Category: Miscellany

Cover Oregon holds the dubious distinction of being possibly worst example of HIX gone wrong.

But why couldn’t a tech company like Oracle make it happen? A very good question…

Oh, Dell. I thought since Jeff kicked you around the block way-back-when, you had learned your lesson. I thought you had changed. But here you go, breaking my heart again.

I won’t bore our readers with the full saga. But the sketch, for those joining our drama late: after our long talks about my lemon of a XPS 1330, you finally agreed to send me a “refurbished” XPS 15 just a few months ago. It had trouble from day one, which your phone support suggested was likely faulty memory. Weirdly, with 15 month old boys and a business to run, I was a little busy and didn’t have time to lose with another round of let’s-try-to-fix-it, so I lived with it. Until this weekend: when the XPS 15’s hard drive hard crashed, and took some of my data with it.

So yesterday, I had a nice talk with one of your folks, which took about an hour, at the end of which I was promised a response in 24-48 hrs about receiving another replacement system, and an email documenting the call.

Didn’t get the email: first bad sign.

Today, I call, and tech number 1 can’t find any record of yesterday’s call. Fast forward fifty minutes of my life I won’t get back, and at long last I get to His Manager. I explain my frustration with the lost call, and then the fundamental root issue I was calling about. To which he says “I don’t buy it.”

That’s a direct quote. Sorta-kinda journalist, you know, I pay attention to such things.

Excuse me, I said? Did you just say you don’t buy my explanation? As in, like, um, you’re saying I’m lying?

Stammering.

“I’d like to speak with your supervisor, please” I said. And then… the line went dead.

Yup: His Manager-ness decided to hang up on the (justifiably) irate (but polite) customer rather than have his boss hear about how he called said customer a liar.

As the wise fellow said in that Indiana Jones movie: “He choose… poorly.”

So the good news for me is I’ve got a backup computer, and I’ve got Twitter, a blog, Facebook, and now… motivation. But Dell: none of this, I’m afraid, is good news for you, sweetie.

As a social media guy, I of course know Dell’s history with Mr. Jarvis and I hear tell they’re a bit more on the ball about such things these days. This won’t exactly be a hard test, but let’s give it a go, shall we? When someone from Dell who can be civil and won’t hang up on me would like to talk about the Dead Parrot system above (service tag 8L0B6P1), drop me a line at rob – at – neppell – dot – org.

Clock starts now. Ready, set: go.

Update 6:45pm: Manager called back, claimed telecom difficulties. I almost believe him, but that’s got to be the most coincidental phone outage I’ve ever encountered (happening, as it did, right after I challenged him for not believing me and immediately after I spoke the words “I’d like to speak to your supervisor”.) I emphasized my desire to have a resolution (i.e. commitment for replacement / refund, particularly given that’s what I was told was being worked yesterday morning) this evening, but he indicated that such an escalation simply couldn’t happen at this time; end of shift and all that. This means one of two things: he was BS’ing (which is not good for Dell), or he was telling the truth (which is not good for Dell — seriously? No Way At All to get a decision made right now for a single measly laptop? Heckofa way to run a railroad). Tune in tomorrow for our continuing saga…

Update 7:13 pm: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Now, Dell, hon: Glenn has gone and made this game hardly much of a challenge at all (thanks, Glenn!). This would be the social media equivalent of tossing aside the flare gun as an inadequate signal for help and lighting the entire forest on fire instead. You should more or less be able to see this particular pebble rippling across social media from orbit at this point. So my now-best-buddy manager that I spoke to a few minutes ago is on the case, and indicated he’s attempting to get the “highest escalation authority” involved. Anybody want to give him a hand and move this ball along a little faster so we can all move on with our lives ?

Update 9:00 pm: So this has become, obviously, about more than a laptop. It’s about how companies interact with their customers in a social media world, and that happens to actually be my business. So the intriguing thing about this incident to me is that in five years or so as a social media “professional” and a bunch before that as an enthusiastic amateur, this is really the first real world example that’s smacked me in the face personally that I could observe and comment on directly.

So, then: this is no longer just a customer support issue. It’s a tutorial! Class is in session, folks, so let’s talk about what should be happening around Dell right about now.

First, let’s be clear that in terms of social media monitoring and response, Dell’s resources are effectively infinite. By which I mean, the sum of money it costs to get absolutely top-flight social media monitoring is more or less a rounding error to Willy the Mail Boy’s expense account budget for a company the size of Dell. This is most certainly not the case for smaller businesses, nonprofits, and the like, but Dell is a Big Boy and as such they should be playing with the pros when it comes to social media.

So: I first started Tweeting my displeasure with Dell over three hours ago, and posted three Tweets total. I even used the #dell hashtag, making it utterly trivial for Dell’s social media team to pick up on my comments (and utterly inexcusable if they missed them). I then followed up with the blog post you’re reading now, which was soon linked by Glenn, who is of course a gentleman, scholar, and damned snappy dresser, aside from being a good friend who knows a fun story when he sees one.

At any rate, we’re a good three to four hours in here. By now, if Dell’s social media team is serious, they should have noticed my Tweets and my blog post. They should be looking into two things: first, is my complaint valid, or am I some jerk/nutcase who doesn’t have a legitimate beef but is just making noise? And second, who am I, and how much attention can Dell realistically expect to receive because of my issue? (short answers, admittedly biased: on the first, yup, it’s valid, and on the second, well, quite a lot, I’d expect.)

That second part — who am I and how much attention can I draw — may seem a bit, well, anti-democratic or something. But the reality is, from Dell’s perspective, they should be assessing whether I’m someone with a voice that will be heard, or… not. Ideally, you give all of your customers top-notch service, but back here in reality, you ultimately have to prioritize resources. These days, if you’ve got two equally deserving customers, one with a major social media presence and one with none, you’d be foolish not to address the former before the latter.

For myself, I do feel a slight twinge having taken a whack at Dell like this: have I used my social media powers for evil and not good, finally? But the answer is no, I don’t think so. I’m fortunate to have reached a point where, when I need to, I can draw serious social media attention to an issue — if that issue is real and legitimate. In terms of doing so for personal reasons, I think I can actually say this is the first time I’ve ever done so.

But the thing to recognize about whatever “power” I may have in social media is this: the fact that out of all their customers, every now and then one of them will turn out to be somebody like me is what keeps Dell — or any business — honest. If I make a big deal about the shoddy treatment they’ve provided me and light up the social media world for a brief moment with the dim glow of their stupidity, then that will make them institutionally more cautious the next time a customer has a beef. It’s just good business: when you don’t know which customer might have that nice big social media megaphone, you have to assume that every customer might.

So here we are, four hours in. The key question is what will happen on the overnight: it’s entirely possible that Dell’s social media folks are all over this and even ahead of my recommendations, but I don’t know because they (sensibly) aren’t going to try to call me at 9:30pm local time. By tomorrow morning, though, we’ll have the answer to the key question: did Dell really learn the lesson Jeff Jarvis taught them many moons ago? Are they paying attention? Or do they need to be taught it once again?

Day Three, 7:48 am, : Aha, so the social media team is on the case. @dellcares followed/Tweeted me at 1:30 am PT. Sadly, they requested my service tag, which means they didn’t actually read my Tweets/this blog post, as you can see it’s noted above. So we’re still at canned response level, I’d guess: they saw a negative Tweet and send a “can we help?” without actually reading all the info — as seems to be the process — , which is better than nothing but still minor leagues at best. And about an hour ago, @dell itself Tweeted me, noting “@rneppell Just saw your tweet… sounds like a horrible experience. Yikes, sorry to hear that. I see my buddies over @DellCares tweeted you.” Which I guess is kind of nice, if I was looking for emotional support. But I’m not really sure what it was meant to accomplish — other than invite me to reply and re-link to this blog post, thereby keeping my issue fresh in the Twittersphere (i.e., not an obviously helpful move from Dell’s issue management perspective).

What will the morning bring next? Stay tuned…

(In case you’re wondering how we’re counting, I’m calling this Day Three as my first extensive conversation with Dell was Monday morning — that’s the one that mysteriously vanished down the memory hole. If I was being really bitter, I’d call this Day Five, as the system crashed Saturday).

Day Three, 8:36 am: Exchanging a few tweets with @dellcares, who indicated they’ll have a tech call me and also asked me “For your protection, please remove post containing personal information”. By which they clarified to mean my service tag above. I do not think it has fully sunk in yet that even if I was paranoid enough to worry about my service tag as “personal information”, I do not intend to be in possession of that laptop for very much longer.

Day Three, 9:26 am: Oh dear. This is worse than I thought. So after @dellcares said they’d have a tech call, I emphasized I didn’t need a tech, I needed someone with authority to approve a replacement. @dellcares said “Understood, the Tech has authority to fully assist.” So I just spent fifteen minutes on the phone with Dell tech who called, and she made quite clear that she could only approve a replacement hard drive, and in fact did not have the authority to approve a system replacement (or refund). She did, however, very helpfully offer to send me a an email link to the Dell policy explaining why that’s all I deserve, so golly, that was nice. I’ll have to block out some time later today to curl up with that; I really needed some good reading material.

@dellcares: I really think (and hope) you know better than this. Do. Not. Mislead. Your. Customers. (Most especially the ones who are already irked at you.) If you say you’re going to send someone with full authority, you’d best make darned sure you do so. (And if you are even thinking about trying to weasel by saying “well, full authority was the authority to follow our brilliant policy as she stated”, hey, your call, but I think by now we’ve got quite the audience that will laugh rather hard at that answer.)

Day Three, 10:04 am: Good news, as even I found the last update depressing — the tech I spoke to was NOT the one dispatched by @dellcares, so my comments above should be disregarded with respect to them misleading me. (Not really my fault, though, as I told that tech @dellcares said they’d send someone with full authority and she didn’t correct me. We ended the call with her assuring me this was it and I’d get no further calls / different answers, and me assuring her that she really didn’t get it).

But good, means at least part of Dell hasn’t entirely lost its mind. @dellcares indicates their tech called me a few minutes ago and got voicemail (true, just missed grabbing the phone) and so waiting to connect with them now.

Day Three, 10:17 am: THIS JUST IN: Generalíssimo Francisco Franco is still dead — and so is my laptop! .

Day Three, 11:22am: Just got off the phone with one of the special @dellcares social media team reps, and we appear to be making progress (slowly). Dell is now committing to providing a new (not refurbished) replacement system. (Yay!) But, the rep indicated that it would ship in about a calendar week (Boooo!). I explained that to me, this meant they clearly still weren’t taking this issue seriously — after all this, they expect I’ll be happy to stare into the cold dead screen of my defunct system for a week or more patiently waiting?

The process, he said, usually it takes even longer but we’re expediting to get down to that week, blah blah blah. I pointed out that if Michael Dell walked into his office and said “Send someone to the production line, grab a new system that meets or exceeds his specs, and put it out FedEx Priority Overnight today” then that would happen — and it wouldn’t even be that hard. Shipping computers is, after all, kinda what they do.

He was polite and sensible enough not to argue much, and agreed to go talk with logistics to see what could be done to speed things up, committing to call me back shortly today. And so we abide…

Day Three, 12:22 pm: Given that it may take a week or so to receive a working system (although I’m hopeful my latest friend will convince folks to see the wisdom in Fedex Overnight) I thought I should share the waiting process with Dell and the world. I humbly give you the Live Dead Dell Webcam: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-dead-dell-cam . Tune in frequently, or just leave it on as a soothing screensaver. I will occasionally poke it with a stick and otherwise see if I can rouse it from its grim slumber, but don’t get your hopes up…

Day Three, 6:38 pm: Progress. Dell — and in particular, the superspecial @dellcares team — has committed to shipping me a new (not refurbished this time) system to replace the dead one. They unfortunately still insist that it could take 8-10 business days, which is maddening and I remain baffled by. But they did (eventually, after I reminded them of my time wasted and the history of this situation) agree to one particular upgrade that I specifically requested (and the overall system they’ll ship is an upgrade from the current one). I should in theory have an order number / real confirmation in the morning. So as I pretty much knew all along, the ultimate outcome of this issue looks like it will be a reasonable one.

But the process — oh, the process. But we’ll wait and see, and a full debrief / after-action report will be forthcoming. But as a preview, let us ponder for a moment how many times things I was assured by Dell reps Could Not Be Done are now, in fact, being done. Life’s full of possibilities when you open yourself to ’em. And let us also ponder the time wasted in trying to avoid an outcome (a non-refurbished new system being provided to me) that was fairly obviously inevitable from the start. I know I’ve spent at least four hours on the phone. At this point I’d guess there have been at least ten Dell employees directly involved in this case. As I say, we’ll do a full debrief when we’re Done, but do begin the pondering of the cost of those employees time, plus the cost to Dell’s reputation given the visibility I’ve shown on this issue, and begin to weigh it against the cost of a new laptop (and remember to weigh it against Dell’s cost, not the price they sell it for).

In the meantime, the Live Dead Dell Webcam abides. Might not bother shining a light on the poor thing overnight, so forgive it if it goes dark, but I think we’ll leave it running, for now at least…

Day Four, 10:30am: Pleased to report that Dell has provided me an order number for the new system and it looks fine. While they are saying they’ll try to expedite, 8-10 business days remains the official estimate, which remains baffling and frustrating. But progress…

Day Nine: Could today be The Day? Dell says Order Status: Shipped. FedEx says “On FedEx Vehicle for Delivery.” Well knock me over with a feather…

Wrapup: Much belated, but the epilogue to our story is a satisfying one. I did indeed receive the promised system, and it has served me well. So props to the @dellcares team for making things that were alleged to be impossible possible, and for following through on their promises. Someday, perhaps I’ll write the full debrief / what-the-heck-went-wrong-here-and-what-should-have-happened, but for now, we abide…

class=”aligncenter size-full wp-image-2003″ title=”hugh_ten” src=”http://rob.neppell.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/hugh_ten.jpg” alt=”” width=”417″ height=”580″ />Today marks the tenth anniversary of my friend Hugh Hewitt’s radio program. (Tomorrow, July 10th, technically, but today is the closest broadcast day). Together with his Faithful Sidekick Duane “Radioblogger” Patterson, Hugh has been cranking out fifteen hours of on-air sanity and wisdom since 2000.

When I noted this happy occasion, what surprised me is that I’ve actually known Hugh for about half of that time. Our ‘blog for Katrina Relief‘ effort was, I believe, our first project together, and one that led to many more. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with and get to know Hugh: he is as decent as they come, and I’m deeply grateful for his friendship, wisdom, and his valiant efforts to keep the howling winds of foolishness at bay for at least fifteen hours a week.

Today is the annual Disneyland show, where I believe Duane will be forced to ride the log flume fifty times in a row or somesuch, so have a listen from 3pm – 6pm Pacific online at KTIE, and be sure to sign up for podcasting and special stuff at the Hughniverse.

To: Christopher Hitchens
From: Rob Neppell
Re: Slacking

Mr. Hitchens:

At the risk of being morbid (although memoir does a well enough job of going there), I simply wanted to make one thing clear.

You are not allowed to die.

Not yet, at least, and certainly not anytime soon. Your work upon this earth is not done, and frankly, your continued presence upon it annoys all the right people. Including me, at times.

I hope sincerely that your treatment is successful, and that your recovery is speedy and complete. Your voice remains needed, and I hope we shall not be without it for long.

See Also: Hot Air, Tom MacGuire

is out, and Petraeus is in as commander of our forces in Afghanistan.

However, the bizarre part is that in making this choice Obama is also (reportedly, waiting for a source to link to) keeping Petraeus in charge of CENTCOM — thereby making him his own boss, and oh, yeah, assigning two 24/7/365 jobs to a single man.

On the one hand: this was a cowardly choice by Obama. Picking the closet thing we have to a saint in uniform per the American public’s perception is a safe choice for him — if it all goes to hell, how could anyone say he didn’t put the A team in? Nevermind that demanding a single man do CENTCOM and AFG is insane. Heck, why not just have him be Chair of the Joint Chiefs and hell, SecDef too? Way too much redundancy up there, Petraeus can do it all! It’s not like he’s been showing any signs of fatigue or need for rest.

But on the other hand: I’m starting to think this is a good thing. Because the real net effect will be that, with his CENTCOM responsibilities still intact, Petraeus is going to have to pick someone he trusts to actually be on point for Afghanistan. He’s got to have a second-in-command with undiluted focus on that single war if he himself is still going to be keeping one eye on the entire command.

So Obama has done what he does best: vote “present”, and punt. But in this case, he’s punted to someone who actually knows what they are doing. We may not agree with Petraeus’s exact personnel choices (of which I assume there will be many, not just the second-in-command I note), but I feel certain he’ll make them for better reasons and with better rationale than Obama.

The irony, of course, is that Obama just gave a speech noting how important civilian authority over the military is. But what he’s actually DOING is abdicating that very civilian authority and delegating it to a military man, Petraeus.

Bad policy/governance, generally. But in THIS case… thank God !!!

” being a snippy dweeb requires a certain amount of finesse.“

Why should anyone want to listen to what I, a civilian to the core, have to say on Memorial Day, when we honor those who have fallen in service of our country?

The answer, of course, is that they shouldn’t.

But you should listen to those who have served, and to whom this day is not simply one of general,  amorphous remembrance, but of personal memories, honor, and loss of those they stood next to, fought, served, and lived with.

Charles W. Zeigenfuss:

Many of our fellow citizens have no understanding of the difference between Veterans Day and Memorial Day, other than it means a long weekend. Many people, especially those with no connection to the military, often confuse the two, citing Memorial Day as a day to thank those serving the nation in uniform. Recently, a friend of mine commented that “Memorial Day is meant to pay homage to those who gave their lives for this country and our way of life. It is a day to honor the dead. There is NO such thing as “Happy Memorial Day.”

Respectfully, I disagree, in part, anyway.

Memorial Day is a happy yet solemn, joyful yet tearful, partly sunny yet mostly cloudy kind of day.

We are living the days these men and women never will. Live them well, be happy, and enjoy the blessings of liberty their service and sacrifice have bought. Although we take pause today to remember their absence, we must also take this day to celebrate the very liberty they have secured.

Bruce McQuain:

I keep this photo as probably the most powerful reminder for me of what the real price of freedom looks like. Those that give their all as well as those they leave behind. We should remember both as we celebrate the freedom they’ve blessed us with and assured for us on this Memorial Day.

The Armorer:

They are the most egalitarian places in the nation…To gain entrance, one has only to ask.  Or, in times of extreme need, answer the call when delivered.

There are more. Go find them. And then, I will be presumptuous enough to believe I know how those who have fallen would want us to honor them on this day: by caring for those who still serve. Sign up to support a servicemember at Soldiers’ Angels, make a donation, or find some other (reputable) military support charity to devote your time and perhaps some of your funds to. If you, like I, haven’t worn our countries’ uniform, it is the least we can do.

So everyone is blaring headlines that say things like panel and House vote to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ .

Um, no.

What they voted for is to sorta-kinda empower Team Obama to repeal DADT, if and only if he, his SecDef, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs promise Congress, in writing, that they’ll take all the blame if repeal screws anything up.

The actual “repeal” language (in the House action, at least) is in H.AMDT.672, proposed by Rep. Patrick J. Murphy to the overall Defense bill (H.R. 5136).

Since Thomas can be so annoying and still hasn’t really figured out permalinks, I’ll include the full text below. I am fairly sure this is the final language, but not certain, so take that as a slight caveat.

A few thoughts:

• I think this should be titled the ‘Screw You Barry, It’s Your Problem Now Act of 2010‘. Congressional Democrats have quite effectively kicked the can down the road — explicitly prohibiting action until after the November midterms, which solves their worries. And even then, if he wants to repeal, he has to swear in writing to Congress that it will all go swimmingly.
• If I were a passionate DADT opponent, I’d be pretty irked at this as rather weak tea indeed.

Full text follows…

H.AMDT.672 (A019)
Amends: H.R.5136
Sponsor: Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] (offered 5/27/2010)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment numbered 79 printed in House Report 111-498 to repeal Dont Ask Dont Tell only after: (1) receipt of the recommendations of the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group on how to implement a repeal of DADT (due December 1, 2010) and (2) a certification by the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and President that repeal is first, consistent with military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion & recruiting, and second, that the DoD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement its repeal. It would also include a 60 day period after certification before the repeal took effect.

——————————————————–

79. AN AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY, PATRICK OF PENNSYLVANIA OR HIS DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR 10 MINUTES

At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following new section:

SEC. 5XX. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654-

(1) IN GENERAL- On March 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum directing the Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654 (section 654 of title 10, United States Code).

(2) OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF REVIEW- The Terms of Reference accompanying the Secretary’s memorandum established the following objectives and scope of the ordered review:

(A) Determine any impacts to military readiness, military effectiveness and unit cohesion, recruiting/retention, and family readiness that may result from repeal of the law and recommend any actions that should be taken in light of such impacts.

(B) Determine leadership, guidance, and training on standards of conduct and new policies.

(C) Determine appropriate changes to existing policies and regulations, including but not limited to issues regarding personnel management, leadership and training, facilities, investigations, and benefits.

(D) Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

(E) Monitor and evaluate existing legislative proposals to repeal 10 U.S.C. 654 and proposals that may be introduced in the Congress during the period of the review.

(F) Assure appropriate ways to monitor the workforce climate and military effectiveness that support successful follow-through on implementation.

(G) Evaluate the issues raised in ongoing litigation involving 10 U.S.C. 654.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (f) shall take effect 60 days after the date on which the last of the following occurs:

(1) The Secretary of Defense has received the report required by the memorandum of the Secretary referred to in subsection (a).

(2) The President transmits to the congressional defense committees a written certification, signed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating each of the following:

(A) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report’s proposed plan of action.

(B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).

(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

(c) No Immediate Effect on Current Policy- Section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect until such time that all of the requirements and certifications required by subsection (b) are met. If these requirements and certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect.

(d) Benefits- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage’ and `spouse’ and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act’).

(e) No Private Cause of Action- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to create a private cause of action.

(f) Treatment of 1993 Policy-

(1) TITLE 10- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended–

(A) by striking section 654; and

(B) in the table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, by striking the item relating to section 654.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note) is amended by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d).

–

CNN

BP’s top official, who had previously said the environmental impact on Gulf of Mexico would be modest, upgraded his assessment Friday to an “environmental catastrophe.”

They have a designated status level for “environmental catastrophe”? Heck, why not just call it “Please commence suing us into bankruptcy” and be done with it?

I’ve been a fan of since it was created; heck, as I just told founder Bob Wright, I happened to have grabbed my Bloggingheads.tv t-shirt (which was given to me personally by sort-of co-founder Mickey Kaus) on the way to the hospital when my sons were born, so the very first pictures of me with them show (faintly, through the hospital gown) the goofball BHtV logo.

Bob is a good fellow but an unapologetic lefty, and so the site guests do tend to slant left. Recently, I noticed a few discussions on the site where the Tea Party was being discussed… by people who had no involvement with or real direct knowledge of the movement.

So I emailed Bob (who I’ve gotten to know) and gently pointed out that he was covering the Tea Party movement as if it were Uzbekistan. I explained my history working with Tea Party Patriots (I was a founding Board member, but stepped down in October before my twin sons arrived) and offered to put him in touch with somebody from TPP who could speak directly about the movement, but  despite my urgings, Bob said he really wanted *me* to do it, because he knows me and knows I am familiar with the format of the site.

So, I did. You can watch or download the 67 minute-long video here, with the embed also below.

Great fun, and I hope Bob will have me back on this or other topics. My only complaint was  he was probably too nice, and didn’t goad me into saying nearly as  many snarky things as I could have (although check the comments on the video closely for a few of those that I added post-facto).

href=”http://rob.neppell.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2010-05-19-09.16.46b2.jpg”>

Scenes from the checkout line…

I warned you there might be nostalgia this week. Starting on the lighter side, May 24, 2002, I give you Bloggers, The Musical:

Bloggers: The Musical

For no apparent reason, I hearby open nominations for the Bloggers: The Musical. Pick a blogger, find that perfect theme song that just sums ‘em all up, and send it my way. Yet another running list. Here’s a few to start:

Glenn “InstaMan” Reynolds – I Have The Touch (Peter Gabriel)

Asparagirl – I’m Just a Girl ( No Doubt )

Amish Tech Support – I’m Going Slightly Mad (Queen)

Richard Bennett – Mr. Roboto (Styx)

The Corner – Bloody Well Right ( Supertramp ) Runner Up: Everybody Wants to Rule the World
(Tears for Fears)

Tapped – Left of Center (Suzanne Vega)

Kausfiles (independent)- Mickey (Toni Basil)
Kausfiles (Slate absorbed) – Welcome to the Machine (Pink Floyd) Runner up: Take the Money and Run (Steve Miller Band)

Ken Layne – Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Pink Floyd)

Andrew Sullivan – I’m Too Sexy (Right Said Fred)

Eight years on, and a few names above will make folks go “who?”, but many are still kicking around…

“This big. No, really!”

Congratulations to Ace, this year’s CPAC Blogger of the Year !
As last year’s winner, I will be showing Ace the ropes. It’s a tough job, of course — waving through all the parades, opening all those malls, ribbon cuttings and the like. The fans are wonderful, although I have to admit not be able to simply go to a restaurant or grab a Starbucks without being mobbed by adoring fans is something Ace will have to adjust to. And of course there’s the morals clause, which I may have to have a special chat with him about.
I am sure he will wear his crown with honor. Congrats chief!

I just watched Mitt Romney announce his withdrawal from the race here at CPAC. A sad day indeed, but not entirely surprisingly, and arguably the right thing to do for the GOP and the nation.
Upon taking the stage, Romney received a reception that made the event look like a Romney rally:

I must admit, my reaction hearing the thunderous reception in the room was “Gee: where have you folks all been for the last six months?” Too little, too late, I’m afraid, and the conservatives who didn’t back Romney early on should be feeling a well-earned sense of responsibility for Senator McCain’s nomination right about now.
Romney’s speech was classy, and hit the right notes in setting out the priorities of the GOP — and the contrast that we face with the prospect of a President Obama or President Clinton (2). I’ll have more thoughts on that eventually ( although class=”textlink”>Erick beat me to using my preferred headline: “I, for one, welcome our new McCain overlords.”)
Anyway, not much to add to the event itself given that it will be given saturation coverage. But here’s a few photos from my spot right at the edge of the stage…

And finally, back here at Blogger Alley, I had the opportunity to interview the man — or, rather, the mammal — who can claim a bit of credit for today’s news:

Stay classy, Romney haters!

Greetings from the Family Research Council’s Washington Briefing — the ” class=”textlink”>premier values voter event of 2007” !
Whoah. To quote Admiral Stockdale — “Why I am I here?”
Well, because I was invited, despite being a vaguely RINO-like libertarian type. And because it’s an opportunity to get up close and personal with the true social conservatives of the party while they in turn check out the GOP presidential candidates — all of whom are scheduled to speak this weekend.
Obligatory disclosure: the FRC folks paid for my flight for the trip, and for my hotel. If you feel that hopelessly taints my famed blogger independence, well, whatever.
So let’s get moving. As of this moment, three candidates have already taken the stage — McCain, Brownback, and Tancredo — so I’m playing catchup.
First, McCain. He gave a solid, but fairly low-key speech that focused more on the war — and his time in Vietnam — than on social issues. He opened with a clear message that he wouldn’t apologize for any issues where he has differed with social conservatives: ““I’m not gonna con you…I’m going to tell you what I believe, and let the chips fall where they may.”
He highlighted his opposition to the administration’s interrogation policies: “The easy way is not the American way we must remain true to our ideals not in spite of the threats we face but because of them.” And made a point of reminding the crowd of his involvement in the “Gang of 14”, declaring “I am proud to have played a role — -a major role — in the confirmation of Alito, Roberts, and others.” and concluding “I would appoint strict constructionist judges that won’t legislate from the bench.” (waitaminute — I thought Giuliani was tomorrow…?)
It was a good speech, but not great delivery. To me it was fairly obvious that it wasn’t one he had written himself or even had time to review closely prior to delivery — he recited it staring down at the text for the majority of his time, and his timing was off — he didn’t seem to have a grip on his own applause lines.
That said, he was greeted (to my surprise) with a standing ovation at the conclusion of his speech. Whether that was respect for his service, agreement with his positions, or simply the FRC crowd being cheap dates for the first speaker of the day is hard to know.
Next up was Brownback. I faced a choice between getting more coffee and listening to Brownback, and guess which won? Yeah. If it makes you feel any better, it’s not very good coffee.
I interviewed Brownback at CPAC back in March, and had a dim view of his Iraq policy then which hasn’t improved since. (How is that partition plan working out, Senator?)
But I have to say, the latter half of his speech which I caught went over well with the crowd. Brownback was clearly in his element, expounding on faith and its role in American life. Frankly, he was far more energized and comfortable than when I and Ed Morrisey spoke with him privately at CPAC. But hey, Ed and I are intimidating guys, so I guess that’s understandable. We scare lots of folks.
At closing, Brownback also got a standing ovation from the crowd. This one seemed a bit more heartfelt than McCain’s, although perhaps that’s just my own expectations showing through. (I don’t have a decibel meter handy, so can’t give you Truly Objective Data to prove who got the loudest applause).
Finally, for now, we had Tom Tancredo. Yes, he’s still running ! He opened with a self-deprecating story about being the only GOP candidate to show up at the NAACP summit, and went on a roll from there. He managed to avoid talking only about immigration (refreshing), although he did get to it eventually. And believe it or not, he clearly received the best reception of any of the three thus far. He was thundering from the podium, and receiving continuous bursts of applause and cheers.
Damn shame (for folks in this room) that he hasn’t a chance in hell of winning the nomination, let alone the general. But hey, he seems like he’s having a good time, so let him have his fun.
Next up: Fred !
My Fred! coverage will be especially worth watching, as I’m positioned one row behind Fred!’s blog guy, Jon Henke. So I’ll be sure to peer over his shoulder and report any incriminating internal notes (“Damnit, I told Fred to put some life in it — Jon”) that I happen to see. Stay tuned!
Update 11:20 am: It’s Fred!
First thought on Fred: damn, he really is tall. Dude towers over the podium.
Second thought on Fred: in however many years as an actor and eight years in the Senate, why hasn’t he learned how to deliver a speech without saying “uhhhh” every sentence or two? Geez, my public speaking delivery is better than his, and mine ain’t that good.
Spoke of the Founders and their faith – they knew “our basic rights come from God” — good applause from the crowd.
Jarring anachronistic note: says Founders knew that “not all solutions to all problems emanate from Washington D.C.” . Er, I’m sure they did. Particularly George Washington!
I dunno. With Fred!, I’m just not feeling the exclamation point. Maybe I’m just being too picky about all those darned “uhh’s”, but I don’t think so — he clearly didn’t get nearly as much applause as Tancredo or Brownback. Maybe not even McCain, although I think McCain got a pass as he was first and everyone was jazzed to applaud just to applaud for something.
There’s absolutely no reason why this should be, far as I can tell. Thompson was, at one point, supposed to be the Great Hope for social conservatives. You wouldn’t know it from the reception he’s gotten thus far.
He had one great line in his closing. Describing what he would do in his first hour as President, he said: “I would go in the Oval Office and close the door, and pray for the wisdom to know what was right.” — that brought the crowd to its feet with applause.
And like all three previous candidates, Fred! received a standing ovation at the end of his speech. Note to the FRC attendees: if you give one to everyone, it kinda diminishes the impact. (Unless, of course, the plan is to give one to everyone except a certain former Mayor, which would be amusing, if cruel).
It’s lunch and panels for the next few hours — and no, I’m not planning on covering much other than the Presidential candidates, thankyouverymuch. Ron Paul speaks in a few hours, though, so I’ll check back in for the freak show then…
Update 2:00 pm: Duncan Hunter takes the stage, and wins the award for Fastest Attempt To Claim The Reagan Mantle, invoking his connection with the Gipper and declaring of his work with him that “we brought down the Berlin wall. We freed hundreds of millions of people.”
Well okay then. I have to say: I’m getting slightly bored with the good Congressman. In the past five weeks, I’ve seen him at three different events. And I don’t get out much.
Hunter refers to “what I call the arsenal of democracy”. Wow. It takes a special guy to lift from both Reagan and FDR in the same speech.
Hunter’s a good sort, and I can’t say I really disagree with him on all that much, so I shouldn’t be so snarky. But he’s got no chance of getting the nomination, so it’s probably about time for him to get back to being a Congressman for California and stop playing at being a Presidential candidate.
Hunter’s reception was good, as was his delivery. I’d call it as better than McCain and Thompson, more in the zone of Tancredo and Brownback’s reaction from the crowd.
Now, for the big event ! The candidate we’ve all been waiting for; the man I like to refer to as an angry, isolationist Jimminy Cricket: Ron Paul !
First, let’s get something out of the way so we’re all on the same page on how I feel about Congressman Paul, m’kay?
This would be the International ANSWER anti-war rally in D.C. back in September:

And this would be the nice Ron Paul crazies who joined with their Socialist brothers at the protest:

Got it? Good. Keep that in mind when you hear Dr. Paul or his minions rattling on about how capitalism and the free market are the key to all things good and great.
Ah, it warms my heart to hear the lukewarm, scattered and weak little pockets of applause while the good Dr. Paul declares his opposition for the Iraq war. They liked his illegal immigration pitch, but he blew the deal when he said we need to bring our troops home and they should be on our border, not in Iraq. (cue sound of crickets chirping).
Gold Standard! Drink !
Now he’s talking about gun confiscation in New Orleans post-Katrina, and how dangerous big government and letting it have power can be. The reason I truly despise Ron Paul is not because I disagree with all his positions: it’s because I agree with the fundamental limited-government, libertarian ideals he espouses, but think that he takes them to nutjob extremes, thereby discrediting the entire message.

Update: Saturday Morning
And now the real (sorry, Ron) main event: Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani took the stage to a warm reception of applause, answering the immediate question of whether the FRC crowd might rudely snub him from moment one. Not so: definitely a courteous and even enthusiastic welcome.
He started with a discussion of Christianity itself, going all the way back to the early years of the faith and describing how believers were “spreading a message of love, of home, of faith… It was the love those early Christians displayed that drew first thousands and then millions to Christianity.”
“This is a religion of inclusion… they were truly defined by what they were for, not what they were against… I believe I can bring us together…”
He had so many great and well received lines, I’ll just go from my notes on his quotes:
“We may have big problems, but we have bigger solutions…I see a country that’s committed to restoring the social contract: for every right, there’s a duty, for every benefit, we have an obligation.”
“You’ll see a great deal of evidence of our shared view and shared values… I’m not going to pretend to you that I can be all things to all people…and you know that we have some areas of disagreement. But I believe we have many more areas of agreement.”
“I’ll always listen to your ideas… I come to you today as if I were your president, with an open mind and an open heart, and all I ask is that you do the same.”
Regarding those who think he is a champion of liberal ideals, he suggested they should “just read any New York Times editorial while I was Mayor of New York City.”
“I don’t easily publicly proclaim myself as the best example as faith… I grew up in an environment where faith was considered, if not private, at least separate from public life… but my belief in God and reliance on his guidance is at the core of who I am, I can assure you of that.”
“Isn’t it better that I tlel you what I really believe, instead of pretending to change all my positions to fit the prevailing winds? I believe trust is more important than 100% agreement.”
“What you’re entitled to from me is what I really believe… and then figure out if I’m the right person for you to support. ”
“Never let anyone tell you that your faith should not be part of your political values.”
“Our Constitution is not antagonistic to faith or religion or God.”
“There’s no exception in the first amendment that says we have the right of free speech, except for people of faith…freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.”
He spent a good amount of time on school choice, to strong applause. “It takes a family, not a village, to raise a child.”
And he hit abortion head on, going through what he would do to reduce the number of abortions:
“First, I will veto any reduction in the impact of the Hyde amendment. ”
“I will support any reasonable suggestion that promises to reduce the number of abortions. I support parental notifications and i will continue to and i support and will continue to support the ban on partial birth abortion.”
“I will reduce the red tape that makes adoption so difficult… I’ll make the… adoption tax credit permanent.”
(the remarkable thing is that even through this section of his his speech, Giuliani got strong applause on many lines, and no boos/negative reactions that I could hear)
“No set of decisions that a president makes will be more important than the judges that president appoints.”
He closed with what he said was the most important issue: that “we remain on offense in the terrorists’ war against the United States.”
“[Terrorists] did not attack us because of something wrong about us, they attacked us because of what is right about us.”
“Our goal in Iraq should be clear: Victory!”
He invoked Reagan’s view of the cold war — ‘they lose, we win.’
And made a strong declaration that Israel must be supported, stating that the Palestinians must do three things: first, accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Second, forsake terrorism and eliminate it. And third, they must begin to create a responsible government taking accountability for the problems of its people.
“Under no circumstances will we allow Iran to become a nuclear power.”
On Darfur: “Genocide in Africa is no different than genocide anyplace else. Never again must mean never again.”
“You and I know I’m not a perfect person… I feel my faith deeply. Although maybe more privately than some. And I believe we serve God best by serving others. At its heart, religion is about love, forgiveness; inclusion. It is about salvation. This is a transcendent message; a beautiful message. ”
“If we expect perfection from our political leaders, we’re just asking to be disappointed.”
“We may not always agree… I don’t always agree with myself” (laughter from the crowd.)
In closing: “I’ll continue to extend my hand to you, and I hope that’ll take it. May God bless all of us and may God continue to bless our great nation, the United States of America.”
And yes indeed, Giuliani received a standing ovation (like every other candidate to speak thus far). No sign at all of any negative reaction, and his standing O seemed to be a genuinely enthusiastic one.
OK, my reaction. I think this was a truly great speech: nearly pitch-perfect for the audience and about as well received as could possibly be hoped for by the Giuliani camp. I’m about ready to declare it “brilliant”, in fact. Given how potentially hostile this audience might have been, the fact that he received positive applause throughout his delivery that seemed honestly enthusiastic is truly remarkable.
Besides that, the substance was great. It was probably the best-written speech I’ve heard this weekend, full of great phrases that hit just the right notes.
More thoughts later, but I think you’ll be hearing a lot of reports that Giuliani hit this one out of the park. He won’t win the straw poll here, and certainly isn’t going to be the first choice of many people in this room. But I think he did everything he possibly could to convince these folks that he wouldn’t be as bad an option as they might have feared.
P.S.: Jim, I’m not sure if they used it as his entrance music — don’t think so— but yes, that was definitely U2’s “Angel of Harlem” playing as he left the stage. Now I’ve got it going through my head — which isn’t too bad; great tune!
So you thought Rudy blew away the FRC crowd? Wow! No, I didn’t say that. When I say he hit a “home run”, I meant that given realistic expectations, he did a great job. If I were Rudy and I delivered that speech, I’d be pretty happy with myself.
Why no Romney coverage? Because due to various circumstances, I didn’t actually watch his speech from the ballroom, but viewed it over the web. I thought it was definitely good — the word “solid” comes to mind — but didn’t seem to blow the crowd away. Beyond that, since I wasn’t physically there, I’ll leave it to others to judge the governor’s performance and reception.
And what about Huckabee? I’m still miffed at him about all the Billy Jack abuse he gave me. But as you’ll hear elsewhere: he gave a barnstormer of a speech, and I’d say probably got the most postiive reception of any of the candidates. I believe the quote from his speech was “I don’t come to you — I come from you” — and it showed.
Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if he won the Straw Poll today. If he doesn’t at least come in second, that’s a huge sign that the FRC crowd is starting to get in a rather pragmatic mood and is discounting candidates like Huckabee who are “their people” but who are regarded as second-tier players in the primary race.
Anyway, any candidate that will mercilessly mock an interviewer is OK in my book (even if the interviewer was me). But as for Huckabee’s policies… well, let’s just talk about Billy Jack some more instead…
Final Update 3pm: And now it’s time to play — who can type the Straw Poll results fastest !
They’re about to announce ’em, so here we go:
In descending order of total votes received (i.e., winner first):
WINNER: Romney
#2: Huckabee
#3: Ron Paul
#4: Thompson
See also:
Erick Erickson at RedState

class=”textlink” onClick=”googlewin=dhtmlwindow.open(‘googlebox’, ‘iframe’, ‘http://66.114.231.46/petition/petition.show?ppid=VIZWVTRHBEVAHCXJRNFYMCOCIONTGAKG’, ‘Stand By The Mission’, ‘width=750px,height=630px,resize=1,scrolling=1,center=1’, ‘recal’); return false”>

So we all know that the mainstream media is dying, but I had not realized it had actually class=”textlink”>begun to exhibit the characteristics of a rotting corpse:
“The soaring new New York Times tower — already known for its weird toilets (when flushed, they apparently sound like a kitten being strangled), its weirder elevators (no buttons, and no indication of what floor they’re on), a leak problem (editor Bill Keller’s office got soggy in a recent rainstorm), and a mouse problem (reported by Gawker) — still has a few more surprises between the floorboards: maggots. “It’s hard to put out a newspaper when you’re worried about what might fall on your head,” one Times staffer told us this week. “One of the photo editors was sitting at her desk and maggots started falling from the ceiling tile on to her head.”
Yup, I can see how that might cut down on the old productivity.
But wait: there’s more ! Notably, rats (or at least, one dead one that was being eaten by the aforementioned maggots) and “a herd” of mice.
Yummy ! Oddly enough, the building’s sales website doesn’t mention any of these cool perks. You’d think there would be a slideshow, or something…

Late Friday night, an electronic version of the “immigration reform” bill was finally published, and quickly found its way into the hands of KLo at class=”textlink”>the Corner. From there, it has spread all over the net, of course.
But the published version is a big, clunky PDF file (which, if you like, you can download here.) Good if you plan on printing out all 326 pages of it, not so good if you are a blogger who wants to comment on a particular section and show your readers exactly what you’re talking about.
So I’ve taken the copy published by NRO and parsed it into a format that allows for easy browsing online. Features of this version include:

• A table of contents on the left side that allows you to jump directly to a section of your choice. I’ve also included a “Highlights” index at the top — which should really be “lowlights” — where I’ll collect links to the most interesting sections and commentary on the bill.
• The ability to add comments to any page of the bill, including links back to a blog post or other web commentary. Just go to the section you’re discussing, and click on the ‘add a comment’ link in the right sidebar. You can also, of course, read the comments that everyone else has provided.
• Direct linking to any page of the bill. You can grab the ‘permalink’ for the page you are currently viewing by right-clicking on the “Page x” heading above the bill text. The format for a direct url is simple, though: http://truthlaidbear.com/immigrationbill0518.php?page=x where x is the page number you want to link to.

If those who forged this “compromise” have their way, this bill will be voted on as early as Tuesday. That’s a crazily short amount of time for Senators — let alone the American public — to review, understand, and have a voice on the substance of such a complex bill.
My hope, however, is that by presenting the bill in this form, I will help make the bill more accessible to all, and provide a central spot where commentary, criticism, and suggested improvements can be assembled. Who knows — maybe our erstwhile leaders on Capitol Hill will take notice, and take some of our comments to heart.
There’s only one way to find out, so let’s get to it…

class=”textlink”>Everyone’s talking about the immigration bill, as well they should be. It sounds like a complete train wreck to me, and to many others.
I always want to judge for myself though, and so I’m keeping a watch out for when the actual text of the bill becomes available online — which I hear might be sometime today. The government printing office has, however, provided hard copies to Senate offices for their review.
So until all us lowly citizens can actually read the thing, I present you with the photo below, taken by a friendly staffer, which provides a nice visual aid to the size and scope of the monstrosity:

Yes, that’s the Bible next to the bill, and yes, the bill is bigger than it. The copy shown is about 400 pages, although I’m told that the final version will balloon up to near 1000 pages once it is printed in the “official” format.
Do you think maybe we might want to take more than a day or so to quickly skim through this thing? Just a thought. As my staffer friend quipped, “The immigration bill is bigger than the Bible, and we’ve had a few thousand years to read through that.”
Stay tuned for more updates, including (hopefully) the full text of the bill…
Update: To be clear, this is not being declared the “final” text of the bill, but it is the current draft. To quote my source again, “we probably won’t get final text until after we vote on the stupid thing.”
Your democracy at work!
Update Friday p.m.: So I’ve spent a decent chunk of time today observing the reactions to the immigration deal, and I’ve come to a conclusion: this parrot is dead.

Dead, dead dead. An ex-parrot. It has, indeed, ceased to be.
The grand immigration “deal” is going absolutely nowhere. Why? A few data points.
One: The Republican base hates it. Hates hates hates it.
Two: Harry Reid (yes, that Harry Reid) is lukewarm at best. Check this out, via RedState:

Say whaa? The Senate Majority leader has “serious concerns”? Kinda a stumbling block for a grand compromise, isn’t it?
Three: The prospects in the House aren’t all that bright either:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., acknowledging deep divisions on immigration among Democrats, says she won’t bring it up unless President Bush can guarantee he will produce 70 Republican backers—a tall order given GOP concerns that the bill is too lenient.
Four: The bill text isn’t even done yet. As I stated earlier, the lovely copy in the photo above is just a draft — final language is still being hammered out (somewhere, by someone). That tells me that there are still huge opportunities for the grand bargain to collapse as the dirty details of the language are nailed down.
Does this mean that everyone should relax? No, it means everyone should call their Senators with renewed vigor, because this thing actually can be stopped. So get to it!