The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.

Verizon is a dinosaur in need of extinction.

Back in February, I was peeved at Sprint PCS for a bad policy that cost me money, so I switched. Figuring the service would be good, I decided on Verizon. After three days, realizing that it wasn’t, I canceled my service and returned to Sprint. I had no idea what a challenge this would cause.

Shortly after I returned to Sprint, I received a “final” bill from Verizon. Besides the extra time I’d used beyond the rationed minutes I received, the bill included a $175 termination fee. I called Verizon to inform them that they needed to remove this because I’d had their service for three days, well under the 15 day limit to cancel. The representatives I spoke with agreed and said it would be removed. I agreed to pay the legitimate balance once I received a revised bill, adding a caveat that I wouldn’t pay late fees because this was their mistake. They agreed.

Thirty days later, I received my revised bill. Amusingly, the amount due was the exact same value from the first bill. Another call was necessary, so I wasted time to correct their mistake. Again. The supervisor informed me that the representative noted the incorrect termination fee but failed to initiate the request to remove it from my account. No big deal. The supervisor and I agreed that the deal from thirty days earlier would carry forward for another month.

In April, guess what happened. Another bill arrived, with the same mistake repeated. Again I called Verizon. The representative I spoke with, Angela, acknowledged that the previous request had gone through, but that it would take 1 or 2 billing cycles.

I told her I understood, but only after I confirmed that my previous agreement was noted in my account. She said yes, that I didn’t have to pay until I received my revised bill. Once again, I confirmed that no late fees would apply to my account. She said yes.

Sooooooooooo… This month, I didn’t receive a bill. I received a letter that Verizon disconnected my cellular service for nonpayment. I laughed and set the letter aside for a few days. Last night, I called to clear up the matter. Forty-five minutes later, I knew the truth about Verizon. Verizon hates its customers.

The $175 termination fee was gone, but two $5 late fees were added. The financial account representative explained that the late fees were added because Verizon hasn’t received payment from me. Duh. This started a vicious cycle, from which we never escaped.

I explained the last three months, which was useless because I gave the facts and spoke them intelligently. After much verbal sparring, the representative asked if he’d resolved my issue.

“Nope.”

We repeated this cycle several more times. In the course of this waste of time, he informed me that the representatives I’d spoken with over the previous two months indicated in the notes to my account that I was told that my bill would include late fees. This is a lie.

Allow me to repeat that: two representatives of Verizon blatantly lied on my account. I made the obvious argument that I couldn’t prove they were lying, until I came upon the wonderful strategy of tangling them in their inaccuracies. I commented that I had a piece of paper indicating that my account was terminated for nonpayment. That is an obvious fabrication, since I have Sprint bills confirming that I’ve had Sprint service with my number since February 11th. Verizon’s response: I should “disregard that notice”.

How convenient. When the data represents their position, ignoring the difference between data and facts, it counts. When it contradicts their position, I should disregard the information. Somehow I missed the lesson in business school that instructed me to abuse customers by patronizing them, lying on their accounts, and stealing their money whenever possible.

That explains why a customer is charged a $175 termination fee, regardless of how long they had service before canceling. Being a computer programmer, I know how simple it is to code software to prevent incorrect termination fees. The pseudo code would look something like this:

If (Termination Date – Activation Date) <= 15 Then
Termination Fee = 0
Else
Termination Fee = 175
End-if

That code would take approximately 4 nanoseconds to process each time an account is closed. But that didn’t happen. There are inevitably customers who don’t understand how the termination fee works and will pay it. They may mutter and curse the outrageous cost, but they’ll pay it. Verizon earns an easy $175. That’s the only explanation I can believe, given everything else I’ve learned about them from our conversations.

I now understand this to be Verizon’s reality. Searching the Verizon website, I was amused when I found this speech. From Bob Stott, New England Region President for Verizon had a few interesting customer service ideas:

For example, a customer service representative might find that by entering customer information into the company’s billing system in a certain way allows for a quicker transaction and more accurate information on the customer’s bill.

“A certain way”, indeed, Mr. Stott. But I don’t want that to overshadow this nugget:

We are dedicated to first call resolution. That means when one of our customers calls with an issue it becomes our issue and we aim to satisfy the customer in that same call.

Forty-five minutes into my 4th call to Verizon, I knew I wouldn’t get fair treatment, so I decided that I was done. Based on the termination for nonpayment letter and the honesty angle, I knew I’d won. The representative knew I’d won. That was enough for the call. Besides, I was hungry.

I’m going to pay the bill when it arrives, including the late fees. Even though I’m right, I’m not stupid enough to wreck my credit rating for this. However, Verizon will never receive another penny from me. I hope that’s worth $10.

Retching is always a winner

I’ve written about the joy of the cuddlefeast. Whenever there is brief span of time without a cuddlefeast, my roommates take appropriate measures to compensate for the lack of entertaining. I appreciate this because it offers me minutes upon minutes of endless joy.

Seeing that my house had been without a cuddlefeast for many weeks, and seeing the joy that is this rare spring time on the East Coast, a cuddlefeast captured my imagination on Saturday night. I returned home around 9pm, after a sojourn to the movies to enjoy Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock’s magnificent documentary about the atrocious food lifestyle Americans have embraced. As a vegan, I don’t eat a McDiet. Yet, I don’t believe McDonald’s is solely responsible for fattening up Americans. They’re definitely complicit in the task, but they’re a business offering consumers a food choice. Many Americans are actively pursuing that choice. I didn’t need a documentary to present the incredibly interesting foods that people will eat.

Cuddlefeasts almost always confirm this for me, since they’re generally a five hour director’s cut of Iron Chef. Saturday night elevated the art form to a new height. The highlight of the menu: cicadas.

Upon revealing this, one attendee asked if I’d care to join them. I declined. I’ve never participated in a cuddlefeast as anything other than an observer from the fringes since they’re crowded and filled with meat. I should be more social, yet, even when I ate meat, I would never have joined in this one. That’s foul.

Upon reaching my bedroom, I called Danielle. She has a rational hatred of all things cicada, so I knew she’d need to know. (As luck would have it, I had not yet been introduced to the nasty little fuckers, so my distaste for the idea of eating cicadas was merely intellectual. Sunday’s gardening foray would unfortunately remedy that beyond repair.) She wanted me to ask many questions, but I knew that I didn’t want to know the answers. I’m inquisitive, yet sometimes happily ignorant.

Ignorance is bliss. Sunday morning, I noticed something interesting in our refrigerator. I dared not ask what it might be, but I was compelled to take a picture. Just in case. Last night, I gathered my courage, against my better instinct, and asked. Sure enough, three layers of chocolate-cocooned cicadas.

These atrocities defiled my refrigerator.

What is wrong with these people? Don’t they know that cicadas kill?!?

Mother Nature’s mischief

Saturday, I decided it was finally time to hack up the overgrowth of plant life in my back yard. With this in mind, I went to Smith & Hawken and bought a very cool Folding Saw to make my job easier. This morning, when I attacked my back yard, the Folding Saw worked beautifully.

What I’d forgotten, since I haven’t “gardened” in a long time, is the emotional benefit of industrious work’s solitude. I was able to relax and forget the world for a few hours, which was tremendous. Communing with nature made me feel almost as if I went to church today.

Looking for information for this post, I cam across the concept of Pantheism, which is defined as:

Any doctrine, philosophy, or religious practice that holds universe [cosmos], taken or conceived of as the totality of forces and/or matter, is synonymous with the theological principle of God.

I’m not prescribing this as a concept, nor am I going to adopt this and and become weird. Veganism is all the weirdness the world needs from me. But I think it’s fascinating that there are people compelled to slap a label on communing with nature. As a concept, it’s great, but a label? Fascinating.

Assuming a predisposition to wrap myself in this label, this would be my altar.

After my experience, I do believe there is validity to the concept. Throughout my life, I’ve always thought the idea of Satan to be utterly ridiculous. I could be wrong, but I base my beliefs on what makes sense to me and that concept does violence to my intellect.

Yet, two hours of yardwork convinced me that I’m wrong. Why, you may ask? It’s simple. I saw my first cicadas today and only Satan could create something as vile and evil.

Even I’m convinced!

According to this article, police in Garland, Texas arrested 34 people and charged them with “riot participation/aggravated assault/serious bodily injury, a second-degree felony punishable by two to 20 years in prison.” The fight was organized on the internet and subsequently videotaped.

I obviously haven’t seen the fight, so I don’t care about the details. My focus of entertainment here is two-fold. First, criminals are stupid. It’s almost universally understood that when two or more suspects commit a crime, they will videotape it. Note to criminals: your ego is not your best friend.

Second, I could not pass up this gem. I had to read it more than once to fully comprehend the essence of the statement.

Diana Rodriguez said her husband, Garland High senior Daniel Moncilla, didn’t hit anyone.

No explanation needed, that’s outstanding.

The future’s so bright, I have to wear blinders

In interesting technology/business news today, Yahoo announced that it plans to increase to 100 megabytes the amount of free e-mail storage it offers to its consumers. This comes at a time of great strategic advances by Yahoo in the face of competition. From Yesterday’s meeting with Wall Street analysts:

And throughout the daylong meeting, set a self-assured Yahoo CEO Terry Semel tone by insisting the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company feeds on competitive threats.

Without mentioning names, Semel made veiled references to longtime rivals Microsoft and AOL, as well as “one or two” upcoming companies.

After acknowledging that these companies have become major players in some Internet segments, Semel cautioned Yahoo’s foes.

“My advice is to beware,” Semel said. “All we want to do is win. It’s the only thing that excites us.”

Define winning. Is it offering extra e-mail storage? Is it having the most consumers? I know… perhaps it’s STEALING THE MOST MONEY FROM IT’S CONSUMERS! I’ve said “consumer” throughout this post because Yahoo does not treat people as customers. If it did, then it wouldn’t have stolen $14.85 from me. If it did, it would have returned more than $4.95 when I proved that it stole from me. If it did, its consumers wouldn’t have to call three times to have only one-third of the heist returned.

Focusing on the main point that Yahoo had to offer, this is the fact that should be highlighted:

The change, which will become effective this summer, is being made six weeks after Google unveiled an e-mail service that will offer each account 1,000 megabytes of free storage.

Now consider this statement:

“We will continue to lead and not follow,” said Dan Rosensweig, Yahoo’s chief operating officer. “We know where the Internet is going.”

I love that new definition of leading. Provide 10% of your competitor’s offer six weeks later and the industry will cower. “Bow before us, oh ye gods of competition, we are leaders! We are Yahoo!”

A Pacifist’s War Principles

  1. I hate war.
  2. War is rarely justified.
  3. When justified, it must be undertaken.
  4. When undertaken, it is a necessary evil.
  5. Because it’s a necessary evil, only victory will suffice.
  6. Victory is measured by permanently stopping the instigators.
  7. Stopping the instigators must be viewed through the eyes of justice.
  8. The eyes of justice do not seek vengeance.
  9. Vengeance creates mistakes.
  10. Mistakes transform victory into failure.
  11. Failure is unacceptable.

Fire up the engine, the train is leaving

Over the last week, I’ve been trying to sort out my thoughts on the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. It clearly hurts our self-imposed image as “the good guys”. While I don’t feel obliged to discuss the abuse directly, since the evidence speaks for itself, it’s abhorrent to our national values and ideals. No “moral” society would allow this to happen. But I’m realistic enough to understand that no society will proceed in any significant endeavor without mistakes. The true nature of a society is its response to its mistakes. In this we’re failing miserably.

Specifically, our president is failing. He’s reacting to this situation as if we should be content that the abuse was uncovered and the guilty will be prosecuted. That is part of the solution, but pretending like this isn’t a big issue is wrong.

If President Bush or others in his administration permitted the abuse, they are responsible and vile. If no one in President Bush’s administration knew of the abuse, they are responsible and incompetent. Neither truth is comforting. While President Bush will continue to push the war on terror forward, we have no evidence to believe that he can change his style of governing.

Despite this scandal, we should not capitulate to terrorists. Some will say we are no better than the terrorists we claim to fight. They are wrong. Terrorists will continue to use any reason available, no matter how twisted, to justify their agenda. However, until we prove that we are willing to admit and correct our mistakes, we make it more difficult for our allies to support us unconditionally. This is a pivotal moment in our fight for the world’s freedom. We must act honorably.

Based on this need, I do not believe that this administration is the right one to lead us into the future. I don’t base my opinion on the Republican vs. Democrat difference because it is beyond party differences. This is a leadership issue. President Bush and officials in his administration are demonstrating their fundamental lack of leadership skills in the world of 2004. Sometimes forceful, unilateral action is appropriate. When it’s not, that leaves diplomacy. This administration has shown that it lacks diplomacy, which is why the Republican Party must rid itself of the Bush-Cheney re-election ticket.

I’m intelligent enough to know that such a reversal will never happen. After the 13 nanoseconds it took me to come to that conclusion, I shifted to what might be a workable solution. As I’ve written before, the best possibility for America is a Kerry-McCain ticket for the presidency.

My opinion hasn’t changed, I still think this is a brilliant solution. Yet, I know my ideas do not usually gel with everyone else. Much to my surprise, though, Andrew Sullivan reiterated this same idea in an article for The National Review. I’m not sure I agree with the loss of confidence in the Kerry candidacy that Mr. Sullivan claims, but he’s following the campaign closer than I am, so I’m willing to give him some slack on this for now. Rather than try to write my own version of why this is a great idea, I’ll offer a few highlights from the article. He clarifies everything I’ve been thinking, but haven’t put into words. Rather than waste time re-writing what’s already written, I’ll let the idea stand in place of my originality.

Mr. Sullivan’s main argument:

Here’s why. There is no one better suited in the country to tackle a difficult war where the United States is credibly accused of abusing prisoners than John McCain. He was, after all, a victim of the worst kind of prisoner torture imaginable in the Hanoi Hilton. His military credentials are impeccable but so are his moral scruples and backbone; that’s a rare combination. As a vice-presidential candidate, he would allow Kerry to criticize the conduct of the war and occupation, but also to pursue them credibly. He would give Kerry credibility on national defense, removing the taint of an “antiwar” candidacy headed by a man who helped pioneer the antiwar forces during Vietnam. He would ensure that a Kerry victory would not be interpreted by America’s allies or enemies as a decision to cut and run from Iraq.

In office, McCain could be given real authority as a war-manager, providing a counterweight to Kerry’s penchant for U.N.-style non-solutions. There’s a precedent for such a powerful vice-president who could not credibly be believed to have designs on the Oval Office himself: Dick Cheney. Why no credible ambitions for the presidency himself? If McCain agreed to run with Kerry, he would also have to agree to support Kerry for possible reelection. There’s no way that McCain could credibly run for president in eight years’ time–as a Democrat or as a Republican. So he could become for Kerry what Cheney has been for Bush: a confidant, a manager, a strategic mind, a guide through the thicket of war-management. But he could also be more for Kerry: He could be a unifying force in the country in the dark days ahead.

Whatever your opinion, read the article in its entirety. Mr. Sullivan offers an interesting perspective on the “national government” idea, commonly found in times of crisis in parliamentary democracies. It’s an important, unique approach to our election at this critical moment and worth your consideration.

A game is just a game

Saturday afternoon, I attended my 11-year-old brother’s baseball game. Few people knew at the time, but the first base umpire experienced chest pains during the game. He chose to continue in spite of the pain. In the bottom of the second inning, he had a heart attack.

I did not see him collapse. I’d walked away from my seat for a few moments, since my brother had already batted in the top of the second. I walked no more than 15 feet to join my mom in conversation. Looking back at the field, I noticed the umpire on the ground. At the same time, the coaches were beginning to recognize the situation. Several people rushed to his side and immediately realized the grave nature of his condition. Frantic attempts to reach 911 began. One parent in the crowd is a cardiac nurse, so she ran to his aide. Everyone else stood, dazed and frozen.

Not being near him, the rest of the crowd didn’t know what was happening. Within moments, the nurse began CPR on him.

One of the parents and I ran to the field. As he raced to the umpire’s side to help, I gathered the remaining kids still on the field and instructed them to go to the dugout. A few walked slowly, still gazing in mortified curiosity. I turned them toward the dugout and ordered them to go. I followed behind them. Once they were in, I blocked the entrance to the field. Later, when the ambulance arrived, some of the kids wanted to look and started for the dugout exit. I blocked their exit.

I don’t tell this story to gain admiration. I don’t have CPR skills, so I was no direct help to the umpire. I regret my one failure to act. I had the notion that we should get the kids out of the dugout and away from the scene. They didn’t need to see what was happening, but I didn’t act quickly enough and those kids saw what they didn’t need to see. My brother was one of those kids, so that regret will linger with me.

I tell this story because I want to highlight something wonderful. In the midst of tragedy, regular people stepped up to help a man in trouble. No one overstepped their skills because a man’s life was involved, but everyone did what they could to give him his best chance to live. No one wasted time delegating authority. No one asked permission to help. People saw a need and did what was necessary. Even when some in the crowd exhibited callous behavior during the crisis, the greater will stopped it with a stern look of intent.

Before the paramedics could take him from the field to a hospital, he died.

…

I’ve accepted the reality that I watched a man die. Though the change is small, I will never be the same.