You can set your watch by them

As soon as Obama pulls even with Hillary in Iowa, the right wing smear machine fixes him in their sights.

Is Perry Bacon Serious?
Obama story has no place in the Washington Post
By Paul McLeary
Columbia Journalism Review

In The Washington Post this morning, reporter Perry Bacon Jr. wrote what may be the single worst campaign ‘08 piece to appear in any American newspaper so far this election cycle.

In the front-page piece, Bacon muses over how the chances of Barack Obama getting elected president might be affected by the fact that he’s not Muslim. Seriously. To build his case, Bacon stumbles artlessly through all manner of rumor, innuendo, and xenophobic smear—never bothering to refute any of it, even though there is plenty of well-documented evidence to knock down much of this stuff.

On the one hand, how pathetic and sad is that? On the other had, how does a campaign rebut these allegations without giving them staying power?

Here's hoping Obama's campaign folks are more imaginative than I am.

Tearing Time a new one

Time magazine's Joe Klein appears to have been caught parroting partisan talking points (and representing them as fact), and Glenn Greenwald is raking him, his editors and his magazine over the coals.

A perfect example of how a media outlet can grow complacent and fail its readers.

Get some popcorn. Glenn's kickin' ass.

If highway signs were written like software is documented..

Slow news day? You wish

Here's ABC News.com's Top Headlines as of five minutes ago:


I'd argue there is a single substantive headline in there, the one about Home Sales.

You could stretch the teddy bear story if the woman is a foreign national risking prison time in Sudan - but really, that's better slotted under 'News of the weird.'

Network news: sparing no expense to bring you Bionic Cats, Dancing With the Stars, and Teddy Bear dramas.

What a colossal waste of time.

We pay the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world

Just got through reading an NYT article, Dr. Drug Rep, where a doctor recruited by the drug companies slowly realizes their corrupting influence.

It is not news that drug companies send reps to doctors urging them to proscribe their product.

It is not news that these same reps recruit and pay doctors to promote their product to other doctors.

And it should come as no surprise that doctors who take money from Big Pharma are less inclined to speak ill of them or their products.

But this little tidbit struck me as a bit new: doctors who shill for Big Pharma are given detailed dossiers on their attendees so that they can single out lucrative practitioners for extra attention.

A note from another rep reminded me of a scene from “Mission: Impossible.” “Dr. Carlat: Our main target, Dr. , is an internist. He spreads his usage among three antidepressants, Celexa, Zoloft and Paxil, at about 25-30 percent each. He is currently using about 6 percent Effexor XR. Our access is very challenging with lunches six months out.” This doctor’s schedule of lunches was filled with reps from other companies; it would be vital to make our sales visit count.

Naïve as I was, I found myself astonished at the level of detail that drug companies were able to acquire about doctors’ prescribing habits. I asked my reps about it; they told me that they received printouts tracking local doctors’ prescriptions every week. The process is called “prescription data-mining,” in which specialized pharmacy-information companies (like IMS Health and Verispan) buy prescription data from local pharmacies, repackage it, then sell it to pharmaceutical companies.

Got that? Big Pharma gets weekly updates on who prescribes what. Then they can target their marketing efforts and get feedback on what tactics are working with types of doctors, or even specific doctors.

But isn't there some kind of safeguard for this data? I mean, doesn't it seem odd that pharmacies would divulge the prescription habits of a given doctor?

Funnily enough, there is. Pharmacies don't usually release doctor's names with their data.

So, how do they know which doctor prescribes what? Easy, the AMA tells them:

The American Medical Association is also a key player in prescription data-mining. Pharmacies typically will not release doctors’ names to the data-mining companies, but they will release their Drug Enforcement Agency numbers. The A.M.A. licenses its file of U.S. physicians, allowing the data-mining companies to match up D.E.A. numbers to specific physicians. The A.M.A. makes millions in information-leasing money.

Those millions are paid by Big Pharma, and ultimately by you and me.

That's nice.

You mean, all that insistence on network-specific devices was all hooey?

Having exhausted all other options, Verizon takes the first step towards doing the right thing:

Verizon Wireless Says ‘Bring Your Own’ Device
By Saul Hansell

Verizon Wireless has stunned the wireless world by announcing that by sometime next year it will open its network to “any apps, any device.”

There is a lot of fine print, but the essence appears to be that Verizon will offer two flavors of service: its traditional bundle, which typically includes a subsidy for phone purchase and various other features, and “bring your own” device service, which will be open to any device that meets “minimum technical standards.”

'Bout freaking time. Now maybe the other Telcos can get off the dime and get back to selling access, instead of phones and accesories.

Y'know, kinda like the rest of the world does?

The rise of Plastic Man

Josh Marshall is looking at the data over at Pollster.com and is discovering something:

Mitt Romney's trending better in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina than anyone else.

It fits with his early start and huge bankroll. The forces that drive campaigns appear to have committed hard to Romney in the early contests - and they've purchased the infrastructure to push their brand harder than anyone else can afford to.

Giuliani's big push is in New Hampshire (where his numbers are all wobbly), but he is clearly on the downslope in the other two states. He's hoping to win backers by an upset in New Hampshire, but we've seen that movie before. McCain beat Bush but all he won were headlines - and Bush's backers bought South Carolina and dusted off the brass knuckles.

Speaking of McCain, his trends look worse than anyone - no one else had so far to fall.

Huckabee is a stunt, even if he wins Iowa or finishes a strong second, no way he's got the staying power to soak up the beating he's going to get in New Hampshire and Carolina.

Whoever sticks their head up is just going to be the first one Romney's push pollers go after.

I'm betting we have Romney as the GOP nominee. Let's hope the Dems aren't squeamish about pointing out what an unprincipled tool he is.

Late edit:

-Which of course, begs the natural question - who is trending better for the Dems in these states?

Iowa looks pretty close, New Hampshire has Hillary way up, with Obama trending up, and South Carolina shows Hillary surging, with Obama looking pretty stagnant.

First glance, Hillary looks to take two of these states, Obama might get Iowa and could get some juice from that to carry a second.

One clear loser in all of these states is John Edwards. His numbers are sliding in all three.
Bridesmaid time agan, eh John?

Darn shame.

The sky is falling

Growing up, I had what I thought was a typically fatal assessment of the world I was going to inherit.

I have a vivid 1980 recollection of my friends and I all agreeing that the world would end in nuclear holocaust. This was assumed by all to be fact in the same way that we assumed that one day we would all have to get jobs and pay taxes. Oh sure, it would be dreadful, but it was so far off – and besides, what could be done about it?

Thankfully, we were only right about jobs and taxes.

The new looming catastrophe (aside from our nation's incessant flirting with despotism) is financial. The country will go broke.

This has affected me in a similar fashion. I know that this is a tangible possibility, but it will happen decades from now. Besides, politicians have been stupid for generations, what in the world can be done about it?

Heck, it might not even be real – I mean, if the country really was in dire financial straits, wouldn't somebody be sounding the alarm?

Quick scans of Election 2008™ doesn't show any serious coverage. Opinion polls don't list anything like "Country going broke," but list Jobs/Economy a distant third behind Iraq and health care.

We either don't know, don't care, or both.

Enter the GAO, the Government Accountability Office.
Their April report entitled The Nation’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook (PDF) lays out some pretty appalling data.

Their first talking point:

The Bottom Line: Federal Fiscal Policy Remains Unsustainable

(the alternate scenario is letting the Bush tax cuts expire, the baseline extended assumes they do not)

The report also shows comparisons of what federal spending will look like over time as expressed in percentages of the Gross Domestic Product.

Here's the vanilla scenario: The Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire and revenue (as a share of the GDP) increases through 2017 because of bracket creep, more taxpayers being subject to the AMT and more revenue from tax-deferred retirement accounts (presumably due to larger numbers of retirees taking out their tax-deferred money).

Here's what that looks like:

Okay, that sucks rocks.

Now here's the same time interval with the Bush tax cuts extended and the AMT exemption amount retained at the 2006 level through 2017.

That sucks even harder.

Wow, who'd have thought that lowering our tax revenue would adversely affect our national financial picture?

The GAO, in its usual antiseptic prose, spells out what is new about this report:

Despite some improvement in the near-term projections for Social Security and Medicare, the long-term outlook has not changed: it remains unsustainable.

So here we are, hell bent on winning the war on anyone the administration targets – while behind us the country is quietly going broke.

It would be a gross misstatement to say that this is the fault of one administration – a series of presidents have been unwilling to tell the public that they will have to pay more or get less.

However, the Bush tax cuts will hasten our financial ruin – and we need to challenge any and all candidates for national office to ask them what the hell they plan to do with our country.

RIP Anastasia

There is the oh-so-faint possibility that we can finally get rid of one of those enduring mysteries.

Amateurs Unravel Russia's Last Royal Mystery

YEKATERINBURG, Russia — On the outskirts of this burly industrial center, off a road like any other, on a nowhere scrap of land — here unfolded the final act of one of the last century’s most momentous events.

The new remains were 70 yards from the first burial site.

...It would be 73 more years, in 1991, before the remains would be reclaimed and the announcement would ring out: the grave of the last Russian czar, Nicholas II, and his family had been found.

But the story does not end there.

Yes, the story doesn't end there - an unabashed charlatan named Anna Anderson and mankind's unquenchable thirst for conspiracy have fueled 90 years of speculation that Anastasia and her brother managed to survive.

At long last - it appears that they have found their bodies, not far from where they found the rest of the Romanovs.

Let us hope that DNA is salvageable.

Perhaps then we can stop hearing fairy tales about how two unarmed and isolated young children managed to escape (or be spared by) the same group of murderous thugs who shot and stabbed nine other adults and children to death, before disfiguring them with acid and throwing them down a mine shaft along with several hand grenades.

It would make a great story for them to have survived, but pitiless men like Lenin insist that their assassins be thorough - or at least too terrified to disappoint.

Brutal as it is, the truth would at last make the Russians provide the very least that is owed to murdered children: a grave that testifies to posterity the manner of their death.

Both barrels

Digby's friend Deep Insight has written a lengthy essay on the current state of the upcoming election. Worth a read in it's entirety, but there are three items I'd expound on:

…Bush has a 25% approval rating. There is absolutely no political price in opposing the initiatives of the GOP.

Yes, Goddammit – and it's about time the Democrats realized that the next time the administration makes a "demand," they can actually improve their image simply by holding a press conference and saying "No."

They need to take Feinstein, Schumer, and Rockefeller to the woodshed and inform them that cozying up to the administration is not what their constituents are demanding. Smarter observers than I am have pointed out repeatedly that Congressional approval ratings are low not because of all the bills left unsigned, but because of the bills they have signed.

The GOP base hates them because they are democrats, but the democratic base is incensed because they haven't stopped the president.

2006 was a clear message to slam on the brakes, and we are still rolling downhill.

Memo to democrats in congress:

1) Refuse to put administration bills to a vote – and publicly declare why you are doing so.
2) Force the GOP in congress to stop your legislation and denounce them for doing so until they relent.

The number of times that the GOP is able to block legislation and the headline reads "Democrats fail to get the votes," is just appalling. They need to get the message out that the bills are being blocked by the GOP – not because it's good politics, but because people don't know the bills are being blocked.

When your approval rating is as low as the GOP, why should they now get a pass on their bad behavior? Put the spotlight on them and see how they run.

Before a single vote is cast, the pundit class has awarded the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton. The Republicans are already running against her, and McCain has an attack ad up of dancing hippies at Woodstock (one more time let’s go back to 1969). Certainly, she is in a commanding position with plenty of money and universal name identification. She remains the favorite, and the press has even decided it is time to harass her.

I was going to post a screed on why I fear Hillary Clinton, but most of what I'd say is pretty much in Deep Insight's post. Why is it assumed that she will be the nominee? I know Obama is now polling ahead in the recent ABC poll, but where on earth did we get the idea that these early numbers are going to predict Iowa? Iowa was where Howard Dean met an untimely death at the hands of "captain charisma" John Kerry. It's a freaking crapshoot – viability thresholds and gamesmanship can play havoc with the pollsters' shiny numbers.

Hillary Clinton is the wet dream candidate for the GOP.

Here they are getting pummeled in the polls, independents aren't breaking for them and GOP voters crossing the aisle is a real possibility.

What candidate ensures that no GOP voter will hold their nose and vote democratic?
What candidate can give even the left-leaning independents pause?
What candidate does the GOP have attack ads already in the can for?
What candidate will calcify feelings of 'nothing changes in Washington, so why bother?' in democratic voters?

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary and Hillary in that order.

You can see it in any Fox-crafted talking point – they're happy to presume the results of the primaries, and plant the sense of inevitability in the minds of people everywhere. It's going to be her, so why go to the polls?

She's got an early poll lead, and we all know what those are worth. I'm hoping people don't stay home. New Hampshire, Iowa? You stay home, you just voted for the winner – and you've no right to grouse.

George Bush should be tied so tightly around the Republican candidates' necks they can hardly breathe. Every quote of support, every vote, every word of worship should be thrown in their faces and there is a ton of it. He is the most unpopular president, for the longest sustained time, of any president in history. He is the modern Herbert Hoover, a man whose name should become an epithet.

A-freaking-men. The sycophants need to be shown the error of their ways. Play their every soundbite from June 2003 until they beg you to stop. Then show footage of them hugging the president as he stumps for them in 2004.

There are plenty of Dems who fell into this camp as well, and I wouldn't spare them, either. You had the opportunity to be counted and you bowed to the administration. You made the call, you pay the price.

I'm fine with allowing the GOP to pretend that George W. Bush never happened, so long as their public declarations are demonstrated to be false in an equally public setting. Let them try, but the Bush albatross has landed squarely on them.

They earned it.

Release the hounds!

It's official, the Big House is gone. The Seller is sticking to their number in defiance of all market forces and common sense.

Their reply was especially pithy: "Such is life... We can appreciate that [you cannot afford our home]."

Well, thanks.

Back to the house hunt.

Happy Thanksgiving

TPM gives thanks for the following displays of government ineptitude (not that they happened, but that they happened on tape):



In other news, Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Cloudkookooland

When you immerse yourself in something, it's easy to lose perspective.

So it is with the Big House.

Having been up to our necks in contingencies, financing papers, inspection reports, defects, amendments, counter-amendments - and the phalanx of details that would accompany us to an eventual closing, we'd missed one important fact.

The seller is nuts.

Their response to our latest wish list demonstrates that, sagging market and mandatory defect cures aside, they have a number - and they won't budge.

It would appear that having immersed themselves in every little detail of their house for the past decade, they have stopped seeing the flaws and only see its assessed value.

A prior item they agreed to is now off the table - they're foisting it off to us and lowering the price in "exchange." With the eight grand reduction in price we are expected to rewire the house, replace the roof/sunroof/rain gutters, install a new furnace, and remove their asbestos.

Obviously, this is not going to happen.

We will re-offer our list with the one concession we can afford to make, but its pretty clear that this deal is DOA.

We have to be out of our current house in less than three weeks, so right after the holidays, we're going to start arranging for temporary living quarters.

To some extent, I'm relieved that the contractor/escrow logistics aren't going to happen - but in the back of my mind I'm still living in an updated house in the neighborhood I wanted.

*hands over ears*

LaLaLaLaLaLa... LaLaLaLaLaLa...

What are they thinking...?

Got this one from atrios

Top 10 articles for November 2007 on Wikipedia.org?

1. Main Page
2. Wiki
3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
4. Naruto
5. Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock
6. United States
7. Wikipedia
8. Deaths in 2007
9. Heroes (TV series)
10. Transformers (film)

Top 10 most viewed articles on Conservapedia? (as of today, at least)

1. Main Page‎ [1,911,665]
2. Homosexuality‎ [1,583,687]
3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ [517,326]
4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ [421,028]
5. Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ [393,647]
6. Homosexuality and Parasites‎ [388,439]
7. Homosexuality and Domestic Violence‎ [373,125]
8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ [331,654]
9. Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ [292,635]
10. Homosexual Agenda‎ [270,323]

True, this isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, but still

- that's pretty damn funny.

Chilling effect

A while back, I got in trouble at my job for making a parody website spoofing where I worked.
I'd put together a set of articles that shamed no one, but were basically distopian views of office work.

The reaction by management was not good. Rather than stick to my guns, I folded the website. A man's gotta eat.

In one of the discussions I had with the higher ups, this point was made:

Whatever my intent, the true meaning of what I'd done resided in the audience.

In other words - the audience's reaction is what my words meant.

After careful consideration, I've come to the conclusion that this point of view is total crap.

What got me going strolling down this memory late was this post on CNet:

Bloggers beware: You're liable to commit libel by Steve Tobak

...As for me, I'm planning to play it safe. I mean, how hard can it be to say nice things about people?

It would be an oversimplification of what Mr. Tobak is arguing to say that he wants people to stop posting things that are not so nice, but I can't help but have a belligerent reaction to his article:

What do you mean I can't post whatever the hell I want on my blog? It's a blog! Opinion, posted! Deal with it!

I am sure that the everyone-is-published reality brings more people under the rules of publishing, but surely there is a place to distinguish a private blogger's opinion from the claptrap of nationally published blowhards like Robert Novak.

If jerks like Novak can out our spies and publish hearsay innuendo without prosecution, I would think the blogosphere needn't restrain themselves too much.

Unbe-effing-lievable

TPM found a sure recipe for stunned silence:

As you know, soldiers often get bonuses for signing up for new hitches in the service. But some of them now aren't able to complete the period of enlistment because some have had limbs blown off and sustained other injuries. So the Pentagon's asking them to cough up those bonuses for not fulfilling their commitments.

Yeah.

The same military that couldn't account for 2.3 trillion dollars, is cutting costs on signing bonuses for injured soldiers.

Against all odds, I think we've finally found Americans who do, in fact - hate the troops.

They work in the Pentagon's payroll office.

Late edit:

I thought dm's comment on TPM was particularly apt:

Dear Disabled Veteran,

Unfortunately, due to the fact that you obeyed orders from the U.S. Government to go to the foreign war zone in which you were severely wounded, you are in material breach of your contract to obey the U.S. Government. We, the U.S. Government, therefore demand restitution on behalf of the hard-working taxpayers whom you have so heartlessly defrauded.

Sincerely,
The US Army

The art of the deal

I suck at this.

Negotiations, I mean. I can read people pretty well, I just have a dangerous habit of empathizing with the other side.

I sell myself out.

So, here we are. House negotiations, week two. The Big House has many, many sins.

We are asking the seller to come to Jesus. We're just not sure that's going to happen. Understandably, people resent begin told that they have been living in a place that is unsafe. They do not appreciate having to pay for all their deferred maintenance in one fell swoop.

Yet they must.

There is the yankback quality of accepting an offer and thinking you are in the clear – and then the inspection lands on you like a ton of bricks.

In this case, perhaps two tons. I empathize. I truly do. This would not be fun for anyone. The market is kicking seller's butts (lord knows, my butt is still smarting from what happened to us) and to add a stack of cures into an offer that is already down from the market is – well, depressing.

It's not even that we're doing the hardball thing. The items we have listed are items that our creditors and insurance company will insist on. They will make us escrow funds for them. 150% of the estimates to fix them will get hoovered up into non-interest earning accounts. We will pay to finance them.

This will suck.

And still, we persist in our offer. Bow down before the Big House. It commands you. You must submit.

Am I totally insane?

If all goes well, the seller will agree. Then the real pain begins.

There will be timelines. We must correct these items in 30 days or we will be dropped by our insurance.

The bank is drawing up a list. Our all-too-thorough inspection is in their hands and they have demands. Oh yes, many, many demands….

What if the estimates are off? What if we need the extra funds in escrow? What if the market tanks and eats our mutual funds?

Easy. We'll be living under an overpass.

Even with that, the back of my mind is trying to figure out the nicest way to ask the seller to gut their expectations so that we can keep moving forward.

Our buyer's agent has been a star – keeping us (keeping me) from doing foolish things like "here's the most I can pay" ("Okay, then pay that." *Doh!*).

At the back of all this is the notion that if this falls through, we are out of our home in less than a month. If we thought our current setup was cramped and stressful, apartments will make our current house seem spacious.

We have had two years of unrelenting stress. If this goes deal goes through, we'll have sixty days of unrelenting logistical hell. Movers, contractors, estimates, bankers…All the while, money is flying out the window.

If this happens, I'm never moving again.

Waiter? Normal life, please.

A tale of two feedbacks

In the mad scramble for a house, I've had to touch base with our insurance company many times. I've hit them up for a financial advisor and there was the need for some secure two way communication.

Normally, this would be a recipe for disaster.

However, my insurance company is USAA. This link (and this one) pretty much spell out what that means. If you look, USSA is at the bottom of each of those tables – but if you read their customer satisfaction ratings, they kick everyone else's ass.

They get relegated to the bottom of the table partly because they only serve the military and their families – and partly to make the other insurance companies feel better.

'cos – let's face it – most of them suck.

I'd offer up the user experience at Washington Mutual.

A user with a simple (and very common) need, had difficulty getting what they wanted, and tried to tell them about it.

Obviously, it did not go well with WaMu.

Take the same basic task, swap out WaMu and insert USAA.

Here's what happened.

USAA provides secure messaging through their website for all of their members. In signing up for financial advice, I am given access to a webform that will send secure email to my advisor.

The advisor or the service desk can reply and all their replies are stored on the website, so the content is secure. I am then sent a standard email notifying me that I have a message on the website. Clicking on a link starts the log in procedure and once I log in, I'm routed directly to my secure inbox.

So far, so good.

Here was my problem. I had sent off a request for information to my advisor, and was in a hurry to hear what they had to say. A few hours after I sent my message, I got an email notifying me that there was a response on the USAA website for me.

Ecstatic, I logged in and opened the newest message. I got this:

------

Dear Mr. [murph],
Thank you for turning to USAA for help with your financial needs. We have received your email and have forwarded to your planner, [name]. If you need immediate assistance, please call Financial Planning Services at (877) XXX-XXXX between 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. CT, Monday - Friday.

Thank you,
USAA

USAA Financial Planning Services is a service mark that refers to the financial planning services and financial advice provided by USAA Financial Planning Services Insurance Agency, Inc. (known as USAA Financial Insurance Agency in California), a registered investment adviser and insurance agency, and its wholly owned subsidiary.
Notification sent to: [email]

------

Needless to say, this message was a bit of a disappointment. No information, nothing really secure here. Just a system generated response that "hey, we got your message."

I decide to tell them about it.

*On the secure message inbox page*

*Scan for 'Contact Us' link, find it in the page footer, click*

*Scan contact information, see 'Email us' link, click*

*Review web form. See that my name, account number have been prefilled, but that I have the option of changing these to my wife's information (in case she was using this log in).*

*Under topic, select 'Feedback,' 'Website,' and 'Suggestion.'*

*Enter a subject, see that the message box allows 8,000 characters, and that I can attach up to thirty files with a size limit of 10MB*

*Enter a suggestion that automatic responses that do not contain secure information be sent via regular email and stored on the website, but that no 'log in to review a new message' email be sent for these messages.*

*Hit submit.*

*Review message and confirm.*

Done.

------

Now, that's more like it – but aside from being able to upload attachments – this is not terribly special. Web forms should work, they should not eat your input when they don't and there's not much else to say.

With most companies, you get a follow up email where some script or service rep thanks you for your input and either 1) attempts to justify what you've experienced; or 2) apologizes and tells you they will try to make things better.

The following morning, I was at home and was called by a USAA rep, who thanked me for telling them about this issue. She apologized and admitted that the current setup had issues. The system was set up to send all messages via the secure site, but she could (if I wanted) disable the automatic responses for my account.

So, net result – I won't get any more false alarms. Works for me.

Done. Customer happy.

Even in the event that there was no solution – I would have gotten a phone call from a rep to get all my feedback to better understand the situation.

I am consistently impressed by how USAA does customer relations – but the more I think about it – the more I realize, they're just doing what I would expect them to do.

Other providers have performed so poorly and for so long - that their lamentable average has begun to seem normal.

USAA's phone experience is a perfect example.

------

*Dial 1-800-531-8222*

Welcome to USAA, please say or enter your USAA number.

*Enter [USAA number]*

I see you're calling from a phone in your profile, so let me look up your accounts.

Which of your accounts are you calling about today?

*Homeowners*

Homeowners. Is this correct?

*Yes*

*Transfer sound*

Service Rep: Good morning, is this Mr. [murph]?

Me: Yes it is.

SR: May I have your phone password?

Me: [password]

SR: Thank you. How can I help you today?

------
I mean, that rocks, but only because everyplace else sucks so hard.

USAA is the only company I've ever called where when I identify myself via the touchpad, and everyone I speak to afterwards knows who I am. Consequently, my USAA number is the only vendor account number that I know from memory. USAA makes it useful. They use it for everything.

It is the claim number for accidents. In my most recent fender bender, I was able to give the other driver the USAA contact info along with a claim number because I knew what it would be. Useful!

This is all great stuff, but it all flows from the fact that these guys have clearly bothered to listen to their customers.

They even cross channel well. Ever tried to send feedback/service requests via a vendor's website and then called in later to ask about it? Nine times out of ten, the phone guys can't see the web stuff, don't understand it, and don't know a way to get you to that information (but they'd be happy to start the process over, on the phone….!).

I never get that with USAA. Make a quote on the website, call in later with more detail, they're on it. They'll update it, and then tell me I can keep updating it via the website if I think of more stuff.

Despite USAA having numerous subsidiaries and internal partitions, I have never been told by a USAA rep to hang up and call another number. Phone transfers are made by people, to people (usually with introductions – "Mr. [murph]? I have Jonathan from Brokerage for you, he's going to take care of you now. You have a good day.")

Home fricking run. But again – they're just doing what their customers want.

It shouldn't be exemplary, but unfortunately – it is.

Pulling the trigger

For better or worse, we're buying a home.

Given the recent past, it's clearly too early to start filling out change of address forms.

-but we're headed in that direction at least.

The Big House

The first time we bought a house, I was a nervous wreck. The assessment for the house was well below what we were paying, and I had a panicked last minute "am I crazy?" visit with the banker the night before we signed. I just wanted to disappear until it all went away.

The fact that I was asking a banker for advice shows you how crappy I am at the art of the deal. Bankers will cheerfully deliver you into financial ruin so long as they get their closing costs. They're going to sell the loan off, anyway - what do they care?

This time around, we're in a better financial position - and we've located a house that is, amazingly, the two things we thought we would never get - living space AND a neighborhood.

But we'd have to reach. The fact that we have inherited investments is the only reason we are able to play in this league - and we are acutely aware of being financially obligated to payments that will need to be supplemented with investment withdrawals.

And the seller is not convinced that this is as much of a buyer's market as we are. They've come down substantially, but we have not gotten the royal road to our financial sweet spot.

This house will need work, and is old enough to have some surprises. The closing on our own house is beginning to loom large. Soon, we will have to move - even if it is into an apartment or my sister's basement.

---

So what do you do?

We have a cheaper alternative house, that is just barely the space we need. It has no need of immediate repair (that we know of) and is in a decent neighborhood. The seller appears to be delusional about their price. The asking price is lower than the Big House, but far outstrips where the market is at. Negotiations could take over a week, and there's no guarantee that this person will be willing to close in the time frame we need.

At present, the Big House is thirteen large over where we wanted to be.

In the larger sense, this extra amount is chump change compared to the size of the loan we would agree to - but there's the notion that we are close to our limits, and a general belligerence over the fact that the seller won't just suck it up and drop their price.

My gut says just buy the damn house - E's on the fence, but in the back of my mind is my own realization that I suck at the deal.

Is this just another symptom of my inability to play hardball? or would sticking to our initial offer be cheating the family out of a home that we would love to live in?

The ball is in our court, and I'm starting to get that feeling again.

Like I just want it to all go away.

What passes for free speech in Pakistan

From the NYT:

A student protest at the Lahore University of Management Sciences.

Notice how everyone is hiding their face. Such is the nature of free speech in a dictatorship.

We value your feedback

The prior post laid out a miserable customer experience with Washington Mutual, but – if truth be told – the root cause of what went wrong could be boiled down to a pretty short list:

1) the system wasn't taking numeric inputs for a short time (and this problem did not reappear in later calls)
2) the website directs users into WaMu's customer service line, but there is no "Help with WaMu.com" in their root menu.
3) A menu item contains the word "personal" but connects you with a service rep who does not have access to personal accounts (at least for the purpose of resetting a web password)
4) The system will dead end and tell the user to hang up and dial again.

That's it. Just four items- and it's very likely that 1 and 4 were momentary glitches. The fix for two and three are (in the scheme of things) pretty simple changes.

A bedrock principle of my profession is that feedback from the user is the best tool in designing the interface. By implication, that means that users should provide feedback, and companies should make this as easy as possible. It's rather obvious but - if the company doesn't know about the problem, how will they ever fix it?

With the high-minded goal of making things better – let's try to tell WaMu about it, shall we?

Go to WaMu.com and select "Contact Us." There's a link to "send us a message."

So far, so good.

Fill out the required identifying information and select a category (there isn't a "Web feedback" category, so we'll go with "General Inquiry."

Write a detailed summation of the experience and offer suggestions. Make it clear that you are irritated, but try to be constructive.

*Hit 'Send message'*

Please enter valid text in the Message field.

What the hell does that mean?

*Hit 'Send message'*

Please enter valid text in the Message field.

*Remove all high-ASCII characters from message*

*Hit 'Send message'*

Please enter valid text in the Message field.

*Prune 3,000 character message down to 1,000 characters.*

*Hit 'Send message'*

Please enter valid text in the Message field.

*Prune 1,000 character message down to 500 characters.*

*Hit 'Send message'*

Please enter valid text in the Message field.

*Copy message into notepad, scan carefully for possible illegal characters. Find none.*

*Prune 500 character message down to 361 characters.*

*In desperation, Hit 'Send message'*

Your message below has been sent.

I had written a fairly detailed description of my attempt to reset my WaMu.com password through your customer service line into this form. Having finished writing my message, I pressed submit and was told: Please enter valid text in the Message field. I can only assume that the message was too long. See http://onautopilot.blogspot.com/2007/11/your-call-is-important-to-us.html What a thoroughly unpleasant experience.

You will receive a response within 24 hours.

*Realize that the original reason for the comment was not in the text of the message.*

*Begin doubting that the recipient will be willing to click on a hyperlink*

*Begin writing new message.*

*Give up*

[time passes...]

*receive email from personalbanking@wamu.com*

*open email*

------
RE: General Inquiry
Ref. No: K26783[withheld]

Dear Murph:

Thank you for your email.

I'm sorry to hear you've been having problems with our Online Banking Service.

Unfortunately, I am not able to assist you. The security of our Web site and customer data is taken seriously. So, before we can assist you with your inquiry, your identity must first be verified.

Please call us at the toll-free number below and select option 1 for (Personal Accounts) or 2 (Business Accounts), then 3 (Online Banking),and then 3 (Password Resets), or 4 (All other online banking questions).

I do apologize for the inconvenience.

If there's anything else, you may do one of the following:

- Go to https://online.wamu.com/messagecenter/general/sendmessage.aspx
* Click "Secure," then select "Checking, Money Market and Savings" from the available categories.
* Click "Continue," then log in with your User ID and Password.
* Complete the form, including the action you'd like us to take. Once received, we generally reply within 24 hours confirming the actions
we've taken.

- Call us toll-free at 800.788.7000.

- Visit a Washington Mutual financial center.

To find the financial center nearest you, please go to
http://clients.mapquest.com/wamu/mqlocator?link=findusmain

Sincerely,

Yamini
Washington Mutual Customer Service

[Copyright/trademark information]
[Disclaimer that copy of original message should not be attributed to WaMu]

Original Message Follows:
[Text of received message, with hyperlink truncated]

------

*Review email.*

I am not able to assist you….

…call us at the toll-free-

*snort in derision*

*Scan message for 'Do not reply' text. Find none*

*Hit 'reply'*

*Compose detailed description of experience with customer service line, with recommended changes. Review, edit, clarify text.*

*Send email to personalbanking@wamu.com*

*Receive email from personalbanking@wamu.com*

------ Your message wasn't delivered to Washington Mutual because it didn't originate from the Washington Mutual secure website.

To send a message to Washington Mutual, go to https://online.wamu.com/messagecenter/general/sendmessage.aspx, select a topic from the drop-down menu and type in your question or concern. Washington Mutual can usually get an answer to you within 24 hours.

If your email seeks account-related information, you'll first need to provide a valid logon ID and password before you can receive a response.

To get a logon ID, go to https://login.personal.wamu.com/logon/logon.asp. If you want to report a lost or stolen card, or any unauthorized activity on your account, please call Washington Mutual directly at (800)-788-7000. Thanks! ------

*Review email.*

Your message wasn't...

*Scan prior message for 'Do not reply' text. Find none*

… Go to https://online.wamu.com/messagecenter/general/sendmessage.aspx ...

*Click on link*

*Realize this is a different form than the previous one*

*Click on category dropdown. See "Website Feedback."*

Step 1 of 4

*Click 'Next'*

*See form's Comments/Inquiry box says 'Maximum 3000 characters'*

*Exult*

*Compose detailed description of experience with customer service line, with recommended changes. Review, edit, clarify text.*

*Click 'Next'*

We're sorry, we cannot process your request at this time.

*Hit 'Back' button*

*See form's Comments/Inquiry field is now blank*

*[Expletive]! [Expletive]-ing form! [Expletive]-ing Wamu! [Expletive]….*

*Open MS Word*

*Attempt to reconstruct prior message from memory.*

*Attempt to reconstruct polite and helpful tone. Fail.*

*Reload web form*

*Copy and paste in message from MS Word*

*Click 'Next'*

Some of the information you entered is missing or incorrect. Please check all highlighted fields below and re-enter the data in the format shown.

* The comments / inquiry field should contain only valid characters. The following special characters are not allowed: < > " &

*[Expletive]*

*Return to MS Word text, do find and replace for quotation marks*

*Find and replace for brackets*

*Find and replace for ampersands*

*Copy and paste message back into form*

*Click 'Next'*

* The comments / inquiry field should contain only valid characters. The following special characters are not allowed: < > " &*

*Seize, throw, and destroy a nearby object*

*Return to MS Word text. Search for high-ASCII characters.*

*Discover that MS Word's autocorrect has changed hyphens into high-ASCII em-dashes.*

*Find and replace em-dashes with hyphens*

*Find and replace en-dashes with hyphens*

*Copy and paste message back into form*

We value your feedback. ... You will receive a response within 24 hours.

*Exult*

[time passes...]

*receive email from wamuinvestments@wamu.com*

*open email*

------
Re: Website feedback (KMM315[withheld])
Dear [murph],

You have reached WaMu Investments, we are a broker/dealer for stocks,
bonds, and mutual funds. For WaMu Bank, please give them a call at
800-788-7000.

Sincerely,

Client Services
WaMu Investments

[Original Message Follows]
------

*[Expletive], [Expletive], [Expletive], [Expletive], [Expletive], [Expletive]!*

*Scan message for 'Do not reply' text. Find none*

*Hit 'reply'*

------
To: 'Wamu Investments'
Re: Website feedback (KMM315[withheld])

Are you telling me that my feedback will not be forwarded to WaMu Bank unless I do the forwarding?
------

*Hit 'send'*

[time passes...]

*receive email from wamuinvestments@wamu.com*

*open email*

------
Dear [murph],

We are sorry, but this website is not set up to forward any messages. We would like nothing more to help you, but again we do not and can not handle the bank's customer service issues. The only thing we could suggest is calling the bank's 800 number again, dialing 0 to speak with a customer service rep., and then asking for tech. support. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.

Sincerely,

Client Services
WaMu Investments

[Original Message Follows]
------

*close email*

*Declare in a loud voice that there is no God.*

Late edit: Read the sequel

And you thought lead paint was bad...

Witness the shame of Spin Master Aqua Dots:

Toys Containing 'Date Rape' Drug Pulled

WASHINGTON -- Dealing a blow to an already sluggish toy selling season, the popular toy Aqua Dots has been recalled.

Millions of the toys have been pulled from shelves in North America and Australia because scientists found the toy beads contain a chemical that converts into a powerful "date rape" drug when ingested. While the toy is known as Aqua Dots in North America, in Australia they're called Bindeez.

Scientists said a chemical coating on the beads, when ingested, metabolizes into the so-called date rape drug GHB. When eaten, the compound can induce unconsciousness, seizures, drowsiness, coma and death.

Two children in the U.S. and three in Australia had to be hospitalized.

The two U.S. children who swallowed Aqua Dot beads went into nonresponsive comas, a spokesman with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said Wednesday. A 20-month-old has recovered completely while the other child, whose age was not known, has been released from a hospital after five days and is recovering, he said.

Yeah, I'd say that's a lawsuit or two.

Plus, authorities are going to have to be on the lookout for creepy men buying shopping carts full of these toys.

Your call is important to us

This actually happened.

------
Scenario Background.
The user is trying to log into the website of Washingon Mutual, so they can review their full mortgage account history.

Their last log in was months ago.

They do not have any of their financial information available to them.
------

WaMu.com: Washington Mutual: Home of WaMu Free checking

[Selected: Your Accounts]

Please log in to view your accounts

Username?
Password?

[Username Guess 1]
[Password Guess 1]

Fail. Verify that CAPS lock is not enabled.

[Username Guess 2]
[Password Guess 1]

Fail. Verify that CAPS lock is not enabled.

[Username Guess 2]
[Password Guess 2]

Fail. Verify that CAPS lock is not enabled.
Fourth failed attempt will lock account access.

Contact Customer Service at 800 788 7000

[Dialing 1 800 788 7000]

Thanks for calling Washington Mutual
Para informacion en Español, marque ocho.

To proceed, be sure to have your debit card or account number available.

[sigh]

Or, you can manage your account online at wamu.com

[sigh]

Feel free to key ahead at any time.

[no response]

• For information on existing Personal Accounts Checking savings CDs, and IRA accounts, press 1
• For information on existing small business accouns including checking, savings, and money market accounts, press 2
• For information on other existing personal or business accounts, including credit cards, mortgages, and other loans, press 3
• To open a new account, renew a CD, or apply for a loan, press 4
• To open a new account, press 4

3

To proceed, you must select one of the four options.

• For information on existing Personal Accounts Checking savings CDs IRA accounts, press 1
• For information on existing small business accouns including checking, savings, and money market accounts, press 2
• For information on other existing personal or business accounts, including credit cards, mortgages, and other loans, press 3
• To open a new account, renew a CD, or apply for a loan, press 4
• To open a new account, press 4

3

To proceed, you must select one of the four options-

3

To proceed, you-

3

To proceed-

3#

To-

[Hang up]

[Dialing 1 800 788 7000]

Thanks for calling Washington Mutual
Para informacion en Español, marque ocho.

To proceed, be sure to have your debit card or account number available. Or, you can manage your account online at wamu.com

[no response]

Feel free to key ahead-

3

• For help with your existing personal credit card, press 1
• For help with your personal mortgage, press 2
• For help with your personal home equity or line of credit, press 3
• For help with your existing business mastercard, press 4
• For help with your existing business loan, press 5
• To return to the previous menu, press *
  

[no response]

• For help with your existing personal credit card, press 1
• For help with your personal mortgage, press 2
• For help with your personal home equity or line of credit, press 3
• For help with your existing business mastercard, press 4
• For help with your existing business loan, press 5
• To return to the previous menu, press *
  

0

I am now connecting you with a telephone banker.
To ensure you have a quality experience with Washington Mutual, your call may be monitored or recorded.

Telephone Banker: Thank you for calling Washington Mutual, may I have your account number?

User: I don't have my account number

TB: No problem, may I have your Social Security Number?

User: [SSN]

TB: May I have your full name and Date of birth?

User: [Full Name]

User: [Date of Birth]

TB: I’m sorry, can you repeat the SSN?

User: [SSN]

TB: I'm sorry, but this is not a business account, I need to transfer you to a personal account representative.

User: All I need is to have my web password reset and sent to my email address of record.

TB: I’m sorry, but I don't have that access. I’ll have to transfer you.

[hold music]

Would you like information on refinancing or new products? Press 1

[no response]

We value your opinions and are conducting a brief survey.
To participate after you have completed your banking, press 1; otherwise press 2.

1

Please enter your loan number.

[no response]

If you don't know your loan number, press #

#

Please enter your Social Security Number.

[SSN]

Please enter your ZIP code.

[ZIP code]

Does the property contain the numbers [X and Y]? If so, press 1, otherwise press 2.

1

Your last received payment was [last payment information]

• For payment by phone, press 1
• For payoff requests or refinancing, press 2
• For insurance or escrow, press 3
• For privacy policy, press 4
• For general loan information, press 5
• To repeat this menu, press 8
• To return to this menu at any time, press **
  

[no response]

To speak to a customer representative, press 0

0

To make a payment change or an escrow change, press 1

[no response]

To speak to a customer representative, press 0

0

Please wait...

[no response]

Please wait...

[no response]

Please wait...

[no response]

Please wait...

[no response]

Your call was unable to be completed, please hang up and dial again.

[dial tone]

Dear Senator

To Sen. Russ Feingold:

I urge you to consider voting against the Mukasey nomination.

You may be correct in saying that this is as good a nominee as you are likely to see in this administration, but surely the Judiciary Committee cannot be expected to hold its nose and confirm a man who is unwilling to declare something as self evident as "water boarding amounts to torture under US law."

We have put up with a lot from the current administration, but surely we have not fallen so far.

The price of admission to the USAG office is, at a minimum, being willing to go on the record about what constitutes torture under US law.

Such a statement may endanger intelligence officers who received prior assurances that what they were doing was legal, but consider:

The person who lets an official’s assurance convince them that it is acceptable to nearly suffocate a restrained prisoner is still far too willing to engage in that conduct anyway.

I am sure Mr. Mukasey has many qualities that recommend him for this position, but the simple fact is – when in front of your committee – he is unwilling to go against the wishes of the administration that nominated him and declare an obvious truth. This tells you all you need to know about his likely independence while in office.

We have already seen what foolishness can occur when the nation's Attorney General is too in thrall to the chief executive. This is not something we should go back to.

He may be the best you get, but he is still unacceptable.

Thank you.

Late edit:

I needn't have bothered. Sens. Schumer and Feinstein just sold us out. Nice to see Schumer hasn't abandoned the man he recommended. I wonder if he knew Mukasey's water boarding views from the start? or did he simply choose to overlook them, now that they are out in the open?

Weak.

Of Mukasey, straw men, and the usual GOP handwringing

I’m not sure what to make of the Mukasey nomination hearings. On the one hand, I think they’re just a kangaroo court. If the Dems vote this guy down, the President will keep his acting AG – who is every bit the political stooge that he would want.

However – when you have a nominee for the Attorney General of the United States refusing to declare that water-boarding is torture (and therefore, unconstitutional) – you’d be pretty stupid to sign off on him.

Here’s the central exchange: (SJC Hearing 10/18/2007)

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, D-R.I.: Just to finish that thought: So is water-boarding constitutional?

MUKASEY: I don't know what's involved in the technique. If water-boarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.

WHITEHOUSE: If water-boarding is constitutional is a massive hedge.

MUKASEY: No, I said, if it's torture. I'm sorry. I said, if it's torture.

WHITEHOUSE: If it's torture? That's a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn't.
Do you have an opinion on whether water-boarding, which is the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, strapping them down, putting cloth over their faces and pouring water over the cloth to simulate the feeling of drowning -- is that constitutional?

MUKASEY: If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.

WHITEHOUSE: I'm very disappointed in that answer. I think it is purely semantic.

Let’s put that exchange against the President’s pretend outrage about Mukasey even being asked such questions:

(via Reuters)

"I believe the questions he's been asked are unfair," Bush said in an Oval Office session with reporters. "He's been asked to give opinions of a program -- or techniques of a program -- on which he has not been briefed."

The President’s statement is foolish for two reasons. First, Mukasey wasn’t asked about a classified program, he was asked about water-boarding in general. As in, “Given your understanding of what water-boarding entails, is your professional legal opinion that it is properly classified as torture under US law?”

This question touches on two sets of knowledge that Mukasey has, and is free to speak about. He is choosing not to.

What’s even dumber about the President’s statement is that even if the question was specific to a secret program, Mukasey could have been briefed about the program beforehand. He just wasn’t.

So, the Pres is denouncing questions that weren’t asked, but that any honest nominee would have been prepped for. It’s the same old press strategy of making sure there are some quotes out there that scan well – even if they are total crap.

….

I especially like the continuation of the tired old trend of GOP senators expressing “concerns” about some administration policy/nominee – before lining up to vote the party line, again.

Once again, we have Sens. McCain and Graham out in front of the handwringers, loudly calling the press over to watch them.

“Can anyone help me? I have a list of platitudes to recite! Oh, won’t someone watch me pay lip-service to morality?”

After the media dutifully provides them a veneer of statesmanship – these turkeys will march down to the Senate chambers and start writing Mukasey love letters like this (emphasis added):

"We share your revulsion at the use of waterboarding and welcome your commitment to review existing legal memoranda covering interrogations and their consistency with current law. It is vital that you do so, as anyone who engages in this practice, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution, including under the War Crimes Act, and opens himself to civil liability as well.

"We must wage and win the war on terror, but doing so is fully compatible with fidelity to our laws and deepest values. Once you are confirmed and fully briefed on the relevant programs and legal analyses, we urge you to publicly make clear that waterboarding can never be employed."

Yes, McCain – the Senate’s loudest (and least-assailable) voice on torture is saying he’d vote for a man who refuses to disavow waterboarding – but he’d urge Mukasey to denounce it once he’s beyond the reach of the Senate.

Sen. Graham is just another GOP tool, I expect nothing of him, but if this is what passes for character in McCain’s mind – this guy has sold every ounce of his soul to run for President.

I hope Mukasey tanks. At least to make the point that we're all tired of the same old puppet shows.