Dell Hell, Redux

Megan McArdle writes of her troubles with Dell, which would be funny if they were not so close to the experiences many of us have with poor customer service from any number of big-name companies. The writeup is similar to the well-publicized dustup Jeff Jarvis had with Dell. These aren't the only two bloggers who have written up their customer service issues with Dell, but Jarvis is well-known in the blogosphere while McArdle is known among economics bloggers. In each case, Dell suffers from the broad audience that bloggers can reach, so that instead of telling their sad tales to a few friends and family members, Jarvis and McArdle are reaching thousands of people with their stories of customer service woe. Apparently, there is even a white paper on the impact of bloggers' "Dell Hell" stories.

The real question, though, is whether any of these stories cause customer service to improve, or whether they are just, as they say, pissing into the wind.

Bandow Canned Now

Following up a previous post, the conservative think-tank slimeball who got paid by Jack Abramoff to write op-eds favorable to his clients was suspended by Copley News Service, who distributed his column. One take, from Editor and Publisher:

Bandow has admitted that he took thousands of dollars from idnicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write columns favorable to his clients. He resigned from the Cato Institute yesterday and apologized for his "lapse of judgment."

National Society of Newspaper Columnists President Suzette Martinez Standring told E&P that what Bandow did "isn't a lapse in judgment, it’s soul-selling." She added, "With so much practice at tweaking copy for others, I’m sure the advertising industry will welcome him."

Cafferty Calls It

Better than I could. Jack Cafferty on The Situation Room:

Who cares about whether the Patriot Act gets renewed? Want to abuse our civil liberties? Just do it.

Who cares about the Geneva Conventions. Want to torture prisoners? Just do it.

Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA agents. Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it.

Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMDS is accurate. Want to invade Iraq? Just do it.

Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation's highest court. Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it.

And the latest outrage, which I read about in "The New York Times" this morning, who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens. Want to wiretap their phone conversations? Just do it. What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke.

(link from Atrios)

No End to the Madness

Atrios links to a post at Washington Monthly that takes direct aim at GWB concerning his secret executive order allowing NSA spying on Americans:

According to the Times, "the Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States." But this is just wrong. As I noted above, the law specifically allows for warrantless surveillance in emergencies, when the government needs to start surveillance before it can get a warrant. It explains exactly what the government needs to do under those circumstances. It therefore provides the flexibility the administration claims it needed.

They had no need to go around the law. They could easily have obeyed it. They just didn't want to.

It goes on and on.

Barbara Bush, Redux

Rereading the post below on Barbara Bush's jaw-dropper of 2005, I recalled that she had issued another (in)famous quote. Take your mind back all the way to March 18, 2003 (quote from www.snopes.com):

The remark in question occurred early in the three-way conversation, following a line of query directed at Mrs. Bush regarding whether she found herself studying her son for verbal or visual signs of how well he was holding up under the pressure. (Sawyer: "As a mother, do you watch for strain on him?") Mrs. Bush replied that she looked for such indications in all five of her children and remarked on the family's propensity for having hair that turns white earlier than is the norm. An additional query about whether the senior Bushes, who do not normally watch a great deal of television, found themselves watching more TV during this period than was their usual custom fetched from Mrs. Bush the quote that has since earned a measure of notoriety:

I watch none. He [former President Bush] sits and listens and I read books, because I know perfectly well that, don't take offense, that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness about that. But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer.

(Emphasis added.)

Smoking Anti-Smoking

The city I live in recently adopted a smoking ban in all bars and restaurants. Pro-clean air (a/k/a "anti-smoking") advocates have rallied 'round the decision, while restaurant and bar owners have worked tirelessly to overturn the ban (if they haven't closed their establishments already).

Here's a person who is working to subvert Edmonton's similar ban, via parked smoking bus. Hat tip to Hit and Run for the link.

"Usually the way it works is people prostitute themselves after they become reporters."

That's a quote from the infamous Jeff Gannon. Turns out it not only applies to reporters, it also applies to op-ed writers from conservative think tanks. Not to mention Armstrong Williams, et al. Not to mention military authors of articles in Iraqi papers. Has there ever been an administration (and its "friends," like Jack Abramoff) that has gone to these lengths (and crossed this many ethcal boundaries) to control the message?

They've even got this guy at a conservative think tank who has no problem with it:

Bandow isn't the only think-tanker to have received payments from Abramoff for writing articles. Peter Ferrara, a senior policy adviser at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, says he, too, took money from Abramoff to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. "I do that all the time," Ferrara says. "I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."

Unbelievable.

Bush Wins!

Barbara Bush, that is. She has the #1 dumbest quote of 2005, according to Daniel Kurtzman at About.com. Just to refresh your memory (and mine):

"What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (chuckle) – this is working very well for them." --Former First Lady Barbara Bush, on the hurricane evacuees at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept. 5, 2005

Read 'em all.

Donald Rumsfeld Connect-the-Dots

USA Today reported on 12/14/05 that “[f]lu vaccine makers would be shielded from lawsuits under sweeping language Senate Republicans hope to slip into a bill before Congress adjourns for the year, a move that has sparked outrage from Democrats and consumer advocates.”

Here’s more:

Details of the vaccine liability plan were still being worked on Wednesday. One version would allow patients harmed by flu vaccines to sue drug companies and distributors for damages only if they can prove willful misconduct.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and watchdog groups such as Public Citizen say that standard is too high and would effectively bar compensation to victims. They say the measure is so broad that it could apply to virtually any drug used to treat "epidemics," which could include such conditions as diabetes.

They contend that the federal government already has the power to protect drug companies and that patients harmed by flu vaccines should be treated the same as those injured by vaccines for measles, chicken pox and other childhood diseases. A federal "no-fault" program that went into effect in 1988 offers compensation for patients injured by childhood vaccines and is funded by a tax on every dose of the covered vaccines that are purchased.

Jillian Aldebron, a spokeswoman for Public Citizen, said that if the vaccine liability proposal had been law in 1976, 4,000 people who became ill after taking the swine flu vaccine would have had no recourse to seek compensation. Neither would military personnel and first responders who suffered heart attacks and other problems after taking smallpox vaccine in 2003, she said.

How is Donald Rumsfeld connected to any of this? Well, as it turns out, this provision could apply to any flu vaccine, depending upon the final language. Including Tamiflu, the influenza vaccine that is being dispensed right now all around the US to protect against seasonal flu. Who holds the patent on Tamiflu, you might wonder? That would be Gilead Sciences, Inc., whose Chairman from 1997 until 2001 was none other than current Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. According to today's Roll Call (sub. req.), Rumsfeld remains a large shareholder of Gilead Sciences stock.

Elsewhere the USA Today article notes that “[a] vote could come as early as Friday, said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the plan's chief supporter. Frist hopes to insert the provision into a must-pass defense bill.” Clever! We must pass this defense bill, that (not-so-) coincidentally provides a liability shield to, among others, a company whose board was formerly chaired (and whose stock is still held in large quantity) by our current Secretary of Defense.

Sen. Frist seems to have a way with conflicts of interest involving stock holdings, doesn’t he?