Monday, July 31, 2006

GoldenRule: The World's Stupidest Insurance Company

I'm wondering today why GoldenRuleInsurance company pretends to be selling individual medical insurance. I went to their nice website, entered some preliminary information, and they go to a page where I can look at quotes for a variety of different coverage options. I selected the one I liked the best, and clicked the "Review and Apply" button. The next form requires me to register a username and password. With typical userid and password fields. However, there's also a field for "Broker ID". WTF is that? Well, you'll never find out from the website, as I searched for 15 minutes for a clue. There is no help, no explanation, no anything. Then I search another 10 minutes trying to find a phone number. Way back on the very 1st page, there's a "Contact Us" link. Aha! After specifying that I'm still in Ohio, it gave me office addresses and phone numbers. So, I call up the Dayton office. A receptionist answers the phone, who can barely make herself heard. She asks how to direct my call. I say I want to apply online for their insurance, but it's asking for a broker id. She asks if I'm trying to enroll during some open-enrollment period. I repeat myself. She has no clue what I'm talking about, so I give up on GoldenRule. I wonder how this company does any business. They've made it absolutely impossible for me, a willing buyer, to communicate with them in any way. Great job, dumbshits.

This means I have to go back to Anthem, which may have the worst customer service of any insurance company in the world.

Friday, July 28, 2006

My Geek Code

GCS d- s+: a+> C++$ ULS+ P+++ L++ E--- W+++ N o? K- w-- O++ !M !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X? R- tv-- b++ DI++++ D+ G e+ h@ r++ y+*@

Thursday, July 27, 2006

H. L. Mencken is a genius

Yeah, I know he's dead. But he sure knew what he was talking about:
When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
from the Baltimore Sun (26 July 1920)

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Don't like liberals?

Hate liberals?

Sound good to me! Let’s cut the income tax by 90% too, since it won’t be needed any more.

By the way, I don’t like the “ruling and corporate elite” much either. But how does any of this stuff “put power back into the hands of the individual”? Seems to me like it just puts power into the hands of the government.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Idiots with cars

  1. People who park with their car's tail sticking a foot or more over the line, making the next space unusable should have the offending part of their car sliced off with a cutting torch. Unfortunately, this could have severe consequences if you cut into the gas tank. Maybe just beat the offending part with a sledge hammer until it's all back where it belongs.
  2. There are so many morons driving in the left lane all the time that I'm finding it easier to pass in the far right lane. But there's still a decent danger of some wack-job cruising along at 50 mph over there.
  3. Q: Why do people stomp on their brakes and slow to 60 mph (in a posted 65 mph zone) when they see a cop parked on the other side of the road, with his lights flashing? A: Because they are imbeciles.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Stupid grocery tricks

In an attempt to make stupid age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco sales even stupider, biggs has come with a few great ideas.

First, I asked for a pack of cigarettes at the customer service counter. Well, I can't have them unless I pay for them right then, or I'm fixing to go to the checkout. Neither of those was workable for me, so I resumed my shopping, figuring I'd probably forget about them when I did get to a checkout. I was right. So I had to go to another store after I got home.

Second, because the checkout chick was a few weeks shy of being 19 years old, Ohio says she can't sell beer and alcohol. WTF not? How is the passing of beer or wine going to corrupt this poor young person? And if she can't drink until she's 21, why can she "sell" it at 19? Well, the store policy is the customer should swing the beer or wine over the scanner. WTF is that? Am I selling the beer to myself now? How come I don't pay myself? If I knew how to do it, I'd turn the store in to the authorities just because of their brain-dead policy. Do they really think that having the customer pass the six-pack over the scanner that they're avoiding the intent of the law (stupid as it is)?

I wonder if any consideration is given to making law that is equitable, fair, and just. Or is it just a con game to satisfy idiots who whine and bleat about underage drinking; who think anything can be cured just by outlawing it.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

An infrequently asked question

__ __ __ __ ___ _______
| | | | | | | |/ / | ____|
| | | | | | | ' / | |__
| | | | | | | < | __|
| `----.| `--' | | . \ | |____
|_______| \______/ |__|\__\ |_______|

_______. __ ___ ____ ____ ____ __ ____ ___ __ __ ___ _______ .______
/ || |/ / \ \ / / \ \ / \ / / / \ | | | |/ / | ____|| _ \
| (----`| ' / \ \/ / \ \/ \/ / / ^ \ | | | ' / | |__ | |_) |
\ \ | < \_ _/ \ / / /_\ \ | | | < | __| | /
.----) | | . \ | | \ /\ / / _____ \ | `----.| . \ | |____ | |\ \----.
|_______/ |__|\__\ |__| \__/ \__/ /__/ \__\ |_______||__|\__\ |_______|| _| `._____|

In answer to a poll (Who would win a sword fight?) that didn't include space-boy in the multiple-choice answers.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

The "editorial we" is bogus

People who abuse the so-called "editorial we" sound like pretentious buffoons. There is actually no case where one can properly use the plural form of personal pronouns to refer only to oneself. The "editorial we" is valid, and originated, on the editorial page of a newspaper, where an (usually with no byline) editor writes an editorial the represents the paper's official opinion. The "we" refers to the editorial staff and the publisher. So it's not really a special case. And no one has any basis for referring to themself as "we" just because they write an editorial. Especially if it's by-lined with only one name.

The "royal we" is about the same. In his official capacity as the ruler, a king or queen is speaking for a number of people. That may consist of his advisors, cabinet, or the whole country. If he's not completely besotted with power, he'll use "I" for personal statements.

See Wikipedia for more information.

Friday, July 07, 2006

How many neocons does it take to screw in a light bulb?

None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its condition is improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are delusional spin from the liberal media. Illuminating rooms is hard work. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effort.


Courtesy of my daughter :-)