It was announced this week that 4 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and that numbers appear to be going in the right direction for the goal of 7 million by the end of March.  It's encouraging, though to be fair, the numbers don't show how many people have paid for their plans yet (although figures from insurance carriers show that they believe this to be around 80 percent).  And there is no data yet on how many young people have signed up, something critical to the plan.  Those figures should be released next month. 

But still, the number of sign-ups is seen as an encouraging sign.  As is the fact that complaints about the healthcare.gov website has plummeted.

Interestingly, with the website working just fine now, we don't hear bleating cries from the Far Right about how a problematic new website is supposedly proof that the government can't do anything right and that the program is inherently bad.  One would think that by that same logic, the fact that the website is working would mean that that is proof that the government can do things right and that the program is inherently good.  Mind you, I don't think a working website proves any of that, just that those who did believe it about the bad news should believe the converse, at least if they were fair and honest.

Interestingly, too, when the first numbers of sign-ups were relatively small -- as was considered likely -- we also heard more bleating cries from the Far Right about how that was proof the ACA program was a dud.  But with 4 million signups already, it's so odd that we're not hearing that anymore.  ("So odd" will be herein defined as meaning "totally understandable when you're dealing with hypocrites.")

There still is a long way to go before knowing if the ACA program will be successful, and if so, how successful.  But when you hear silence from its opponents on the two main issues they were originally rending their hearts over, not nearly as much slamming of the word "Obamacare," or calls for the repeal of "Obamacare," and their criticism now is limited to finding random individuals who are having problems, you know things are going in the right direction towards working out...

Though technical issues are touched on here, this isn't a techie thing in the slightest.  Rather, I like to pass along praise when people do things right, and this is about some surprisingly great (and I have a feeling, standard) tech support from a company that most people will likely have dealings with.  One who doesn't have the reputation for great, warm and fuzzy anything -- Microsoft.

I can't say that they offer this service for all their products -- I'm not saying they don't or do, but that I have no idea -- but the more I deal with Microsoft Exchange, probably the most convoluted product they offer, the more it's clear that bending over backwards to offer great tech support here is the norm.

First, a very brief background.  I have a few "ghost" email accounts -- email addresses that get forwarded to my main account.  I don't use them often, but I found out last week that a few things being sent to one of them was being blocked as Undeliverable.

After a bit of investigating, the problem turned out to be that when I switched to using Microsoft Exchange several months back, I didn't quite realize how it worked and everything was now being handled through that.  Instead of using "mail forwarding" through my provider, I had to instead set up "Aliases" with Exchange.

I took a deep breath.  As I wrote a while back when I first made the switch to Exchange, it works wonderfully but setting it up is not for the faint of heart.  It's mainly intended for businesses and for IT experts to put into place.  Fortunately, as I explained, my experience calling Microsoft Exchange tech support was very good, so I hoped twice would be the charm.

It was.  Here's the tale:

I went online, checked my account, and saw what I thought I should do -- I started to make the changes, but on second thought decided I didn’t want to screw things up, so I called Exchange tech support.  I’m glad I did, because my assumption was very wrong.

It turns out there were two ways of doing what I wanted.  The easy way, if I didn’t care about replying to emails under the name of the Alias.  And the more convoluted way, if I wanted to be able to reply to an Alias using that Alias name.  (That uses something called "Distribution Groups."  I never, ever, never would have figured that out.  But then I wouldn't have figured out the "easy" way either.  Even though it was easy.  Once you knew what to do.)

Anyway, as I said, I called Microsoft Exchange tech support.  After answering a few questions with Customer Service, they then transferred me to tech support, and put me on hold.  I had a wait of a whopping 45 seconds.

The tech support guy, Ernst, was great.  He was knowledgeable, patient, explained things carefully, slowly, in human English, answered questions well and was very comforting.  ("Click here...You'll see such-and-such...Click here...You'll see it say...Click there...")  And when another totally unrelated email problem cropped up during the call (an oddity of pop-up boxes asking for my password), he used a LogMeIn download to take control of my system and found the problem in about five minutes.

Better still though was afterwards.  Rather than asking me to stay on the phone to answer some survey, his real, human supervisor came on to ask questions about the service and wanted to know about the experience and discussed the support call in detail.  More impressive, he also said that they’d be sending an email that would include contact information on my tech support guy and for him, if I had any follow-up questions -- for this or any issue.  That's always one of the big problems with tech support if there are subsequent questions:  not being able to reach the same person who knows about the issue, without having to try to explain it again and what was done.  This email did arrive with all the contact info -- not just email contact info, but also a phone number and direct extension for both Ernst and the supervisor.  Plus there was even contact info for a “backup” tech person in case these two other people weren’t available.

It was all very impressive.  Keep in mind, again, that this was Microsoft.  This is not what Microsoft’s cold, corporation reputation is.  But it was among the best tech support I’ve gotten -- for anything. 

Who knew??!  Go figure.  Microsoft.

As told the supervisor, this is the same, terrific experience I had when I needed to call trying to set up Exchange.  He acknowledged that Exchange is bewildering, that it requires a great deal of intricate knowledge, but that’s why they had to provide such good support.

As it happens, I told this story to a friend who'd had reason to call Microsoft tech support, and he had the same experience.  So, it doesn't appear to be a fluke -- two lucky chances.  This actually appears to be what Microsoft tech support is for Exchange and their related-Office 365 service.  Hat's off to them.  As I said, I like to give credit to people and companies when they do something right.  In this case, it was surprisingly and impressively right.

Another Exchange issue did crop up later -- not a problem at all, since it's working fine, but an oddity.  I wrote back to my new Microsoft contacts, and if there are any difficulties, I'll let you know.

As some readers here may have noticed, there is an odd tech glitch that happens on rare instances when someone is trying to send a Comment.  Usually, all is fine -- but every once in a while, an error message pops up that says the comment couldn't be delivered, and so the person sends a second one...even though the original message went through fine  Sometimes that will happen repeatedly, and three or four messages get sent, despite the error message saying none went through.

I've been trying to resolved this for many months with the company that runs the site, but so far they're as bewildered as anyone.  What they asked today is that if anyone who gets that error message could please take a screen shot of the error message and then forward it to me, I can then send it to the company.

Mind you, I don't expect anyone to take a screen shot of any error message.  Just saying that if the error box does pop up, and you are able to take a screen shot, it could possibly help resolved this.  Though even that is in question.

Fortunately, the error message doesn't occur too often.  Just more often than it should.

Thanks.

The guest today trying to figure out both the hidden tune and the classical composer whose style it's written in is Lane Cheney, from San Antonio, Texas. I found the hidden tune to be extremely easy -- and was not just surprised that the contestant has such difficulty with it, but especially because he teaches music in middle school.  I have no doubt that it's far more challenging when playing the game for real over the telephone than at home relaxing to the radio -- but still, you'll see (and hear) for yourself, particularly when Bruce Adolphe re-plays the piece and the hidden song is virtually being played for what it is.  The composer style is another matter.  It's tough, though I feel I could have gotten it.  My guess was in the right range, but more off than it should have been.  All in all, an enjoyable piece to play along with and listen to.

The Far Right loves to get all heebety-jeebety upset about how Democrats say there is a Republican War on Women.  Wherever would they get that idea?  How dare they?

Mind you, Republicans don't do themselves a whole lot of good when they...well, talk.  Merely typing words doesn't get much better.  Like when a Virginia State Senator wrote on Facebook last week a defense of his anti-abortion position, referring to the woman person in the equation as the "host."

"I don't expect to be in the room or will I do anything to prevent you from obtaining a contraceptive.  However, once a child does exist in your womb, I'm not going to assume a right to kill it just because the child's host (some refer to them as mothers) doesn't want it."

This week, on Monday, the good fellow finally edited his his post and now has it reads as saying the "bearer of the child" rather than "host."

Because that's oh-so-much better...

By the way, I have specifically avoided mentioning the state senator's name because it would put an unfair hilarious twist on the whole story.  His name is Steve Martin.  O Lord Above in Heaven, Thou dost have a great and Almighty sense of humor.  And no, after all the outrage hit, State Sen. Steve Martin (R-VA) did not reply, "Well, excuuuuuuse meeee!!!"

But that's only the tip of the ludicrousness of this tale.  Because, you see, Mr. Martin isn't just some random, anonymous state senator with his mind-wrenching views.  No (and I'm not making this up!) -- he's the former chairman of the Senate Education and Health Committee.  In other words, this is who Republicans in Virginia specifically chose to lead their views on "education and health."

To be fair to Sen. Martin, he says he was just quipping, and how in the world could anyone not have gotten his joke.  "I don't see how anyone could have taken it the wrong way.  It was me playing their argument back to them. Obviously I consider pregnant women to be mothers."

That's true.  Yes, he does consider them to be mothers.  The problem is that he also says he considers them hosts.  Or perhaps, "the bearer of the child," which is much warmer and endearing. 

By the way, since a child is considered a gift from heaven, might not the state senator have been better off describing mothers as "the bearer of good tidings"?

There's no word, mind you, on what he considers the fathers.  Perhaps they're "the start-up deliverer of the child."  Or maybe "He who provides sperm for the creation of the child."

I do understand that Mr. Martin considers "bearer of the child" a better term than "host."  I also understand that it took him days to come up with an alternative to "host."  And that that's the best he came up with.  I want to see his wife's expression's when she opens her card from him on Happy Bearer of the Child Day.

Mind you, I'm not sure that he should have been so quick to change "host."  (Or so slow, depending on your perspective.)  After all, Johnny Carson was host of the Tonight Show for 29 years and was beloved.  Ellen DeGeneres is going to be the host of the Oscars, and people seem to like her.  Though some on the Far Right do have problems with her, so being a host can be controversial.  Just ask Seth MacFarlane.

I might suggest that if Mr. Martin doesn't see how anyone could have taken his comment the wrong way -- referring to mothers even supposedly jokingly as "hosts -- then he either wasn't looking very hard, or doesn't have it in him to look beyond his nose.  In which case, Republicans making him chairman of the Education and Health Committee doesn't seem like a great idea in retrospect.  Though if it does fit in with their viewpoint, which it appears to, then I suppose he at least does make a good poster boy for the war front.

I might also suggest that Mr. Martin meant exactly what he wrote in the first place, referring to the mother as merely a "host," and there was no whimsy involved, especially given how long it took him to change the phrasing, and given how it fits with everything else he said condescendingly and thoughtlessly about women.  In fairness, the truth is that he probably is correct in saying that doesn't understand how it could be seen as ignorant or hurtful.  Which is one of the main reasons it was ignorant and hurtful, condescending and thoughtless.

(It's worth noting, too, that State Sen. Martin says he is merely talking about once a child does exist in a womb.  The question I always ask such people is -- okay, so what is the sex of that "child"?  Can you tell?  Can anyone tell?  And if the sex can't be determined yet -- which it can't -- then how in the world is it a child, rather than a zygote?)

In the end though, the issue at hand isn't abortion, that's a separate debate, but what the former Republican Chairman of the Education and Health Committee in Virginia thinks of women.  Quippingly or not.  Whether merely the "host" or (better) the "bearer of the child".  The woman means next to nothing in the that world view. 

Of course it's understandable that Republicans get all heebety-jeebety upset when someone points out they have a war on women.  So too did that man behind the curtain when Toto pulled it back to reveal there wasn't a Wizard of Oz after all, just a little man.  A very little man.  Pay no attention to him.

Who wouldn't be upset when the world can see your tricks?

One question, though.  When there is a surrogate involved in a pregnancy, does that make her the guest host? 

And what happens if Jay Leno wants to come back?

I've written here in the past -- recently, in fact -- how my friend Mick Garris has expressed his admiration for Angelina Jolie, who's directing the film Unbroken about Mick's father-in-law, Louis Zamperini.  What he's said, as well, is how the two utterly adore each other.  And he mentioned, too, something else I've kept private, that they actually live so close to one another that they're neighbors, something they discovered to the amazement of all. 

Well, none of that is private any more.  Zamperini and Jolie were the subjects of another Tom Brokaw piece this morning on the Today show.  And as you'll see, I wasn't a-lying about any of it...