March 2007 Archives

I was reading Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" for the 36th time (it's possible I've read that book more times... it's just a really entertaining, very fast read), when I came across a chapter that brought me to this week's etymological epiphany.

When one is referred to as a "pussy" (i.e. "don't be a pussy", or "you're being a pussy") with reference to their innate cowardice, the subject of this insult is not actually being compared to female genitalia. The modern usage of the word certainly implies a comparison to moist chick-flesh, but no, the origins of this are much less graphic. The reference is to the term "pusillanimous", which is defined by Google as "lacking in courage and manly strength and resolution; contemptibly fearful". Makes sense now, doesn't it?

For my next trick, I'll be coining two new phrases. Let it be known that the following terms shall now be considered "in circulation", and that their origins are from South Florida, namely, me. These terms are "the way forward" and "bold".

"The way forward" should be used when indicating that something is positive, or has a positive connotation. For example, "brushing your teeth with an electric toothbrush is the way forward" and "big knobby tires on volkswagens are the way forward."

"Bold" is similar in use, in some ways replacing the word "cool" or perhaps even "awesome." Usage is very flexible: "That's bold." or "That guy did what? Man, that's just bold." Additional uses include adverbial applications, such as "That's bold shooting." Also, negative connotation can be achieved by adding "not" to it; i.e. "That situation is not-bold." or "The President's policy is not-bold."

And that's my contribution to the English language for the week (indeed, with so much to work with, it may be a month before I further the language again!) Again, these terms are not exceptionally new - they have become ingrained in regular use amongst South Floridians... and now you know the source.

Okay, that title's wrong. It's not really about why Wachovia doesn't make any sense (although it's true, they don't)... I don't know the answer to why they don't make sense. I do however have a shining example of the Zen of Banking. Someone really ought to figure this out.

If you make a deposit into your account (let's say, for argument's sake, that it's a checking account) after 2pm on Monday, then your account will not be credited with the deposit until after 2pm the following day (Tuesday, in this example.) It's true, I've tested it. And I have the NSF fees to prove it.

But!

If you make a deposit at 9am on Tuesday, that deposit will post before 2pm on that same day! This is also true - I've tested it.

So what this means is: if it's after 2pm on Monday, it's actually faster to wait until the morning of the next day (Tuesday) to deposit your money. Amazing? Yes! True? Yes! Logical? I suppose so, in a way... but the question remains: why? What banking genius dreamed up this Machiavellian plan to milk us of every last dollar through interminable and unlimited NSF fees when you think you've deposited money into your account, and you're running around, living life as always, never thinking for one moment that you might be overdrawn.

Here's the kicker, the real boot in the teeth. By the time you realize what's happening... by the time your card finally sputters and dies in your hand... you're suddenly $500 in the hole (or worse!) In desperation, you look at your statement, trying to figure out where you might've spent that much money. You can't for the life of you figure out why that pack of gum at the gas station cost $36. Lunch at Taco Bell? $50. The list goes on. By the time you sort it all out, you realize that $350 of that is simply bank fees for insufficient funds.

"But I have a debit card!" you say, thinking that such a toy might protect you... not so! In theory, a debit card will only withdraw the amount in your account. It's like having cash, only so much more convenient, right? Well, the Bank's policy (Wachovia, anyway) is to continue to accept and approve all attempts at using the card, even after it's been overdrawn. And then they smack you with 16 or 17 NSF fees at $35 each all in one hit. Sound familiar? It's happened to a lot of us (me included).

Oh, but it gets better. More research into Wachovia policy revealed this: if you bounce a cheque, they won't cover it the first time it comes in, but they will charge you their NSF fee. Hold on! The cheque payee has a second opportunity to attempt to cash the cheque, which results in the bank covering the cheque (for however much it might be) and charging you yet another NSF fee! That's $70 in fees alone, for one cheque that, had it been covered the first time, would've only garnered a single $35 fee.

It's robbery. It should be illegal. It's incredible that the banks get away with this. Yet somehow, they do. Never a more shining example of how money talks.