IT'S GOOD TO STAY INFORMED

I love the New York Times. I wish everybody read it. There were three articles in yesterday's paper that I consider blogworthy. I post the links here as bayt. Anybody want a byte?
Ivanishvili
Kirill
Newt

UPDATE: 07/34/13
I restarted my NYT subscription after a long hiatus owing to the fact that when the promotional rate expired, my bill jumped from $29-something every four weeks to $66.40!
Not long before the suspension of delivery expired, I moved. And when the paper resumed delivery, I was charged again - even though I wasn't receiving the paper.

"Well, what did you expect?", you might say.

But here's the good part. I only found out I was being charged again because I got a letter from the Times at my new address. Did you catch that? My new address. Why were they able to find me for billing purposes, but not for delivery? Let's move on.

When I called to inquire about the bill, I happened to mention to the customer service rep that the reason I had to suspend was that I couldn't justify paying $66 a month for 6-day delivery. She said that the $66 dollar rate was for 7-day delivery, and that 6-day delivery was only $34.08 every four weeks.
Being of an inquiring mind, I thought to myself, "Since I not once received a Sunday paper, why was I charged for 7-day delivery?", and the only reason I could come up with was that the promotional rate for 6-day delivery somehow morphed into 7-day delivery. Must be that old New York magic.
So I went ahead and restarted Home Delivery. Who wouldn't. Arguably, the finest newspaper in American History for $1.22 a day? You'd have to be crazy not to, right?

Well.

When I got the email confirmation, the rate was $9.84 per week. According to my calculator, that's $39.36 every four weeks. Same decimal system. Same electricity. Why the discrepancy? Was I mistaken about the $34.08? I didn't see how. I'd confirmed it with the first rep who first quoted it to me. And re-confirmed it with a second rep while arranging credit for the papers I didn't receive.

So I called the NYT subscription department and was told that the rate was indeed $9.84 per week. So I said, "Then why was I quoted a  rate of $34.08 - a figure that was confirmed in a subsequent conversation?
And she said, "Can you hold while I check something?"
"Sure, I'll hold".

When she came back on the line, she said that what she found out was that my address, in this section of Bloomington, IN, was "in the New York area," (a direct quote), that my rate was in fact $34.08 for four weeks, and that the situation had been corrected.

Then I got this email:

Thank you for contacting us. We are happy to change your service on account 890371511. You will receive Monday through Saturday delivery starting on 7/26/2013. Your subscription rate will change to $9.84 per week, which will be reflected on your next statement.

You can also visit our web site at https://homedelivery.nytimes.com to receive information on your account 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Please follow the instructions to register if you have not done so already.

If there is anything else we can do to help you, please e-mail us at customercare@nytimes.com or call us at 1-800-NYTIMES (1-800-698-4637) from 5 a.m. to midnight Monday-Friday and 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday & Sunday (ET).

We appreciate your business and understand your concerns regarding your New York Times account.

Sincerely,

Sarah Ray
Online Customer Care
The New York Times
www.homedelivery.nytimes.com

So I replied:

No. That is incorrect.
When I called to restart my subscription, I was told it would cost $34.08 every four weeks. That figure was confirmed by a second customer service representative with whom I spoke in order to have my account credited for papers delivered to my Martinsville, Indiana address upon expiration of my suspension, after I moved form there - a suspension I requested after I started getting charged $66.40 every four weeks for no apparent reason, and which I could not afford. At the time, I thought it must be due to expiration of some "promotional rate" hidden somewhere in the fine print. Not so. It just happened all by itself and nobody at the NYT knows why.
When I restarted my subscription about two weeks ago, in Bloomington, Indiana, and started getting Sunday papers - even though I had told TWO customer service reps that I wanted only Monday through Saturday - I called AGAIN and found I was still scheduled for 7-day delivery! I changed it to Monday through Saturday AGAIN, and was told it would cost $9.84 per week. When I asked why $9.84 per week when I was quoted, and had gotten confirmation of, $34.08 every four weeks, she said she would look into it. When she came back on the phone she said that the $34.08 rate was correct, and that I was eligible for that rate because the area of Bloomington, Indiana I lived in was "in the New York area", whatever that means.
I do not want Monday through Saturday at $9.84 per week. I want Monday through Saturday at $34.08 every four weeks like I was quoted, and had confirmed, and re-confirmed along with an explanation of why I was eligible for it. If you don't know how to do it, please have your supervisor contact me.

To which I received this response:

Thank you for contacting us. We understand your concerns regarding the delivery of The New York Times and are happy to help you. In response to your inquiry, our records indicate that you are paying $9.84 for the Monday through Saturday delivery. However at this time you do not qualify for a promotion and your promotion had expired as of 4/28/2012 and you been paying the regular rate since. We do apologize for the inconvenience that this may have caused. If you have any other questions or concerns please contact us at the phone number below.

You can also visit our web site at www.homedelivery.nytimes.com to receive information on your account 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Please follow the instructions to register if you have not done so already.

If there is anything else we can do to help you, please e-mail us at customercare@nytimes.com or call us at 1-800-NYTIMES (1-800-698-4637) from 5 a.m. to midnight Monday-Friday and 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday & Sunday (ET).

We appreciate your business.

Sincerely,

Zack Palmitier
Online Customer Care
The New York Times

www.homedelivery.nytimes.com

So I sent this:

Are you suggesting that I invented the story about the $34.08 rate? Or are you suggesting that three customer service reps gave me the wrong identical information? What's the statistical probability of that?

I may have been paying the regular rate since the promotion expired, but I was getting Monday thru Saturday delivery and being charged the regular rate for 7-day delivery part of that time. Or do you think I'm lying about that, too? Do you think I'm trying to cheat you? Because that is the impression you are giving. I'm telling you I was quoted $34.08 for four weeks by three different sales reps. You are telling me I wasn't. If that isn't the correct rate, then you need to train your people better.

It's too bad that subscription rates are falling for what is arguably the best newspaper in the world. Has it occurred to anyone there that it may be due in part to terrible customer relations? I won't ask for assistance again. I will just cancel home delivery and read it at the Library. And when the survey comes, I'll tell them why and who.

Followed by this:

Your customer service department is misinformed on this as well: that subscribers can opt out of auto-pay by requesting direct billing via "My Account>My Profile>Edit billing information." Negatory. That is not an option. No more making money the old-fashioned way, I guess. Welcome to the new business plan. The collapse of what was such a highly-revered publishing icon is gut-wrenching. Here's the thing you need to consider, though. Once you've driven all the customers away, the company will have no reason to keep you.

Net Gain

There are some people without whom the world would be a better place, and Rush Limbaugh is definitely one of them.

Venezuela

Had an interesting conversation with a woman from Venezuela yesterday. I asked her what she thought of Hugo Chavez. Her characterization of him was quite different than that in the American press. Seems Venezuelans love the guy.

She said he has his own TV show. It airs once a week.

For 8 hours!

Entirely un-scripted.

He talks, dances, tells jokes, reads children's stories, poetry.

What else did she have to say about this evil-doer? Well, among other things, that he enacted legislation that pays stay-at-home moms a pension.

Can anybody say, "Family Values"?

I asked her why he is portrayed so negatively in the American press, and she said it's because Venezuela has a lot of oil, and that Chavez wants to keep it for the Venezuelan people. Then I remembered that Hugo Chavez wasn't always persona non grata in the American press. In fact, shortly before he came to power he was being presented as a sort of everyman hero, a good egg. That was before he said "no" to Big Oil, though. That was before he demonstrated his commitment to the Venezuelan people. Why run him down now, after proving himself the genuine article? And why can't America elect a President like Hugo Chavez?

WHO MADE FEBRUARY THE BASTARD STEP-CHILD?

Why does February have only twenty-eight days (typical)? Look. Every four years, there are 366 days in a year. 366 divided by 12 is 30.5. Wouldn't it make more sense to think of every fourth year as the standard example, with six 30-day months and six 31-day months? And in the intervening years drop a day from January? That way odd-numbered months could have odd-numbered days, and even-numbered months could have even-numbered days. Wouldn't that be easier to remember than, "Thirty days has September, April, June, and Whatever"? That's not even (chrono)logical. No wonder most people don't know which way is up. A longer February would give the 99% two extra days to come up with March rent. Seriously, if you want a shorter February, take out that first "r". Nobody uses anyway.

And what happened to leap day? Seems like I read in one of those Boorstin books (lighter than they are thick; printed on super-absorbent paper towel, in case you fall asleep reading and drool) that the Gregorian calendar provides for an extra minute every four hundred years. February 2000, duh. Hello.

Maybe we should just switch to metric time. Or do away with time altogether. I mean, it isn't real anyway. Wouldn't you rather just do what comes next than to have to be somewhere at a certain time; miss stuff without fault? Life has become too compartmentalized. People are not modules. Slave to the clock, slave to the calendar. I'm just sayin'.

The Road to the Presidency 2012

Fellow Democrats, please hear me. We must take action during the Republican primary if the American ideals ingrained in us as kids are to remain within our grasp.

The Bush administration turned this country into a land of opportunity for the rich. Treating corporations as individuals in return for campaign contributions killed individual freedoms. Almost every politician in office has in the interim succumbed to the lure of entitlements generated by this new brand of government of the people, by the rich, for the rich. The American people themselves, subjected to this treatment for so long, have by imperceptible degrees come to accept it.

Concerning the Republican primary, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has his feet on the ground and his head on straight. He actually believes that America belongs to the people, and he's unorthodox enough to want to wrestle it back for us from the corporations and rich elite. I don't know whether it would be possible for a Democrat to register as a Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the primary. But if so, that's what I would urge all self-respecting Democrats to do - even if you don't want Ron Paul as President. The reason is quite simple: Ron Paul is less likely beat Obama than Newt Gingrich is.

I don't know much about politics, but I know what I don't like. And I don't like the idea of Newt Gingrich getting anywhere near the possibility of running for President. If we want wars of aggression on foreign soil, government-awarded private industry reparation contracts in the aftermath of those wars, government-awarded private industry mercenary forces fomenting terrorism around the globe, government awarded blank checks on the American public's bank accounts to underwrite bailouts for private industry auto, banking, mortgage, and insurance companies whose CEOs are rewarded with multi-million dollar annual bonuses, and/or government positions, for engineering those failures, a greater flood of Chinese imports like tainted milk, kids' toys trimmed in colorful lead paint, and poisoned pet food, not to mention junk that fails to work right out of the box, and deregulation enough to enable the pharmaceutical industry to narcotize every child in America before they reach puberty, then Newt's our man.

A choice in November between Barack Obama and Ron Paul is infinitely preferable in my mind. Gingrich will win the primary unless Democrats intercede. With the Republicans' history of stealing elections, simply having Gingrich in the running might result in his becoming President. A choice between Obama and Paul, on the other hand, seems like a win/win situation to me.

Registering as a Republican might present a terrible moral dilemma to anyone with a sense of integrity. But now's the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Politics is a dirty, dirty game, and Democrats typically don't like to get dirty. We'll adhere to propriety and shoot ourselves in the foot. We'll take the high road and reach for the sky as we step off the cliff. Republicans don't give two shits about integrity, even though they would lay down their lives for whatever Newt Gingrich tells them integrity is.

Fellow Democrats. Know your enemy. Please take time to view Ron Paul's comments on YouTube, as well as the comments of the other candidates. You will see, as I have, that he is the only sane one among them. The rest are blinded by their privileged status and gargantuan egos. Don't think that Ron Paul can't win. He can if you will just vote for him.