Customer Services is a Great American Virtue

I am sure many of you had the experience of calling customer services, then realized that the call is being answered by someone in India, Philippine, or some other remote places. And I am sure that many of you can tell immediately that the calls were off-shored.

I work in the customer services business, so I know the technology, the infrastructure, the operation, and most importantly, the business rational for moving customer services operation to low-cost region. I understand all that. I have many colleagues over there. I have visited there. But this is not to demean those working at call-centers in India but simply to share my experience, just this morning, calling multiple services center, which all happened to be in the U.S.

First, I called IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company regarding my auto and home insurance. I talked to two ladies and both are extremely friendly and helpful. I made an addition, some modification, got a quote, and explore some options for saving on my policies. Not a moment that I felt mistreated or troublesome. They were as nice as I could possibly felt, and so friendly that I needed to thank them before I hung up.

Next, I called a Meriwest Credit Union regarding a loan. The lady sounds Asian and definitely a US ascent. All I wanted was the rate and a few question. Again, she answered professionally, friendly, and at no point pressuring me into acting immediately.

Next, I called Verizon Wireless regarding controlling messaging feature, which I used to be able to do on the web but somehow can't. Once again, the lady came on and gladly proceed to help. Apparently she had somewhat of the same trouble I had but she has others ways to control my accounts that I can't. While she worked through it, we had a little chat and full understood and emphasize why I did what I did.

All in all, I talked to four customer services reps this morning. Amazingly, all four calls were phenomenal. To me, that is a Great American Virtue. We understand customer services better than anyone, and best of all, we deliver a wonderful experience. Yes, some companies would move their call-center to India and have a Indian ladies called herself Mary and answered our calls. Guess what, I can tell and I am sure many of you can also. I am glad and happy to do business with companies that hire the wonderful Americans to service the fellow Americans. And continue to deliver exceptional services.

Let me help you explain the switch, Senator Specter

Honestly, Senator Arlen Specter was one of the few Republican Senators that I like. Not that I like everything he did or said, but he was the more reasonable Republican in the Senate, relatively speaking. I am a reasonable person, really!

As a Democrat, I love to see him leaving the dark side and joining the good guys. No kidding. But his reasoning for switching party was, well, let's say very very weak, at best. What? The Republican Party left him. Mr. Specter, you can do better than that. No question. It is for you political survival, but you can try to give a little better reason than that, right? Let me help you.

First, refer to the recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, which showed the number of Americans identified themselves as Republicans have shrank from 29% a year ago to only 21% today. While those identified themselves as Independent grew from 28% in March 2008 to 38% today. What is that mean? Clearly, Senator Specter was a moderate Senator within the Republican party. The poll clearly suggested those supported him (that 10% or so) have left the GOP party and now called themselves Independent. So, it only makes sense for him to go with the people whom represented.

I don't know about you. It is still political survival but at least, it sounds better.

Condi Rice: "By definition, if it was authorized by the President, it didn't violate our obligation under the Geneva Convention"

If you haven't seen the video posted by Stanford Student Reyna Garcia and his friends, who cornered Condoleezza Rice to question her on the Bush Administration usage of torture. Here is the link

First of all, you got to give credit to Reyna and his friends for confronting who was and is a Stanford Professor, former National Security Advisor, and former Secretary of State. It took some guts. I hope these students wouldn't need to take one of her classes, otherwise, they would guarantee an 'F' for sure.

If you listen to Condi Rice's defensive argument, it was one of those Dick Cheney argument that " well, only if you have seen the facts that we saw, you would have understand, but then we can't show you the fact because you aren't high enough in the government." It is an effective way to shutdown the other person's argument, yet they don't need to produce any REAL evidents to justify their perspectives. It was difficult for Reyna and his friends for a comeback but it did wish they would request on camera a follow-up interview after they have a chance to prepare. Now, I do wonder if Professor Rice would agree to such an interview.

The other shocking argument by the former Secretary was (start at time 6:05):

"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that the violates our obligation under the convention against torture. By definition, if it was authorized by the President, it didn't violate our obligation under the Geneva Convention."

There are 2 serious flaws in her argument. One, I wish that student would follow up with this simple question, "You were authorized by who, again?"

Consider this: If my brain told my hands to kill someone, would that not violate the law and not a murder then? Trust me, my brain is totally convince that it is right and totally justified. I know, I know. You'll say that the brain and the hands are part of the same person. Well, just like the White House and the Justice Department are the same Administration.

Two, I am sure you have seen this clip from 32 years ago, of the former President Nixon which he said, "When the president does it, that means that is not illegal." And remember, Nixon was impeached and resigned in disgrace. Bush and Cheney should have too.

Now, imagine if you were able to ask Saddam Hussein: "President Hussein, what gave you the right to torture and killed thousands of Iraqi". His answer probably would be , "Since I am the President (of Iraq), that means there were not illegal."

If these are the best argument the Bush Gang can come up with, that is a slippery slope.

One simple way to stop those AIG bonuses

Come on, President Obama. If you really want to stop to AIG Executives from getting those bonuses, there is simple way to do it. Bonuses are authorized by CEO and the Board of Directors. Just tell those crooks and whoever would sign those checks that the United States government will go after them to recoup the money. Now, who is willing to sign those checks. Simple

GOP Plays Obstructionist Roles

My prediction and I hope the 2010 mid-term election, the Republican would get another whipping and become a party-of-irrelevant. What the Republicans have done in debate and aftermath of the stimulus debate. If you pay attention to the detail of their argument, they have no objection to the needs of the stimulus and no objection to the most of the content of the stimulus. Yes, I understand that philosophically preferred tax-cut over spending. I can respect that. But the fact of the matter is the bill was passed and it is time to fix the problem. Yet, the Republicans, especially those Governors, like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and Rick Perry of Texas. They would actually turn down money that are intended to help citizens of their states. They would block and be obstructionists to the country's economic recovery. Go ahead and do it. I hope citizens of their states should kick of them out of office as quickly as possible.

Top-10 Bad Reasons for choosing a President

As we celebrate the end of the worst Presidency of the country’s history, let me leave a few words of advice for the future generations with my Top-10 BAD Reasons for choosing a President

1. Should know him more than having a similar name to a former-President
2. Should be better than a C student
3. t least, his parents should think he is a smart kids in the family
4. But then, running for President shouldn’t be just to prove to your Dad that you are smart.
5. Someone who actually have some “real” accomplishments before age 42.
6. Because people like to have a beer with him should not be a qualification
7. Neither is because he is more likely to stop and help me change my flat tire
8. An AWOL solder is likely to grow-up to be an AWOL President
9. As the President of the United States, at least, he should be able to speak proper American English
10. What do you tell your kids? Being dumb, lazy, stupid, C-student, a drunk, AWOL, jobless, and did nothing good until middle-age will grow-up to be the President one day?