Give me all your financial information

Here's another one:

Mint.com - promises to integrate your various banking sites and aggregate your financial data in handy charts with eye-popping flexibility. And it's free.

The idea of having all my banking, credit cards, insurance, and home expenses integrated in one interface kicks major butt.

The problem is, I have to give them all my banking website usernames and passwords to do this.

All of them.

Mint.com proudly tells you that they don't keep your data - which is true.

But Mint.com partners with a banking site called Yodlee.com to do all it's wizardy - and Yodlee.com most certainly keeps your data, because that's how they will pull data from your banking sites and give it to Mint.com.

Yodlee.com's privacy statement is - (to put it mildly) hard to find.

I pinged Mint.com to ask where I could find the privacy statement that applied to Mint.com users - and they responded with this:

Yodlee provides this same account aggregation service to many of the leading U.S. financial institutions (32 of 50 of the top financial services institutions to be exact), including, but not limited to, Bank of America and Fidelity Investments. As a result, you should be aware that Yodlee’s security technology and infrastructure is industry leading in the online banking sector, including hardware encryption. Yodlee is also in full compliance with all the important industry standards including:

§ SAS 70 II;
§ ISO 17799 Compliance;
§ Visa CISP Level One Compliance
§ Multi-factor authentication – FFIEC compliance

In addition to the points above, your credit card company protects you in case of fraud and you would not lose this protection in any way by using the Mint service. But what you may not know is that Regulation E, which is a set of rules issued by the Federal Reserve governing electronic transactions (online banking, ATM withdrawals, debit card payments …) limits your liability in most cases to $50 in the event of fraud. Consumers must notify their bank of the fraud within 2 business days. On the third day the liability goes up to $500 and it can be more if notification occurs after 60 days. Regulation E rules are designed to encourage consumers to feel safe about electronic transactions. Even if a consumer has acted negligently and succumbed to a phishing or fraud attack and given away personal identification information that led to the fraud, they will be protected. In fact, one of the reasons the Mint service provides email and mobile alerts is so you don’t even need to log in to become immediately aware of any fraudulent activity.

I suspect I'm not alone in wondering how much more my liability could be if I don't catch fraud within 60 days.

Killer idea - not sure I'd be beating a path to their door, though.

Digial file cabinet - you're such a tease

Lifehacker posted a link to this article from the NYT where some Google employee is proudly going paperless in his home.

CHRIS UHLIK’S children can be found in their home computer lab almost every morning. Nicole is writing a story about her two lizards. Tony is playing an interactive spelling game, while Andy is learning multiplication tables. Even 5-year-old Joceline is clicking away at a storybook game.

Mr. Uhlik, an engineering director at Google, and his family live a practically paper-free life. The children are home-schooled on computers. Other sources of household paper — lists, letters, calendars — have become entirely digital.

Going paperless was a conscious decision by the Uhliks. But many families may be closer to entering a paperless world than they realize. Paper-reducing technologies have crept into homes and offices, perhaps more for efficiency than for environmentalism; few people will dispute the convenience of online bill-paying and airline e-tickets.

“Paper is no longer the master copy; the digital version is,” says Brewster Kahle, the founder and director of the Internet Archive, a nonprofit digital library. “Paper has been dealt a complete deathblow. When was the last time you saw a telephone book?”

Sexy, and yet - I'm wondering about two things.

• Who has the time to convert all their paper to digital files (much less searchable, digital files)?
  
  
• Are scanned legal documents as acceptable as the originals?

I would LOVE to get all my files into a hard drive (and Carbonite them for safe keeping) but cripes, talk about a conversion issue.

This article mentions a firm in India that will scan all your docs for you at ($0.40 per page) but think about that for a second: I'll send my originals to India? I don't think so.

Make copies to send to India - I might as well scan them myself.

Scanning the non-legal documents seems like a good move, though - I'd be nice if there was some hardware/software integration to make that workflow better.

e.g. Scan document - be presented with a list of tags to apply to it (finance, reciept, etc) and then the system would dump the file where ever you'd previously told it to store documents that have 'Receipt'. You'd be able to enter meta-data on it as well.

Receipt-Lawnmower, 02/18/2008 - that sort of thing.

Oooh, but I want this. I wonder if somebody's already made this...

Okay, I know I'm outta control, but

This (H/t to TPM) was pretty damn funny.

We value your feedback: the sequel

This time, it's AT&T.

E calls to say our connection is out. I go through phone hell and get routed, re-routed, and then mis-routed. I do ten rounds with IVR

IVR: I didn't get that, please say 'billing'-

Me: Billing.

IVR: I didn't get that, please say 'billing'-

Me: Billing!

IVR: So that I can route your call properly, please choose from these three options. For billing, say-

Me: Billing!!

IVR: "I didn't get that-

*Press 0*

IVR: So that I can route your call properly, please choose from-

*Press 0*

IVR: So that I can route your call properly, please choose from-

*Press 0*

IVR: Okay, I'm transferring you to a Service Representative

--and so on.

This fun ends with me getting a tech guy to spell out how to reset our modem, and it occurs to me (while he's trying to sell me AT&T products I already have) that I should check on my billing status. Not long ago, I was late on a payment.

Long as I'm bitching to them about their end, I should probably make sure I'm holding up my end.

The rest, I'll say with pictures:

I started here and tried 'View Billing Statement'

And saw this:

So I tried this:-and got this:

-and finally, this:

I actually went back to this form three times over the span of twenty minutes- and got the same result.

I'm beginning to think there's a universal corporate playbook on how to provide crappy customer relations.

Late Edit: because I'm just that belligerent - I tried a fourth time (which also failed) and then tried chat:
----
Please wait while we find an agent to assist you...
Thank you for contacting AT&T Internet Services, my name is AT&T Support Person. One moment while I review your information.
Me: I'm at https://edit.client.yahoo.com/membercenter and when I click on View Billing Statement I'm asked to log in AGAIN and then I receive an error message that says
Error
Sorry, your billing information is unavailable.
Single Price Point customers monthly recurring charges for High Speed Internet service will not be reflected in the online bill statement: please contact your local AT&T Business Office at the number provided on your monthly AT&T
AT&T: Thank you for that information.
AT&T: Are you trying to view your bills online?
Me: Yes
AT&T: I'm so sorry to hear that you are not able to do so.
AT&T: Did you try going to this Web site?
The agent is sending you to http://att.com.

Me: Also, your feedback/email form at http://helpme.att.net/emailus_techsupp.php is experiencing technical problems (eating input)

AT&T: Thank you for reporting this to us.

Me: I'm at att.com now... logging in
Me: Getting a login message at https://cprodmasx.att.com/commonLogin/igate_wam/multiLogin.do
Me: message is "You are not authorized to access this system"

AT&T: Hmm...
AT&T: It seems that it does not allow you to access the site either.

Me: I was just logged into the yahoo/att site

AT&T: We already have reported this concern about the Online Billing service, yet, it seems that there still is no solution to the said issue.
AT&T: In lieu of the Online Billing service, I would recommend contacting our Billing team for further assistance. Please reach them at 1-800-288-2020, then choose "Billing" at the prompt.

Me: Thanks - is this a temporary outage, or is there something I need to change about my account access?
Me: You still there...?

AT&T: Yes, I am. Sorry.
AT&T : This actually has been an ongoing issue, and we are still awaiting word as to when this problem will be fixed.

Me: Okay. Thanks

AT&T: You're welcome, and I really am sorry for the inconvenience you experienced. May I help you with anything else?

Me: Just pass along to whoever needs to know that that feedback form isn't working. It's really frustrating to fill out a form, write a detailed summary of what happened - and then have the form fail and lose the data.

Me: Other than that - I'm good. Thanks!

-----

Later edit: Read the original

Won't be home by Christmas

None of these are news - but each is pitching a message:

It's not a stop or a halt, it's a pause.

And whose message might that be?

Washington Post - Gates: Iraq Drawdown May Be Paused

Voice of America - Gates: Pause May Be Needed in Troop Pullouts from Iraq

New York Times - Gates Endorses Pause in Iraq Troop Withdrawals

Fox News - Gates: U.S. May Need to Pause in Troop Drawdown From Iraq

Nothing is wrong, see? We're just pausing for a moment. Your regularly-scheduled pre-election drawdown will resume shortly.

In the unlikely event the situation changes - we will happily regurgitate whatever talking points we are allowed to hear.

That is all.

The soundtrack of my life

An odd property of my brain is that when I get really tired – I start to hear music. I guess a better way to say that is – when I'm tired songs are more likely to stick in my head.

By itself, that's not such a bad thing.

However, when you add in these two facts:

1) Simple, repetitive songs are easier to remember; and
2) We TiVo my kid's favorite shows

-you have the building blocks of the playlist from hell.

Yesterday's selection was It's a Big, Big World, with the way-too memorable passage:

It’s a big world
It’s a big, big world
It’s a big world
Such a big, big world
It’s a big world
It’s a big, big world
It’s a big world
It’s a big, big world

It’s a big, big world
Don’t you agree?
Big enough for you and me

(a song that follows Tom Lehrer's observation that children find "singing [the same thing] fifty times in a row is twice as fun as singing it twenty-five.")

Today's selection is from my son's newest interest: Superwhy.

Who's got the power,
The power to read?
[Something, something, something
that rhymes with "read"]

Super Why!
Super Why!
[Blah, blah, blah, blah
Super Guy?]

Super Why!!

This has been playing on an endless mental loop since this morning. Not knowing all the words ramps up the misery factor – but it really doesn't help that this show is basically a factory for the wedgie-victims of tomorrow.

I mean – the characters in this show are part of a group called the "Super-Readers."

You have Little Red Riding Hood, Princess Pea, Wyatt (the previously undiscovered younger brother to Jack of the Beanstalk),

and – a pig.

Their war cry is To the bookclub!

I know this show is all about teaching kids to read – and that's great. I'm happy my boy's watching this and not some twenty-two minute toy commercial (with regular interruptions for cereal commercials).

But- GOD – isn't there another way to show kids how to use letters? Do they have to nerdify every aspect of learning? Must they hit every stereotype?

More importantly - why do they have to have a freaking theme song? Surely budgets are tight – they could have saved some money and gone straight to the show.

Super Why!
Super Why!
[Blah, blah, blah, blah
Super Guy?]

Super Why!!

Were it not for work and current events all going to hell at once – I'm sure I'd have found the time to saw off my own head.

Imagine you're the GOP party chair of Washington

...and you're looking at these numbers (via CNN):

240 votes separate the two leaders, there are about 2,000 votes to be counted. What do you do?

Obviously, you call the race for McCain - and stop counting the votes.

I love this. Either the Washington GOP has dark motivations for swinging a caucus to McCain, or they are complete idiots.

Bring out the Comfy Chair

GG is rightfully going after Chris Wallace for his Gannon-esque questioning of Pres. Bush.

Here's the Wallace softball on interrogation [i.e. torture] and surveillance of al Qaeda [i.e. everyone who communicates with people overseas]:

WALLACE: …are you ever puzzled by all of the concern in this country about protecting of rights of people who want to kill us?

Even Pres. Bush balked at the slant in that question. I'd be tempted to give the President some credit for his reaction, but then - this is the man has regular sit downs with sycophants like Wallace while shunning actual journalists like Carole Coleman.

Compare this question with something that E pointed out to me from Sunday's Parade.

Get this: Parade "interviewed" the CIA director. Yeah, they even called the segment "Inside the CIA."

Their in-depth interview with CIA Director Gen. Mike Hayden (tastefully squeezed between opinions on government's role in baseball and "Is our election process too long?") covered a full three questions:

• What is our greatest challenge today in collecting and evaluating intelligence?
• Do you agree with those people who say that the CIA failed to see the rise of Islamic terrorism?
• Some charge that the CIA has used interrogation tactics that amount to torture. What’s your response?

I mean, Larry King would be embarrassed to ask these questions, especially the last one.

Unsurprisingly, Gen. Hayden offers boilerplate doublespeak:

The CIA’s terrorist detention program has been run according to U.S. law, which prohibits torture. It’s been subjected to repeated legal and policy reviews, and Congressional oversight committees also have been briefed. It’s involved fewer than 100 hardened terrorists, less than one-third of whom required any special form of questioning. Our methods have been legal and safe, producing intelligence that has disrupted terrorist operations and saved innocent lives.

In other words:

• What we did was not classified as torture at the time.
• We're sure it was legal because we asked ourselves repeatedly to make sure.
• We informed Congress members who could be jailed for revealing what we told them.
• Anything done to 20-30 people couldn't possibly be illegal.
• We believe what we did was legal, safe, and effective – and you should, too.

Gen. Hayden is not asked to respond to any of the specific (and very damning) allegations of misconduct – just "what's your side of it, you poor beleaguered public servant?"

It's too simplistic to make a connection between the conduct of two media companies owned by Rupert Murdoch. But it's abundantly clear that when an employer is an uncritical supporter of those in power, true journalism cannot be expected from those in their employ.

A doctrine of capitulation

While I'd share Jon Stewart's 'unscripted' reaction (at about 4 minutes in) to accusations that the Dems represent a 'surrender to terror' - I'd completely go along with Glenn Greenwald's argument about how they've ceded national defense to the GOP as an issue.

...what has characterized establishment Democrats for the last eight years, at least, is an unwillingness to challenge Republicans on national security. Ever since the 2002 AUMF vote, their "strategy" has been to cede national security to the Republicans by trying defensively to insist that there are few differences between the parties ("we're strong, too") -- all in the hope of shifting the political debate to issues they perceive are politically more advantageous, such as domestic and economic issues.

That's why there has been so little contrast between the two parties on foreign policy and national security issues -- because most Democrats believe that the wisest course of action is to become replicas of Republicans on national security policy as a means of eliminating those issues from consideration. The "strategy" has been as ineffective as it has been craven.

He lists an exchange between Chris Matthews and Terry McAuliffe which exemplifies why the Dems are in the state they are in.

They dodge the single issue they could bludgeon their opposition with. The GOP can point to no foreign policy triumph even when they have had a free had for six years (seven years, it could be argued).

It's like FISA, when you allow the opposition to frame the debate as "vote with me or the terrorists win," and there is no full court media press on how false that is - you've lost no matter what the facts are.

I mean, after months of rhetoric about how not renewing the Protect America Act was 'going to let the critical wiretapping program go dark' it comes out that the law's authorization went through the end of 2008. The law would expire, but the authorization is not in jeopardy for ten more months (a full year when this argument was first offered).

How do the Dems (and the media for that matter) fall down on these issues over and over again.

Hillary's getting advice from the guy who was so good at his job that he was replaced by Howard Dean? She deserves to lose.

Burn some bridges, crack some skulls, but get ahead of the message on these issues. If you sit back and let the administration or the far right spout bullsh!t without calling them out - the truth of their shortcomings will continue to be swept under the rug.

Say on

The NYT editorial board does its duty on FISA:

The telecoms, which are facing about 40 pending lawsuits, believe they are protected by a separate law that says companies that give communications data to the government cannot be sued for doing so if they were obeying a warrant — or a certification from the attorney general that a warrant was not needed — and all federal statutes were being obeyed.

To defend themselves, the companies must be able to show they cooperated and produce that certification. But the White House does not want the public to see the documents, since it seems clear that the legal requirements were not met. It is invoking the state secrets privilege — saying that as a matter of national security, it will not confirm that any company cooperated with the wiretapping or permit the documents to be disclosed in court.

...

This debate is not about whether the United States is going to spy on Al Qaeda, it is about whether it is going to destroy its democratic principles in doing so. Senators who care about that should vote against immunity.

The question is, is anyone listening?

We said - They said

Yesterday....

Bin Laden and Omar operating in Pakistan: U.S. official
By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders are directing insurgency operations in Afghanistan from the Pakistani city of Quetta, while al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is operating from Pakistan's tribal areas, a senior U.S. administration official said on Friday.

and today...

Bin Laden, Omar not operating in Pakistan: Islamabad

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan rejected on Saturday a U.S. official's assertion that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar are operating from Pakistani territory.

Looks like our chief ally in the Global War on Terror didn't get the memo.

Now? Now they get around to it?

Okay, I realize I'm on a bit of a tear here, but the NYT is reporting:

Military prosecutors are in the final phases of preparing the first sweeping case against suspected conspirators in the plot that led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, and drew the United States into war, people who have been briefed on the case said.

This would include prosecuting Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Let me get this straight: We capture this toad in 2003. We hold him without charges - incommunicado - in secret prisons. We torture him. The government takes a series of steps to deny all legal rights to him. Congress passes laws that constrain his access to legal representation and judicial review.

Most of this is obfuscated with double-speak or out and out denied by our government.

Having sidestepped the legal norms of this country - and having laid the groundwork for an endless series of appeals based on the legal apostasy they have created - the military is going forward with pressing charges the very week that our government confirms that KSM and others were waterboarded.

I mean, it's like this story is counter ballast to the confirmation of waterboarding.

"Yes, we torture - but look we're about to prosecute these guys! I mean, we did torture them, but we don't anymore! And we're gonna seek the death penalty! With the system we've created - they're sure to be convicted! See how great this is?"

You just gotta wonder.

A doctrine of legal preemption

Attorney General Michael Mukasey, has provided perhaps the most naked example of this administration's contempt for both Congress and the judicial branch

Here he is, testifying in front of Rep. Bill Delahunt (D) of Massachusetts:

(via Emptywheel)

Rep. Delahunt: You said if an opinion was rendered, that would insulate him from any consequences.

Michael Mukasey: We could not investigate or prosecute somebody for acting in reliance on a justice department opinion.

Delahunt: If that opinion was inaccurate and in fact violated a section of US Criminal Code, that reliance is in effect an immunity from any criminal culpability.

MM: Immunity connoted culpability.

Delahunt: This is brand new legal theory.


MM: Disclosure of waterboarding was part of CIA interrogation and permitted by DOJ opinion, would and should bar investigation of people who relied on that opinion.

Delahunt: Let's concede that waterboarding is in contravention of international obligation. If opinion rendered that amounted to malpractice, whoever employed that technique, simply by relying on that opinion would be legally barred from criminal investigation.

MM: If you're talking about legal mistake, there is an inquiry regarding whether properly rendered opinions or didn't. But yes, that bars the person who relied on that opinion from being investigated.

Delahunt: I find that a new legal doctrine. The law is the law.

MM: If it comes to pass that somebody at a later date that the opinion should have been different the person who relied on the opinion cannot be investigated.

Delahunt: Is there a legal precedent.

MM: There is practical consideration. I can't cite you a case.

Think of the implications of what Atty. Gen. Mukasey is saying (without legal precedent).

I mean - by his line of reasoning the Attorney General (or presumably anyone at DOJ qualified to offer an opinion on behalf of the department) can give you legal immunity for any action, provided you first ask for one.

Screw waterboarding. This line of reasoning carries the day, the DOJ and anyone in their good graces is above the law.

You wonder why a statement like that isn't plastered across newspapers or running on an endless loop on all the cable channels.

You wonder if their emails are going to start disappearing...

The GOP is cooking their own books?

(Via TPM and Politico)

at a recent meeting, the now former NRCC treasurer, Christopher J. Ward, relented, giving Conaway what was supposed to be an official internal audit from 2006. That document was a fake, the GOP members said. Even the letterhead on which it was sent was a forgery.

Revelations about the falsified document touched off an unfolding scandal that has rocked the NRCC and spurred a criminal investigation by the FBI into the committee’s accounting procedures.
...
[Ward] signed every FEC report the NRCC submitted from 1993 to 2003, and he was also affiliated with dozens of other Republican campaigns and leadership political action committees, some of which have already begun their own internal audits.

Ward has not responded to repeated attempts to seek comment.
...
The acknowledgment that the committee’s financial records might be inaccurate or falsified opens the possibility that the accounting problems could run much deeper than initially suggested in [NRCC Chairman Tom] Cole’s original public statement on the matter.

Looks like another popcorn-worthy scandal is brewing.

Follow the "no comments," and you know you're on the right trail.

Late edit: As well as following the people rushing to disassociate themselves.

Proof that I'm not a curmudgeon...

I know, I've been stuck on the crappy news lately - and there's sure plenty of it.

However, I keep thinking about something from the other day that makes me happy.

My boy watches the show It's a Big, Big World (wherein a hippie sloth named Snook tries to instill his lefty values into young children). Towards the end of every episode an obviously-baked Snook sings his goodbye song.

He gets close to the camera, puts his paw on the screen and sings "give me five," and my boy leans over the coffee table and puts his hand on the TV without saying a word.

The song ends, the show ends and the boy doesn't mention it. Why would he? He just gave his buddy, Snook, five on the TV is all. The most natural thing in the world.

I still smile just thinking about it.

He's such a nice boy.

Jack Bauer won't save anyone

When it comes to people talking tough on terror, no talking point gets as much play as this one:

We have a terrorist in custody
We know an attack will occur within a matter of days
We know this terrorist knows where and when the attack will happen
Lives are at stake

Ergo: we must torture. It's what Jack Bauer would do

Over and over – this gets trotted out as a counter to moral concerns. "We have to do this, even though under normal circumstances it is morally repulsive."

(And aren't we noble for being willing to do this?)

That's the argument. It's immoral, but it works – and so we must torture.

Except that's crap.

I'll parrot Olbermann and say let's set aside the morality question-

I'd also set aside:

• The improbability that you will know an attack is imminent. How many warnings have we been given that were bunk?
• The improbability that you will know your prisoner has the information you want. More likely you'll hope they have the info.
• The "they'll say anything" paradox. Beat them hard enough and they'll tell you they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Even with those items off the table – the notion that a terrorist in custody who has the information will provide it if tortured is just laughable on its face.

Put yourself in that cell.
-----
You're the bad guy. Willing to die – so long as you get to kill.
You know that a bomb is going off in three days – when, where and how.
You are being tortured.

Escape is impossible – Killing your captors is impossible.

So, how do you win?

By not telling them what they want to know for three days.

Die, lie – whatever it takes, all you have to do is hold out until you know it's too late for them to do anything.

Any story you give them will have to be followed up on – which takes time. You build a convincing narrative and they'll have to stop torturing you just to record it. Then they'll waste time finding out if anything checks out.

You string them along until the bomb goes off and whether or not they torture you, they still lose.

If the timeline compresses, that's even better for you. You can steel yourself for a few hours – and your delaying lies will be that much more effective.

Your real enemy is time. The longer they have to work on you, the more they can disorient you – make you think that three days have passed – that the attack happened, that you're free to talk.

That's the worry – that's how a real interrogator is going to get you to crack. Not by beating your body, but by manipulating your mind.
-----

That scenario where the bomb is ticking is a rhetorical construction – but even if it weren't, you're not going to get the Hollywood ending. If it's down to hours, and our hopes are pinned to scaring a fanatic into doing the right thing- we've pretty much lost.

Oh you can try torture, if it makes you feel better – but when the bomb goes off anyway, you'll realize you made yourself a monster for nothing.

It's the delegates, stupid

Finally, somebody weighs in on the most glaring omission in the breathless coverage given to Super Tuesday.

CJR blasts one out of the park and gives us all a little clarity:

Delegates matter, popular votes are window dressing.

Extending that somewhat, we lump these in the same category:

• Number of states "won"
• Size of states "won"
• Difference in the total popular vote
• Difference in each state's popular vote

All are bunk.

You get the delegate count, you know who's winning.

You talk about who "won" California - you're just buying into somebody's hype.

This is what happened in California - and it's not yet clear what the implications are.

Truly, they have no shame

(H/t to TPM)

Yes, we tortured our prisoners.
Yes, we performed domestic wiretapping.

No, we're not going to look into either of these activities.

I was going to say that's our Attorney General talking, but it's pretty clear who he belongs to - and it ain't us.

Goodbye, Plastic-man

Mitt's done. Awww...we hardly knew ye.

It's just that what we did know - made ya look like a complete tool. A GOP governor of Massachusetts with a bi-partisan track record of achievements would seem to have been a better fit.

But then, he didn't run on that record. He chose to invent himself as a staunch conservative. A divider as opposed to a uniter.

Appeal to the far right ('We Ought To Double Guantanamo' "who's with me?!") and you get beat by the very guy you were trying not to be - someone who does not have the trust of the far right.

Boy, there's some irony there.

At the risk of posting about the weather...

The interstates are closed and everyone's using "whiteout" to describe the situation.

I keep getting emails from co-workers who have spent hours shoveling their driveways just to get the car out of the garage - or who have braved the roads and are now warning the fools still at work brace to brace for the snow-pocalypse.

On the shoveling front, at least - I have never been happier to be renting than I am right now.

As for driving home - well, I enjoy a challenge.

(Remember this post when they find my frozen corpse.)