Two days in one.
Nov. 15th, 2006 11:59 pmPerhaps because they’re early, or maybe, juuuuuuust maybe, because they promote a particular religion and are thus not suited for a governmental organization, Toys for Tots rejects a donation of 4,000 talking Jesus dolls. Wait, a government organization upholding its religious neutrality?
...who shouted “inconceivable”? You, in the back. You’re early on that line. I haven’t gone through The guy who says extraterrestrials will call soon, terraforming mirrors to turn Mars kind of Earthlike, Americans asking Germans for help for suing Rumsfeld, Chinese coloring books that teach the characters for weaponry, warrantless wiretaps being turned down, someone blaming illegal immigration problems on abortion, why we shouldn't attack Iraq (number 1) and why we shouldn't attack Iran (number 2).
Beyond that, there’s the neat stuff of wireless power transmission, radiation detection watches, painkillers in saliva, or some parts of the 22 coolest things not available in the United States, and old-style brain maps.
Although the Administration still maintains detainees have no rights. So I suppose that’s not so inconceivable. Some things remain the same. Like the sensitivity to anything having to do with the Nazi regime. A snippet of a Nazi leader's speech played to inspire the team ends up inspiring an apology.
Um, like, stop saying so much, like, like. Cause it’s, like, not cool anymore. Reverse the ubiquity trend. Or maybe, like, I’m over-reacting.
There are pagans suing to have pentacles put on military gravestones. And apparently, the VA drags its feet.
Okay, now you can say “inconceivable”. If you do, though, I’m going to pull out my two last stops for the night and say “You’re not even close. Even this gallery of old lesbian literature isn’t close to inconceivable. What’s inconceivable is this: the Games 4 Girls Display, telling girl gamers that they don’t have to come in, and that all they want are frilly games. That’s inconceivable. (Actually, here’s something that beats it - trying to cash a check that you think is fraudulent, say that you think is fraudulent, and then ask the teller to check if it's fraudulent, gets you arrested. Yep, that’s right. Arrested, detained, sent to the lockup, and then has everything cleared away within a day or two. With, apparently, no recourse to recover the costs from the mistake. That’s right, that’s after the guy said, ”This is suspicious. Check, please, to make sure that this isn’t going to be a problem.“ and the teller said, ”Nope, no problem.“ In-con-ceivable.)
Going to bed, now. I need my sleep. And tomorrow, I’m keeping my advising appointment. This time I’ve put in the time of the appointment. It will work. I will it.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 05:30 am (UTC)Have the best
-=TK
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 01:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 06:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 03:04 pm (UTC)They've decided to take them after all (http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_319145558.html)
Somewhere else they made the comment that higher ups put pressure on them, (duh) but they hope they just don't give them out.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 06:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 06:31 pm (UTC)And, for further clarification, here's how the bank is supposed to work something like that:
Joe walks into a bank with a check for 2k, thinks there might be a problem with the check. mentions it to the teller.
Teller deopsits check anyway, tells Joe she'll have someone look into it, hands reciept, and Joe walks away.
Teller walks into manager office with photocopies of check/deposit slip, says "hey, Joe thinks there's a problem with this check he was given."
Manager says "hey, thanks. get back to work" and calls the bank's Loss Prevention Department.
LP says "hey, thanks, we'll check this out."
LP investigates check. Amount of check gets put ON HOLD in Joe's account, meaning, it's there, but he can't spend it until it gets verified (policy for all large sums of money, actually)
If at some point it's suspected of being fraudulent, the money does not get relased to Joe, and Joe recieves a letter from the bank explaining he depositied a fraudulent check, and sends him copies of the check with deopsit slip to prove which check it was.
Oh wait, he walked into CASH the check? Hmmm. Banking policy on cashing checks whn you are NOT a customer involve at least 2 orms of ID, more if the check is over 1k. Furthermore, IF the customer went "eeek, I think this is fake" or if there is a note on the account to "watch for faudulent checks", the Teller is supposed to tell the customer they need to make a phone call to verify the funds and Call the bank's Bank Secrecy Act department. The BSA department's JOB is to watch for frauds, and verify funds and say to the teller "hey, it's ok. cash it." or "no, don't cash it. tell the customer the check can't be cashed at this time and send them on their way."
A teller would NOT under any circumstances be calling a business to "verify" a check, unless you have a unique case where you cannot read the person's writing. However, even if someone says to you over the phone "I never wrote so and so a check", the teller is to tell the customer "I'm sorry, i cannot cash your check today", and then fill out a Suspicious Activity Report after the customer leaves that goes to the banks LP and BSA department, and AGAIN - LET THEM HANDLE IT BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO.
I...yeah. I'm appaled at Bank of America.