Stuff 2 Read

A Disney stockholders suit against Michael Eisner is coming to trial. Here's an article about it.

The most interesting item to me is where it says, "[Michael Ovitz] charged the company as much as $125 a person for food served at executive meetings at his house, an amount later reduced to $15 as he neared the end of his tenure." What did he serve that cost $125 a plate, what did he serve that was $15, what did people say who'd eaten there under both budgets…and what do you want to bet that most of us would have preferred the cheaper meal?

Sunday Evening

Posting may be kind of light here the next few days. I have an important deadline and a bad wrist. After years of ache-free computering, I finally developed a pain in my Carpals (or thereabout) from moving the mouse around. Rest, warm compresses and an Ace wrist band have lessened the hurt…but I've fallen behind on things that need to be done, plus I'm working at about half-speed. So while I'll still be putting stuff up here, it'll mostly be links and they may be fewer and farther-between than usual.

Do not delete me from your bookmarks. I'll be myself again before the week is out.

Recommended Reading

The Tampa Tribune is a right-wing newspaper that, with one exception, has endorsed every Republican presidential nominee since Eisenhower. The one exception was Barry Goldwater and that year, they decided both candidates were unacceptable and endorsed no one. This year, they've come to the same decision.

Highly Recommended Reading

I just changed the link to the Ron Suskind article in the previous posting. Same article, different link, no New York Times subscription necessary. In fact, here's the link again.

Recommended Reading

Ron Suskind discusses the faith and management style of George W. Bush. Not a flattering portrait.

In the Crossfire…

A few more thoughts on the Jon Stewart evisceration of Crossfire

I've been watching that show — sometimes steadily, sometimes not — since the days when it was Michael Kinsley on the left and Pat Buchanan on the right. (Not exactly a balanced match-up since Kinsley was only a bit left of center and Buchanan was so far right, he was off the charts.) It's always been a frustrating bit of Theater since no pundit with a brain in his or her head is so relentlessly partisan as to always be able to defend the left or the right, as the case may be. Lately, there have often been times when I didn't believe that one or more of the show's hosts actually held the view he was advocating; that he just had to say it because that's what the format requires. Robert Novak will write a newspaper column about how Bush is in trouble, then go on Crossfire and denounce anyone stupid enough to believe Bush is in trouble.

So to the extent that some of that is Mr. Stewart's point, I agree with all that. I believe that the news media does routinely fail to give us content over Mud Wrestling, that interviewers do not demand straight (or straight enough) answers from public figures, that reporters are way too willing to broadcast — and sometimes even repeat "spin," as opposed to cutting through the Party Line for us. I believe all that.

I'm just not sure the guy picked the right target. He should have said that to Wolf Blitzer. Or Ted Koppel. Or Brokaw or Rather or Jennings or Brian Williams or the folks who put those men on the air.

He accused Crossfire of "partisan hackery" and was miffed that anyone would suggest that his show, being on Comedy Central and all, should be held to any sort of news standard. Fine, but Crossfire is a show that has rarely pretended to be about anything other than spin. Just because it's on CNN doesn't make it a hard-hitting news show. My God, the centerpiece of CNN's prime-time line-up is Larry King, who can't get off the Laci Peterson case and who hasn't posed a tough question since he asked Sinatra about his fight with Dino. When Tucker Carlson was berating Stewart for not challenging his guests, Stewart should have said, "Do you have basic cable, Tucker? Have you even watched what gets passed off as news on this network?"

More often than not, the guests they bring on Crossfire are party leaders whose job description just about requires that they never admit their side is wrong or that the opposition has any valid point. And accusing Paul Begala, James Carville, Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak — the last of whom Stewart routinely refers to as a "Douchebag of Liberty" — of partisan hackery is like that lame joke Kerry had about Tony Soprano. Those men are unabashed partisan hacks, and one should no more look to them for anything more than one should expect the show following Crank Yankers to ask incisive political questions.

The success of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is just embarrassing the hell out of a lot of the news media…or it would if newsmen were more capable of being embarrassed. The surveys that suggest a substantial number of Americans get their news from The Daily Show or Leno or Letterman are not so much a compliment of those programs as they are indictments of the ones that are supposed to be filling that need. This has put Stewart in the amazing position of being able to criticize the media while assuming no responsibility for showing them how it should be done. I would hate to think that people will believe the problem lies with shows like Crossfire. Very few people watch Crossfire and almost none of us expect it to be anything more than it is. Isn't there some sort of old saying about how if you aim for a small target, you can easily miss the big ones?

Not a Political Rant

What's wrong with George W. Bush?

This is not a political post, so my few friends who are uncomfy with my views on this election can read it. Maybe one of them can even tell me what might be wrong with their boy and the way he talks. I keep seeing clips of him addressing audiences a few years ago and he didn't have the awkward pauses in his speech. He didn't start sentences and then, halfway through, look like he wanted to stop and ask for directions. He didn't have all those odd facial expressions, including the recent one where the left corner of his mouth seems to always do the exact opposite of the rest of his face. You cannot look at old footage of the man and not wonder wha' happened?

Presidents do undergo physical changes while in office. Their extreme features and gestures all seem to become exaggerated and by the time they leave the White House, they all look like the Drew Friedman caricature and sound like Dana Carvey's dubbing them. They also seem to age three years for every one they actually served…then once they're out of office, they get about half those years back. Did you ever see photos of Lyndon Johnson in '64, '68 and '70? They look like pictures of a man, his grandfather and his father…in that order.

Is that all that's happened to Bush? That the stress of the job is scrambling his speech patterns?

Around the Internet, even pro-Bush sites are starting to hesitantly float irresponsibly reckless theories about strokes or various medical conditions or even drug use. Before Election Day, some sort of baseless, long distance diagnosis may make it into the mainstream press for a brief, unfortunate controversy.

Like I said, this is not a political post. If you think Bush has the right answers on Iraq and the economy, you're not going to switch your vote even if it turns out he's a robot and in dire need of Rustoleum. But something has impacted his oratorical skills and it may even explain why he didn't do better in the debates than he did. It would be nice to know what it is.

Pundit Punching

There's an online video of Jon Stewart's appearance today on Crossfire. As you'll see, he sat there and trashed the show while its hosts tried to smile and make like it was all happy banter. Here's the link and here's my thanks to Shmuel Ross for letting me know where to find it so I could let you know.

Jeez…

If you missed Crossfire this afternoon on CNN, you missed seeing Jon Stewart come on and spend the entire segment not plugging his new book but trashing Crossfire, its hosts, and the news media in general. It was one of the more uncomfortable half-hours I've seen on television…but one that was not without many interesting things being said. I don't think the transcript does it justice but you may get a sense of how Stewart basically sat there and told Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson that their show was a dangerous farce.

Sparklett's Water Delivery

If I've learned anything in this world — and I'm sure we all agree that's a pretty big "if" — it's not to waste a lot of time with service people who cannot help you. As I found with my recent dispute with a local supermarket, when you call Customer Service, you're dealing with people with very limited power. Often, they're transitory employees who have a little manual or a little training that covers most contingencies. They're told that if you say A, they're supposed to say B — and if your situation doesn't happen to be in that curriculum…well, too bad. They're not authorized to do much more than kick you over to a "supervisor" who, as often as not, can't go much farther than the same established Rules for Handling Jerks on the Phone.

To get anywhere, you often have to bypass these people. Here's our latest object lesson which came about because the drinking water in my area is undrinkable. I don't know why, in a time when we can all remember drinkable water emanating from our taps, there is not more outrage about this. Amazingly, there are still people in this world who, over a glass of store-bought Dasini, will complain about bleeding-heart environmentalists…but that is not the immediate concern here. The immediate concern is me getting water to drink into my home.

For a few years there, I did it via Sparklett's. A man would come every two weeks and leave me two five-gallon bottles of water for the cooler which his company was renting me. Sometimes, often because I'd been away, I'd find myself with four or five bottles taking up space so I'd call up and use the little service via which you tell them to "skip a delivery." When I did this, they often did not skip a delivery. Most of the time, I'd come home and find two more bottles on my step. I called up. I left notes. It rarely mattered what I did. My delivery guys (they kept changing) seemed programmed to replace X empty bottles with X full ones, as long as they were leaving a minimum of two. When I complained, I got a lot of apologies but they told me that they weren't allowed to take back water after it had already been delivered. So, too bad, but you're stuck with the bottles, Mark…and by the way, here's the bill for all that water you won't get around to using for months.

Finally one day, I put out my empties with a big note taped to them on which I'd lettered big, angry letters that spelled out, "DO NOT LEAVE ANY WATER THIS TIME!" I heard the delivery man stop by and pick up those bottles. A little later when I went outside, I found he'd left two full ones…and the note was lying on the ground under one of them. I went in, called Sparklett's and told them to get the guy back to pick up his water and the overpriced cooler and to cancel service. A lady said, "We can't get the delivery man back there today, but we'll cancel your service and have him pick up the cooler on his next run through your area in two weeks."

I informed her that I was putting the cooler out on the curb. Within ten minutes, the delivery guy was at my door to apologize and pickup the cooler…and he also took back all my unopened water, which I'd been told they weren't allowed to do.

That was a few years ago. Since then, I've bought these crummy plastic gallon jugs of water at the market. They're a pain to carry and they often leak. Often, since they're bottled in high-density polyethylene, the water picks up a stale plastic taste. The smaller bottles are usually made of polyethylene terephthalate (a term I just cut-and-pasted from the Consumer Reports website) and they keep the water fresher but they're more expensive and harder to handle. I also tried Brita pitchers with the built-in filters but the H2O here is so bad, even Brita pitchers don't make it palatable. I finally decided to buy my own cooler (from Costco, the coffin merchants) and give home delivery another try.

I found out that my choices were limited. There are dozens of different water companies listed in the Yellow Pages but they all turnout to be Sparklett's hiding under various names and offering the same Sparklett's product from the same Sparklett's truck. The few that aren't Sparklett's are Arrowhead, and I've never liked the taste of Arrowhead as much as Sparklett's. So I decided to see if I could just order a few bottles of Sparklett's water on a pay-as-you-go basis. If I liked it and the service, then I could sign up for regular delivery.

Or so I thought.

The person I spoke to on the phone tried to sign me up for regular service. When I refused and asked if I could just order some water (and their website sure makes it look like you can), he acted like he'd never heard of such a thing…then said yes, sure, absolutely — they could do that. I placed a "one-time order" for two 5-gallon bottles plus a case of half-liter bottles. Total price, charged to my credit card: $24.97. The water was delivered the next day.

That was on October 6. Yesterday, I received a bill from Sparklett's for $2.71. This covers a "Basic Service Charge" of $1.75 and a Redemption Value of 96 cents for the two bottles. I immediately phoned Sparklett's and after being on hold for an indecent period of time, asked why wasn't I advised of these charges at the time I placed my order. In fact, I asked this of a couple different folks who routed my call around until a lady (allegedly a "supervisor") informed me they were standard charges and that the Redemption Value charge (which is a deposit) is a state law. I said, "Fine. Now, why wasn't I advised of these charges at the time I placed my order?" She apologized but had no answer other than to explain that's the way things work at Sparklett's. Apparently, it's my fault for not understanding how they do business. I suggested to her that if they'd told me then, I would have had the option to not place the order. (Kind of hard to cancel it now that I've started drinking that water.) And if I agreed to the order, we could have charged the $2.71 to my credit card along with the rest of the cost, thereby saving them the time and trouble of sending me a bill and saving me the time and trouble of writing out a check, putting a stamp on it, etc. She said she'd look into that, which of course means that she won't look into that and is just trying to pacify an irate customer.

I also found out that I was scheduled to receive two more bottles on 10/20/04 and two more on 11/03/04 and so on. I explained to her that I'd placed a one-time order and she said, "Oh, no. We don't do one-time orders. You signed up for regular delivery." Again, it's my fault for not understanding how their company works.

By now, I've learned to move up the chain of command. This morning, I called the Sparklett's executive offices…and it took a lot less time to get a senior exec on the phone than it had to call their 800 number and talk to the other end of the pecking order. A very nice man took at least twenty minutes to explain, apologize…and explain about their business to me. (He spent about five of those minutes explaining to me why they switched from glass bottles to ones made of polycarbonate.) He put the blame on the sales rep who led me to believe they deliver water on anything but an ongoing basis, he made sure my next delivery was cancelled, and he even told me something that made me think it might be possible for me to resume regular Sparklett's service. The last time I subscribed, they had a minimum order of two bottles per every-other-week delivery, and I sometimes couldn't use it all up before the next delivery date, so I had to deal with bottles piling up. Now, I've learned, the minimum is one bottle per drop-off. I can easily handle that, and it would be much easier to order additional water when I need it than to ward off routine deliveries when I have too much. No one on the Customer Service line even thought to suggest I sign up on that basis. So the exec may have snagged a customer, whereas the underling gave me no reason to buy their product.

It also matters to me that I spoke to someone who could perhaps change the way they do business. The folks on the Customer Service phone really only care about pacifying irate callers — that's all they're assigned to do — not about effecting structural improvements to the company. As with my supermarket problem, I felt I'd reached someone who genuinely cared, not just about keeping my business, but about figuring out why their system had alienated a customer. No, I don't think anything will change just as a result of my call…but my complaint was treated with respect and there's at least the chance that an accumulation of such calls will matter.

So that's pretty much the story. I wish more companies would learn that Customer Service is not something that can always be done by the book…or outsourced, which is another problem I've encountered. Since they do it the way we do it, we have to all learn to go…well, not necessarily to the top. But to at least a few levels above the bottom. Everyone I spoke to was very nice but in order to get something done, you have to go to someone who's empowered to get something done.

[P.S., added years later: Eventually, Sparklett's just started bringing me as many bottles of water as they felt like leaving on my porch.  I cancelled them out forever, bought a crockpot and now I fill it with gallon bottles of Crystal Geyser spring water I buy at Ralphs or Smart & Final.  Much simpler…and better water.]

Recommended Reading

Jonathan Chait takes on one of the phoniest games in all of politics…the counting not of taxes but of votes for tax increases.

Irv Novick, R.I.P.

Left to right: Julius Schwartz, Irv Novick.

Another great comic book artist of the medium's first generation has died. Irv Novick, seen in the above photo with his longtime editor Julius Schwartz, passed away this morning following a long illness and a recent fall. He was 88 years old and had been drawing comics, pretty much without stopping, from 1939 until his retirement more than fifty years later. He was a graduate of the National Academy of Design. In '39, he worked briefly in the studio of Harry "A" Chesler, who paid low rates to young illustrators who cranked out pages in what Novick later called a "sweat shop atmosphere." Everyone told Novick he was good enough to get work on his own…and after a few months, he did. He was hired by MLJ (now known as Archie Comics) and his first-known work there was in Blue Ribbon Comics #2 (December, 1939) where his art introduced a new character, Bob Phantom, who stuck around for many years. The next month, he did the cover and lead story of Pep Comics #1, which debuted The Shield, the first "patriotic" super-hero. Written by Harry Shorten, The Shield predated Captain America, offering a similar premise and — because both heroes wore the American flag — similar costume.

Thereafter, Novick was MLJ's lead superhero artist, drawing all their major costumed characters at one time or another, including The Hangman and Steel Sterling, until they began cutting back on heroes and increasing their Archie titles around 1946. From '46 to '51, he worked on two syndicated strips — Cynthia and The Scarlet Avenger — neither of which achieved wide circulation. He also began working intermittently in advertising but that wasn't steady so he started drawing for DC, hired by editor Robert Kanigher, who had written many of the stories he'd drawn for MLJ. Kanigher was the DC war editor so Novick became a war artist, his work appearing in Our Army at War and all the DC combat titles, and occasionally in the romance books during the occasional periods when Kanigher worked on them. Kanigher had a reputation for being rough on artists but he loved Novick's work and, according to Irv, they never had a cross word in all their years of working together.

For many years, Novick drew for DC and also freelanced for Boys' Life magazine and for the Johnstone-Cushing advertising agency. In the mid-sixties, the agency offered him a full-time position and he briefly left comics. Novick was unhappy in the job and Kanigher was unhappy to lose one of his two favorite artists, Joe Kubert being the other. With Kanigher's intervention, Novick landed a then-unprecedented freelance contract with DC. It included many perks not available to other artists and guaranteed him the company's highest rate and steady work. When he finished one job, he had to immediately be given another. Kanigher had no trouble keeping him busy, though other artists complained that assignments promised to them would sometimes be suddenly diverted to Irv. After 1968 when Novick began working for other DC editors, there was sometimes a wild panic in the company's office: "We have to find a script to give Irv tomorrow!" The one story I wrote that Novick drew came about in part because editor Julius Schwartz needed something to keep Novick busy. (By that time, many artists had such contracts but Novick was the first.)

1968 was when artist Carmine Infantino was promoted into management at DC and charged with improving the look of the company's line. One of his first decisions was to rotate artists around, breaking up old editorial holds on certain talent. Novick stopped pencilling and inking war titles and became a full-time superhero penciller. His immediate tasks were Batman and Lois Lane but he eventually drew most of the top DC titles, including a long stint on The Flash. He only cut back as his eyes failed him in the late nineties.

I was honored and frustrated to interview Irv on several convention panels over the years — an impossible task, for in front of an audience and microphone, he claimed to remember very little of his career and to have absolutely no fondness for any job or character over any other. Apart from a mild preference for working with his friend and neighbor, Bob Kanigher, he insisted it didn't matter. "I just drew what they gave me to draw," he'd say. "If it was Batman or Captain Storm or Flash…I didn't care." Some of his contemporaries would chide him for saying such things, for they'd seen the care and effort that went into Novick's pages…and in private, talking one-on-one with the man, you wouldn't get quite such a noncommittal attitude. And of course, you'd know it wasn't true when you looked at his art. I'm going to miss seeing him at conventions and trying with no success to get a decent answer out of the guy. He leaves behind an amazing body of top-notch comic illustration.

Recommended Reading

Joshua Green tells us what Karl Rove will stop at to get his candidate elected. The answer seems to be "Nothing."

Quick Thought

Almost everyone said Kerry won last night's debate and he seems to be pulling ahead in most polls.

Bill O'Reilly is being sued for sexual harassment by a lady who has tons of embarrassing alleged quotes from the man.

Could Al Franken be any happier today?

Today's Political Rant

One thing I wish John Kerry had said last night, he could have said in response to Bush hectoring him about the supposed "93 times" he's voted to raises taxes. If I were Kerry — and by the way, you should all feel fortunate that I am not — I would have looked right into camera and said something like…

Folks, he keeps saying that and it's not true. But don't take my word for it. Don't trust either of us on stuff like this. Newspapers run "fact check" articles after these debates. There are whole websites, like the one Dick Cheney referred you to in his debate, where non-partisan researchers will give you the truth. Go to these sources and see what they have to say. This evening, I'm correcting a few numbers I got wrong in our previous two debates. The president here doesn't like to admit mistakes and when he does, it's always that he trusted the wrong person and they screwed up. But I accept the responsibility for what I say, and I'll accept the responsibility for whatever errors my administration might make. You, the American people, need to hold people like us strictly accountable.

I actually have been impressed with some of the fact-checking I've seen on websites. I'm not impressed with the difference it's making to the public discourse but, hey, it's a start.

I have one Bush-voting friend who admits that Kerry's supposed 93 votes to raise taxes are hokum but, he feels, it's okay for Bush to say that because, "We know that's the kind of person John Kerry is." In other words, it doesn't matter how many times he's voted to raise taxes. He's a Massachusetts Liberal and they're just genetic tax-raisers. That might be true, but I can't help thinking that this same friend backed Bush last time (and still does) because Bush isn't the kind of guy to spend so much money as to run up a huge deficit.