regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity -- by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching'
Ok, your situation is solvable. Here are the steps that you can take:
Stand back, take a deep breath, and look objectively at your situation.
Admit that it is entirely your fault and that you are not a victim. You agreed to pay 16% interest on that credit card. You bought more house than you could afford. You failed to maintain sufficient liquid savings for emergencies. You charged that plane ticket. No corporation is out to screw you--you screwed yourself.
Admit that only you can fix this problem. You created it, now you need to fix it.
Call your credit card issuer and ask for a lower interest rate. Let them know that you are in financial dire straits and that you have been advised to declare bankruptcy. That's not lying--I'm advising you right now. (Don't really declare bankruptcy!)
Search online for a credit card with a lower interest rate. Check bankrate.com, google, and the other usual suspects. Try to find one that also has free balance transfers. With an 800 FICO, you'll qualify for any card.
Can you pay off that ticket within a year or six months? Get a card with 0% on balance transfers as a teaser. Do not charge anything else on that card! You have been warned. DO NOT DO IT. That will be a very expensive mistake.
Can you borrow the money from a family member at a more favorable rate? I mean, it was for grandma's funeral.
Most importantly, convince yourself that when you agree to something, and when somebody holds you to your agreement, you are not being screwed. You are being treated fairly. Don't agree to something that you find..well.. disagreeable.:)
Again, I'm sorry for your loss. Just keep a clear head and you can solve this one, ASAP.
Consumers have control over what credit information is sent and to whom.
This would help a ton, because when someone attempted to impersonate you, you'd see the request for a report and deny it. The other thing you said about score vs. full detail wouldn't help much, because everyone would just request a full report. I am a landlord, and if you want to rent from me, I get a full report. Case closed. You don't want to send a full report? Well, you can rent from somebody else. I don't care.
Once this is done, the consumer should be the authoritative source of determining which charges are accurate and which are a result of the identity theft.
This would never work. Anyone with negative items on their credit report could just claim "ID theft" and get legit items off their report. But given #1, ID theft would be much more rare.
Credit monitoring should be provided by each of the credit bureaus automatically at no additional charge.
You can already get free reports. You should use them. Have you ever used credit monitoring? It's worthless. Better to take matter into your own hands.
Disputes in the information contained on the credit report should be handled promptly by credit bureaus
Already required.
Disputes between the consumer and creditors that cannot be resolved should immediately be sent to arbitration by an uninvolved third party.
This is basically what happens, but the CRA is the uninvolved third party.
Consumers that are not satisfied with the results of arbitration should still have the option of appealing the decision using the court system.
This is how it works currently. Also, a consumer may add a personal statement disputing any item on the report.
In the event that a credit bureau is unable to adequately perform the above requirements, their license to operate should be revoked
CRAs are not licensed. Anyhow, they are required by law to perform most of what you mentioned above or they will be fined.
Financial entities should not be allowed to share data about consumers with each other -- not even with their own subsidiaries.
Prepare to pay higher interest rates, then. That's how banks are able to provide better interest rates to better customers. If they don't know you from some deadbeat across town, you're going to be paying the same interest rate he's paying, and I guarantee that he's paying more than you.
Financial entities should be required to specify clearly to a consumer what data they will collect and exactly what information will be sent to what credit bureaus and under what conditions it will be sent.
Seems fair, but you should just assume that if you agree to pay someone and you don't pay, you'll find it on your credit report.
Financial entities caught harassing consumers by damaging their credit record intentionally or by using credit information in "creative" ways to support raising interest rates should have their license temporarily suspended pending the results of an independent investigation.
Not sure what you mean by damaging credit intentionally, but read the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act and see if that's what you're looking for. The consumer already does have some powerful protections. Regarding raising interest rates for those who become a higher credit risk... well, you signed an agreement that said the credit card issuer could do it. You don't like it, don't sign. Dirty little secrets: 1. If you call your CC issuer and ask them to lower your rate, they will. 2. If you pay your balance in full each month you pay no interest and don't have this problem.
Credit bureaus should be required to maintain a separate scoring system, visible to consumers at
No, the high interest rates are because of the high risk you'll take their money and run, big guy.
A consumer credit line like a credit card is an unsecured loan. If you charge your bigscreen on your Providian card who "Gave you the credit you deserve" and when they come to collect, you tell them to go pound sand, there really isn't much they can do. That's why Providian was on the verge of bankruptcy before being bought by WaMu.
The high rates are for the high credit risk. Want a lower rate? Get a higher credit score and shop around for a better rate.
Or better yet, pay your balance off every month on time, every time, and pay no interest at all.
The risk to the credit card issuer due to fraud is minimal. Either the merchant pays or their insurance company pays. The issuer doesn't pay unless you charge off.
You're spinning your wheels. You can read whatever you'd like, and they can print whatever they'd like, but none of it holds any water if it's not legal in the first place.
MasterCard has hired a small army of lawyers to write that agreement and they have refined it over time based on their experience defending it in court.
Do you really want to bet your "I don't know how valid it is" position against MasterCard's army of lawyers who say it's valid?
More importantly, Do you really want to pay your own lawyer, your own court fees, and possibly MasterCard's legal fees, for the privilege of asserting your "I'm not sure if it's valid" defense against a time-tested, professionally-written agreement?
From one small business owner to another, I'll advise you to read what you've agreed to and abide by it. Ultimately the choice is between you, MasterCard, your attorney, and your attorney's children who you will put through college with all the legal fees you'll be paying.
If you buy milk and bread on credit, you may have bigger issues.
Paying for groceries with a credit card is fast, alleviates the need to carry around large amounts of cash, and gives me 5% back (on grocery store purchases).
Why would I not pay for groceries with a credit card?
And why are you holding up everyone in line by paying with a check? It's not 1982 anymore, buster.
Extremely misleading--borderline falsehood. True: credit card issuers must have bank charters, but there is no requirement that they participate in retail or commercial banking. Also true: There has been consolidation in the monoline credit card industry, such that there aren't any more large monoline credit card issuers, but that was not always the case. Before 2004 or so, MBNA, Capital One, and Providian were the third, fifth, and seventh largest credit card issuers (respectively), and were monoline. MBNA and Providian were bought, Capital One decided to go into retail banking and bought some branch banks (they offer deposit accounts, auto loans, etc. now) My point is, credit card companies are not automatically branches of large banking conglomerates.
They are affiliated, strongly, with insurance and investment companies.
That's sort of true for AmEx, and B of A (if you really want to consider them investment companies... they are certainly bottom tier in that department... and B of A offers some insurance, but is certainly not a major player), but what about Capital One? What's in your wallet, man?;) (just a little joke... I know who ya are)
Just as any other large corporation when one division suffers a loss then, in nothing more than the ledger book, the losses are distributed amongst the other divisions.
That is really out of touch with reality. Most large business groups do not keep poorly-performing lines of business open for long. They tend to be more focused on profit, not shunting losses among divisions.
Think about that next time the interest rates on home mortgages goes up, or the premium on the insurance plans, or when the quality of service for medical insurance goes down, or when the price of motor fuel goes up...
Pure tinfoil hat thinking. Plain and simple. A company isn't going to bleed losses in one LOB just because another is profitable. And credit card interest rates have zero to do with the price of gasoline in China.
These things happen because the businesses are recouping losses. Why are credit card rates so high?
Credit card interest rates are high because credit risk is high.
Think about it. Let's say you charge up $5,000.00 on your credit card. You get a bill from MBNA/Bank of America/WhoeverOwnsThemThisWeek for $125.00 (2.5% of your outstanding balance is a common minimum payment). At this point, you have three options:
Pay the $125.00. Result: you get a bill next month for $123.75. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Pay more than $125.00. Result: you get a bill next month for less than $123.75... or $0, if you paid off your entire balance. See option #1.
Instead of sending money, you send a letter to your bank instructing them to go pound sand. You're not paying. Result: They'll call you. They'll yell at you. They'll tell you you owe them money. They'll demand payment. They'll call you nasty names. But in the end, the loan was unsecured, so they are basically up a creek. Their only recourse is to sue you and then attempt to collect. The average amount collected is higher than the average collection costs, so they generally don't even try unless you owe tens of thousands of dollars
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China or the interest rate on your credit card? Because the CC company's only recourse if you decide not to pay is to make menacing phone calls (until you realize you can just tell then to quit calling and they are required by the FDCP Act to stop), they have a ton of losses. That 18% interest rate you pay is to cover the fact that the CC company is taking on an enormous credit risk.
That's why mortgage rates are so much closer to the prime rate. Very low credit risk. You no pay, bank take your house and you wind up homeless in la jolla. End of s
I have written on my credit card "Please ask for ID" instead of a signature. While technically not "allowed," I'm surprised at the number of places I've gone that haven't bothered to notice no signature and never bothered to ask me for my ID.
If the merchant was following the rules strictly, they would reject the card outright no matter how many IDs you show them and no matter how much you beg and cry and plead.
Signing the back of the card is not some sort of signature verification, as though the pimply-faced, $5.50/hr, checkout clerk is somehow some sort of certified signature expert and can verify that the faded, washed-out signature on the back of your card matches the receipt you just signed. Signing the back of the card says, "I have read and understand the terms and conditions for use of this card, and I agree to them."
Unless your John Hancock really looks like "Please ask for ID", then your card is invalid and should be rejected as such.
Newegg does and signing up is rather trivial actually
Signup may be trivial, but I haven't bothered. It doesn't offer me, as a consumer, any protection I don't already have. It actually offers me worse protection:
Say somebody installs a keylogger on my computer and they capture my credit card details and verified by visa password. If I dispute a charge as fraudulent, Visa is going to come back to me and say, "Well, you entered your verified by visa password. How could it be fraud?" Seems like a more uphill battle if VBV was used.
Don't forget that prices are determined by both Supply and Demand.
Raising merchant credit card fees is a negative stimulus on supply (fewer suppliers, since it costs more to supply). Basic microeconomic theory would state that a constriction in supply would cause prices to increase and quantity supplied to decrease. To what degree depends upon, as you noted, "yada elasticity yada".
Normally the desire for flying cars fades when you learn to drive.
The thought of all those morons on their cellphones, morons who can't pick a lane, and morons who double the speed limit--at night (among other morons) having flying cars is enough to make even the most staunch flying-car-seeker rethink that idea.
My wife's boss finally convinced her to get a blackberry. Her rationale to my wife was that when she wants to check her meeting schedule for the following day, it takes 10 minutes to boot up the computer, and once it's booted up, you wind up spending an hour on it.
With a blackberry, you can just look at your schedule, respond to an important email (who wants to respond to unimportant email using a small device?), and then put the thing away.
So, she's getting a blackberry. We'll see how it goes.
I have no worries about someone trying to slip them something. Besides, they live indoors with me, when they go outside I stay with them the entire time. They are under my never blinking eye 24/7..
I have not read anything about this particular case, but please let me assure you that photography permits are a real thing. If you don't believe me, take a bunch of photo equipment onto a busy New York City sidewalk and start snapping away. You'll get a visit from New York's finest very quickly if you don't have a permit.
In NYC, permits are free and are generally given upon request. Depending on what you are doing, they may even dispatch police to help you close off a section of sidewalk for a while, also free. Go here for more info.
I do not know or care if Seattle has a similar system, but just so you know, photography permits are not akin to the easter bunny or the tooth fairy. They are real. In NYC, you don't need one to whip out your little disposable camera and snap off a few shots. But if you start setting up tripods and lights and stuff, you better have a photo permit, or you're getting shut down.
Is he sure he didn't sign anything? A lot of times new employees are just handed a stack of papers to sign and they don't even bother to read them. Better make sure he didn't sign anything.
Also, why is the VP of Sales threatening him? Is this guy in sales? Is he taking The Planet's clients with him to the competitor? Is he taking his accounts with him to the competitor? If so, he is in a really tricky position legally since The Planet will have suffered specific and quantifiable monetary damages.
At any rate, getting sued is a pain in the neck. At the very least, the poster should start looking for an attorney just in case.
There are no rules about giving them sufficient notice, that is bunk.
Two weeks notice is a standard professional courtesy in the US. It is certainly not required, but if you walk off your job, you are:
Never going to work at that company again. You may think you don't care now, but you never know what things will be like 5 or 10 years in the future.
You may lose a job offer or two because of it. A lot of backchannel, off-the-record communication goes on in hiring decisions. Chances are someone at your new company knows someone at your old company. If you shout, "I QUIT!" and storm off in a huff, that can come back to haunt you.
Many companies won't report negative information about a former employee, but for something so provable and demonstrably true, they may decide to open their mouths. How do you think former employer would answer the question, "Do you think you would rehire Mr. Jones sometime in the future?" You'd have a hard time pursuing a lawsuit over a simple "No", and that tells the hiring manager everything he needs to know.
So, yeah, you're right that there is no notice requirement. But you would be well advised to give 2 weeks notice.
In America, you can ruin/make the life miserable for/generally fsck up a person (or even a company) by suing them repeatedly, even if you lose every time
This is generally not true. In some jurisdictions, it is actually a misdemeanor to do this. In all states, it can get the lawyer in trouble with the state bar association.
Not to mention the fact that judges are not stupid and they have long memories. They're going to see what is going on and they will not tolerate shenanigans in their courtroom.
You are assuming that because tasers look like a gun, that police are using them in place of guns on the force continuum. In other words, the officer is trying to decide between using a taser or using a gun. This is an incorrect assumption.
The taser occupies the location on the force continuum that used to be occupied by pepper spray, which in turn occupies the space that used to be occupied by billy clubs.
Have a friend pepper spray you once. I guarantee that 30 minutes after the fact you'll wish he tasered you instead.
Have a friend beat the tar out of you with a billy club once. I guarantee that 7-10 days after the fact you'll wish he had tasered you instead.
The fact of the matter is that police need to be able to subdue those who are resisting arrest. There is no way around it--it's an integral part of their job. The taser is a great tool for accomplishing this. In fact, I'd say it prevents more brutality than it causes. It gives the cops an effortless way to resolve a confrontation in their favor. That prevents them from getting pissed off. Just ask Rodney King if he would have rather been tasered after resisting arrest rather than the famous videotaped beatdown he received.
Slashdot Mirror
Has the FCC heard of TiVO?
- Stand back, take a deep breath, and look objectively at your situation.
- Admit that it is entirely your fault and that you are not a victim. You agreed to pay 16% interest on that credit card. You bought more house than you could afford. You failed to maintain sufficient liquid savings for emergencies. You charged that plane ticket. No corporation is out to screw you--you screwed yourself.
- Admit that only you can fix this problem. You created it, now you need to fix it.
- Call your credit card issuer and ask for a lower interest rate. Let them know that you are in financial dire straits and that you have been advised to declare bankruptcy. That's not lying--I'm advising you right now. (Don't really declare bankruptcy!)
- Search online for a credit card with a lower interest rate. Check bankrate.com, google, and the other usual suspects. Try to find one that also has free balance transfers. With an 800 FICO, you'll qualify for any card.
- Can you pay off that ticket within a year or six months? Get a card with 0% on balance transfers as a teaser. Do not charge anything else on that card! You have been warned. DO NOT DO IT. That will be a very expensive mistake.
- Can you borrow the money from a family member at a more favorable rate? I mean, it was for grandma's funeral.
- Most importantly, convince yourself that when you agree to something, and when somebody holds you to your agreement, you are not being screwed. You are being treated fairly. Don't agree to something that you find..well.. disagreeable.
:)
Again, I'm sorry for your loss. Just keep a clear head and you can solve this one, ASAP.Good luck!
This would help a ton, because when someone attempted to impersonate you, you'd see the request for a report and deny it. The other thing you said about score vs. full detail wouldn't help much, because everyone would just request a full report. I am a landlord, and if you want to rent from me, I get a full report. Case closed. You don't want to send a full report? Well, you can rent from somebody else. I don't care.
This would never work. Anyone with negative items on their credit report could just claim "ID theft" and get legit items off their report. But given #1, ID theft would be much more rare.
You can already get free reports. You should use them. Have you ever used credit monitoring? It's worthless. Better to take matter into your own hands.
Already required.
This is basically what happens, but the CRA is the uninvolved third party.
This is how it works currently. Also, a consumer may add a personal statement disputing any item on the report.
CRAs are not licensed. Anyhow, they are required by law to perform most of what you mentioned above or they will be fined.
Prepare to pay higher interest rates, then. That's how banks are able to provide better interest rates to better customers. If they don't know you from some deadbeat across town, you're going to be paying the same interest rate he's paying, and I guarantee that he's paying more than you.
Seems fair, but you should just assume that if you agree to pay someone and you don't pay, you'll find it on your credit report.
Not sure what you mean by damaging credit intentionally, but read the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act and see if that's what you're looking for. The consumer already does have some powerful protections. Regarding raising interest rates for those who become a higher credit risk... well, you signed an agreement that said the credit card issuer could do it. You don't like it, don't sign. Dirty little secrets: 1. If you call your CC issuer and ask them to lower your rate, they will. 2. If you pay your balance in full each month you pay no interest and don't have this problem.
No, the high interest rates are because of the high risk you'll take their money and run, big guy.
A consumer credit line like a credit card is an unsecured loan. If you charge your bigscreen on your Providian card who "Gave you the credit you deserve" and when they come to collect, you tell them to go pound sand, there really isn't much they can do. That's why Providian was on the verge of bankruptcy before being bought by WaMu.
The high rates are for the high credit risk. Want a lower rate? Get a higher credit score and shop around for a better rate.
Or better yet, pay your balance off every month on time, every time, and pay no interest at all.
The risk to the credit card issuer due to fraud is minimal. Either the merchant pays or their insurance company pays. The issuer doesn't pay unless you charge off.
Do you really want to bet your "I don't know how valid it is" position against MasterCard's army of lawyers who say it's valid?
More importantly, Do you really want to pay your own lawyer, your own court fees, and possibly MasterCard's legal fees, for the privilege of asserting your "I'm not sure if it's valid" defense against a time-tested, professionally-written agreement?
From one small business owner to another, I'll advise you to read what you've agreed to and abide by it. Ultimately the choice is between you, MasterCard, your attorney, and your attorney's children who you will put through college with all the legal fees you'll be paying.
Why would I not pay for groceries with a credit card?
And why are you holding up everyone in line by paying with a check? It's not 1982 anymore, buster.
Extremely misleading--borderline falsehood. True: credit card issuers must have bank charters, but there is no requirement that they participate in retail or commercial banking. Also true: There has been consolidation in the monoline credit card industry, such that there aren't any more large monoline credit card issuers, but that was not always the case. Before 2004 or so, MBNA, Capital One, and Providian were the third, fifth, and seventh largest credit card issuers (respectively), and were monoline. MBNA and Providian were bought, Capital One decided to go into retail banking and bought some branch banks (they offer deposit accounts, auto loans, etc. now) My point is, credit card companies are not automatically branches of large banking conglomerates.
That's sort of true for AmEx, and B of A (if you really want to consider them investment companies... they are certainly bottom tier in that department... and B of A offers some insurance, but is certainly not a major player), but what about Capital One? What's in your wallet, man? ;) (just a little joke... I know who ya are)
That is really out of touch with reality. Most large business groups do not keep poorly-performing lines of business open for long. They tend to be more focused on profit, not shunting losses among divisions.
Pure tinfoil hat thinking. Plain and simple. A company isn't going to bleed losses in one LOB just because another is profitable. And credit card interest rates have zero to do with the price of gasoline in China.
Credit card interest rates are high because credit risk is high.
Think about it. Let's say you charge up $5,000.00 on your credit card. You get a bill from MBNA/Bank of America/WhoeverOwnsThemThisWeek for $125.00 (2.5% of your outstanding balance is a common minimum payment). At this point, you have three options:
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China or the interest rate on your credit card? Because the CC company's only recourse if you decide not to pay is to make menacing phone calls (until you realize you can just tell then to quit calling and they are required by the FDCP Act to stop), they have a ton of losses. That 18% interest rate you pay is to cover the fact that the CC company is taking on an enormous credit risk.
That's why mortgage rates are so much closer to the prime rate. Very low credit risk. You no pay, bank take your house and you wind up homeless in la jolla. End of s
Signing the back of the card is not some sort of signature verification, as though the pimply-faced, $5.50/hr, checkout clerk is somehow some sort of certified signature expert and can verify that the faded, washed-out signature on the back of your card matches the receipt you just signed. Signing the back of the card says, "I have read and understand the terms and conditions for use of this card, and I agree to them."
Unless your John Hancock really looks like "Please ask for ID", then your card is invalid and should be rejected as such.
Say somebody installs a keylogger on my computer and they capture my credit card details and verified by visa password. If I dispute a charge as fraudulent, Visa is going to come back to me and say, "Well, you entered your verified by visa password. How could it be fraud?" Seems like a more uphill battle if VBV was used.
Don't forget that prices are determined by both Supply and Demand.
Raising merchant credit card fees is a negative stimulus on supply (fewer suppliers, since it costs more to supply). Basic microeconomic theory would state that a constriction in supply would cause prices to increase and quantity supplied to decrease. To what degree depends upon, as you noted, "yada elasticity yada".
Do they make one that will operate at low temperatures?
Or do I just have to rummage around my fridge in the dark with the door open, causing the fridge to run longer?
Anyhow, do they even make CFLs for, say, ovens? Freezers? Chandeliers? Can they operate at 500 degrees in my oven?
Normally the desire for flying cars fades when you learn to drive.
The thought of all those morons on their cellphones, morons who can't pick a lane, and morons who double the speed limit--at night (among other morons) having flying cars is enough to make even the most staunch flying-car-seeker rethink that idea.
My wife's boss finally convinced her to get a blackberry. Her rationale to my wife was that when she wants to check her meeting schedule for the following day, it takes 10 minutes to boot up the computer, and once it's booted up, you wind up spending an hour on it.
With a blackberry, you can just look at your schedule, respond to an important email (who wants to respond to unimportant email using a small device?), and then put the thing away.
So, she's getting a blackberry. We'll see how it goes.
Don't you think that the reverse would be true? Using OLPC machines to launch phishing attacks?
Must be a boring, albeit very secure, life.
I have not read anything about this particular case, but please let me assure you that photography permits are a real thing. If you don't believe me, take a bunch of photo equipment onto a busy New York City sidewalk and start snapping away. You'll get a visit from New York's finest very quickly if you don't have a permit.
In NYC, permits are free and are generally given upon request. Depending on what you are doing, they may even dispatch police to help you close off a section of sidewalk for a while, also free. Go here for more info.
I do not know or care if Seattle has a similar system, but just so you know, photography permits are not akin to the easter bunny or the tooth fairy. They are real. In NYC, you don't need one to whip out your little disposable camera and snap off a few shots. But if you start setting up tripods and lights and stuff, you better have a photo permit, or you're getting shut down.
Is he sure he didn't sign anything? A lot of times new employees are just handed a stack of papers to sign and they don't even bother to read them. Better make sure he didn't sign anything.
Also, why is the VP of Sales threatening him? Is this guy in sales? Is he taking The Planet's clients with him to the competitor? Is he taking his accounts with him to the competitor? If so, he is in a really tricky position legally since The Planet will have suffered specific and quantifiable monetary damages.
At any rate, getting sued is a pain in the neck. At the very least, the poster should start looking for an attorney just in case.
- Never going to work at that company again. You may think you don't care now, but you never know what things will be like 5 or 10 years in the future.
- You may lose a job offer or two because of it. A lot of backchannel, off-the-record communication goes on in hiring decisions. Chances are someone at your new company knows someone at your old company. If you shout, "I QUIT!" and storm off in a huff, that can come back to haunt you.
- Many companies won't report negative information about a former employee, but for something so provable and demonstrably true, they may decide to open their mouths. How do you think former employer would answer the question, "Do you think you would rehire Mr. Jones sometime in the future?" You'd have a hard time pursuing a lawsuit over a simple "No", and that tells the hiring manager everything he needs to know.
So, yeah, you're right that there is no notice requirement. But you would be well advised to give 2 weeks notice.Not to mention the fact that judges are not stupid and they have long memories. They're going to see what is going on and they will not tolerate shenanigans in their courtroom.
It's amazing. 25 years later, and you still have no idea why this guy was bullying you.
Someday you'll learn.
You are assuming that because tasers look like a gun, that police are using them in place of guns on the force continuum. In other words, the officer is trying to decide between using a taser or using a gun. This is an incorrect assumption.
The taser occupies the location on the force continuum that used to be occupied by pepper spray, which in turn occupies the space that used to be occupied by billy clubs.
Have a friend pepper spray you once. I guarantee that 30 minutes after the fact you'll wish he tasered you instead.
Have a friend beat the tar out of you with a billy club once. I guarantee that 7-10 days after the fact you'll wish he had tasered you instead.
The fact of the matter is that police need to be able to subdue those who are resisting arrest. There is no way around it--it's an integral part of their job. The taser is a great tool for accomplishing this. In fact, I'd say it prevents more brutality than it causes. It gives the cops an effortless way to resolve a confrontation in their favor. That prevents them from getting pissed off. Just ask Rodney King if he would have rather been tasered after resisting arrest rather than the famous videotaped beatdown he received.
Parents go where the schools are good. That is the single most important factor when a parent is choosing where to live.
You want parents in the city? Make the schools suck less. It's that simple.
I'm looking to move, but I haven't even considered living in the city. There is only one reason for that: the schools.
Anoka?
Mpls. is walkable. Did you not notice the skyways?
At any rate, nothing can compare to the pain my ass was in after riding the public bikes for a while in Copenhagen. Nothing.