SOMEBODY gets it...
Finally! Someone at the New York Times (aka official mouthpiece of the Comintern) gets it right. Unfortunately, the poor man is only the token conservative at the paper, but we can only hope that them thar "sophisticated" Times readers actually take the time to read everything in the "paper of record". Mr. Brooks hits it right on the head. And because I'm such a nice guy, I will provide it for ya, just to save you the trouble of registering with the Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/opinion/07brooks.html?ex=1095134400&en=8b9635e78ee3661c&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
It's a shame that people very often have to be reminded about these things, but for damn sure, when you see just WHO reads the Times, you don't seem to wonder about it so much.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Bill Under the Knife...
This past weekend, former President and World-renown rapist (allegedly), William Clinton underwent quadruple bypass surgery in a New York Hospital. Unfortunately, the surgery was a success, but that is neither here nor there. What is amazing, or newsworthy, about this?
a) Clinton actually HAS a heart...
b) After the surgery he managed to call John Kerry and tell him to "shut the hell up" about Vietnam...
Ah, that Bill. Always had his priorities straight. About to be indicted for lying under oath; bomb an aspirin factory. About to be accused of sexual harrassment or rape; burn down a church in Waco, Texas. Had a life-threatening operation; call John Kerry and give him some political pointers.
I'm so glad this man is no longer in the White House. Now, if we could just get his wife on an operating table somehow...
This past weekend, former President and World-renown rapist (allegedly), William Clinton underwent quadruple bypass surgery in a New York Hospital. Unfortunately, the surgery was a success, but that is neither here nor there. What is amazing, or newsworthy, about this?
a) Clinton actually HAS a heart...
b) After the surgery he managed to call John Kerry and tell him to "shut the hell up" about Vietnam...
Ah, that Bill. Always had his priorities straight. About to be indicted for lying under oath; bomb an aspirin factory. About to be accused of sexual harrassment or rape; burn down a church in Waco, Texas. Had a life-threatening operation; call John Kerry and give him some political pointers.
I'm so glad this man is no longer in the White House. Now, if we could just get his wife on an operating table somehow...
A Closer look at the Other Side...
One of the very few public services this blog offers is an occasional re-hashing of what other people have said. This often happens because I have found something , somewhere, that pretty much sums up what I have to say, but does so in a way that I would be incapable of imitating.
I admit, I'm not much of a writer, and quite frankly, I believe that when I do manage to cobble together something approaching "masterpiece" it's because I'm angry. After all, that's when it tends to get funny.
But I digress.
One cannot go through life angry all the time, nor should one use anger as their sole source of inspiration. That's probably not very healthy. I could rail against liberals and terrorists all day (and often do), but in the end, I sometimes have a problem with getting my message across. So, I have decided that today I will present three articles from various sources that pretty much sum up my idea of what the "Other Side" in this election stands for, and why they're view of the War on Terror, and the world, is wrong.
First, we present the wonderful Mark Steyn, and his view of the personalities involved in Bush bashing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=IYZK5XUSBXWFBQFIQMGCM5OAVCBQUJVC?xml=/opinion/2004/09/07/do0702.xml
Next, we have the ever-eloquent Jame Lileks, and his view about what democrats find important, and why it doesn't wash with Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public:
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0904/090604.html
And finally, from across the pond, we have Melanie Phillips, who I had never heard of before I found this little tidbit, but I can guarentee you that I will be looking for more of her stuff:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000787.html
Three views on three vital areas of interest in the coming election, and three views which show the gaping divide between conservative/republican and democrat/world-socialist thought.
One of the very few public services this blog offers is an occasional re-hashing of what other people have said. This often happens because I have found something , somewhere, that pretty much sums up what I have to say, but does so in a way that I would be incapable of imitating.
I admit, I'm not much of a writer, and quite frankly, I believe that when I do manage to cobble together something approaching "masterpiece" it's because I'm angry. After all, that's when it tends to get funny.
But I digress.
One cannot go through life angry all the time, nor should one use anger as their sole source of inspiration. That's probably not very healthy. I could rail against liberals and terrorists all day (and often do), but in the end, I sometimes have a problem with getting my message across. So, I have decided that today I will present three articles from various sources that pretty much sum up my idea of what the "Other Side" in this election stands for, and why they're view of the War on Terror, and the world, is wrong.
First, we present the wonderful Mark Steyn, and his view of the personalities involved in Bush bashing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=IYZK5XUSBXWFBQFIQMGCM5OAVCBQUJVC?xml=/opinion/2004/09/07/do0702.xml
Next, we have the ever-eloquent Jame Lileks, and his view about what democrats find important, and why it doesn't wash with Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public:
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0904/090604.html
And finally, from across the pond, we have Melanie Phillips, who I had never heard of before I found this little tidbit, but I can guarentee you that I will be looking for more of her stuff:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000787.html
Three views on three vital areas of interest in the coming election, and three views which show the gaping divide between conservative/republican and democrat/world-socialist thought.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
A New Age in Terrorism?
In the past two weeks, we've seen terrorists attack Russia (a school held hostage, two airliners blasted out of the sky) and France (where two journalists are awaiting their possible appointment with the Turbaned Guillitine). Now, unless terrorists are like democrats, I can't figure out just why it is that they are picking on countries and regimes that formerly fell all over themselves to support them. They are engaged in biting the hands that used to feed them.
I'm sure the Russians, back in the heady days of the Soviet Union, wrote checks to just about any bunch of bomb-throwing, plane-hijacking, Jew and democracy-hatingmiscreants that somehow served the cause of "World Socialism", or just made things somewhat uncomfortable for the West, in general. Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhoff, the IRA, the PLO and a littany of Islamic whackjobs used to have direct lines to the KGB. Russia, more recently, stonewalled U.S. efforts in the United Nations to go to war against Iraq and against sanctions of the Hussein regime in the wake of the first Gulf War.
France, on the other hand, took the tact that anything that complicated American life was good for France. So, France followed Russia in the U.N., did business with Hussein, Khadafy, the Mullahs, and everyone else the U.S. wouldn't, even if it violated the sacred code of "U.N. Sanctions", and indirectly, helped the terrorists and the regimes that supported them.
Both have, I should hope, learned their lesson.
I do not wish a 9/11 on the people of either country. I was physically sick at the news (and the pictures) of Russian schoolchildren shot in the back. French journalists are another story, but then again, giving the people in question the benefit of the doubt, they had a job to do,and that's no excuse for them having been kidnapped.
However, to the Russian and Frech governments, I say, you reaped what you have sown.
American resolve, in my opinion, is forcing the terrorists to seek other ways to deal in death, and since bombing Uncle Sam produces diminishing returns (just ask the Taliban and Saddam), they are now turning their attention to places that don't show the same kind of resolve. Spain was an example.
Maybe now the French, Russians, Germans, et. al, will finally understand what their "nuanced Kerry-like" worldview has denied them all this time: an understanding of just what kind of folks we're dealing with here. These are not people fighting for political rights. These are not men engaged in a war for cultural, economic or political parity. These are people intent on the destruction of western culture as a whole. It doesn't matter to them whether they hit New York, Moscow, Paris or Madrid --- what matters is that somewhere, an infidel westerner is killed. Preferably a lot of them.
And the more sickening the attack, the more depraved the actions of the "other side" in this war, the more they enjoy it. Knocking down office buildings not good enough? Then bomb a commuter train. Still not good enough? Then randomly snatch people from the streets and behead them for public consumption. Still not getting through to these folks? Then hold 1,500 children hostage for three days and shoot them in the back.
Perhaps the French and the Russians will get on board now, which, ultimately is better for all involved. But did it require, at this writing, 350 dead children to have to prove the point that if you allow a terrorist a freepass, he gets even more brazen and disgusting the next time around?
Forget politics. This is not about politics. It's a struggle to the death and the West had better win it.
In the past two weeks, we've seen terrorists attack Russia (a school held hostage, two airliners blasted out of the sky) and France (where two journalists are awaiting their possible appointment with the Turbaned Guillitine). Now, unless terrorists are like democrats, I can't figure out just why it is that they are picking on countries and regimes that formerly fell all over themselves to support them. They are engaged in biting the hands that used to feed them.
I'm sure the Russians, back in the heady days of the Soviet Union, wrote checks to just about any bunch of bomb-throwing, plane-hijacking, Jew and democracy-hatingmiscreants that somehow served the cause of "World Socialism", or just made things somewhat uncomfortable for the West, in general. Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhoff, the IRA, the PLO and a littany of Islamic whackjobs used to have direct lines to the KGB. Russia, more recently, stonewalled U.S. efforts in the United Nations to go to war against Iraq and against sanctions of the Hussein regime in the wake of the first Gulf War.
France, on the other hand, took the tact that anything that complicated American life was good for France. So, France followed Russia in the U.N., did business with Hussein, Khadafy, the Mullahs, and everyone else the U.S. wouldn't, even if it violated the sacred code of "U.N. Sanctions", and indirectly, helped the terrorists and the regimes that supported them.
Both have, I should hope, learned their lesson.
I do not wish a 9/11 on the people of either country. I was physically sick at the news (and the pictures) of Russian schoolchildren shot in the back. French journalists are another story, but then again, giving the people in question the benefit of the doubt, they had a job to do,and that's no excuse for them having been kidnapped.
However, to the Russian and Frech governments, I say, you reaped what you have sown.
American resolve, in my opinion, is forcing the terrorists to seek other ways to deal in death, and since bombing Uncle Sam produces diminishing returns (just ask the Taliban and Saddam), they are now turning their attention to places that don't show the same kind of resolve. Spain was an example.
Maybe now the French, Russians, Germans, et. al, will finally understand what their "nuanced Kerry-like" worldview has denied them all this time: an understanding of just what kind of folks we're dealing with here. These are not people fighting for political rights. These are not men engaged in a war for cultural, economic or political parity. These are people intent on the destruction of western culture as a whole. It doesn't matter to them whether they hit New York, Moscow, Paris or Madrid --- what matters is that somewhere, an infidel westerner is killed. Preferably a lot of them.
And the more sickening the attack, the more depraved the actions of the "other side" in this war, the more they enjoy it. Knocking down office buildings not good enough? Then bomb a commuter train. Still not good enough? Then randomly snatch people from the streets and behead them for public consumption. Still not getting through to these folks? Then hold 1,500 children hostage for three days and shoot them in the back.
Perhaps the French and the Russians will get on board now, which, ultimately is better for all involved. But did it require, at this writing, 350 dead children to have to prove the point that if you allow a terrorist a freepass, he gets even more brazen and disgusting the next time around?
Forget politics. This is not about politics. It's a struggle to the death and the West had better win it.
Bloggus Interruptus...
I've been sorta-kinda busy over a Stopdemocrats.com, so I have sorely neglected my own site. I apologize to the three of you that actually read this. I've got two things to say about that site:
1. It will probably disappear right after the election.
2. No one is reading it, as far as I can tell.
However, nothing ventured, nothing gained. I was trying it out to see what kind of exposure I would get, and the answer is: up until now, none. Too bad, because I've posted some really good stuff there, and for some reason, I am not allowed to copy it here.
So, if you've missed me, head on over to stopdemocrats.com, bump up the hit numbers and, read what I've been screaming for the past two weeks. You'll find me under "Commentary".
I've been sorta-kinda busy over a Stopdemocrats.com, so I have sorely neglected my own site. I apologize to the three of you that actually read this. I've got two things to say about that site:
1. It will probably disappear right after the election.
2. No one is reading it, as far as I can tell.
However, nothing ventured, nothing gained. I was trying it out to see what kind of exposure I would get, and the answer is: up until now, none. Too bad, because I've posted some really good stuff there, and for some reason, I am not allowed to copy it here.
So, if you've missed me, head on over to stopdemocrats.com, bump up the hit numbers and, read what I've been screaming for the past two weeks. You'll find me under "Commentary".
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
I knew there was a reason why I didn't like this guy....
I could never figure out the appeal of John Edwards, not withstanding the good looks. I mean, when you think about it, the man is a lawyer. That was strike one. Have you ever heard the man answer a substantive question? Answer: never. Edwards never answers a question, he simply sidesteps them. What has the man ever done? Well, besides making a pile of money suing doctors for malpractice when his client's real problem was weak genetics, he somehow managed to get elected to office in North Carolina. Which is surprising since North Carolinians, mostly, seem to be a sensible lot to me. I can only surmise it must have been the transplanted Yankees that got him into office.
Now I know. If you would like to know, too, then read this:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14894
The secret to a successful political career? Imitate G.W. Bush and then lie your ass off about it!
I could never figure out the appeal of John Edwards, not withstanding the good looks. I mean, when you think about it, the man is a lawyer. That was strike one. Have you ever heard the man answer a substantive question? Answer: never. Edwards never answers a question, he simply sidesteps them. What has the man ever done? Well, besides making a pile of money suing doctors for malpractice when his client's real problem was weak genetics, he somehow managed to get elected to office in North Carolina. Which is surprising since North Carolinians, mostly, seem to be a sensible lot to me. I can only surmise it must have been the transplanted Yankees that got him into office.
Now I know. If you would like to know, too, then read this:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14894
The secret to a successful political career? Imitate G.W. Bush and then lie your ass off about it!
The ULTIMATE Me Moment...
Obese, they-tell-me-he-is-a filmaker Michael Moore attended the Republican National Convention this week, ostensibly to provide coverage for USA Today of what transpires within the walls of Madison Square Garden. What Moore has really been doing, is research. Research for his next film -- a grotesque look inside the belly of the beast that is the Republican Party. I'm betting the best dinner in Charlotte, right now, that in two years time, we'll see a Michael Moore hit piece based largely on his experiences at the convention.
How do I know? Read this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-31-moore_x.htm
THIS is the reason Michael Moore went to the convention. He was waiting for the gratutious swipe. That it was delivered by John McCain (who may be a contender in 2008), is even more delicious. Yes, Michael, it's all about you. It was always about you. You are the center of the universe, you bloated, moronic mass of protoplasm. I'll bet you even had this "editorial" pre-written, waiting out on hard disk, with a bunch of blanks where the names would be written in later.
That's what happened at the convention, folks: someone made a joke about me. Not even a very good joke, or a very funny one, but it was about ME. How dare they? Never mind some of the best political rhetoric from Rudy Guiliani, Ahhh-nuld, and John McCain. Micheal Moore was being discussed, and in very unflattering terms.
Call it karma, Mike, and grow up and get on with yer bad self. Your tour-de-farce-Bush-Knew-Bush-Lied screed (Farenheight 911) was a near two-hour gratuitous swipe at the President, the Vice President, and the Republican party as a whole. Don't get all snotty and bent out of shape when they return the favor. Especially when they do so mildly. Quite frankly, you're lucky you weren't beaten to a bloody pulp on the floor of MSG. After all, that's what the freaky teenagers outside would have done to their opponents, right?
Mikey, get over yourself and start to realize that the rest of us live in a totally different world than you do, and just because YOU believe something to be the truth does not mean the rest of us are obliged to believe it to. John Kerry has the same problem, by the way. Perhaps you two could console each other in therapy this coming November.
Obese, they-tell-me-he-is-a filmaker Michael Moore attended the Republican National Convention this week, ostensibly to provide coverage for USA Today of what transpires within the walls of Madison Square Garden. What Moore has really been doing, is research. Research for his next film -- a grotesque look inside the belly of the beast that is the Republican Party. I'm betting the best dinner in Charlotte, right now, that in two years time, we'll see a Michael Moore hit piece based largely on his experiences at the convention.
How do I know? Read this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-31-moore_x.htm
THIS is the reason Michael Moore went to the convention. He was waiting for the gratutious swipe. That it was delivered by John McCain (who may be a contender in 2008), is even more delicious. Yes, Michael, it's all about you. It was always about you. You are the center of the universe, you bloated, moronic mass of protoplasm. I'll bet you even had this "editorial" pre-written, waiting out on hard disk, with a bunch of blanks where the names would be written in later.
That's what happened at the convention, folks: someone made a joke about me. Not even a very good joke, or a very funny one, but it was about ME. How dare they? Never mind some of the best political rhetoric from Rudy Guiliani, Ahhh-nuld, and John McCain. Micheal Moore was being discussed, and in very unflattering terms.
Call it karma, Mike, and grow up and get on with yer bad self. Your tour-de-farce-Bush-Knew-Bush-Lied screed (Farenheight 911) was a near two-hour gratuitous swipe at the President, the Vice President, and the Republican party as a whole. Don't get all snotty and bent out of shape when they return the favor. Especially when they do so mildly. Quite frankly, you're lucky you weren't beaten to a bloody pulp on the floor of MSG. After all, that's what the freaky teenagers outside would have done to their opponents, right?
Mikey, get over yourself and start to realize that the rest of us live in a totally different world than you do, and just because YOU believe something to be the truth does not mean the rest of us are obliged to believe it to. John Kerry has the same problem, by the way. Perhaps you two could console each other in therapy this coming November.
Monday, August 30, 2004
Customer Service no longer exists...
Trying to get anything done these days with an impersonal, behemoth-like corporation is a frustrating experience, to say the least. To begin with, you cannot get a human being on the phone unless you waste 20 minutes of your life working your way through the "key tree" of an "automated response system". The first indication that something is wrong is when you get the message to press 1 for English and something else for Spanish. Now, I don't know about you, but this is the United States and the last time I looked, this was an English-speaking country. Apparently not anymore. Sometimes I wonder just would happen if I accidentally pressed the button for Spanish and got all the way through to a REAL LIVE HUMAN BEING and insisted on using English? Sometimes, you just have to make your own fun.
Now, normally, things like this bother me for about 12 seconds, but in the last month or so, I've spent more time pressing digits to direct my call to a "customer service representative" than I care to think about. After the exhaustive and annoying experience of dialing for attention, when you do finally manage to reach a human being, three things immediately jump out at you:
1. The person on the other end is an idiot, and, usually, an affirmative action hire.
2. Most of the time, after you've gone through this process, the person can't help you anyway.
3. You suddenly discover just WHY people go beserk in a post office and shoot every living thing in sight.
Now imagine, for a second, that you have, somehow, signed up for a service that your internet provider manages not to tell you about, but somehow manages to charge to your credit card anyway. You call said ISP and once you have clearly and precisely spelled your screenname for a computer, given your home phone number and a blood sample, you are instructed to wait for a customer service representative. Who informs you that despite the fact that you have used their service for 8 years, and that somehow they have been managing to charge it all to your credit cards, that she cannot find any record whatsoever that you exist. No screenname, no address, no phone number, not even the credit card number they charge it to, yet somehow, the ISP manages to get paid. Now you complain about what you intended to complain about: I never ordered this particular feature, I do not wish to pay for it, please discontinue the service. No problem, they'll just mail you a form, fill it in, and send it back -- no hassle, no fuss, and it gives them the opportunity to charge you at least one last time.
Three weeks go by and you have not received the form.
So, you press 1 for English, etc, etc, etc, and finally get a different nitwit. She also cannot find your account information. Since I'm sure that somewhere down the line SOMEONE knows who I am and they're getting paid, this is not relevant at the moment. All I want is that stupid form you said you would mail me. Guess what? There is no form. Whoever told you there was a form was mistaken! And until your customer information somehow mysteriously appears from within "my system", I cannot stop this feature you do not wish to pay for.
Well, isn't that just f*cking dandy!
Is there anyone else I can talk to? A manager, a supervisor, someone who isn't using his brain for a seat cushion? Certainly sir, just a moment, please. The moment lasts long enough for the grass on the front lawn to grow three inches before someone with an important-sounding title gets on the line. You go through your spiel again for their benefit, and they inform you that they also cannot find your account information, and unless that somehow appears, there is nothing that can be done. However, if you wish to dispute the charges, please send copies of the credit card statements and a letter explaining which charges you wish to dispute. I have to serve customer service!
We go through this all the time, and it's not just ISP's. The phone company is good for this too. You paid for a certain calling plan, at a certain price, and then they pile up charges on you that were never explained to you by the salesperson, the 62 page document they sent you, or even on the bill itself. Eventually, you wind up paying $181.09 for exactly $15.29 of long-distance charges, when you agreed to pay $49.95 per month. "How does this happen?", you ask the person on the other end of the phone, "Well, Sir, you opted for this particular plan and..." Yes, I know I did, and the plan stated that I would have a flat price, this ain't it. And, if I'm not using $49.95 of long distance per month, why am I still paying $49.95? "Well, Sir, you opted for this particular plan..." Can I go back to a "pay-as-I-use" plan? "Sure, Sir, but then you can't guarentee the flat rate that you have with this plan..." So, I have the guarenteed flat rate, even if I don't use the phone that much, and the bill doesn't reflect the flat rate at all? "That's correct, Sir". Who can I complain to? "Here's another toll-free number..."
You have to call a DIFFERENT customer service line to get customer service.
Is this any way to do business? Records cannot be found, prices are never what you contractually agreed to and when you need to have a question answered you can't? Do you have recourse? Certainly! But have you ever tried to get through to a human being at the Public Sevice Commission?
Press 1 for English, press 2 to rant about the phone company, 3 for the electric company, 4 for the gas company, 5 for cable tv complaints, 6 if it's your mother's birthday, sit through the announcements until it says "press 0 for an operator" and then get disconnected, or worse, be connected to someone in Bombay who would ordinarily be working the night shift in a gas station, and who has a speech impediment.
What a racket!
Trying to get anything done these days with an impersonal, behemoth-like corporation is a frustrating experience, to say the least. To begin with, you cannot get a human being on the phone unless you waste 20 minutes of your life working your way through the "key tree" of an "automated response system". The first indication that something is wrong is when you get the message to press 1 for English and something else for Spanish. Now, I don't know about you, but this is the United States and the last time I looked, this was an English-speaking country. Apparently not anymore. Sometimes I wonder just would happen if I accidentally pressed the button for Spanish and got all the way through to a REAL LIVE HUMAN BEING and insisted on using English? Sometimes, you just have to make your own fun.
Now, normally, things like this bother me for about 12 seconds, but in the last month or so, I've spent more time pressing digits to direct my call to a "customer service representative" than I care to think about. After the exhaustive and annoying experience of dialing for attention, when you do finally manage to reach a human being, three things immediately jump out at you:
1. The person on the other end is an idiot, and, usually, an affirmative action hire.
2. Most of the time, after you've gone through this process, the person can't help you anyway.
3. You suddenly discover just WHY people go beserk in a post office and shoot every living thing in sight.
Now imagine, for a second, that you have, somehow, signed up for a service that your internet provider manages not to tell you about, but somehow manages to charge to your credit card anyway. You call said ISP and once you have clearly and precisely spelled your screenname for a computer, given your home phone number and a blood sample, you are instructed to wait for a customer service representative. Who informs you that despite the fact that you have used their service for 8 years, and that somehow they have been managing to charge it all to your credit cards, that she cannot find any record whatsoever that you exist. No screenname, no address, no phone number, not even the credit card number they charge it to, yet somehow, the ISP manages to get paid. Now you complain about what you intended to complain about: I never ordered this particular feature, I do not wish to pay for it, please discontinue the service. No problem, they'll just mail you a form, fill it in, and send it back -- no hassle, no fuss, and it gives them the opportunity to charge you at least one last time.
Three weeks go by and you have not received the form.
So, you press 1 for English, etc, etc, etc, and finally get a different nitwit. She also cannot find your account information. Since I'm sure that somewhere down the line SOMEONE knows who I am and they're getting paid, this is not relevant at the moment. All I want is that stupid form you said you would mail me. Guess what? There is no form. Whoever told you there was a form was mistaken! And until your customer information somehow mysteriously appears from within "my system", I cannot stop this feature you do not wish to pay for.
Well, isn't that just f*cking dandy!
Is there anyone else I can talk to? A manager, a supervisor, someone who isn't using his brain for a seat cushion? Certainly sir, just a moment, please. The moment lasts long enough for the grass on the front lawn to grow three inches before someone with an important-sounding title gets on the line. You go through your spiel again for their benefit, and they inform you that they also cannot find your account information, and unless that somehow appears, there is nothing that can be done. However, if you wish to dispute the charges, please send copies of the credit card statements and a letter explaining which charges you wish to dispute. I have to serve customer service!
We go through this all the time, and it's not just ISP's. The phone company is good for this too. You paid for a certain calling plan, at a certain price, and then they pile up charges on you that were never explained to you by the salesperson, the 62 page document they sent you, or even on the bill itself. Eventually, you wind up paying $181.09 for exactly $15.29 of long-distance charges, when you agreed to pay $49.95 per month. "How does this happen?", you ask the person on the other end of the phone, "Well, Sir, you opted for this particular plan and..." Yes, I know I did, and the plan stated that I would have a flat price, this ain't it. And, if I'm not using $49.95 of long distance per month, why am I still paying $49.95? "Well, Sir, you opted for this particular plan..." Can I go back to a "pay-as-I-use" plan? "Sure, Sir, but then you can't guarentee the flat rate that you have with this plan..." So, I have the guarenteed flat rate, even if I don't use the phone that much, and the bill doesn't reflect the flat rate at all? "That's correct, Sir". Who can I complain to? "Here's another toll-free number..."
You have to call a DIFFERENT customer service line to get customer service.
Is this any way to do business? Records cannot be found, prices are never what you contractually agreed to and when you need to have a question answered you can't? Do you have recourse? Certainly! But have you ever tried to get through to a human being at the Public Sevice Commission?
Press 1 for English, press 2 to rant about the phone company, 3 for the electric company, 4 for the gas company, 5 for cable tv complaints, 6 if it's your mother's birthday, sit through the announcements until it says "press 0 for an operator" and then get disconnected, or worse, be connected to someone in Bombay who would ordinarily be working the night shift in a gas station, and who has a speech impediment.
What a racket!
Blogging for a reason...now, anyway...
When I started this rant in December of 2003, it was for no particular reason that made sense. In a way, I thought of it as therapy --- I have had some issues in the past that have come back to haunt me, and some new ones (like 9/11, for example), and this was a way to scream my head off without hurting anyone. Almost like your dog howling at the moon: you don't know why he does it, he probably doesn't know why he does it, but he feels compelled to all the same.
But, no more. Now I sorta-kinda have a purpose behind this crap and that purpose is StopDemocrats.com. Not only will I continue to post the lunatic ravings of my own demented psyche here, in color, for all to see, but I will also now be posting them on a national forum. The four or five of you (besides myself and my therapist) who regularly read this nonsense will now (hopefully) be joined by thousands of others. Perhaps this might be a new career for me, perhaps not. You can find out all about it at www.StopDemocrats.com/blog. You'll find my posts signed "Matthew E. Noto" (which, coincidentally, happens to be my name).
Who knows? Perhaps this thing could turn into a pot of gold. And to think: I only did this because I had nothing better to do at the time (and possibly, I still don't).
When I started this rant in December of 2003, it was for no particular reason that made sense. In a way, I thought of it as therapy --- I have had some issues in the past that have come back to haunt me, and some new ones (like 9/11, for example), and this was a way to scream my head off without hurting anyone. Almost like your dog howling at the moon: you don't know why he does it, he probably doesn't know why he does it, but he feels compelled to all the same.
But, no more. Now I sorta-kinda have a purpose behind this crap and that purpose is StopDemocrats.com. Not only will I continue to post the lunatic ravings of my own demented psyche here, in color, for all to see, but I will also now be posting them on a national forum. The four or five of you (besides myself and my therapist) who regularly read this nonsense will now (hopefully) be joined by thousands of others. Perhaps this might be a new career for me, perhaps not. You can find out all about it at www.StopDemocrats.com/blog. You'll find my posts signed "Matthew E. Noto" (which, coincidentally, happens to be my name).
Who knows? Perhaps this thing could turn into a pot of gold. And to think: I only did this because I had nothing better to do at the time (and possibly, I still don't).
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Regurgitation for Fun and Profit...
I checked the calendar this morning to make sure that it was, in fact, 2004. This may seem, at first blush, to be strange behavior, but it was necessitated by the continuing references to the Vietnam War. When I went to school, I was assured that American involvement in that conflict ended sometime in 1975. I have a vague memory of helicopters taking people off the roof of a building and an airline pilot, bendishing pistol, beating oriental-like men over the head in a vain attempt to keep them from storming his airplane, but that is all I can formally remember about the end of the war.
Apparently, I'm mistaken, and the war IS NOT over, at least not for some of us. A certain Senator from Massachusetts keeps reminding us about it. The problem with his reminders, however, is that it seems that his own memories are somewhat flawed and imperfect with regards to what actually happened in Vietnam, what he actually DID in Vietnam, and with what he did AFTER he left Vietnam.
As for this certain Senator (who shall remain nameless, as I really do not need to waste valuable bandwidth typing his name), who sorta-kinda looks like a cross between Droopy the cartoon dog and a cigar store wooden Indian, and who, it appears, would be quite comfortable in a beret, the war is the only event in his life worth talking about. Eighteen years in the United States Senate garners nary a mention. Being married to two fabulously wealthy heiresses, merits no discussion at all. This Senator cannot point to any interesting biographical point or achievement for the last 35 years, BUT, we're told that four months of service in Vietnam qualifies him, unquestionably, for the office of President of the United States.
Now, naturally, since this certain Senator is a democrat (small 'd' intentional), we have to take anything he says with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to four months of service in a war that supposedly ended 35 years ago but is all the man can find to talk about.
This certain Senator kept meticulous reords of his four months of duty: he had a diary, a movie camera, and of course, the military keeps records on everything in an anal-retentive fashion and keeps the paperwork stored in various warehouses for centuries on end. However, despite all of this easily-referenced documentation, the man can never seem to remember anything at all about those four months, and what he does remember, is often incorrect.
The Senator claimed to have been in Cambodia during a time when the President of the United States denied that American trooops were anywhere near Cambodia. Not only does the Senator get the dates incorrect, he claims it was 1968, but he also gets the President incorrect. He claims Richard Nixon was the President, when according to all the other history books, it was Lyndon Baines Johnson. He claims to have been in combat in Cambodia when there were no American troops in Cambodia at that time. It furthermore emerges that the Senator was more than 50 miles from Cambodia. He claims that such memories are SEARED into his memory. No problem, the Senator MIGHT have been mistaken, but we all know what he meant. Wink- wink, nudge- nudge.
The Sentaor claimed to have been wounded in combat against the enemy on a certain date, and yet his journal recalls no hostile action on that particular date. No problem, the Senator MIGHT have been mistaken, but the actual event happened sometime (within 365 days) of the date in question, but we all know what he meant. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
The Senator, before he was a Senator, could go before a joint-session of Congress and claim first-hand knowledge of American war atrocities, and even admit to having taken part in such attrocities, but it was everyone ELSE who was a war criminal, not the soon-to-be-Senator. Hypocricy, apparently, is a disease democrats are immune to, especially when we all know what he meant. It's not the allegations or the admission that's important, it was the reason why he came forward, that matters. Just for that, he should be given a free pass. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
The Senator can also not remember having his statements passed around by the Viet Cong to American POW's, even though many of those POW's claim to have had them thrust in their faces every day. He also cannot recall being part of a group that plotted the assasination of various members of the American government, not even being present at the actual meeting where the discussion took place, despite the recollections of about 84 other people, who were also present. But that's okay, we know what he meant. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Vietnam is over. The 60's are over. And 35 years have passed and the historical record is clear and available to anyone with half a brain and the ability to read. This Senator is full of shyte, but, it's okay, we're supposed to just believe that we all knew what he really meant. He would have you, the public, trust him to run the country, to protect the country from it's real and active enemies, and to have your best interests at heart. He makes this claim based on four months of his life, the datils of which are either fuzzy, fabricated, concrete, nuanced, complicated, obfuscatory, or otherwise contradictory, as needed or dictated by the political wind, depsite documentary evidence compiled by the United States Navy, the press, and his own journals and film records. That four months was then overshadowed by several years of anti-Vietnam war activities, some bordering on treason, and are supposed to be swept under the rug, because his heart was in the right place?
Only a Baby Boomer could come up with that sort of reasoning. Baby Boomers, as a group, are a narcissistic lot, quick to avoid responsibility, quick to attach blame, who move rapidly to attach the most noble of motives to their own selfish and self-serving behavior. Bill Clinton did it for eight years, live, on television. Countless others have done it for decades in books, articles, documentaries, etc, etc, that are all designed to make it appear as if their generation actually accomplished something other than turning Bob Dylan into an international success.
The 60's have been dead and buried for quite a long time, and the verdict of history is that the 60's should be a collective embarrasment to Americans. A generation of youth that believes they "spoke truth to power" managed to do nothing of the sort. The war dragged on until the mid 1970's, and their protests did nothing ot ameliorate the fact that conflict in Vietnam was centuries old to begin with. How many millions were saved by the "Summer of Love"? None. How many American boys were saved by the protest movement? None. How many Vietnamese and Cambodians lived to enjoy the luxury, of a rich, self-centered, democratic country that could debate it's own policies to the detriment of it's own interests while riding high on a cloud of pot smoke? None. How many Cambodians and Vietnamese could enjoy a slew of social programs running the gauntlet from Affirmative Action to Judicial Activism to Social Security? None.
The 60's generation accomplished nothing. It did not stop the killing, it did not save one damned life and it fractured the landscape of America for the next two generations with it's idiocy and it's selfishness. But they meant well.
And we're supposed to believe that a product of that generation, who spent four months of his entire life engaged in what his generation calls a "lost cause" and then his subsequent time trumpeting his service during it, and who obscures even the most easily verifiable parts of that four months, has the fiber to be President of the United States? That Generation ran Nixon out on a rail for being a two-faced liar. It considers it's own lying a qualification for office.
We live in 2004 (I checked) and the events of 35 years ago bear little relevance to the world of today, except as far as what the intervening decades tell us about the people who lived then. It tells me that we have a bunch of folks who live in a fantasy world in which they believe that only they have a right to objectivity, truth, morality, history, and to be heard, and that what they think about anything is the only correct version. Of course, all of this is subject to the whims of the individual and what he/she requires, needs or feels at any given moment.
So, if the Senator says he was in Cambodia, when all other records indicate he was not, then it must be true for AT LEAST HIM, and the rest of us are obliged to believe it because, somehow, we mystically "know" what he's really talking about. If the Senator says he FELT that his protests against a war he himself fought in are morally correct, then we are obliged to believe it too. If the Senator has faulty memories, we're obliged to join with him in sharing them. If the Senator can admit to committing war crimes, we're obliged to forgive him because he only brought them to light in the name of "justice" or for some self-centered reason that only he can explain. The facts can be made to fit the truth or they can be stretched fit any truth you wish to fit them to. This is the essence of the 60's generation. This is also, apparently, a qualification for the Presidency: don't listen to what we say, try to divine the hidden meaning of what we MEANT.
Personally, I prefer a leader who can be counted upon to say what he/she really MEANS, and then has the guts to stand behind it or the audacity to defend it, when required. Even if he speaks in incomplete sentences and has a bad grasp of the English language because in the end, I don't have to expend braincells on translating vague and subjective concepts into reality.
The 60's generation should get over itself. We live in a new era.
I checked the calendar this morning to make sure that it was, in fact, 2004. This may seem, at first blush, to be strange behavior, but it was necessitated by the continuing references to the Vietnam War. When I went to school, I was assured that American involvement in that conflict ended sometime in 1975. I have a vague memory of helicopters taking people off the roof of a building and an airline pilot, bendishing pistol, beating oriental-like men over the head in a vain attempt to keep them from storming his airplane, but that is all I can formally remember about the end of the war.
Apparently, I'm mistaken, and the war IS NOT over, at least not for some of us. A certain Senator from Massachusetts keeps reminding us about it. The problem with his reminders, however, is that it seems that his own memories are somewhat flawed and imperfect with regards to what actually happened in Vietnam, what he actually DID in Vietnam, and with what he did AFTER he left Vietnam.
As for this certain Senator (who shall remain nameless, as I really do not need to waste valuable bandwidth typing his name), who sorta-kinda looks like a cross between Droopy the cartoon dog and a cigar store wooden Indian, and who, it appears, would be quite comfortable in a beret, the war is the only event in his life worth talking about. Eighteen years in the United States Senate garners nary a mention. Being married to two fabulously wealthy heiresses, merits no discussion at all. This Senator cannot point to any interesting biographical point or achievement for the last 35 years, BUT, we're told that four months of service in Vietnam qualifies him, unquestionably, for the office of President of the United States.
Now, naturally, since this certain Senator is a democrat (small 'd' intentional), we have to take anything he says with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to four months of service in a war that supposedly ended 35 years ago but is all the man can find to talk about.
This certain Senator kept meticulous reords of his four months of duty: he had a diary, a movie camera, and of course, the military keeps records on everything in an anal-retentive fashion and keeps the paperwork stored in various warehouses for centuries on end. However, despite all of this easily-referenced documentation, the man can never seem to remember anything at all about those four months, and what he does remember, is often incorrect.
The Senator claimed to have been in Cambodia during a time when the President of the United States denied that American trooops were anywhere near Cambodia. Not only does the Senator get the dates incorrect, he claims it was 1968, but he also gets the President incorrect. He claims Richard Nixon was the President, when according to all the other history books, it was Lyndon Baines Johnson. He claims to have been in combat in Cambodia when there were no American troops in Cambodia at that time. It furthermore emerges that the Senator was more than 50 miles from Cambodia. He claims that such memories are SEARED into his memory. No problem, the Senator MIGHT have been mistaken, but we all know what he meant. Wink- wink, nudge- nudge.
The Sentaor claimed to have been wounded in combat against the enemy on a certain date, and yet his journal recalls no hostile action on that particular date. No problem, the Senator MIGHT have been mistaken, but the actual event happened sometime (within 365 days) of the date in question, but we all know what he meant. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
The Senator, before he was a Senator, could go before a joint-session of Congress and claim first-hand knowledge of American war atrocities, and even admit to having taken part in such attrocities, but it was everyone ELSE who was a war criminal, not the soon-to-be-Senator. Hypocricy, apparently, is a disease democrats are immune to, especially when we all know what he meant. It's not the allegations or the admission that's important, it was the reason why he came forward, that matters. Just for that, he should be given a free pass. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
The Senator can also not remember having his statements passed around by the Viet Cong to American POW's, even though many of those POW's claim to have had them thrust in their faces every day. He also cannot recall being part of a group that plotted the assasination of various members of the American government, not even being present at the actual meeting where the discussion took place, despite the recollections of about 84 other people, who were also present. But that's okay, we know what he meant. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Vietnam is over. The 60's are over. And 35 years have passed and the historical record is clear and available to anyone with half a brain and the ability to read. This Senator is full of shyte, but, it's okay, we're supposed to just believe that we all knew what he really meant. He would have you, the public, trust him to run the country, to protect the country from it's real and active enemies, and to have your best interests at heart. He makes this claim based on four months of his life, the datils of which are either fuzzy, fabricated, concrete, nuanced, complicated, obfuscatory, or otherwise contradictory, as needed or dictated by the political wind, depsite documentary evidence compiled by the United States Navy, the press, and his own journals and film records. That four months was then overshadowed by several years of anti-Vietnam war activities, some bordering on treason, and are supposed to be swept under the rug, because his heart was in the right place?
Only a Baby Boomer could come up with that sort of reasoning. Baby Boomers, as a group, are a narcissistic lot, quick to avoid responsibility, quick to attach blame, who move rapidly to attach the most noble of motives to their own selfish and self-serving behavior. Bill Clinton did it for eight years, live, on television. Countless others have done it for decades in books, articles, documentaries, etc, etc, that are all designed to make it appear as if their generation actually accomplished something other than turning Bob Dylan into an international success.
The 60's have been dead and buried for quite a long time, and the verdict of history is that the 60's should be a collective embarrasment to Americans. A generation of youth that believes they "spoke truth to power" managed to do nothing of the sort. The war dragged on until the mid 1970's, and their protests did nothing ot ameliorate the fact that conflict in Vietnam was centuries old to begin with. How many millions were saved by the "Summer of Love"? None. How many American boys were saved by the protest movement? None. How many Vietnamese and Cambodians lived to enjoy the luxury, of a rich, self-centered, democratic country that could debate it's own policies to the detriment of it's own interests while riding high on a cloud of pot smoke? None. How many Cambodians and Vietnamese could enjoy a slew of social programs running the gauntlet from Affirmative Action to Judicial Activism to Social Security? None.
The 60's generation accomplished nothing. It did not stop the killing, it did not save one damned life and it fractured the landscape of America for the next two generations with it's idiocy and it's selfishness. But they meant well.
And we're supposed to believe that a product of that generation, who spent four months of his entire life engaged in what his generation calls a "lost cause" and then his subsequent time trumpeting his service during it, and who obscures even the most easily verifiable parts of that four months, has the fiber to be President of the United States? That Generation ran Nixon out on a rail for being a two-faced liar. It considers it's own lying a qualification for office.
We live in 2004 (I checked) and the events of 35 years ago bear little relevance to the world of today, except as far as what the intervening decades tell us about the people who lived then. It tells me that we have a bunch of folks who live in a fantasy world in which they believe that only they have a right to objectivity, truth, morality, history, and to be heard, and that what they think about anything is the only correct version. Of course, all of this is subject to the whims of the individual and what he/she requires, needs or feels at any given moment.
So, if the Senator says he was in Cambodia, when all other records indicate he was not, then it must be true for AT LEAST HIM, and the rest of us are obliged to believe it because, somehow, we mystically "know" what he's really talking about. If the Senator says he FELT that his protests against a war he himself fought in are morally correct, then we are obliged to believe it too. If the Senator has faulty memories, we're obliged to join with him in sharing them. If the Senator can admit to committing war crimes, we're obliged to forgive him because he only brought them to light in the name of "justice" or for some self-centered reason that only he can explain. The facts can be made to fit the truth or they can be stretched fit any truth you wish to fit them to. This is the essence of the 60's generation. This is also, apparently, a qualification for the Presidency: don't listen to what we say, try to divine the hidden meaning of what we MEANT.
Personally, I prefer a leader who can be counted upon to say what he/she really MEANS, and then has the guts to stand behind it or the audacity to defend it, when required. Even if he speaks in incomplete sentences and has a bad grasp of the English language because in the end, I don't have to expend braincells on translating vague and subjective concepts into reality.
The 60's generation should get over itself. We live in a new era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)