up into that metal tube and light it up, and now, the evil ones that be are coming up with more and more regulations. Of course, I was a little tyke back when it was legal, and the look on her face was that of a blissfully reminiscing lady.

At this point in the conversation, there were two choices -- not just for her, but for those around her that will be indirectly affected by whatever choice she makes at this juncture. It's not just about what's fair or unfair to her, and it's not about judging her as being right or wrong... and it wasn't an attempt at personal insensitivity -- it was about conformity. The dreaded "C" word that someone, somewhere will inevitably have to endure.

So back to the choices: 1) The lady could choose not to conform and get a refund -- take a car, bus, boat, or alien spacecraft instead. 2) The lady could choose to conform and board the plane, yet refrain from smoking until she landed.

And because her choices affect those around her, those people are now confronted with choices as well. For those people, their choices are: 1) Conform to an atmosphere that they feel is personally unfavorable to their bodies and endure the flight. 2) Refuse to conform, deplane, and request a refund or another flight.

I believe that conformity blends in with choice -- and choice almost always affects more than just one person. Like it or not, someone's "freedoms" are encroached in the situation above. I chose to listen to her complain about something that was beyond my control -- yet, something for which I could see two sides to the issue. Saying "Yes, Ma'am" over and over again wasn't my way of brushing her off and being insensitive, rather, it was my duty to inform her of her choices and address the next person.

That lady paled in comparison to an issue regarding the "Customer of Size". You have an overweight passenger that feels singled out when he is told that he must pay for an extra seat IF he chooses to fly on this airline. It was a very delicate tight-rope to walk, and I empathized with the gentleman. However, there was the "other side" of the equation that suffered in silence. Again, both sides have a choice. Both sides' pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness have been encroached -- because they are on different sides of the fence. As a result, someone has to conform if they want to receive their product.

Yes, I ultimately disagreed with the gentleman, because the fact is -- he did absorb two seats. It was one less seat that could have been purchased by another passenger -- not to mention the gentleman would have been encroaching the space of the passenger next to him. Insensitive? Depends on how you look at it. Judgmental? Depends on how you look at it. Unfair? Well, what exactly is the definition of unfair, and did that apply only to the Customer in front of me?

If a non-smoker and a smoker walked up to you, both wanting to go to a bar -- the non-smoker doesn't want to smoke, and the smoker wants to smoke -- how would you personally address the issue without singling one of them out? Do you believe things like a flat tax on all income and goods would be fair, equitable and realistic -- and can we truly achieve fairness and equality across the board in this world?

Crux of Energy

Ahhhh, the time has come to reconcile my personal budget... again. Most of the February bills have come and gone, with the exception of one very important bill -- the energy bill. Being from Texas, I usually don't have to be sitting down with cocktail in hand before I open the electric bill at this time of year. Those hot days of summer are looming ahead!

In a cost-cutting measure at the end of last year, I switched electric providers to a more "environmentally-friendly" Green Mountain Energy. I was paying a whopping 20.3 cents per kilowatt hour with my previous provider. I signed a 3-month deal for a more reasonable 13.4 cents with Green Mountain. Why I was going so long paying a very high rate is quite simple. Like a lot of busy Americans, I got hooked on automatic-payments for damned near everything -- and that served as my lull into a false sense of security. I simply stopped checking my statements every month like a good little Samaritan.

Now that my 3-month contract is up, I received an offer to lock in rates for the next 12 months. I checked their rate tables, and something caught my eye that just pisses me off about energy company practices. As I scanned the table, I noticed that the more energy you gobble up, the cheaper the rate.

The crux of this scenario should be apparent to those who are conscientious about our skyrocketing energy usage and the subsequent environmental impacts. To the Mr. Electric Company, that's a very sound business practice -- encourage people to use more, keep demand up, and keep money flowing into their pockets.

For states who experience brownouts or rolling blackouts on an annual basis due to wasteful energy usage and system overloads, they might want to review this type of business practice... especially in states like California. Perhaps legislature could make a progressive sales tax percentage specific to this industry... say 4% on bills with usage under 700 kilowatt-hours a month... and 11% for those over 700 kilowatt-hours, as a rough example.

Luckily, Texas is the only state in the continental United States that is on its own power grid. I have yet to personally experience this type of situation that Californians are subjected to; but it sucks being "penalized" for not using enough energy.

Hope and Faith

As the U.S. awaits for some sort of economic stimulus plan to materialize into results, it's somewhat disheartening to hear so much criticism about Obama's efforts to revive the economy.

Now, don't get me wrong. I believe that healthy debate is essential for anything... especially something as important as America's economic recovery. However, this is taking 'debate' to a whole new level. Cynicism is threatening our livelihood, and something has to give... and soon. It's time to embrace hope and faith, otherwise, we will be at a point to where we are beating a long-dead horse.

To me, cynical people who chop down every idea that's not their own see this recovery effort in terms of "spending". Those of us with hope and faith are more likely to see this as "investing".... not only in our future, but for those of our children.

It's so much easier for cynical people to spread their negativity around because, inherently, they have put themselves in a win-win situation. If Obama's efforts are fruitless, then they can say that they were right all along. If Obama's efforts prove successful, they can enjoy an economic bounce back with the rest of us.

I can only imagine how the world would look now if those who fought impossible odds in past conflicts adopted such a cynical view like today's society has. I have a deep-down feeling that we can all get this done -- and we will. This is a test, not for just Americans, but for the world.

Enough with the damned finger pointing and posturing.

Credit Crunch Berries

Well, today probably marks the beginning of a series of difficult financial choices I must make... at least while the U.S. economy is teetering.

Here I am, sipping a cup of coffee. I just received a mailer from Capital One, which is out to notify me of a change in our terms of agreement.

"Due to extraordinary changes in the economic environment, we're reviewing our existing credit card accounts. Having considered these economic conditions, your account's current Purchase rate, and the length of time you've had this rate and account, we will be increasing your Purchase rate. We're also raising your Cash Advance and Default rates."

Essentially, my rate is increasing by 70% on April 17, 2009. Mind you, I've never been late on payments. I've always paid more than the minimum. The tone of this mailer is very impersonal, and I question this move on their part.

Through no fault of my own, their decision has forced me to critically analyze their commitment to their best customers. I realize they have a business to run. However, I am shocked that they are targeting customers who not only bring them good business, but cause no problems.

Now, many people who have enough cash and savings to buy houses, cars, college tuition, and pay medical/dental expenses would tell me that I don't need credit cards... or credit cards are bad. I am so happy that those citizens live in a bubble where unexpected problems never overwhelm their savings and income. For me, although I am good at saving money where I can and watching my spending, I am one of the middle-class citizens that needs a little credit every once in a while. To make it even more difficult for customers like me to pay down balances and risk losing them altogether makes no sense to me.

Reluctantly, I have no choice but to close and immediately pay off this Capital One account. I certainly wrote their company to let them know how disappointed I am to receive these change of terms.