February 9, 2008.  Politics.  The primaries are over in New Jersey, with Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side and McCain on the Republican side carrying the state.  With the subsequent withdrawal of Romney, McCain's nomination as the Republican standard-bearer is virtually assured.  Democrats in the states that still have primaries must face the facts.  The Clinton-Obama contest is still undecided, and they will decide it (unless that decision still goes to the Democratic convention).  Nomination of Hillary Clinton almost surely, in my opinion, assures the Republicans of victory in the general election.  Republicans are salivating at the prospect that Democrats will "grasp defeat from the jaws of victory" by nominating her.  Let's look at the reasons.

1.  Obviously, Hillary Clinton isn't going to get any votes from Republicans of any stripe.  "Clinton Republican" is an oxymoron.  Even though many Republicans consider McCain to be a poor choice – and some in the extreme conservative base of the party hate him – they are not going to vote for Clinton.  It's highly doubtful that many Republican women will break from the party just because Hillary is a woman.

2.  Many Democrats are dead set against a White House run by the "Clintonistas."  They feel that a vote for Hillary Clinton as president is also a vote for Bill Clinton as virtual vice president.  They cannot imagine anyone who, as titular vice president, would have more influence in a Hillary Clinton White House than her husband will.  They fear that Bill Clinton will be a loose cannon in a Hillary Clinton administration, a fear bolstered by his behavior in Hillary's campaign.  While it is hard to imagine any Clinton Republicans, it is fairly easy to imagine McCain Democrats – people who will vote for McCain rather than risk a Clinton regime in which Bill has a huge amount of unofficial power.

3.  Few political figures are as divisive or potentially divisive as Hillary Clinton, a trait that is magnified when one considers the Clintons together (as one must).  Granted, we are a people with many differences, and partisan politics is bound to be divisive.  However, with the global threats we face, we are looking for leaders who will pull us together.  This is especially true after having a president who has been more of a divider than a uniter.

4.  Independents are unlikely to vote for Clinton.  Neither party should underestimate the number or the power of independent voters.  One must include among independents the many individuals who merely "lean Democratic" or "lean Republican" but may not vote along party lines, even when they register with that party to vote in primaries.  Given a choice between McCain and Clinton, Democratic-leaning independents are more likely to cross party lines and vote for McCain than Republican-leaning independents are to cross over and vote for Clinton.

5.  Most of these considerations have to do with gut feelings rather than substantive issues, but that's how people vote anyway.  Not many voters base their vote primarily on where candidates stand on the issues, especially when the issues are complex.  All of the issues likely to be discussed in the general campaign – the war in Iraq, national security, the economy, healthcare, imigration – defy simplistic analysis.  All of the candidates are obviously intelligent and will, the voters feel, select intelligent advisers.  So the voters' choice is more likely to be based on character and trust.  On that score, I believe that most voters will conclude that McCain, despite his flaws, beats Clinton hands down.

I sincerely believe that the Democrats are asking to be trounced at the polls if they nominate Hillary Clinton.  I could be wrong – and I've been wrong  before – but that is the view of an independent-leaning-Democrat who would, in a McCain-Clinton contest most likely vote for Republican, even though I am thoroughly disgusted with what we have had to endure under a Republican administration for the past seven years.

February 13, 2008.  One of the big stories in the tech news lately has been the attempt by Microsoft to acquire Yahoo.  Apparently, Microsoft wants to do this so that it can better compete with Google in search and other features by acquiring some of Yahoo's assets – and its considerable following.

To make full disclosure, I don't like Microsoft or Yahoo, and I am a fan of Google.  That, I suppose, is a bias, but it's based on experience.  My complaints about Microsoft are the same as those of everyone else who has a complaint:  they produce glitch-prone software that is not user-friendly in many respects.  Admittedly, some Microsoft programs are more versatile and rich with features than similar products from other suppliers are, but this often adds a level of complexity that makes simple features harder to use.  The most damning criticism of Microsoft is that, after years of monopolizing the software market, it doesn't care about helping the user.  Once you buy a Microsoft product, you're on your own.  Its gazillions of pages of online "help" are not helpful at all.  Indeed, describing the mazes I have had to navigate to resolve some of the simple problems I've had with MS software would fill a book.

I have less experience with Yahoo because most of my experiences have been such that I didn't want to go back.  Yahoo does offer many "free" online services, but using them takes one through a complex series of steps, often punctuated by advertising.  Although it has apparently abandoned its original practice of launching a barrage of pop-ups with every move one makes, I have the impression that any visit to Yahoo opens up one's computer to a pile of spyware and adware that installs without one's knowing it.  Whenever I visit a Yahoo-affiliated site, my spam and adware killing programs shift into overdrive to block all the intruders.

A merger of Microsoft and Yahoo would represent, in my view, a combination of two of the evil geniuses of Internet technology.  What's already needlessly complex and user-unfriendly would become more so.  What's geared toward collecting advertising dollars despite the increased annoyances for the typical user would become even worse.

Ironically, what drives Microsoft's desire to acquire Yahoo is the hope of beating Google at a game that Google has been winning – online ad revenue.  The irony is that Google has cornered the market here because advertising on Google is effective but unobtrusive.  Yahoo, in particular, specializes in the kind of in-your-face ad promotion that people go out of their way to avoid.  They are the loud, used-car salesmen of Internet advertising.  Google's subtler, low-key approach is more effective, and its numbers prove that.

Google has also run circles around Microsoft and Yahoo in giving users services, programs, and utilities that work well and operate intuitively.  The Internal Site Search feature on this website is an example.  Google makes it remarkably easy to install and then sends out a "bot" periodically to make sure that it's up-to-date.  It costs me nothing to have this feature on my site, but Google benefits because it is free promotion for Google and its advertisers.  Yes, it has limitations, but I regard these as a fair trade-off for simplicity.

It's not only in the search area that Google excels in efficiency and ease of operation.  Those of us who want a good photo management tool and don't need all the features of something like Adobe PhotoShop (excellent if one wants a sophisticated photo editing program but cumbersome and complicated if one doesn't) can make do fine with Google's free Picassa program.  It does as much as or more than Windows' photo manager and does it better.  Google Maps is better than Map Quest – and more fun.  Want to post a blog free of charge?  Google's Blogger is just fine, and one can get started in a matter of minutes.  Again, it has some limitations, but that's the trade-off for simplicity.  Google's gmail program for e-mail is at least on a par with Microsoft's Hotmail or Yahoo's free e-mail, but it isn't awash with advertising as those (especially Yahoo) are.  I will admit that gmail collects a huge amount of spam, but it's quite good about sorting it into the spam folder and keeping it out of the inbox.

What Google has done so far, it has done well, with user-friendliness obviously in mind.  That is the key to Google's success.  When Google has acquired something else (such as Blogger), the Google touch has improved it.  Microsoft and Yahoo have also done some things well, but user-friendliness and transparency seem to have been shoved aside in favor of the kind of complexity that only a geek could love.

The Microsoftees and Yahooligans have good reason to fear Google, but they won't beat it by ganging up on it.  They would most likely only intensify their own weaknesses, while Google forges ahead with its focus on the customer – those millions of users who prize simplicity above needless complexity.

February 14, 2008.  Anyone who is thinking about going to Verizon's "triple-play" package (TV, Internet, phone) can be assured of getting a good product but will also get what has to be some of the worst customer service anywhere.

Without excessive detail, here's our experience with this dysfunctional and inept part of Verizon's operations.  In June of 2006, I began subscribing to fiber optic (FiOS) Internet; the service was excellent and far surpassed my experience with Comcast cable, which had become a disaster.  I even got good technical help on the telephone relatively promptly.  In October of last year we added telephone and TV service.  Although the TV reception is great and the phone works fine, this was the beginning of a four-month nightmare that is yet to be resolved.

Apparently unable to deal with a customer who expanded to "triple-play" from Internet-only service, Verizon overcharged me.  When I tried to call the 800 number to get the error corrected, I got Verizon's automated voice answering machine, Miss Cheerful Chirpy, who is a mechanical moron.  I can best describe the experience as being routed to Timbuktu via Zimbabwe and ending up in somewhere in Siberia, where Miss Chirpy hangs up – cheerfully, of course, after telling you that "your request cannot be processed."  (Never mind that I made no request, had never reached a human, and had just pressed the buttons that Miss Chirpy told me to press.)

To avoid dying of old age while attempting to navigate Miss Chirpy's unproductive maze of "Push 1 for X, 2 for Y, 3 for . . . zzzzzzz," I sent a registered letter to the P.O. Box listed on my bill.  It got no reply.  Possibly, that mailbox belongs to Miss Chirpy, who is a machine and therefore cannot read or answer mail.

In desperation, I searched and found online the e-mail addresses of several Verizon executives.  In a kind of carpet-bombing approach, I sent e-mails to six likely suspects, attaching a copy of the unanswered letter that I had dispatched to the P.O. box.  Only one executive replied – a Mr. Robert Barish, Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, in Basking Ridge, NJ.  Mr. Barish, who must be considered weird by his colleagues at Verizon because he actually answers customers' messages, offered his apologies and said that someone would be in touch with me.

Sure enough, I promptly received phone calls from not one but two Verizon reps, a Ms. Teia Page and a woman I know only as "Miss Stoner from the office of John Hoey" (Mr. Hoey is another of the VPs to whom I sent an e-mail).  Both ladies assured me that my billing problem would be taken care of and that they would "personally" track the situation to be sure that it was.  That was in November, and I foolishly believed them.  I never heard from either one again.  Although the December bill contained an adjustment that offered hope, this occurred only because Ms. Page had put through a one-time credit for overbilling in November.  The January bill showed that I was still not listed as a triple-play customer, I was again overcharged, and once more I had to e-mail the contacts I had established.

To make a long story somewhat shorter, I have since contacted or been contacted by, via e-mail or phone, Mr. Mitchell, Ms. Tammy Tarabola from the New York Office, and Mr. Camie Littrean, all of whom are "personally" working on straightening out my account.  Mr. Littrean contacted me by phone on January 28, and I explained – once more – all the painful details of the now three-month-old screw-up.  He diddled with some data, assured me that we were "good to go," and promised to call me back "within ten minutes" with a confirmation number with which I could confirm the necessary changes to make my account correct.  He did not call back.  I sent another message to Ms. Tarabola in New York.  When she had not replied after a week, I sent the message again.  This time she responded that Mr. Littrean was working on the matter (hadn't he said it was settled, and I was "good to go"?).

Today (three days after the message from Ms. Tarabola), I received an automated e-mail from Verizon's Internet branch – proving that not one iota of progress had been made.  Furious, I sent a scorching e-mail to Ms. Tarabola that somehow got Mr. Littrean to call me.  Though we had been through all this back on January 28 when he never made the return phone call, we had to go through all the gory details on the phone.  What was this – the fourth or fifth time overall that I had to explain the billing problem to one rep or another?  I was on the phone with him for an hour, partly because he had to contact other departments to ensure that adjustments were made.  Once more, we are "good to go," as soon as he sends me an e-mail with a link to where I must go online to confirm the adjustment.  I have not yet received that e-mail, but now I have his e-mail address – as well as Ms. Page's, Ms. Tarabola's, and Mr. Barish's – for all the good that may do, since previous experience suggests that nobody at Verizon can handle the ball.

Verizon's customer service reps (if you can reach them, which is itself difficult) are like a bad football team, tossing the ball to one another and repeatedly fumbling it.  Ms. Cheerful Chirpy, the phone answering robot, is an idiot or a lunatic.  The billing and IT departments are apparently staffed by incompetents or by people who are dealing with a flawed computer system that is as dysfunctional as Miss Chirpy.

I have zero confidence that the matter is settled and every reason to believe that I will in March be banging heads with yet another Verizon representative.  Each month, I become less polite, as my blood pressure escalates to dangerous levels.  I am reaching the limits of my vocabulary – inept, incompetent, idiotic, stupid, irresponsible, unprofessional, dysfunctional, exasperating, frustrating, infuriating – and may be reduced to profanity.

I shall report here if the issue is ever resolved.  Don't hold your breath.

February 16, 2008.  UPDATE ON THE ABOVE.  More glitches and more evidence within 24 hours that Verizon was hopeless and helpless to get anything right caused me to stay up into the wee hours of the morning yesterday.  In desperation, I launched a last-ditch e-mail to Mr. Barish, the VP who had repeatedly apologized for his company's mishandling of my case.  I said that apologies weren't worth anything if the matter remained unresolved, and this time he promised that a Vice President would call me.

Miraculously, a VP did call – Andrea Custis, the Vice President of Sales & Marketing.  She was, of course, apologetic, but she went beyond the apologies that I had heard repeatedly, admitting to incredulity that so many people had fumbled the ball.  Even more importantly, she had investigated the case thoroughly, seemed to understand how grievously inept the treatment of a relatively simple issue had been, and assured me that the bill would finally be correct in March.  She said they would call to check on it a few days after it is issued and gave me a direct line to contact her and the e-mail address of her assistant if I have any further problems.  I will also, I am assured, receive some small compensation for my aggravation.

With this assurance, and the means to circumvent both Miss Chirpy and her army of inept human assistants, I am now about 50% convinced that we may be on the path to the solution.  If you wonder why I am only 50% convinced, you haven't been paying attention.

That a Vice President of a company must call a customer personally to resolve what should be a routine billing issue is a definite sign of corporate dysfunctionality.  It is conclusive proof that customer service systems – both the automated system represented by Miss Chirpy and the human service represented by the people I have dealt with at Verizon – are broken.  When Miss Custis, who seemed most sincere in her desire to satisfy customers, asked me if Verizon's reputation had, in my eyes, been redeemed, I had to answer frankly that it had not.  I am still thinking of the thousands or millions of Verizon customers who are victims of this incredibly botched system and what they must be going through.  Obviously, not many of them will be able to hang in persistently until a Vice President calls them on the phone.  They shouldn't have to.