Cable adventures

Smoke is coming out of my ears after spending the last 45 minutes (mostly on hold) trying to reach my cable provider to ask this question. Why do I see in tonight's edition of the local newspaper an ad for cable, phone and internet services for half the price I am currently paying?

The details although boring are kind of comical when you consider what the goal of the ad is. We have gotten a new cable provider in town so my provider is apparently trying to muddy the waters by competing for service with the other (third) provider.

After dialing the number and going through four automated voice menus I finally got a sales rep. I explained the situation. If I didn't get some pricing relief I would be going to the competition. The sales rep replied "well that is a promotion and only available to new customers". I replied as clearly as possible that it made little sense for them to lose me as a customer when I am paying twice the promotional rate. They would have to get two new customers from the ad in order to replace me. Wouldn't it make sense to make me a little happy and keep me?

This began a phone odyssey of sorts. Because she was in sales she was unable to handle my request for rate relief but she would be glad to send me to "customer service". I was watching the clock because I have called the company before and I know what their definition is of customer service. After 19 minutes I got another very pleasant person on the phone who listened patiently while I vented over the issue of seeing my service being advertised at half the price. Unfortunately she was unable to do anything about that because that was a job for the "customer retention" department. I asked why it takes sales ten seconds to answer the phone but it takes customer service 19 minutes to take the call? Would I be on the line holding for another 19 minutes? She said, "I don't think so."

As it turns out she was absolutely right. I spent the next 25 minutes on hold. All the while the same endless recording played over and over thanking me for holding and telling me the next available person would be taking my call and of course, "your call is important to us." If my call was so important why weren't they answering it?

Finally Dan got on the phone. He listened attentively and commented on a couple of things, a couple which were right and a couple that were wrong. I denied having any premium services but lo and behold he showed me things in the 300 channel range I never knew existed. He also told me I didn't need cable boxes.

The wrong items were the promotion prices and he said the promo number didn't exist. I explained to him that this was hard to refute since I was looking at a half page ad in the newspaper and would be glad to scan it and send it to him. He also said I was getting long distance service in my package, I replied that I didn't think so since AT&T was billing me monthly.

I was a little aggravated with Dan and he started to get a little testy but his attitude changed a bit when I mentioned that I had spent 25 minutes on hold and during that time I was able to speak to his competition's sales department twice ( their sales department picked up quick also) and get a rate quote and installation availability. I said under the circumstances his potential for retaining me was diminishing by the moment.

So the net result was all is well that ends well. Dan managed to get my long distance signed on (which I was already paying for) which now eliminated the At&T bill and he cancelled my premium services that I didn't know I had and never watched and he reduced my bill. So I went from paying $162 per month down to a total of $117. That reduction coupled with the elimination of the current long distance provider saved me about $55 a month.

The moral of this story is that you are probably being over charged for your phone, cable and internet services and you should be periodically pricing the competition. You will be able to find out the pricing easily because all the new sales departments answer the phone really quick.

Carter adds to his legacy

Not content to allow the passage of time to allow people to forget his incompetence, Jimmy Carter has been very busy lately adding to his long resume.

Carter's most recent blunders include interviews with foreign newspapers explaining his take on the reasons why we are held in low esteem in the world and why the Bush administration is the reason for it. He is quick to add that he would have taken a different approach.

He reached new heights yesterday when he launched an unprecedented attack against the head of state of one of our most important and historically friendly allies. In an interview with the UK Telegraph Carter calls British Prime Minister Tony Blair subservient to Washington.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=QIMTSEDBOX1DTQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/08/27/nblair27.xml

In a stunning display of ignorance or senility, Carter also exclaims that the Iraqi people are not better off as a result of the invasion by the U.S. Unfortunately the interviewer does not ask if Carter really means that they would be better off with Saddam Hussein building more mass grave sites.

It might be useful to look back a bit at the Georgia oracle and examine his record while in office to determine whether or not Jimmy's advice is worth listening to.

Despite having Democratic majorities in both the house and senate, Carter record of legislative success was very limited. The economy during his four years was a disaster. Inflation increased every year under his leadership going from 6 percent to 12 percent in four years. Unemployment reached 7.5% and in 1980 interest rates climbed to an unheard of 20%.

Carter responded on July 20 of 1979 with his now famous "National Malaise" speech in which he blamed the nation as a whole for his incompetence.

"The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation".

Carter's economic numbers along with his penchant for blaming the people of the country instead of his policies resulted in a challenge from his own party in the 1980 primary. Although he is now a darling of the left, it was that wing of the party led by Sen. Edward Kennedy that was responsible for the primary challenge.

More than his economic policies, revolt in his own party and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it was the American hostage taking in Iran that was responsible for the end of the Carter presidency by his crushing defeat by Ronald Reagan.

On November 4, 1979, following the toppling of the Shah of Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini, the American Embassy was invaded an 66 hostages were taken. Of those, 52 were held for 444 days while Carter stood by helplessly pounded by nightly coverage of the ordeal. Six months into the episode Carter launched a poorly planned, undermanned and poorly executed rescue effort that ended in disaster with the deaths of 8 U.S. service men.

The hostage taking event more than any other is responsible for the image of America among Islamic militants today. One can only wonder what might have been had Carter acted decisively with outrage over the invasion of sovereign embassy soil. Had Carter taken action instead of standing idly by wringing his hands then perhaps Khomeini might only be a small historical foot note instead of a rallying point for militant religious fanatics.

It would be good for us to keep in mind Carter's record during a period when he had influence each time we hear him talking about how differently he would do things in the current world events climate.

U.N. Useless Nations

The conflict in Lebanon was ended by United Nations resolution 1701 that brokered a temporary peace dependent upon a United Nations force of 15,000 peace keepers deployed in Southern Lebanon to act as a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/465/03/PDF/N0646503.pdf?OpenElement

Although the ceasefire appears to be holding at this point it would seem to be only a matter of time before hostilities break out once again. The primary reason being the fecklessness of member nations as well as U.N Secretary Kofi Annan. Annan has insufficient weight to assemble a force with a clear cut mandate to implement the terms of the resolution.

The leader of the pack of course are the French who were thought to be major players in the region and willing to contribute a major portion of the U.N force. The French this week said that they were willing to dedicate a whopping 200 peace keepers (mostly engineers). The other major European power Germany, is willing to contribute nothing in terms of boots on the ground.

As to the terms of the resolution, the goals seem to be quite clear. Disarming Hezbollah, stopping the flow of Iranian weaponry in Lebanon and restoring some semblance of sovereignty to the lebanese government.

The exact wording, "Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon;"

This of course appears to be the crux of the matter. If the Lebanese Army wanted to or could disarm Hezbollah it should have happened long ago. They cannot because of the strength of Hezbollah and they will not because it is likely to plunge the country into civil war again.

That leaves the UNIFIL force (United Nations Interim Force) as the only force capable of the task. Capability and willingness are two different things. With the rise in popularity of the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah in the Arab world, it seems unlikely that any European power with an Islamic minority population will be willing to take on the task of disarming them knowing that it might inflame tensions in their own country.

Despite the specific language of the resolution and others before it regarding Hezbollah disarmament, potential European peace keeping nations are seeking clarification of the "rules of engagement" before committing to forces. In many European countries leaders will be mulling over this issue just long enough for the force to be filled with someone else.

Annan re-assured the Europeans by stating that the UNIFIL force would not be waging "war". Apparently Kofi thinks Nasrallah is willing to give up his remaining weaponry peacefully.

Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey have stepped to the plate with offers of major contributions, however one can only wonder how secure the Israelis feel about the deployment of troops from predominantly Islamic countries whose governments are hostile to Israel.

All of this continues to play into Iranian and Syrian plans to keep the area inflamed and the Israelis under pressure. The worst outcome would be the re-arming of Hezbollah under the protection of the multi national force. Add to that the possibility that if hostilities break out again, the Israelis would be firing into territory occupied by UNIFIL forces, the bulk of which might be sympathetic to their enemies.

The squeaky affluent get the grease

It is a beautiful Sunday morning and I am enjoying a look at the Globe when I came across one of those Massachusetts stories that make your head spin. The story involves a law suit by the Town of Lexington over noise levels created by the widening of Route 3 and a portion of Route 95 at the intersection of the two roadways. The crux of the suit involves the town's desire to have a sound barrier built along the sections bordering the town. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/08/13/sound_and_fury_over_a_barrier/

It is apparent that the writer did not visit the affected areas for her story because no where in the article did it mention that the entire length of the Southbound section of Route 3 adjacent to Lexington is buffered by a 300 acre pristine woodland.

State Highway had rejected the barrier request on the basis of the cost and few number of residents involved. On the surface it would appear the reasons were sound.
It is absurd to waste 6 millions dollars on a fence that will benefit but a few affluent residents of Lexington. I doubt that there are 30 homes directly involved in this decision, making this a $200,000 per home boondoggle.

It would be comforting to think that the legislature had the brains to reject this foolishness but some how I doubt it will happen when you consider Sen. Havern thinks the decision is a victory. Perhaps Lexington town officials would rethink this item if the cost of it was deducted from their local aid?

There are neighborhoods in our town and others that back up directly to Route 95 with out so much as a tree to block the noise yet the State DPW can put everybody else on the back burner to assuage the concerns of a few fat cats.

I wonder how far 6 million dollars might go in the education budgets of Lawrence, Fall River, New Bedford and Roxbury?

As ridiculous as spending 6 million dollars on a fence is, by caving into such a frivolous law suit the state DPW sets itself up for even more attempts at gaining ridiculous entitlements. The message is quite simple. By filing the lawsuit Lexington was able to put itself ahead of 48 other communities that have had long standing complaints regarding highway noise and guess what, they are just ecstatic about it! They ought to be embarrassed.

The simple solution to this problem is that sound barriers along state highways should be banned completely unless everyone who needs one gets one. Under the current system it is the squeaky affluent who get the grease.

Foreclosures

What goes up surely comes down. This was proven in the natural world by Isaac Newton. It is soon to be proven again in in the free market world. One of the first recorded instances of a market crash was in 1637 in Holland when tulips were the craze. http://www.holland.nl/uk/holland/sights/tulips-history.html

Although tulips were not as vital to everyday life as housing, the same parallels can be drawn between the tulip craze as well as other instances of commodity and financial boom and bust cycles and the current cycle in the Massachusetts and national housing markets.

Fueled by a combination of very cheap money and creative or dangerous financing schemes, the market had gone wild since the post 9/11 rate reductions by the Fed. At the bottom of the rate cuts by the Fed, long term fixed mortgage settled in near 4.8%. Other variable rates linked to such thing as LIBOR (London Inter-Bank Offered Rate)got as low as 1.21% in June of 2003.

The net result of this development was that the lowered cost of money enabled many stretch buyers who were shut out of home ownership now were in the market as buyers. Inevitably this demand increased the pricing dramatically. In addition to the cost of money was the new attitude by mortgage companies and banks that allowed for a buyer to get a first mortgage and then take out a second mortgage at a variable rate to finance the down payment.

It is the owner of variable rate mortgage instruments that now finds themselves in difficult straights. A $250,000 from three years ago could be up as much as $500 a month on the monthly payment. Couple that with a doubling of the heating and utilities costs as well as an average increase in the property taxes of as much as 35% in some communities and you can see how some families are struggling to meet the monthly expense of home ownership.

Now comes the cruel reality of asset speculation. If some people now find themselves unable to meet the monthly financial obligations they may seek to sell the property and escape the crushing debt burden. This of course is now not an available option because the number of homes coming to market has sharply reduced the prices and the homeowner may find themselves underwater in the new value of the home versus the price they bought it at.

The result of this is that Massachusetts is experiencing a significant rise in the number of foreclosure in the residential housing market.
http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2006/08/mass_a_leader_i.html

This report indicates that Massachusetts has had a 181% increase in foreclosure filings but even more ominously, that we are second only to California with cities in the top 20 for percentage of price-reduced homes.

An interesting aside to this problem is the impact it is having in the affordable housing market. As a result of Chapter 40B legislation there has been an enormous number of new projects under construction in the greater Boston region. Some are rental and some are condos. A case in point is the Grandview Farm project in Burlington.

The town offered the developers a sweetheart deal by granting them a ridiculously low price for the parcel in the center of town on which to build 42 condos with prices ranging from 150k for a one bedroom to 240k for a two bedroom. The buyers of the units were determined by lottery, age and by net worth restrictions.

As we approach the completion of the deal it is now possible that a worst case scenario develops. With the many of the 42 lottery winners putting their current homes on the market and the normal inventory taking longer to turn over we now have a glut of homes on the market. This of course will translate into even lower prices. Will this result in a number of the lottery winners taking their houses off the market and subsequently backing out of the deal? The impact of such a scenario is that the units that were once priced as affordable may now be left unsold.

This situation has potential legal ramifications because the terms of the deal provided for the prospective buyers to put down a non refundable 40 thousand dollar down payment. Apparently the money can be refunded if another buyer is found for the unit but what if that doesn't happen for a lengthy period of time or if it is at a lower price? Who takes the hit, the developer, the original lottery winner or the town?

In any event it will be some time before these and many other questions are answered. The Fed has come to its senses and paused for the time being in raising rates, however it may be to late. What now is is steady flow of foreclosures and price reduction may soon become a torrent. This will be aggravated further if we have increases in unemployment as a result of a Fed induced recession.

Good luck Joe

It is hard to imagine that a three term senator who was part of the Democratic presidential ticket 6 years ago can now find himself on the verge of losing his party's primary tomorrow in Connecticut. Joe Lieberman is about to lose his seat to a millionaire "populist" with a political resume less impressive than your next door neighbor.

The latest polls in Connecticut have Lieberman trailing Ned Lamont by as much as 10 and as little as 6 points. There is a ray of hope for Lieberman as this is the first poll in a couple of months that show Joe closing the gap a bit. This might be attributed to the fact that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were campaigning last week for Lamont.

It is difficult to assess the over all importance of this race as its implications extend far beyond the borders of Connecticut. Lieberman is a staunch defender of the war in Iraq and is also a pro Israel member of the senate.

With Israel still in conflict and our forces still very much engaged in Iraq what message will the Connecticut voters be sending if they jettison a moderate Democrat who a few short years ago was a darling of the party?

Is the possible repudiation of Lieberman a clear cut message to other Democratic candidates across the country that it is time to adopt a cut and run strategy in Iraq? Will our adversaries in the Middle East consider this a validation of Bin Laden's theory that if the Americans are hard pressed then public opinion will quickly change to run from conflict and abandon the mission?

On the home front will this mesh with national voter thinking and propel the Democrats to victory in the mid terms and a return to glory with majorities in the house and senate? Or will they suffer a backlash in the rest of the country with people who are disgusted by such a turn of events? Most importantly for the Democrats is whether or not a Lieberman defeat will play into the Republicans assertions that national Democrats are simply to soft to be entrusted with the security of the country.

If Lieberman does lose will he run as an independent and give the rest of Connecticut voters a chance to weigh in the subject or will he abide by the decision by the mostly left wing elements of the state that will be brought out in the primary vote?

Anti-war Democrats may be cheering tomorrow's result in Connecticut but the national candidates may rue the day that they allowed Lieberman to be defeated by an opponent with neither a political resume or a semblance of a clearly articulated platform on the simplest of issues.

Ceasefire, why?

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Muslim leaders demanded a halt on Thursday to Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza and said they wanted to strengthen U.N. peacekeeping forces in the area.

The little Iranian fanatic was quoted by Reuters as saying "although the main cure (to the situation) is the elimination of the Zionist regime, in this stage an immediate ceasefire should be implemented.

Let's get this straight, Ahmadinejad and friends in Syria and his clients Hezbollah in Lebanon and others in Gaza all advocate the destruction of the Israelis. In pursuit of this aim they respond to unilateral Israeli withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon by moving the front lines of conflict closer to Israel. Now when the Israelis balk at such an arrangement, Muslim leaders call for a halt to the fighting? What exactly is the benefit to the Israelis?

In addition, Ahmadinejad boasts of the impending doom of the Jews and Americans. Here is an August 1 quote from crazy Mahmoud shown on Iranian TV, "Hezbollah in Lebanon is the standard-bearer of the resistance of all the monotheistic peoples, of the seekers of justice, and of the free people. Hassan Nasrallah is shouting the loud cry of the vigilant human consciences. Today, Hezbollah stands tall as the representative of all the peoples, all the vigilant consciences, all the monotheistic people, all the seekers of justice, and all free people of the world, against the rule of hegemony. Until now, with the help of Allah, [Hezbollah] is winning, and, Allah willing, it will reach the ultimate victory in the near future." ( complete comments can be found at Memri.org)

Does Mahmoud and the bleeding hearts in Europe and the United States expect that the conflict should be one sided? Does anyone but him expect that the Israelis should remain idle while Hezbollah and Hamas prepare positions and launch attacks at Israel with impugnity?

If a cease fire is what crazy Mahmoud wants then he can initiate it all by himself. He can order his clients to release the Israeli soldiers and stop the cross border attacks. If this is not possible then Israel hopefully will have the determination to continue attacking these organizations until an international consensus is built and assets deployed to demilitarize South Lebanon and Gaza.

Both Iran and Syria have seriously miscalculated or have they? The continued rocket attacks from Lebanon (200 today) prove that the Lebanese government had been powerless to rein in Hezbollah and that there has been an enormous build up of weaponry in the Hezbollah arsenal since the Israeli withdrawal. The Israelis have taken these developments seriously and simply cannot and will not allow this to continue. Now is the time to render Hezbollah impotent and to force a settlement that leaves the northern border pacified.

Mahmoud is riding high in the Arab world for the moment. How long will he maintain rock star status if he stands by idly, talking pugnaciously while the Israeli Defense Forces systematically destroy his proxies in Lebanon?

What is his next step? Will he become emboldened militarily if the conflict continues? The possibility of an escalation in the conflict is great however it is a risk that the Israelis must take now. If Iran is to be confronted should it be done now or later?

The land for peace argument is a dead one. Every time the Israelis give up land it only makes them more vulnerable and emboldens the enemy further. Any more concessions by the Israelis should include concrete agreements guaranteeing Israel security from all the participants in the Middle East violence. If not, then the Israelis simply are not obligated to limit themselves to measured responses against those who launch or sponsor attacks on them.

Does that response play directly into Iran's plans? Is the real Iranian plan simply to constantly be a world wide threat so that countries are on pins and needles and consequently oil prices are driven ever higher. What is the impact on the Iranian and Arab income if they some how manage to walk the line and reap the profit without getting a bloody nose?

Ahmadinejad is rising in stature in the Arab street because of his staunchly anti Israel position, but in the Middle East counting rooms it is $76 a barrel oil that is contributing to his rise as a regional and soon to be larger world figure.

What else can it be but money and power that are driving Middle Eastern politics?
It certainly must be the pursuit of that rather than some perceived or real injustice imposed upon the people of the region. How can a postage stamp of a nation like Israel be the cause of all that ails the Arab lands ? Just as a reminder of how insignificant a geographical and demographic spot Israel is, take a look at some of the numbers.

Population and land mass
Egypt 78 million 1.1 million sq km
Iran 68 million 1.6 million
Saudi Arabia 27 million 1.9 million sq km
Syria 18 million 185 sq km
Sudan 41 million 2.5 million sq km

This is only a portion of the Muslim nations. The total of this area is 7.2 million square kilometers populated by over 232 million mostly Muslim people. Contrast these numbers with the 21,000 square kilometers occupied by about 6 million Israelis.

If Israel disappeared tomorrow it would amount to nothing for the average Muslim. Their honor would not be regained, their economic plight would not improve and the health care, literacy and poverty rates would still be just as embarrassing. Forgive the Israelis for not wanting to go out of existence to prove that point.