I Feel Like I Got Hosed a Little Bit by Walmart.com

Our condo association has decided to clean up some empty space in our basement and turn it into a 'gym'. So for my contribution to the 'gym' I bought an Everlast Heavy Bag Stand from Walmart.com.


Walmart.com order confirmation for Everlast Heavy Bag Stand

This past weekend I finally made the time to try and assemble it. I dread this kind of thing because I'm not particularly 'handy'. But I manage to get it together and am ready to hook up my bag when I notice there's no heavy bag chain, despite that fact that it's listed on the parts list.


Parts list that came with Everlast Heavy Bag Stand from Walmart.com; red box highlights the 'heavy bag chain' that is supposed to be in the box - click image for larger view

So I email Walmart.com and they bounce back to me saying that the chain isn't included. I email them back a PDF scan of the parts list. They email me back saying we need to try and resolve this over the phone (not convenient - why can't we handle this by email?). I go look online to see if the product is still available so I can add a note/review/warning that the chain isn't included, but I find that Walmart.com no longer sells the piece.



That's kind of frustrating.

But the next email from Walmart let's me know that I can bring it back to their store and return it. Yeah, that's helpful. I'll just disassemble it and truck it right down to my nearest Walmart. That's what I want to do with my free time. Aggravating.

Anyway, this is clearly not an end of the world kind of nuisance, but it's still a pain in the ass. Maybe I'm old school, but if you freaking list the part on the parts list, it should be in the box. And if it's not in the box, you should then send me one. Damn.

Attention Owners of 1041 W. Berwyn - Your Real Estate Agent's Sales Tactics are Moronic

(Psst, Tod Pratt of yourhomeinchicago.com, I'm talking to you.)

While checking the rss feed from EveryBlock.com I saw a listing for a townhouse a couple blocks away from my condo. Figured I'd check it out to see what is justifying a $459,900 price tag in this neighborhood.




The main photo is pretty generic, so I try to click on the "Extra Photos" link (maybe that should have been my clue, the word "extra" rather than "more"), and I get hit with a "Be My Guest" registration pop-up, saying "Registering as our guest allows you to access special features for this and all other properties."

Really? You're asking me to register before I can see pictures of the townhouse you're trying to sell. In this real estate climate? Really? Good luck with that.

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Hillary's Latest Appalling Crap

Have we had enough of her yet? Maybe now, eh? This is some of Olbermann's best stuff. He's so much better when he's angry and working with a boatload of substantiation than when he's off the cuff and trying to be funny. And with this one, he had a lot to work with. Brilliant piece, sir.

The Current community is talking about this too.

Bloggers Unite for Human Rights May 15, 2008

Just Added "The Dumbest Generation" to My Amazon Wish List

I've been wondering if the population at large is getting dumber in general over time and it sounds like The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future may have evidence that is indeed the case. I also wonder how this generation or century compares to previous eras in terms of intelligence distribution throughout the population - would love to see some stats on that.

Quote from Can U Read Kant? - WSJ.com:

"Naomi Baron, in her recent book, 'Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World,' cites the NAEP to note that 'only 24% of twelfth-graders are 'capable of composing organized, coherent prose in clear language with correct spelling and grammar.'"

Spotted: Another Jackass - Driving an H2 in Bumper to Bumper Traffic

Driving an H2 in any non-commercial capacity is grossly wasteful. Driving an H2 in the city at any point in time is pretty obnoxious. But driving solo in an H2 during bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic on Lake Shore Drive is a pretty bold signal that you are a thoroughly self-centered person in the worst sense of the word and just have total disregard for the current global situation. Climate change? People starving because prices have doubled for basic food staples? I don't know what you're talking about - I'm oblivious to all that nonsense while I execute my 6-mile commute in my perceived status symbol so I can impress other a-holes who care about such superficial things.

Is it a Good Thing that Racists are Allowed to Vote?

From the LA Times:

"Exit polls from Pennsylvania showed that about 20% of voters said race was a major factor in deciding whom to support. White voters who cited race as a factor went for Clinton by a 3-to-1 margin."

So, should racists be allowed to vote? (And this applies equally to white racists, black racists, Hispanic racists and Asian racists)

A Plea to DNC Chairman Howard Dean for Sanity in the Nomination Process

Image Source: Johns Hopkins University

To:
Howard Dean and Any Democratic Party “Super” Delegates with Whom You Care to Share This
(Note: this post is also being submitted to Mr. Dean via the DNC web site.)

From:
Art Sindlinger, a registered voter

What:
A Plea for Sanity Now and Some Consideration of the Longer Term Implications of Who Represents the Democratic Party in the 2008 General Election


Dear Chairman Dean:

Let me begin by telling you who I am. I am one of the educated professionals with whom Barack Obama’s message of aspiring to a better way of governing, a ‘post partisan’ way of governing, resonates. But by the sound of how this group of voters is characterized by the various talking heads – ‘news’ personalities and party luminaries alike – I’m not sure the Democratic party is all that interested in actually receiving my vote. Either that or they presume my vote is a lock regardless of who their nominee is. In my case, that’s a hugely flawed assumption. Though my votes in the last four presidential elections were Clinton, Clinton, Gore and Kerry, I’m far from an automatic Democratic vote in the general election. My views are progressive on social issues but moderately conservative on fiscal issues, so no single candidate truly represents the whole of my views (i.e. I generally agree with the social programs Democrats wish to develop and fund, but I think they tend to do a piss-poor job of managing them. And I wouldn’t mind seeing the concept of individual accountability being discussed every now and again as my tax dollars move around in the great wealth redistribution game.) So each election I wrestle with the choice between a candidate / party that has a poor track record of spending my tax money ineffectively (though Bush has certainly broke new ground on the Republican side in this regard during his two terms) or a candidate / party that has a poor track record of wanting to legislate what I’m allowed to think and how I’m allowed to live my life. It is a very frustrating choice to make.

I am writing to you now to provide a direct view of one voter’s perspective on how this nominating process has unraveled in the last eight weeks. This year strikes me pretty clearly as a choice between (1) moving the Democratic Party backwards through the activation of base, shameless and manipulative tactics that may drive short-term results among an angry and lesser educated fraction of the electorate, or (2) moving the party forward and elevating the discussion by energizing the younger generation of voters, engaging the progressive minded among the country’s educated affluent and embracing independent voters.

To me that seems like no choice at all. Yet the circus carries on and it’s becoming less magical and less entertaining with every stop on the circuit. People are no longer captivated by the show but rather are transfixed by the car crash-esque spectacle of backstage bickering spilling out into the main ring. This is a great strategy if you’re running a cheap reality TV show. It’s a rather questionable strategy, though, if you’re trying to demonstrate competence and leadership that deserves support in the quest for becoming leader of our nation.

My point is you will lose me if the Democratic Party rewards this disingenuous nonsense and names Hillary Clinton as the Party’s nominee. You’ll lose my vote this election (I’ll either vote for McCain or just abstain) and it won’t be easy to bring me back in future elections.

I feel this way in part because it seems incredibly obvious that the process never needed to come down to this. In March the Democratic Party had the opportunity to capitalize on real momentum behind a new breed of politician, elevate the national discourse and begin charting the path to retaking the White House in November. Instead the Party has bowed to one arrogant candidate’s ego and feeling of entitlement. The Party has stood idly by as she has shamelessly spewed all manner of old school manipulative sound bites that appeal to the very worst instincts among the most vulnerable potential voters and do indeed inflict damage upon the Party's best option for November victory. Clinton’s desperate approach is truly emblematic of a Low Road to Victory strategy. If the Party’s objective is to de-motivate and alienate the thoughtful, the hopeful and the people who have a little discretionary income they might be willing to put into a general election campaign effort, mission accomplished. Congratulations.

However, since I recognize that Illinois is going to be a ‘blue’ state no matter what I personally do with my vote in November, I want you to know that not only will you lose my vote but I’ll also redirect my campaign contributions in the coming months to McCain. I would much rather cast my lot with him (who probably should have been president in 2000, for what it’s worth), warts and all, than do anything to help bring about the clusterf*ck this country will devolve into when Hillary galvanizes Congress into games of ‘gotcha’ and gridlock and triggers a great renaissance in rampant right wing jack-asserry among the population at large. Just thinking about what that will be like makes me want to check the real estate listings in Canada or Chile.

In conclusion, I am resigned to the reality that neither this letter nor any other expression of my views is likely to have any impact whatsoever on who will be the Democratic presidential nominee. But I wanted to be on the record so maybe one pundit or one of the Party powers-that-be might stop so cavalierly dismissing voters like me as being highly unlikely to turn away from the Democratic Party in November no matter how this nomination plays out. For this voter, at least, that is definitely not the case.

Sincerely,


Art Sindlinger

Hillary Clinton's 'Low Road to Victory' - New York Times

Below is an excerpt from the The Low Road to Victory - article

"The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."


I think the "low road" characterization is exactly right. It echoes a characterization Hunter S Thompson used for Nixon, which I referenced in this post. As ever, the Hillary mantra appears to remain 'personal victory no matter the cost'.

What boggles and saddens me is that her supporters believe they will benefit somehow if she does win through these means. A Hillary presidential victory would ensure that congressional gridlock achieved new lows and the country's possible path toward a more progressive and sane future will be further retarded after what has already been a lousy 8 years under Bush.

I simply don't understand how Hillary's supporters don't see this. They take myopic ignorance to new levels. It would be fascinating to watch people so avidly rooting for what will be their own demise if the stakes weren't so high for the rest of us. But, like the H.L. Mencken quote says, 'no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public', and therefore pathological weasels can continue to fleece a moronic electorate for their own personal gains.

Jon Stewart Gets it Right re: Hillary's Disingenuous, Manipulative and Transparently Opportunistic Tactics

Thanks to MarkN for this clip:

Hillary Clinton Reminds Me of Richard Nixon

Image Source: BusinessWeek

Hillary Clinton reminds me of Richard Nixon. I'm not 100% sure why. But as I'm sitting here watching some of CNN's Ballot Bowl coverage on TV and seeing her coldly deliver blatantly manipulative half-truths (at best), it triggered something. I am not someone who is steeped in the nuances of American political history, so take this perceived likeness for whatever it's worth. But I have read almost every word published by Hunter S. Thompson, and his consistent characterizations of Nixon as a cold, ruthless professional political hack have stuck with me. When I see Clinton on the trail, obviously willing to say and do anything to get herself into the seat of power, I see a political cockroach on a mission of stubborn defiance and self-interest, no matter how much she tries to cloak herself in the trappings of populist advocacy and compassion.

A few of Thompson's quotes about Nixon strike me as a particularly apt way to sum up my sense of Hillary right now:
(Source: The Liberal Avenger)

"He was the real thing--a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy. He could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time."

"As long as Nixon was politically alive--and he was, all the way to the end--we could always be sure of finding the enemy on the Low Road. There was no need to look anywhere else for the evil bastard. He had the fighting instincts of a badger trapped by hounds. The badger will roll over on its back and emit a smell of death, which confuses the dogs and lures them in for the traditional ripping and tearing action. But it is usually the badger who does the ripping and tearing. It is a beast that fights best on its back: rolling under the throat of the enemy and seizing it by the head with all four claws."

"...honest historians will remember him mainly as a rat who kept scrambling to get back on the ship."

I also did a quick Google to see if anything else had been written about the Hillary and Nixon comparison. Found this from Matt Taibbi. I'm not usually a fan of his writing. It seems to me that he deliberately over uses venomous, skeptical slants no matter what the subject. But there is no arguing that he is a knowledgeable and intelligent observer of American politics.

Why Does Hillary Believe She's Above the Rules?

This talk of it being a "great disservice to the voters of Florida and Michigan to adopt any process that would disenfranchise anyone" is nonsense when the disenfranchisees are also the disenfranchisers. That's not disenfranchisement - that's boneheaded, self-inflicted nullification. What happened is those two states thought they could change the rules without being held accountable. Now Hillary wants to abide by a process that would serve to her advantage, even though it clearly didn't adhere to agreed upon rules. Why am I not surprised by this?

Pathological Weasels and the Foolish Lemmings Who Love Them: Some Thoughts on the Hillary Clinton Campaign

Image Source: AP

Hillary Clinton's current campaign tactics completely and utterly lack integrity, honor and class. Both she and the hacks she has surrounded herself with will say anything if they think it will help them win. Most of what they say is twisted, distorted and negative.

* They are spewing desperate nonsense in a blatantly transparent appeal to the lowest common denominator motivations that could sway the most naive, vulnerable and ignorant factions of the electorate.


Howard Wolfson: Professional weasel and current slanderer-in-chief for Hillary Clinton.
Image Source: ViewImages.com

* They regularly overstate her experience, which is something Margaret Carlson calls them out on in the video below from MSNBC Countdown, confirming that she did in fact have "tea and cookies" on all her international trips as first lady.



* They opportunistically talk out of both sides of their mouth (i.e. they lie). They trump up stories that suit their needs, but certainly don't talk about the fact they were apparently the ones assuring Canada that her NAFTA comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

In short, Hillary Clinton's bald thirst for power means she is willing to say anything, regardless of its veracity or her true intent. Get a vote today, keep me alive, screw tomorrow and screw what is better for the nation at large.

These recent tactics have resulted in her building a coalition of the old, angry, under educated, possibly racist, short-sighted, self-serving and otherwise prejudiced factions among Democratic voters. Is that really the group we believe should lead the country into the future?
(For reference, The Guardian ran a story regarding how different demographic groups voted in the March 4th primaries, and MSNBC has a whole breakdown from Ohio's exit polls.)

Wake up, people. Think about the implications. Best case scenario if she wins the Democratic nomination is a McCain victory in the general election. Worst case scenario is four years of screaming, screehing and partisan finger pointing while the country stagnates economically and any sense of collective optimism is sucked out of most reasonable and intelligent people.

This feels like an important inflection point in our nation's trajectory and I feel we're about to shit the bed rather than make the right call. Please, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana et al -- do the right thing.

Another Horrible Commercial: Viva Viagra

I don't want to provoke the universal forces that influence these things, but I think I'd rather live a lifetime of ED and impotence than buy anything from jackasses who advertise their products with crap like this. Ugh. Just another proof point that Mike Judge is right.

From Reel.com:

"Things got this way by stupid people out-breeding the intelligent members of society, who were too busy trying to come up with male pattern baldness cures and erectile-dysfunction pills for years."

For Me, Hillary Clinton's Disingenuous Tactics Undermine Any Legitimate Qualifications She Has

Image Source: blogs.zdnet.com


"How you get elected defines who you will be once in power. Mrs. Clinton has shown us with this one simple, baseless accusation why it will be hard for her candidacy to represent a change. She appears too comfortable with the politics of personal destruction if she can gain a political advantage."

(Above quote is from Hillary's Smear Campaign, by Michael Zeldin, in WSJ.com.


On the 'politically informed' continuum, I am probably a 4 or 5 out of 10. But I have been paying some attention during this election cycle. And one of the themes I have picked up on is that Clinton's tactics seem much more manipulative and cynical than Obama's, and that immediately repels me from her.

Despite the fact that Clinton and Obama have fairly similar positions on issues I personally prioritize (check out glassbooth.org to explore candidates' positions by topic), I find Clinton's inclination to spin facts disingenuously for the immediate sound bite value so distasteful that I couldn't possibly support her. The 'by any means necessary', lowest common denominator tactics are really disappointing.

The first example of this that resonated with me was her exaggeration and mis-characterization of Obama's Illinois voting record. Suggesting that ~3% of his voting record defines his body of work is silly on the face of it, but trying to misrepresent the motives behind those 129 votes is just sleazy.

Other links about this story:
* The Ever Present Obama WSJ.com

* It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo NYTimes.com


Honestly, that was enough for me. But then she went for a similarly sensational smear rather than making a substantive point with the Tony Rezko thing. WSJ.com has a nice piece illustrating just how appalling this particular volley was in Michael Zeldin's Hillary's Smear Campaign. Zeldin draws a nice comparison between how Clinton handled accusations about her involvement in Whitewater and how she's essentially utilizing the same kind of cheap jab against Obama now with her Rezko one-liner.

From Zeldin's piece:

"As a junior associate, Mr. Obama was asked by his supervising attorney, William Miceli, to do about five hours of basic due diligence and document review. That began and ended his involvement in the case."