I am Weasel

Runner [3:29 PM]:  just feeling a bit grumpy today

murph [3:30 PM]: whazzup?

Runner [3:31 PM]: oh the earlier stuff with our buddy

murph [3:31 PM]: Yeah, that's totally shitty

Runner [3:31 PM]: did you talk with him?

murph [3:32 PM]: I did.
Caution.
This will not help your mood

Runner [3:32 PM]: OK
give it to me

murph [3:33 PM]: He basically said all the things he should of said to the SMEs, but didnt'.
He thinks he was taking the bullet in the call and in his discussion with BigDog.
I do not think that is so.
He believes that he went through the stories with you to find ones that were ready for dev.
I made him repeat that.
Basically doubling down on the line of bullshit
I just....
I mean WT screaming hell?

Runner [3:36 PM]: so I take the bullet for it

murph [3:36 PM]: I went after that. "So now, the SMEs are going to think this is on Runner?"
He's like "No, I took the bullet for this."
I did not get that out of his conversation on Friday at all.

Runner [3:37 PM]: did you mention that?

murph [3:37 PM]: I did not. I sat there like a tool.
I could not believe his shit and I did nothing about it.
Which does not help.

Runner [3:38 PM]: well whatever it is done
I learned a valuable lesson

murph [3:38 PM]: Noddy is a weasel. And I'm not much help.

Runner [3:39 PM]: well you don't want to get too involved in this
I think people know that, right?

murph [3:39 PM]: No, Runner I let you down in there. Same as Friday.
I just could not believe how far down the rabbit hole he was going.
I just sat there.
I made sure I wasn't mis-hearing him but I didn't call him out.
Which is shit.
And I'm sorry, but I'll do better. This can't be how it goes.

Runner [3:41 PM]: don't worry about it
sounds like this isn
this isn't the first time it's happened
and really it's my fault for letting it happen

murph [3:42 PM]: No, letting it happen is on me, too. And I should not let this roll like that.

Runner [3:42 PM]: and truth be told, I probably shouldn't have written up those stories without combining everything and getting it all in there

murph [3:43 PM]: That's gonna be a thing, for sure for all of us.
Anyway, Runner - I'm sorry I didn't pounce on him. I was all pissed off, and then I got nowhere with him.
I don't think I can fix the overall situation, but Noddy should know that he's in the wrong.
I don't want the drama, but I hate the unfair.

Runner [3:45 PM]: well lesson learned is that we can't just move stories ready for dev unless we vet them

murph [3:45 PM]: Yeah. Totally
And we don't move stories that aren't ours.

Runner [3:47 PM]: yep

murph [3:47 PM]: See. Told you it wouldn't improve your mood.

Runner [3:47 PM]: I was expecting that really

Free Lunch

On Wednesday, April 20th of 2005 my wife and I drove across town to so that a former college football player could tell us how best to manage our money.

Because he brought me lunch.

That was about the extent of our my thought process when it came to money back then.
Anything is better than what I'm currently doing - which is nothing.

E was sweating our finances at the time and had repeatedly made noises about getting a financial professional to have a go at our cash flow and see where we could stop the bleeding.

Aside from wanting to hire a professional who would not be paid on commission ("My advice is to buy all the crap that I sell!"), I had very little idea of what would make for a good choice.

Which is why I ended up picking a football player.

A designer I worked with at the time offered the entire department a free lunch if we listened to a 1 minute spiel about financial planning.

It sounded dumb, but free food is free food. The financial planning guy would pick up food from wherever we wanted and deliver it to us.

I know. Score, right?

Footballer walks in with a stack of food containers. He passes them out along with a single sheet of paper that shows the effect of compounding interest on various amounts of money invested over varying periods of time.

He didn't seem terribly polished, but he was true to his word. He spoke for one minute, told us the fairly obvious fact that investing early and consistently really pays off over the long haul - and then he was gone.

We ate lunch, and afterwords I picked up one of the man's business cards. Perfect timing, right? I mean I'm looking for a financial advisor and one shows up to give me lunch. I called him up and we set up a preliminary meeting.

I got Footballer to lay out the terms of the deal, we'd pay him a flat rate and he'd provide a full review of our finances along with a plan for managing our money going forward. We told him we weren't interested in crazy investment schemes - we're just looking to get a grade on where we were at and look for areas where we should improve our use of what we had.

Footballer said he was totally on board with that, but he had the annoying habit of using pat phrases that seemed laughably simplistic.

As in

Footballer: Would you like to make a lot of money with your retirement investments - or would you like to [store your money in a mattress/get 1% return on your savings/be poked in the eye with a sharp stick]? 

Us: Uh... the 'make a lot of money' one?

We signed a contract and Footballer told us that we could pay when we received our financial plan - and that there was a satisfaction guarantee. "If you don't like the service you receive, let us know and we'll waive the charges."

Which seemed odd. Also, Footballer wanted to take us out to dinner for a "client appreciation night." We could invite other friends, and their meal would also be paid for.

Which also seemed odd.

But again, I figured this was a pretty transparent attempt to get other people to meet with Footballer so that he could sell more financial advice.

Because he was in the business of selling advice. That's why we were paying him.

I should point out at this point that Footballer worked for American Express Financial Advisers Inc.,  currently called Ameriprise.

As in, Yeah, this guy's a football player who brought me free lunch, but he works for American Express - so it must be okay.

With a choice thus justified, we'd dropped off a copy of pretty much all of our personal financial data with him and made the April 20th appointment to get our plan.

Huzzah! A plan! We're buying a financial plan!

We'd arrived at the nondescript office ready to hear the news, good or bad.

After checking in with reception we were greeted by Footballer who looked deathly ill and informed us that we would be meeting with a colleague of his, as he needed to go home and lie down.

I know what you're thinking, but I believed him. He had the look of a man who has just returned from throwing up in the bathroom. We did not shake his hands and let him go.

The meeting we ended up having had only a few memorable bits:

1. The person we were meeting with had almost no people skills
2. Our financial plan said we were in pretty good shape financially, but that we needed to buy more insurance.

The bulk of the rest of the meeting (at least, in my memory) was NoPeopleSkills getting us to fill out an application for Variable Universal Life Insurance.

We were not interested in buying any life insurance that didn't begin with the word "term." Because UVL is a terrible investment for just about everyone. NoPeopleSkills seemed to be on rails and E and I just let him roll along until it was time for the meeting to end.

At some point - I can't remember when - Ameriprise suggested that we refinance our home. I know this because while cleaning out the basement the other day I came across the binder they gave us with our "Financial Plan." 

Written on one of the pages are the words "refi, 3-5 yr. ARM."

Understand - this was in 2005.

We were trying to buy financial advice from a professional. 

We had given them all our private financial data.

-and the sum of their advice was "Buy universal variable life insurance (from us) and refinance your home into an Adjustable Rate Mortgage."

There was never any chance that E and I were going to go for an ARM, we both sort of nodded our head at this suggestion like "no way in hell" - but it's striking at how shameless that Footballer and NoPeopleSkills were.

E's reminding me that at one point they told us that our home equity line of credit was "like having a savings account."

Mind you, these were people who represented themselves as financial experts. These were people whose expertise we were on contract to pay for.

"Yes, NoPeopleSkills, now that you mention it - I suppose that borrowing money against our home is just like earning interest on money in the bank. Yes. I see that now."

I'll quote Tim Minchin: Oh wait, my mistake [that's] absolute bullsh!t.

E and I left that meeting with an unspoken agreement that Footballer, NoPeopleSkills and American Express/Ameriprise/whoeverTheyWere were full of crap.

We never went back. We've never received a bill, either - not that we'd pay it.

Which only serves to illustrate that Footballer and Ameriprise were never selling advice, they were selling their investment products. So much so, that they couldn't be bothered to even ask for the money we'd agreed to pay them. 

I'm throwing all their crap out of our house (along with - it must be said - a lot of other things) but I wanted to write this down so I can remember how utterly terrible Ameriprise was.

Think back to 2008.

All those people who lost their homes in the wake of the meltdown.

People who saved their shekels in the hopes of buying a home - who then had the misfortune to run into some slick "advisor" who sold them financial ruin.

Makes me ill.

I looked Footballer up on LinkedIn - they left Ameriprise in 2006 and went to work for JPMorgan Chase.

And left JPMorgan in 2008 - right about the time Wall Street was imploding.

They ended up working back at a nonprofit wing of my alma mater - doing youth outreach and promoting academic achievement and healthy living.

*     *     *

Footballer?  

If you were to somehow read this - I'd like to say I genuinely hope you've turned your life around. I see that you went back into banking. 

I hope you've changed your ways. That you give sensible advice and treat your clients honestly. I suppose that's possible. 

But mostly, I'd like you to know we never took any of your advice. That the only reason I kept your financial plan this long was because I wanted a souvenir of my own foolishness. 

But with this blog post, I can have my souvenir and still give your advice what it deserves 

- a long, long overdue trip to the recycle bin. 

AT&T: Pay Us the Money We Owe You

I got a paper bill from AT&T on Friday.

I don't get paper bills from AT&T. It's part of my account preferences.

The paper bill tells me that AT&T owes me $35.12. I'm happy to take their money, but my understanding of things was that I paid my wireless bill and my Uverse bill - and that a small percentage of my landline and old DSL bill would be prorated for Aug 29 - Sept 4. They were going to contact me with the amount that I owed for this small bit of service time.

Instead, I get a paper bill telling me they owe me money.

This makes me think they've misapplied some funds again. Previously, their math said that I was past due and was owed a credit at the same time.

According to AT&T math, this meant I supposedly owed them $183.09.

Let's see what my online account shows now, shall we?

Yes, I still owe $183.09 - but now it's in ORANGE! Progress!

Now, where the heck is my credit that I'm owed...? It should be under the last service in that list - the old landline / DSL account.

Annnnnnd....?

Yes, this account has been cancelled (although I would call it "replaced" or "upgraded").

And somehow we have arrived at a place where: 

AT&T owing me $35.12 = I owe AT&T $183.09 

I'm just hoping they make this make sense before my next bill is due.

Pathetic.

Ryan vs. Bryan

All I Do is B!tch About Telcos

...but only because they so totally suck.

I've tried to take the larger view and say that - yes, in fairness to AT&T - the number of outages I've experienced while paying for their service has been very close to zero.

I'm sure the legion of engineers who work tirelessly at all hours of the night would like to be acknowledged. And they should be. Modern data networks are a hell of a thing. And the one I've been paying for has been there for me with (so far as I remember) total uptime.

And they somehow even find time to route all my data to the DEA. Impressive.

But the squeaky wheel principle applies here. I pay for a utility, I expect it to work. If it doesn't work - why am I paying for it?

24/7 uptime is Par.

So those noble and nameless AT&T engineers need to understand something:

Every other customer touchpoint with AT&T is gutting your company's reputation.

Ask me what I think of AT&T and you're going to get both barrels of pent up resentment.

*    *     *

I'll illustrate this with two personal contacts with AT&T.

And then I'll supplement it with web and phone follow ups.

First, the people. I'll call them Ryan and Bryan.

Bryan arrived on my doorstop unannounced. Bryan was in sales, so if I had known he was coming, I wouldn't have answered the door. But he sung the praises of AT&T uverse with the passion of a new convert to the faith. He smiled. He was funny. And though I believed he was totally full of it - I let him talk, took his materials, and then did my own research on prices and packages.

Ryan on the other hand, was expected.

Ryan's first contact with me was over the phone. He was calling me to let me know he'd be late for the appointment with me.

To appreciate how bad a first impression this is, you'd need to understand some things:

• This would be the appointment Bryan had scheduled for me two weeks earlier
• This would also be the appointment I'd been asked to confirm via text the previous day. And I had.
• This would also be the appointment I'd been asked to confirm via phone the previous day (after I'd confirmed by text). And I had.
• This would ALSO be the appointment I'd been asked to confirm via email the previous day (after I'd confirmed by text and phone).
• This would ALSO be the appointment my wife had been asked to confirm via text and email and Godknows what else.
• And... this would be the appointment I had elected to stay home all morning (unpaid) because my attendance was required.
• FINALLY - it needs to be understood that when I say "appointment" I mean a two-hour block of time. Meaning Ryan could arrive anywhere between 9am and 11am and still be considered "on time."

Ryan was calling me - at 10:45 - to let me know he wasn't going to make it before 11am. He was in another town and was currently an hour away.

Awesome. I could have been working and getting paid until just before lunchtime, but hey, I'm at your service, Ryan. Whatever makes your day easier.

Back to Bryan. Weeks ago, Bryan promised to return after our initial meeting and did (although I was out) so he came back a few days later and I signed up. Bryan assured me that my free installation would cover multiple TVs (even though I only needed one) and that the installer would run Cat-5 anywhere it needed to go in my house. "Plus, your DVR will be wireless, so you can move it around your house if you decide to add a TV or rearrange your house."

Fan-tastic!

When I reacted badly to the $50 activation fee, Bryan whipped out some rebate forms to offset the charges. "Just fill these out and give them to your installer and you'll be set."

See? That's a guy trying right there. Exeunt Bryan.

*Cheers*

Let's return to Ryan.

*Boo!*

Yes, Ryan has royally screwed up first impressions. He does arrive an hour after his phone call, a full 45 minutes after my install window was supposed to end. He's in a truck, wearing a baseball cap and looks irritated.

I point him to all the particulars in my house. The TV case (which I'd helpfully cleared out) the phone setup and where the lines hit my wireless router.

I asked him about running wire to the finished side of the basement. Ryan looked at me like I was talking Greek. "Just the one TV, right?"

Uh, I was told you could run wire to other rooms in my house. 

"I'll run it anywhere you need it to connect to the one TV."

Now, I know sales guys are full of it - and sales guys from AT&T doubly so. So this wasn't much of a shock. I'd asked because it would be nice, but once I confirmed that wiring for uverse TV was just running Cat-5, I knew I could do it (with help). I ask Ryan about the gateway they'll be installing and if I'll be able to keep my current router (which I love). He says he'll try, but that he typically doesn't install a device inside the house and hasn't had much luck when he tried in the past.

*Sigh*

I point out what I currently have for Ethernet and DSL. Ryan scratches his head figuring out where the wires needed to go and I get out of his way. In about an hour he's drilling a hole in the side of my house and telling me he's going to run a new wire from the pole to my house.

"Don't worry, though. In seven to ten days, some guys will come by and bury the cable. I'll leave plenty of slack in case you need to mow."

*Sigh*

So, now there's a black cable snaking around my back yard - with "caution" flags tied to it every few feet so it's extra visible and unsightly.

And then Ryan shows up with the hardware and starts hooking up the TV. He unpacks an impressively compact device that I think might be the wireless DVR.

Is that the wireless DVR?

"It's the DVR, yeah."

This is AT&T, so I ask again to make sure I heard that omission correctly.

It's a wireless DVR?

"No. It's wired to Ethernet."

I was told I'd get a wireless DVR.

"We do wireless DVRs only if we have major issues running the wires in the house. I don't have one in my truck."

*Sigh*

Honestly, at this point - I'm not sure a wireless DVR is truly a plus. The signal could be worse for all I know. All I do know is that Bryan told me I would get one, and now I won't.

At 1:30pm (that would be five an a half hours of missed work, for those of you keeping track) Ryan calls me in to show me that the TV is connected. I channel surf and managed to screw up the input settings and Ryan has to show me how to change inputs using a button combination I wouldn't have thought of (for the standard remote: Hit "TV" then quickly hit "TV/Video" to move between inputs).

By the time I've managed to realize that I'm subscribing to over 300 channels, but my TV is connected to 678 channels (meaning half my channels connect to a "You are not subscribed to this channel" message), Ryan is back with paperwork.

Ah, yes! I need to give him my rebate paperwork!

I quickly dig out the rebate forms Bryan gave me and give them to Ryan.
Ryan looked at them like they were written in Greek.

"I've never taken paperwork from a customer. I have no idea what to do with those."

*Sigh*

Ryan gives me paperwork, though. Owners manuals, legal stuff, channel guides and an info sheet about my AT&T Gateway device. Turns out he was able to get it connected just fine. My old router is still up and running (meaning none of my devices have to have their network settings changed - SCORE! I'm looking at YOU, Canon wireless printer...).

Better still, Ryan has copied down the Byzantine collection of codes, IPs and other network voodoo that I can use to configure my AT&T gateway like it was my 2nd router. SCORE!

I check my network download and upload speeds, they're where they're supposed to be. SCORE!

Ryan apologizes again for being late and about the rebates. He writes down two numbers to call about them and suggests trying one of them first "I've had better luck with them."

And then he shakes my hand and is off to his next install.

It's 1:50.

I've missed most of a workday (unpaid) and I have a single TV connected and high speed internet.

Let's review. Who was the bigger fail here, Bryan or Ryan?

No contest really. Bryan.

Bryan promised a bunch of things that were never going to happen. Running wire all through my house (hah!), the wireless DVR, and the rebates being handled by the installer.

The rates and channels came through, but I'd confirmed them with AT&T over the phone, so I knew those were going to happen. All the other stuff Bryan promised turned out to be hot air.

Ryan, on the other hand, was late. But he gets jobs from the AT&T mothership that (for some reason) decided to give my install to a guy 50 miles away 15 minutes before the install window was up.

That's not on Ryan. Ryan's just the guy holding the bag when AT&T (per usual) does something stupid. Further, Ryan listened to my request to keep my old router running and made it happen. Then he followed up with all the admin information I needed, made sure I understood what I was looking at and even gave me a 2nd remote.

He made good out of a bad situation. Yes, I missed a half day of work, but Ryan's not the guy to scream at for that. AT&T's mothership screwed that up royally.

*    *     *

I called Bryan the following day to check on my rebates. The installer guy didn't take them. What do I do?

Bryan was unhelpful. "Oh, yeah. They changed how those work right before your install, so now you have to send them in."

Except Bryan forgets that I can read. One form is from Starz, the other is from Showtime. Both forms say that they should be mailed in along with three months worth of bills showing you are a paid subscriber.

There is no possibility that I was going to get my installer to take these forms, because my installer would not have had three months of bills to send in with them.

Bryan is not good at customer service, because he does not have to be. But he has clearly mastered what he needs to sell subscriptions: Bryan is good at lying.

I hung up on Bryan, because there was no way to fix that. Sure, I'll complain to AT&T about this, but they'll echo Ryan's dismissal of the problem "The sales guys are contractors, they don't even work for AT&T."

No, but they show up to your house wearing shirts that say "AT&T." And their voicemail says "This is Bryan with AT&T," so I can't see why people would blame AT&T for their crappy service...

*    *     *

A few days after my install, I was robo-called out of the blue by AT&T to ask how my install went. It was a tedious IVR menu and took way too long, but I believe in feedback.

I graded my installation taking care to point out that my installer was fine as a person, but that I was dissatisfied with my install because it began 45 minutes later than it was supposed to. I asked to be called personally to offer follow up details.

Naturally, this being AT&T - I was called by Ryan's supervisor who wanted to know the details of why I thought Ryan was a terrible installer.

I explained that Ryan was a total pro - and that my problem was with the overall scheduling process and with the sales person promising me stuff that didn't materialize.

I could tell this was not what this guy was calling me for. I was only supposed to be grading Ryan and this call was all about the performance of him as an individual.

And this is where I lost it (because, with AT&T, you always get to this point eventually). I'm not sure of my exact words, but I tried to hit three main points:

• When you only ask for feedback on a SMALL part of a user experience, you make your customers feel like you don't care about their problems.

• When you discard negative user feedback because it falls outside of your intended question - you are allowing problems to persist.

• Repeatedly reminding customers to be on time when your employees arrive late tells customers they need to care about your time more than you need to care about theirs.

The man was nice, sympathetic even... but I doubt those comments will filter out of a channel that is only designed to provide the mothership with Ryan=Good or Ryan=Bad.

Ryan? If you get hosed, I'm sorry. I tried to make it clear to your boss.

*    *     *

But it's done. Right? I spend about 20 minutes manually hiding the 300+ channels that I don't subscribe to, yet still appear as selectable options on my receiver.

Then I spend another half an hour hiding BS channels like Home Shopping Network and anything that starts with "uverse"

And finally, I dial in the parental controls for the phalanx of age inappropriate material that my set now has access to.

Sidebar: I miss TiVO's KidZone. KidZone created two pools of access. One for kids, one for adults. When you started using the TV, TiVO assumed you were a kid and filtered accordingly. If you wanted to see all content, you entered a code - once - and weren't bothered again until you turned the machine off or manually re-entered KidZone. 

Uverse does the exact opposite: You lock categories of content (TV MA, PPV, R rated movies) and anytime you try to access them, you are prompted for a password. Which means adults browsing their channels soon wish they are dead - as each new movie channel demands a password just to display a title. Never mind the fact you just entered the same password 15 seconds ago for ENC, oh no, ENC-WEST won't show you its stuff until it knows who you are...   

Being AT&T, though they cannot leave awful alone. They have to go for maximum user pain. 

Here's the unlock sequence for AT&T uverse:

• Select Channel
• See message saying "This Content is Locked"
• Hit "OK"
• See passcode prompt "Enter Passcode"
• Enter 4 digit passcode
• Hit "Enter"
  
  -that should be it, right? But no.
   
• See prompt "Unlock this content?" Don't Unlock / Unlock
  
  and here's the kicker....
   
• "Don't Unlock" is the default selection!!

Yes, Having selected a channel repeatedly and having entered in a 4 digit passcode correctly AND hitting ENTER, it's a good assumption that I DON'T WANT TO UNLOCK THIS CHANNEL 

WHOEVER CODED THAT NEEDS TO BE PUT IN SOLITARY WITH AT&T UVERSE WHERE EVERY CHANNEL MUST BE UNLOCKED. 

Seriously. 

Oh but there's more!!! If you unlock a channel and leave it, it will re-lock in 30 minutes, meaning there's a good chance if you're bopping back and forth to check on the box score, you'll have to unlock the same channel repeatedly.
WAY TO FAIL, UVERSE!!!

JEEZUS.

Allright. Rant over.

....

...

..

.

Well, not really.

I'm trying to get ahead of the family finances and I'm trying to schedule my bill payments for the next month. I log in to att.com and (I will spare you the story of how annoying it was to set up my 2nd AT&T email account AND connect my uverse account to my existing att.com account - the nicest thing I can say is that it ultimately did work.)

I logged in and initially, I couldn't see my bill amount. Which made some sense, since I'd only just connected my uverse account to my other services on the att.com website.

But I came back a few days later and saw that my bill had been updated to $201.29. I scheduled the payment and went on my way.

But it later occurred to me that might not be correct. I mean, I'm supposed to be getting billed $110 for my cable/phone/internet WITH a $49 activation (but NOT installation!) fee. So, I should be getting $160 or so just from cable/phone/internet and there's no way my wireless bill is just $40.

I log back in to see if my bill has been adjusted.

It has. It's now $384.38.

Ah, that's better...

Wait, what the screaming hell?

Now anyone who is currently an AT&T customer knows what is going on here, and I had a reasonable suspicion. But until I actually confirmed it, somehow I refused to think it was actually happening.

I got my uverse install on September 4.

Looking at that portion of my bill I'm seeing stuff that makes sense:

That's my uverse bill that starts on 9/5.

Here's the portion for my phone line:

I'm being billed $31.39 for my uverse phone line.

Looking elsewhere in my att.com account, I find I'm still being billed for my old phone service, which was supposed to end and be replaced by the new bill on 9/4. But it hasn't...

Being AT&T, they've done this for my internet service as well. So I'm being billed $38.16 for uverse internet and $37.98 for my old DSL internet.

Way to go, AT&T!!

Again, the hard-working install guys and AT&T engineers need to gang up and beat the crap out of the billing, scheduling, sales and web folks in their company. Because those folks are seriously ruining any chance they have of working for a respected company.

(Well, that and the whole collusion with the NSA thing, but y'know - one thing at a time...).

I called AT&T to get this sorted out and - get this - their suggestion was to pay the bills and they would credit my account after the fact.

The "Pay us more than you owe, and we'll get back to you" plan.

Screw that.

Then the AT&T rep suggested that an adjusted bill would be coming the next month, but that I might see late charges if I waited until then.

I suggested - politely - that that was utter bullsh!t.

I believe I said "if you can tell me what the bill should be, I could pay now."

Naturally, they couldn't. So they logged a dispute on my bill so there wouldn't be a late fee (they said) and now I will pay just my wireless bill and wait for the real bill to show up.

Incredible.

A system that is perfectly capable of adding a pro-rated bill to an account cannot adjust an existing bill when that account has services discontinued.

Because - Stupid. That's why.

If it doesn't involve maintaining wires - AT&T stinks at it. Technical proficiency with ZERO people skills.

Wait, they're just like...

-like an engineer!

...

..

.

You don't suppose...

Nah, couldn't be.






It would make too much sense.

Calling Gableman Out

illusory tenant makes a great call - Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged judge-on-judge action. Not that Gableman really wants that, based on how badly he's managed his accusation. Interesting to see if his actions are scrutinized as much as say, a women who accuses a man of assault?

And there's also this hugely awesome call out

Gableman also told the police:

Justice Gableman said he has not told anyone about that incident and has not talked about that incident with anyone, including Justice Bradley, after it happened.

Then Justice Ziegler tells the police (page 69 of 70):

She then said, recently Justice Gableman told her about Justice Bradley hitting him on the back of the head, but she said she did not have any details of that and did not know when it happened. Justice Ziegler said she could not be specific on when Justice Gableman told her that happened.

Gableman's interview was on July 5, and Ziegler's was on July 18, so presumably Gableman told her about the September 18, 2009 (née 2008) incident after July 5. But Ziegler hadn't known anything about it.

Even though Justice Zeigler would have been present.

Followed by the even more awesome comment by gnarlytrombone:

"Not only present, but a witness: 'Justice Gableman said that he believed Justice Bradley was not joking because nobody was laughing at the time.' [page 64 of 70] i.e., they had to have seen it happen to choose not to laugh. Because it was serious. But not memorable."

Gableman's tying himself in a bit of a knot there, isn't he?

Bring on the investigation!

Man on the (Burning) Street Interview

(Via The Big Picture)

Oh my. A BBC interviewer speaks with Darcus Howe, a West Indian writer and broadcaster, about the London riots.

If there's a better illustration of a biased news reader trying (and failing) to stick to the script, I've yet to see it.


Here are her questions

BBC News Reader Fiona Armstrong Q1: Marcus Dowe [sic] are you shocked by what you've seen there [in south London] last night?

Mr. Howe (thank you very much) replies that he was not shocked that it happened. His general point is that there were signs that keen observers could have picked up on for a long time.

Naturally, this point is utterly lost on the news reader.

Armstrong Q2: Mr. Howe - If I could just stope you for a moment. You say you are not shocked. Does this mean you condone what happend in your community last night?

Howe:I condone – if I – Of Course Not! What am I going to condone it for? What I am not – what I’m concerned about more than anything else, there’s a young man called Mark Duggan. He has parents, he has brothers, he has sisters, and two yards away from where he lives, a police officer blew his head off.

Armstrong: Well, Mr. Howe we have to wait-

Howe: Let me finish-

The volume on Howe's mic is lowered.

Armstrong: Well, Mr. Howe we have to wait for the official inquiry before we can say things like that. We don't know what happened to Mr. Duggan. We are going to wait for the police report on it.

Armstrong: If I can take you on a bit, you were talking about your grandson, you were talking about young people...

Howe: They have been stopping and searching young blacks for no reason at all. I have a grandson - he's an angel. And he began to think he was coming of age when a policeman slapped him up against a wall and searched him...I asked him the other day, A propo of a sense that something was going seriously wrong in this country. I asked him how many times have the police searched you. He said: “Papa, I can’t count there’s so many times.”

Armstrong: Mr Howe, that may well have happened and if you say it did – I – I am not to gainsay you. But that is not an excuse to go out rioting and cause the sort of damage that we’ve been seeing over the past few days.

Howe: Where were you in 1981 in Brixton?

Armstrong: ..............Mr. Howe.

Howe: I don’t call it rioting, I call it an insurrection of the masses of the people. It is happening in Syria, it is happening in Clapton, it’s happening in Liverpool. It’s happening in Port of Spain, Trinidad. And that is the nature of the historical moment. There is a, it takes -

Armstrong: Mr. Howe. If I can just ask you, you are not a stranger to riots yourself, I understand, are you? You have taken part in them yourself?

Howe: I’m not a – I have never taken part in a single riot. I have been on demonstrations that ended up in a conflict. And have some respect for an old West Indian negro, instead of accusing me of being a rioter. Because I – you don’t want me to get abusive – you just sound idiotic. Have some respect! Have – have grandchildren-

Armstrong: Darcus Howe, thank you very much for joining us from Croydon, Darcus Howe, the writer and broadcaster.

The BBC has since apologized for suggesting the Mr. Howe was a rioter, but reviewing their list of questions, it's clear they have a lot more to apologize for:

Question 1: "Are you shocked?"
Question 2: "You're not shocked, so you condone it, then?!"
Judgment: "Well, your grandson could have been mistreated by police, but that's no excuse for rioting."
Question 3: (personal attack) "You've rioted, haven't you?"

Ye gods.

The Wisdom of Others

There's just a ton of stuff I'm catching up on - and while I could write up my thoughts on each, I'd just be wasting your time.

Here's a sampler of what I've been reading, and a teaser for each.

First, Blame The Lenders - Barry Ritholtz

There is a familiar odor to the “Blame the profligate Greeks” meme now circulating. It is little more than a brilliant marketing ploy. This distraction ignores the simple reality that lending to insolvent people, institutions and countries is first and foremost the fault of the lenders.


Let us start first with the Greeks, who lied their way into the EU (with the help Goldman Sach’s financial engineers). The ridiculous pay and vacation structure, the absurdly generous pension plan, the excessive spending by Athens. They are a nation that can honestly be described as tax scofflaws. Yes, Greece is a mess.


Which begs the question: WHO THE FUCK WOULD LEND A DIME TO THESE PEOPLE?

(H/t CJR)

The Wageless, Profitable Recovery - Steven Greenhouse, NYT

In their newly released study, the Northeastern economists found that since the recovery began in June 2009 following a deep 18-month recession, “corporate profits captured 88 percent of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1 percent” of that growth.

(H/t CJR)

Wisconsin Court Supremely Slippery - Brendan Beery

But the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated—citing another case from the same court from 1943—that a court cannot determine whether a law is constitutional until after it has been published because prohibiting its publication somehow interferes with the process of making law. (The idea here seems to be that although a court may rule that a law already made is unconstitutional, a court may not hold that the legislative branch has behaved in an unconstitutional way while making the law. Why this would be so is anyone’s guess.)


In support of this proposition, the court did no more than cite the antique case from 1943 and restate its premise. In so doing, as was noted in a stinging dissent, the court simply skipped right past more recent cases that seem to point in the opposite direction.


But more importantly, the court never explained how stopping the publication of a law interferes with the lawmaking process. By the time a law is ready for publication, it has already been made. No more committees will meet, no more floor debates will erupt, and no more drafting or editing will be undertaken. So, again, how does stopping the law from being published interfere with the process of making the law? If there is any intelligible answer to this question, the Wisconsin Supreme Court certainly could not have been bothered to provide it.

(H/t Illusory Tenant)

A Corporation, but not a Gableman, is a Person - Illusory Tenant

In the Wisconsin statutes, the distinction between the court's supervisory and original jurisdictions is codified by their separate numberings:
§ 809.70 and § 809.71. The Department of Justice chose the latter.


It would not have occurred to the Department of Justice to petition the court to take jurisdiction of an original action because Ozanne v. Fitzgerald could not, obviously, be an original action for the purposes of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Hence the supervisory petition.

¶7 This court has granted the petition for an original action ...

No such petition existed, until the Gableman court manufactured it.

How Wal-Mart Swiped JPMorgan in $16 Billion Debit-Card Lobbying Battle - Phil Mattingly and Robert Schmidt, Bloomberg

(Via CJR)

It's hard to pull a single quote out of this one - it's pretty much a tale of powerful corporate interests waging political war. The right thing for consumers ends up happening, but only because it also happens to benefit retail operations who were wealthy enough to pay for a lobbying war.

...and there's this winner

Biggest Tax Avoiders Win Most Gaming $1 Trillion U.S. Tax Break - Jesse Drucker, Bloomberg

Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO) has cut its income taxes by $7 billion since 2005 by booking roughly half its worldwide profits at a subsidiary at the foot of the Swiss Alps that employs about 100 people.


Now Cisco, the largest maker of networking equipment, wants to save even more -- by asking Congress to waive most federal taxes due when multinationals bring such offshore earnings home. Chief Executive Officer John T. Chambers has led the charge for the tax holiday, which would be the second since 2004. He says it would encourage companies to “repatriate” as much as $1 trillion held abroad, spur domestic investment and create jobs.

(H/t CJR)

There is Only One Threat Level

Bruce Schneier records the obit of the DHS's laughable Terror Threat indicator:

The DHS is Getting Rid of the Color-Coded Terrorism Alert System
Good. It was always a dumb idea.

But the money quote is in his addendum. Something dubbed Blakley's Law:

"Every public alert system's status indicator rises until it reaches its disaster imminent setting and remains at that setting until it is retired from service."

It's easy to see why Blakley's law holds: if something terrible happens and the alert status didn't predict it, the keepers of the alert status will be blamed for not preparing us for the disaster. Setting the alert status to "Disaster imminent" when no disaster is likely costs the public some money and mental health, but it doesn't hurt them in other ways. On the other hand, setting the alert status to "Don't worry, be happy" just before a disaster does happen is the worst case for everyone - nobody prepares for the disaster, and the people in power lose their jobs for failing to prevent or prepare for the crisis.

That....is full blown awesome.

How Old is Your Gas Pipeline?

Why do I ask? Oh, I don't know...

San Bruno, CA: 4 dead and counting

But here's another question - when was the last time your gas lines were evaluated by professionals?

Which is not to say this sort of thing should be on homeowners. It shouldn't. Unseen batallions of quiet professionals should be keeping this off your worry radar by making sure everything is maintained properly.

But here's something to jolt you out of that safe mental picture:

the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the federal agency that regulates 2.3 million miles of oil and natural gas pipelines, largely relies on standards written by the oil and gas industry. It has about 100 inspectors, leaving industry a great deal of latitude with inspections. (Even after the blast, state utility regulators ordered PG&E to inspect its own network of gas pipelines.)

And according to The Washington Independent, federal regulators are required to inspect only about 7 percent of the country’s natural gas pipelines. That percentage is based on how populated the surrounding area is, and not the actual conditions of the pipelines.

Regulating agency dependent on industry expertise? Check. Regulator's resources laughably inadequate to the task it is given? Check.

Now where have I seen that pattern before?