#BestBuy #DNGAF

This is a story about how Best Buy harbors fraudulent sellers, expects the customer to absorb the hassle, cost and inconvenience, and even when the fraud is flat-out admitted by the seller, does not give a quarter f*ck.

Still, what Best Buy has cost me in effort and aggravation is compensated for, at least somewhat, by the humor value.

I purchased a WiFi cam on Best Buy's online store.  The title of the product, in its entirety, is:

AGPtek - TENVIS Wireless Audio Video WIFI Webcam IP Security Camera OSD IR support iPhone Android - White

Before you continue, ask yourself; does this product do "wireless audio?"  Feel free to check out the listing and read all the technical specifications to see if anything clarifies the matter.

Got your answer?  Awesome...

If you answered "yes," you'd be wrong.

On November 12th, I sent Best Buy an email asking if perhaps I was "somehow sent the wrong product" and if so, "how was this listed as having audio capabilities," and if they would be "willing to replace it with a similar camera with audio capabilities?"

Best Buy told me to contact the seller.

I contacted the seller (Mambate) with the same basic query and the reply was, "Here we attached a picture, please plug the audio cable to the port, then it will have audio for the device."

P-p-p-plug in?

I might be a bit old but the "Wi" in WiFi, I'm fairly certain, isn't short for "drill a bunch of holes in your walls to run a cable."

Indeed, the only thing the specifications mention about a cable is:

Connectivity Technology: Cable, Wireless

Indeed, the camera has a WiFi antenna and an ethernet port.  If the audio was wired-only, shouldn't the description read:

Connectivity Technology: Video (Cable, Wireless), Audio (Cable only)

...or perhaps...

Connectivity Technology (Audio): Cable
Connectivity Technology (Video): Cable, Wireless

I replied back to Mambate.

"There's nothing in [the product] description, or the technical specifications, about the audio being capable only with a wired connection.  Therefore, what anyone would reasonably expect to receive is a camera with "wireless audio" capability.  This product does not do what the description claims it does.  Are you willing to replace the camera, without charge, for a model which does provide wireless audio and IR video capability?"

Camille, the Mambate rep, replied:

"This item is wireless ip camera, not wireless audio, as it doesn't come with handsfree speaker itself, the audio cable is needed if you want to get the audio output. Most ip camera needs the audio cable if customer needs audio output, therefore, we don't have correct item you need. Will you keep it or not?"

Now I feel stupid.  I should have known that "Wireless Audio" meant precisely the opposite because "most" wireless cameras need a cable for audio, the description in the listing be damned.  If only two of my friends didn't have WiFi cameras that sent audio wirelessly, I would probably have known that most of them don't do this.

But OK, it's my fault.  Mambate continues:

"If not, here we offer you RMA#, please send the item back to us."

Let's step back for a moment to consider this offer...

I spend an hour or two researching the best camera for my needs, pay for it, have it shipped, unbox it, mount it only to find it doesn't do what Mambate says it does, it's my fault, I should have known and now Mambate thinks the equitable solution is for me unmount it, repack it and ship the camera back at my expense?

I tell the Camille she's delusional for, on top of everything, expecting me to pay for the shipping.

Camille sends me a prepaid mailing label.

I replied back to Best Buy, informing them the seller has admitted, outright, the product doesn't do what the listing says it does and ask two questions:

1. Can you tell me what standards exist within Best Buy to prevent sellers from using Best Buy's reputation to scam Best Buy's customers?
2. Is it incumbent upon the buyers to waste their time to discover the scams, or do you have some kind of mechanism for insuring sellers make honest listings and punish ones that don't?

Ram replies.

"I understand that you want this thing will never happen again to any Best Buy customer" and "We are definitely here to help you with any problems you may experience with your Marketplace order. With this, I've documented your concern, and I'm sure they will also make sure that this particular thing will not take place again."

For a reason I just can't put my finger on, Ram's assurances that "they will also make sure that this particular thing will not take place again" doesn't fill me with confidence.

And my questions remain unaddressed.  Not glossed over, just ...ignored.  So I ask again.

Maydel replies, saying Best Buy is there to help and the sellers operating under their name have been approved based upon their reputation.  Apparently, admittedly ads they've placed are not accurate, and not correcting them when told, and blaming me for not knowing better, none of this qualifies as a bearing upon Mambate's "reputation."

What would?  Trafficking in human organs maybe?

But fair enough.  They've answered the question.  The answer doesn't actually match reality but at this point, we'll take what we can get, right?

Maydel does not attempt to answer the second question about what mechanism exists for forcing sellers to correct fraudulent listings or discipline fraudulent sellers for making them.  But we've got Ram's assurances that he's sure this particular thing will not take place again which is nice.

Maydel offers a 800 number if I've been unable to resolve the issue with my order.  But Mambate has offered to take the item back which (a) Best Buy will clearly consider a resolution and (b) my problem is no longer with Mambate, my problem is with Best Buy.

I replied back to Best Buy asking how they intend to deal with the fraudulent listing which still exists on Best Buy's page.

Jadra replied with instructions on how to get in touch with the seller.

(facepalm.gif)

Conclusion: If you're considering purchasing from Best Buy's website, realize that you could very well pay for it, receive it and drill holes in your wall before you realize it doesn't do what the listing said it did and Best Buy will tell you to cast your eyes upon the field in which they grow all the f*cks they give.

And it is barren.

Wittlebee CEO Cancels Accounts Of Critics and Allegedly Threatens Them, Too

An Open Letter to the CEO of Wittlebee, a subscription clothing club for kids.

----

Dear Sean,

As the stay-at-home father of a newborn, I find myself suddenly interested in what you do.

Unfortunately, the spectacle you've made of yourself in attempting to quash complains about your company and service (which appears to have suffered catastrophically as of late) guarantee my money will not be spent with your company.

Congratulations on managing to alienate customers before you've had any contact with them whatsoever.

Also, I noticed that you promised to cancel the account of *anyone* associated with that group. In doing so you've managed to prevent critics from buying from you, who wouldn't buy from you in any case, as well as your supporters, which is an impressive method of turning supporters into critics.

Well played, sir! Telling people who have already quit that they are fired requires a lack of business accumen I didn't realize was possible.

Welcome to social media.

Sincerely,
Jason Desjardins

PS: I completely forgot to mention that I'm an infant-through-pre-K photographer with a really, really large national chain.  I talk to thousands of parents, teachers and directors every year and when the subject of clothes comes up (and it always does), I'll be bringing up Wittlebee, cherrypicked review pages and alleged 12am phone calls threatening to "destroy" critics.

I realize, of course, that it's easy to claim I conveniently have this kind of access to Wittlebee's demographic so here's proof.

http://www.pho7o.com/

You'll notice that I do not list pre-K photography on my site, my contract forbids competing with my employer.

If there is still doubt that I photograph this age professionally:

Sean, your attempt to threaten honest criticism of your business just cost you a ton of money.  You, *personally*, and that's before one even considers what the people I talk to tell their friends.  I really hope someday you look at your actions and think, "boy, THAT was a good idea!"

But somehow I doubt it.

Basic Math, the Fiscal Cliff and Entitlement Reform

Was just listening to Matt Miller, moderator of KCRW's Left, Right and Center podcast (and a guy I normally agree with).  In addressing the fiscal cliff, and the perceived insanity of not reforming the so-called "entitlement programs," he complains:

"It's not widely understood that people get back many many many more dollars in benefits than they actually paid into the system, so the typical -- I'm working on a column on this now -- typical medical beneficiaries maybe paid in $120-$140k into the program during their lifetime get back $350k."

...as if the government shoves your money under a mattress and it does nothing for the 47 years you pay into the system.

The math of this isn't complex.

Let's use $130k for the amount paid into the system, that's right in the middle of his quoted range.  Divide that into the forty seven years that beneficiary pays into that system, that's $2,765 per year the average individual pays into the system.

The Dow Jones average has gone from 880 in 1965 to 13,025 in 2012.  That's an increase of 1,400%, or 14x.  In other words, if you'd invested $1 into the DJIA index itself -- which is not an individual company but a stock which reflects the market as a whole -- today you'd have $14, which puts the rate of increase around 5.65% per year.

Keep in mind that this 1,400% return spans 1966 through 1984 where the DJIA literally didn't move, the Savings and Loan collapse of 1988 and the the Bush presidency where the market opened 2000 at 13,113 and closed out Bush's term at 12,800.  Some years were better, some were worse, but if you simply started with $1 in 1965, you'd have $14 in 2012.

So now we take that $2,765, put it in the bank at 5.65% per year (I won't even compound it monthly, this is simple interest) and repeat for 47 years, here's the year-end balances:

1975: $42,938.25
1985: $112,271.22
1995: $232,396.62
2005: $440,524.30
2012: $671,486.69

So Miller is complaining that people pay $130k into the system, the government pays out $350k then pockets the remaining $321k?

Somehow this is a system that needs REFORM by way of LESS benefits for citizens?

Where You're At

Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, surrogate for the Romney campaign, fiercely shot back at Mitt Romney’s claim Wednesday that President Barack Obama outmatched the 2012 Republican presidential nominee by offering "gifts" to African-Americans, Hispanics and young voters.

"I absolutely reject that notion. ... I don't think that represents where we are as a party and where we're going as a party. ... That has got to be one of the most fundamental takeaways from this election."

Actually, Bobby, if there's any takeaway to be had, this view of the 47% is PRECISELY where you are today as a party.

That's why you lost.

I know there's a lot of navel gazing going on but isn't that a given? Isn't that your jumping-off point, not what remains to be discerned?

As for where you're heading, you're right, but what it implies for your party is disastrous. It's spectacular irony that party of global warming deniers, and whose electorate deeply rejects the mechanics of evolution, faces certain destruction by being unwilling and unable to adopt systemic changes because you fear those corrections will kill your party just as assuredly.

The problem your party faces comes from a built-in inerrancy doctrine, all truths obtained by way of God or Reagan and not necessarily in that order. It's truth and, as such, it's set in stone and not open for interpretation or debate. It's the opposite of "big tent" which, until now, has been your bedrock. You have employed a single, comforting, cogent message to great effect for decades while Democrats, seeking to be a voice for many different views, have largely been unable to offer a coherent counter message.

Now this bedrock, this unyielding lump of divinely-inspired conservative principle, stands to be your undoing. What substantive platform modifications can you make that will not cause your base to exodus? Immigration reform? Reproductive rights? Progressive taxation?

If you replace a Mercedes Benz, part-by-part, with a Jeep, at what point does it become a Jeep?

If you replace the GOP policy with Democratic policy, at what point does the GOP become the Democratic party?

Evangelical leader Gary Bauer argues that the election loss was due to a party too focused on appealing to moderate voters.

"I think it's due, at least in part, to folks in our party that seem intent on attacking the fact that we're the conservative party in the United States. ... There's no yearning by the American people for a second pro-abortion party. I mean, we've already got one of those."

The Republican party has two options; do what they've been doing and enjoying the same results, or internecine civil war.

Bobby, I can give you two guesses as two which path the GOP leadership takes but you're only going to need one.

:popcorn:

Oh, That's Just My Day Job

"Power to the people Marty."
"Power to the people, Coz."

- Sneakers

http://sumofus.org/campaigns/walmart-strike/

Back Yonder

Brings whole new meaning to "Big Gulp," dunnit?

What It Said vs. What It Means

Accuser of Elmo Puppeteer Recants

I nearly had a haht attahk when I saw the accusation, beyond glad to see Clash has been vindicated.

Opposite Day

"I have been ambivalent about the immigration issue for many years. But the vote this week was extremely racially polarized, and deliberately so. Sixty-two percent of whites voted for Romney. Ninety percent of black voters and 71% of Hispanic voters went for Obama. That’s how the race groups working for the Democrat Party want it. They are very very effective at keeping the races politically polarized."

     - J. Christian Adams, writer for PJMedia and election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice

That's rich.

Despite an election that should have taught conservatives that the electorate does not share their views, nor does it reject Obama in apocalyptic terms like they do, the wingnuts continue to perceive their universe not how it actually exists but how they'd like for it to be.

"Racially polarized" means ethnic groups were either sharply for or against a candidate and yet Obama was popular among whites, blacks, hispanics and asians.

56% of Obama's support came from whites, 25% from Black, 14% from Latino and 4% from Asian.

On the other hand, 42.5% of Romney's 48.1% of the vote count was from white voters, so a stunning 88% of Romney's support was white. In fact, Romney had less support from all non-white voters combined than Obama had from Latinos alone.

Only in right-win la-la land can a candidate with virtually non-existant cross-ethnic appeal NOT be the polarizing figure.

Only in right-wing la-la land is the party that appealed broadly across the ethnic spectrum the one engaging in race polarization politics.

Hannibal

I love it when a plan comes together.

Obama Kuti

#2termz

OK it's completely crass but funny is funny.

Ten Minutes in the Life of Romney on Facebook

A 'lil Ole Fashioned Public Humiliation for the Plebes

Is it fair?

I don't recall Bernie Maddoff having to wear a sandwich board in front of anyone or anything. In fact I don't EVER recall seeing anyone making more than $50k/yr ever being sentenced to public humiliation in the United States, have you?

Money doesn't talk, it f*cking yodels, kids, and a lack of money is a target painted on your backside.

Justice might be blind but it can tell the difference between a nickel and a benjamin with its eyes shut, that's for sure.

Bedrock

There's been a lot of shit going around about a number of employers either attempting to "educate" their employees as to the disastrous policies of the Obama administration and now, upon his re-election, firing them, or simply targeting specific employees for their vote.

I was surprised to learn that this is not illegal. Sorta.

Setting aside class protections which may exists in a few scattered states, Federal Law 18 USC § 594 reads:

"Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

Since the law makes it illegal to influence a vote, which necessarily must happen before the voting date occurs, my reading of the law is that firing a person for voting a particular way, or failing to vote a particular way, would not be illegal.

Intimating one would or might fire an employee for voting for a particular candidate, or failing to vote for a particular candidate, regardless of whether or not the threat was consummated, would be illegal.

This is important because the burden of proof is not upon the employee to prove whether the firing was related to the vote, which is obviously difficult to prove. Rather, it hinges upon the threat before the fact, which might be difficult to prove but is an action on the part of the employer as opposed to a state of mind of that employer.

Whether or not a statement like "If Obama is elected I will have to let some people go" is vague enough to get away with, I don't know, but the sheer number of conservatives who are full-on giddy at the attempt to tamper with democracy is disturbing. This is not a handfull of wingnuts, there are literally thousands of Republicans in ONE thread on ONE facebook page not only defending the tactic but encouraging more of it.

I find it difficult to imagine something more central to the American ethos than the right to vote, unmolested, nor would I be engaging in demagoguery by suggesting those who would champion such a tactic be summarily rounded up and deposited just past the border.

Having found ours lacking, perhaps they can coerce each other into a more perfect union.

:Facepalm:

"You know your party is in trouble when people ask did the rape guy win, and you have to ask which one?"

     - Alec Baldwin

Red Pill

I've been so jacked into the post-election right wingnut media stream that today I got into my car, picked up the headphone end of my cassette adapter and tried to plug it into my ear. The 1/8" PLUG FFS. I haven't heard Elia laugh that hard in weeks.

Somebody Get The Hose

Et Tu, Romney?

The Romney camp has knives out for Chris Christie. What did he do, exactly? Oh, right, he treated Obama like his party didn't matter, like a guy trying to protect his constituents would act toward another guy who helped him do it.

What's that called again? It's on the tip of my tongue ...

Oh, right, BIPARTISANSHIP. Something the Romney camp swore they'd be FOR.

I do not think that word means what they think it means.

Remember all that gushing adoration for the people on the streets post-Sandy, about how they didn't ask each other if they were Republican or Democrat, they just pitched in to help their fellow man and were grateful for whatever help they got?

Now we eviscerate our politicians for thinking about nothing but what the country needs and we have the chutzpah to wonder why they never f*cking do it?

We wonder what's wrong with the country.

What's wrong with it is US.

Samsara

An all-but-one sweep of the swing states. Once Florida is tabulated, 332 to 206. A 126-vote lead in the electoral college is not a mere blowout, it's a veritable beating.

The popular vote was within 2.5m but let's not forget why we have the electoral college; it prevents a candidate with lopsided regional popularity -- for example, massively popular in the north and the opposite in the south -- from being elected, thereby failing to represent a full half of the country.

It forces candidates to have broad appeal. It forces a candidate to represent the centrist interests and values of the country at large.

This leads us to the obvious question, "What are these interests and values?"

Same sex marriage amendments pass in Maine and Maryland, the first states to do so by vote and not legislation or court order. Minnesota voters shoot down a same-sex constitutional amendment.

Marijuana flat-out legalized in Washington and Colorado.

And Obama elected in a landslide.

Yet somehow conservative talk radio is awash with two interpretations of the election results; Obama doesn't have a mandate and the electorate wants more conservatism.

Let them keep thinking it. When you do not see something clearly, what you perceive as a solution is often just digging the hole deeper. Samsara.

This election was brought to you by the words "Tea" and "Party" and the conservative fetishization of party purity.

TYVM.