So I guess the government passed some law limiting some fees that banks could charge, so B of A decided they were still entitled to make the same amount of money as before, so they just invented a new fee.

As part of the Dodd-Frank Act (the banking act of -- good grief, was it just last year), Congress required the Federal Reserve to enact a rule limiting the interchange fee that banks could charge to merchants for processing each debit card transaction. The Federal Reserve enacted that rule, and the maximum was about half of what banks currently charge.

I'm oversimplifying like mad, but that's the basic course of events. The debit card fee was a response to the limit on the interchange fee.

Happy birthday, Ginger!

I remember reading Netflix lost 800,000 members, but that seems high. Some of them were no doubt due to the increase in fees, not just the proposed split in companies. Which still stands.

BofA was about to lose me to Chase, when it was reported that other banks were backing down and they weren't. That, at least, was easier and more familiar than finding a credit union.

Yeah, I'm still outtie from BofA, but I have to get the stones together to do it.

Happy Birthday, Daniel! How are you healing?

Thanks everyone for the birthday wishes!

And I'm doing better. I'll be seeing my PCP this Friday.

Also fighting for disability pay that's being withheld.

I got to spend a good chunk of my morning doing research on a company named ppstream.

eta: At least the name got the partner giggling too.

Arrrgggg. Noodle has had a habit of curling up by my neck and licking my cheek with the occasional move to my ear which then sometimes turns into a cat wet willy. Ok, annoying, but I've learned to distract her when she goes for my ear.

Today, she has moved on to my hair. I am not used to having a cat who loved to lick like this.

An interesting article on the legal aspects of how your non-work activities can impact your employment.

As Occupy Wall Street protests lingered in many cities, observers noted that a sizeable portion of employees feared that if they joined the protests and their employers found out, they’d be fired. That rumor piqued our interest in legal and employer responses to an interesting category—legal, off-duty conduct.

Who defines what’s permitted? We learned of a freelance broadcaster who (1) participated in a Washington, DC, protest, and (2) was told by National Public Radio (NPR) that her services were no longer needed. Perhaps NPR feels that all broadcasters should publicly display only a neutral face on political issues. But no wonder protesting employees worry about their employers’ reactions.

We asked Attorney Peter Gillespie, in Fisher and Phillips’s Chicago office, to walk us through some of the implications of off-duty conduct. First, he noted, many state laws specify that off-duty use of tobacco and/or alcohol is a protected right, because both are legal. Off-duty smokers are protected in 29 states, but not in the other 21. And, said Gillespie, eight states—IL, MN, MO, MT, NC, NV, TN, and WI—protect off-duty use of any legal product. Illinois goes further, barring employers from investigating or collecting records of any employee’s legal, off-duty conduct. Louisiana permits legal off-duty political activities.

But most remaining states have no provisions regarding any legal conduct, such as joining a protest march or sit-in, other than smoking. Gillespie notes that many states prohibit employers from including arrest records in prehire background checks. But what about a current employee who’s arrested? Often, in Gillespie’s experience, the worker runs out of PTO time, and/or cannot meet the terms of the employer’s call-in policy for absence. In such cases, the employer can terminate the individual for “abandoning” the job.

And if a state has no protective laws? An employee who feels that he or she was unjustifiably let go because of legal, off-duty conduct can sue for violation of the constitutional right to privacy or to free speech. And, based on the facts, an ex-employee can win such a suit.

I am not used to having a cat who loved to lick like this.

Mine loves to lay across my torso with her head up near my cheek, and she'll start licking it, usually ending with either biting my chin or my earlobe; that's when I pull my head away and tell her to stop.

Mr Peabody has fits of trying to lick all my exposed skin. Occasionally when I sit up on the edge of the bed, he frantically licks an ear. I have no clue.

I used to have a cat who loooved to lick. If I used a particular citrus-scented lotion after my shower, she would follow me around and lick my calves. If she could reach, she would lick my armpit after I put on deodorant. (Yeah, she was a bit of a freak.) She also loved to go at my hair. I think she was just trying to show me the proper way to groom myself.

My newest cat, Matilda, likes to lick, too, but on a much smaller scale -- just a few flicks of the tongue now and then. She licks herself most assiduously, though. In fact, she's sitting on my lap at this very moment giving herself a very thorough bath.