Thursday, August 4, 2005

Odds and Ends

Let's play Catch-Up on items posted here lately...

• No, I do not know of any firm plans for memorial services for Pat McCormick, Danny Simon or Gary Belkin, though I am told there will be public events at least for Pat and Gary. If you knew these gents and want to be kept informed, drop me a note. Or if you hear about plans before I do, inform me.
• I am told by several of you that Theodore Geisel once pronounced his middle name as "soice" but that, in at least one bio of him, it says he gave up and went for the more common pronounciation of Dr. Seuss. Okay. But my point is that if even he was pronouncing it that way by 1958, there was nothing wrong with us pronouncing it that way in the sixties and later. Also, of course, just because your middle name is pronounced one way doesn't mean you have to pronounce your similarly-spelled pen name the same way. Especially when you're making a lot of money off folks who pronounce it "soose."
• Apparently, I did proofread that interview that ran in Back Issue before publication and corrected all the errors. The problem was that the wrong draft was sent to the publisher. Oh, well.
• I am receiving a lot of volunteers for my Kirby Book Research Project, some of whom apparently think they're signing up to proofread the book. No...what I need is folks who can dig up old issue numbers and data for me. Proofreading will come much later.
• Lots of messages about your own experiences with telemarketers and phone survey takers. Yes, I did sign up for the National Do Not Call Registry. Yes, I still get a lot of unwanted telemarketing calls.

I'm way behind again in answering e-mail. Please forgive. And if you can't forgive, at least try to forget.

• Posted at 10:57 AM · LINK

Today's Political Rant

Some old wise man — I think it was Joe Pyne — once said that the real scandal in government wasn't about what laws were being broken but what you can get away with without breaking any laws. As this article in the Washington Post notes, there's an awful lot that lobbyists can do to bestow presents and perks on our legislators without violating a single statute.

I suspect everyone reading this would agree that it's possible for something to be immoral or unethical but technically legal. Some would say that performing abortions is immoral even though it's legal. Others would say that a C.E.O. draining his employees' pension fund is unethical even though it's legal. And yet, in the partisan bickering that's getting worse and worse, this principle is largely being trampled into oblivion. A lot of Karl Rove's defenders are contending that no law was broken...so, end of argument. Champions of the Clintons have trod the same ground in the past: No one was indicted; ergo, the actions were honorable. Well...maybe, maybe not.

I don't even believe that not being indicted or convicted means that no law was broken. A very small percentage of all murders are ever prosecuted in this country. That doesn't mean no one should have gone to prison for them. The case just couldn't be proved. A lot of white collar and political crimes aren't prosecuted due to which party controls the office of the prosecutor at any given moment. We might well be in the midst of impeachment-related hearings right now if all the same things had transpired in Washington the last few years except that the Democrats had control of Congress.

Read the Post article. A lot of those things aren't illegal but should be. That's where our outrage should begin...not when the law is violated but, at times, when it isn't. And by the way, I was just kidding about Joe Pyne being wise.

• Posted at 9:02 AM · LINK

Survey Says...

About three weeks ago, I got a call from a friendly-voiced lady who said she was conducting a marketing survey for a national research company, the name of which I didn't catch. On a whim, I agreed to answer her questions and the first few were pretty innocuous...things like, "Do you like chocolate?" and "Have you ever rented a DVD?" But then, maybe twenty queries in, she started asking me about my household income and I said, "Put down 'declines to state.'" I don't think my income is the business of anyone except me, my Business Manager and the Internal Revenue...and if I could cut the last of these out of the loop, I would.

The lady got a bit upset that I wouldn't answer. She told me the survey was anonymous...but of course, she had my phone number. I said no, I would not answer questions about money, and if that's all she had left, the call was over. She replied, unconvincingly, "Listen, we're not supposed to say this but if you don't answer all the questions, I don't get paid for this. I only get paid for each survey that's fully completed."

I said, "Then just put down any numbers you like. Make something up."

She said, "I would, but they check."

I asked her, "How do they check? They don't have my name or my income. All they know is that I like chocolate. How do they — whoever 'they' are — check to see that you haven't made up the numbers?"

She mumbled and stammered and then she said, "Well, they monitor these calls. This is being taped."

"Aren't you supposed to inform me at the start of a call that the conversation is being taped? This isn't Linda Tripp, is it?"

"Uh, well, it isn't exactly being taped. It's more like...I can't explain but they check on us."

I announced, "Well, when they check on you, they'll see you made a noble effort. Bye!" And that was it for that conversation. I put it out of my mind and went back to whatever she'd interrupted. Performing a liver transplant, as I recall.

A week or so later, I got another call, this one from a man with some Marketing Research company. I didn't get its name but I think it was different from the earlier one. He asked if I'd answer some questions. This was during the time I was busy getting my mother in and out of the hospital and I really resented the call, so I guess I was a bit abrupt with the guy. I told him to leave me alone and hung up.

The next day, I got a call from someone who claimed to be his supervisor at the same firm, apologizing for the previous call. I said, "Fine, apology accepted." He asked if I had time to answer the survey. I said no. He asked if he could call back at a later time to ask me the questions. I got suspicious and asked, "Is there anything in there about total household income?" He said, "Uh, I'm not sure which questionnaire I have here for you..."

I said, "Please don't call here again...you or anyone from your company." And I ended that call.

Yesterday afternoon, someone from (allegedly) another Marketing Firm called with a survey. A woman began, "Your number has been chosen at random..."

I told her, "No, it hasn't. Please put down, 'This person will not answer our questions and we should never call him again.' Goodbye!"

I can be slow but I catch on, eventually. All these calls, I'm guessing, are from the same outfit, and they couldn't care less if I like chocolate or rent DVDs. They're out to build some sort of financial index/profile of the person at this phone number and their computer system still has me in the "need income data" category. They've worked out a routine: If one person can't get the info out of you one way, they wait a week and have someone else call and use a different approach. It wouldn't even surprise me if that "I don't get paid if you don't answer all the questions" routine is part of one script.

That's about all there is to this at the moment. I'll report back if I get another call. And next time, I think I'm going to see what I can find out about the company that's phoning me.

• Posted at 12:22 AM · LINK