Disney (legally) brutalizes a family..

A hispanic couple in Florida, have infringed upon the trademark rights of Disney, the company claims in a lawsuit it has filed. The couple, apparently purchased costumes for a party business they are starting up. Unfortunately, the costumes were probably “knockoffs” of Disney-owned characters.

However, attacking families for making a sensible mistake, is something Walt Disney would likely never have condoned. It’s been suggested that this lawsuit was entered into to send a message to bootleggers and vendors who carry such merchandise. However, if that is indeed the case, why go after a family who was neither the bootlegger nor the vendor? They complied with every request Disney gave them, except one. Disney insisted the costumes, resembling Eeyore and Tigger from “Winnie the Pooh”, be turned over to Disney for “destruction”. The couple, struggling to start their business, returned the costumes to the place of purchase for a refund.

I understand, Disney needs to protect it’s profits. It’s natural for them, just as any other mega-corporation, to want to secure and manage their assets. But, in some cases, they go to extreme measures. This appears to be one such situation in which the vision of Disney’s founder is being cast aside in favor of big business.

Filing a lawsuit on a couple with children for buying copies of costumes, is like going after someone for downloading music illegally. Fundamentally, it’s legal, but it’s stupid. Hit the industry one customer at a time, and you will end up with a bitter market who is no longer interested in your “genuine” products. Even if there was no danger of consumers changing their opinion on Disney, it’s ridiculous from a financial standpoint, as well. This family doesn’t have the money that Disney will require in the lawsuit. Hurting a customer only reveals Disney to be more of a bullying personality than they already appear. If they truly want to do the right thing, they’re better off dropping the lawsuit and going after the shops that sell bootleg merchandise.

Barack Obama makes yet another mistake..

After allowing “Access Hollywood” access to his children, Barack Obama made it known in hind-sight it might have not been a great idea.

Of course, that’s probably because his young daughters were being honest, in ways sometimes only children can. Malia, recently turning age 10, confessed that she sometimes finds her father’s behavior embarassing. Such as when he appeared more interested in shaking hands with a friend than interacting with her. When asked what irritated or angered their parents, both daughters seemed to suggest they argue with each other.

Well, I’ll say that arguing in front of your children is one of the worst things parents can do. It’s a horrible way to behave, yet it is a common problem. Many people argue. In fact, most of us do. However, most of us don’t give news coverage access to our families, let them speak, then claim there likely won’t be any more such coverage. What’s wrong? They behaved with the innocence and openness children often do. Or, perhaps Barack Obama is such a closed-off, distant, private person, that he doesn’t even know this? Worse, surely his wife could have told him this is how children often are. Does she possibly not know, either? If anything, this is giving us insight into what should be the stable “rock”, foundation, hub of Barack Obama’s life.

I’m glad someone in the Obama family is genuinely open. It would be even scarier if they behaved the same way for the camera as the adults.

Barack Obama’s record speaks volumes to his character..

Barack Obama is trying to convince the public he is capable of bi-partizan bridges, bringing people of multiple viewpoints and agendas together. This is a lovely sentiment. If Obama is indeed being honest about this, it would be a wonderful effort, and would make him an open-minded, understanding President.

My gut instinct tells me, as it has for many years, that a man with a team of speech-writers doesn’t write his speeches. This being the case, how can we be sure that the words fit the soul? The answer, alarmingly to some, is that we cannot be sure. My instincts also have told me that politicians lie. They do this, have done it, and will likely keep doing it for as long as politics exists. They want to sit in the chair, whether that chair is in a city manager’s office, or in the White House, or anywhere else. You hold a vote on whether they get to sit in that chair. Chances are very good, especially on a national scale, that you don’t walk in the same social circles as these men and women you’re voting for. You do not likely know them, aside from what glittery trinkets they feed you on the end of a pole. Obama appears likeable. But that’s just it, it’s an appearance. I don’t know this man. Do you?

So, we watch him, listen to his speeches, and try to get a handle on exactly who Barack Obama really is, and what exactly he stands for, and who with.

Let’s break it down a bit, by looking at his voting history, versus what he claims to believe in. Obama has recently claimed to be a supporter of gun-rights, is apparently undecided on how quickly to end our military presence in Iraq, would consider cutting taxes paid by corporations, and is open to allowing telephone companies to avoid getting sued for their complicity in a widely documented ILLEGAL domestic wire-tapping effort. Now, let’s see. His party (Democrats) favors restrictions on gun-rights, is publicly opposed to the administration’s wire-tapping effort (likely because it was a blatant violation of federal law?), and raising taxes paid by corporations. Not only that, but the Democratic party favors the ending of military presence in Iraq. They are not undecided about that issue. Obama, himself, has indicated (likely by accident) that his position may have shifted on some issues. Obama has voted both for and against wire-tapping, on different occasions.

But, now that we’ve discussed some facts, let’s talk history again. When a politician wants to sit in that proverbial chair, and knows you hold a vote on whether or not he gets to, he’s going to do what politicians generally do, he’s going to find out what you want to hear, and tell that to you. He reasons that he doesn’t actually have to make good on that, just say it. He doesn’t care about you, anyway, he wants the chair. This is what politicians largely do, they tell you what you want to hear, so you’ll give them the vote they want. They can say they’re different, and quite often do, but isn’t “I’m different from all those other politicians” something you want to hear, as well?

It’s not hard to figure out when someone’s lying to you. Just look at the facts. Trust your gut. Don’t vote for lies, vote for results. Obama has proven with results, that he favor’s Bush’s illegal wire-tapping practices, and opposes self-defense rights, as well as other firearms-related liberties. We know this, because he’s put his vote to it. People say McCain is “another Bush”, but is he? Find out. Don’t just say it, research it.

Rick Moranis too “stuck up” to perform?

I was reading an article this morning, and it says Sierra is wrapping up production on a Ghostbusters video game, based on the original movie and possibly the sequel. All four original main cast members are involved, voicing their characters. Rick Moranis, however, flatly refused to participate, claiming he didn’t need the money. It has been suggested that his “Honey I Shrunk The _______ (fill in the blank with anything cliche)” franchise generated such lucrative profits that he’s “effectively” retired from any and all performing. Of course, he’s actually done plenty of work since that series of films, voice-acting in particular.

I don’t get it, personally. It’s pay, and he obviously does like voice-acting work, judging from the fact that he’s done this work since the films he claims made him so much money that he doesn’t need to perform. I dislike people who can’t tell the truth. I like Rick Moranis’ work. I’ve been a fan of his for years. I used to stay up late every week watching SCTV in the early morning hours on cable access.

It’s great that he’s made money, but to claim you don’t need to work, as an excuse for turning down a job, and then people find out that’s not even remotely true, makes you look pretty stupid. It also holds the potential to sour future projects you might consider, when you actually are looking for work.

I’d like to remind Rick Moranis, that he is not above acting, especially since this lie he’s telling, is also a performance, isn’t it? It surely takes less effort to do a little bit of voice-over work, than to make up some stupid excuse. Isn’t the truth easier? Just tell people you’re a rich, lazy, worthless sack of nothing, and you’d rather not do anything that’s “beneath” you. Besides, lately all you are is a “sidekick” of some form anyway. Back in the SCTV days, you actually were a draw. Sure, you’re enjoyable as a sidekick, but there are many of them.

I wonder if Dave Thomas would like to be in the game. I bet he’s not too big for his britches. Maybe Eugene Levy, or Joe Flaherty.

*Update* - 07/09/2008

——————-

I just read an article where Rick Moranis is discussing his new “country music” project. In it, the reporter asks why he hasn’t been doing any acting work lately. He claims for several years he’s been offered this work, and always turns it down. I guess he’s lying to a lot of people. He’s credited for acting work in films for the past several years. Look him up.

Counter-Spam idea..

Today, I noticed something. I am one of the types of guys who “respond” to those scam and con-artist emails from people on the African continent, claiming to be bank officials, etc.., offering you millions or billions of unclaimed dollars. Well, today, after promptly telling one such “bank manager” what I thought of his little scheme, I received a reply from this person, claiming he wasn’t lying.

Then it hit me. In order to get any message, good or bad, these scammers must provide an email address. So, why not spam them right back?

Even if it won’t “overload” their inbox, it must take them time to sift through the responses trying to figure out who is hooked and who isn’t, right? Makes sense to me. Now, one or two of us responding even 15 times during the day, isn’t going to matter much. But, what if they spam 100 people each day, and those 100 people each emailed these scammers back 10 times. That’s alot of email to search for “gold”, isn’t it? The way I see it, these people are trying to work very little. Make this into a quasi-job by having them jump through big hoops for a payout, they might just be less inclined to do it.

Give it a try, sometime. Oh, be sure to give them something clever that might indicate you’re interested, too. Like, give them bogus bank information, and a bogus name. Then, when they try to waste their local bank’s time tapping into non-existent bank accounts, they might actually be punished in some small way for wasting our time.

Not only that, but maybe this strategy will be effective with home-grown spam as well.

Legal, yet shameful..

I just read an article, which suggested anti-war groups were attacking John McCain, for his Vietnam War record. Some claimed he was a “war criminal”, because some of his bombs may have struck civilian targets, in a major populated city (Hanoi, for example).

Let me set the record straight. I’m not a Republican. I’ve also never served in the military. However, my grandfather was a decorated veteran of World War Two. My mother’s boyfriend was in the Vietnam War, as a helicopter door gunner. Neither of these men liked talking about their experiences in the wars in which they fought. I’m sure, it’s entirely possible that both of them might have injured or killed a civilian. It’s possible. Does this make them war criminals in my mind? No. It also doesn’t make them war criminals in any court on this earth, either. When you’re at war, you have to fire a weapon of some kind, at a target. If you’re a pilot, you sometimes drop bombs. You drop them on specified targets, often from rather high up in the air. Now, sure, it’s possible, maybe even probable, that you will hit some civilians. That’s a risk. I’m not going to compare the risk of dying during a bombing with the risk of slipping in the bathtub, because that would be absurd. However, if you’re going to call John McCain a war criminal for dropping bombs while under orders to drop them, you might as well also call any soldier, anywhere, in any military, a war criminal for firing their weapon. Those bullets can ricochet, right? Whatever you do, anti-war activists, if someone is breaking into your home some night, to rob or injure you, don’t fire a gun at them. The bullet might ricochet, and you’d be a war criminal if it hit someone, whether you intended it or not.

I guess it’s a good thing you don’t have to be held accountable by your own ramblings, huh? You’d probably be more careful before opening your mouths, if you knew you had to actually live with the consequences. John McCain is not a criminal, just because he dropped bombs on assigned targets during wartime. Any more than you’re criminals for attacking a man based upon actions from upwards of 40 years ago. It’s a ludicrous way to win an argument, whether done in public, or in private. It’s even more ludicrous when it’s fact that you’d think differently in similar situations happening outside of a war.

I’ll end on this note. John McCain is running for President. Would you like to come up with a reason why he shouldn’t, or go on making whiny comments against war in general?

What the heck?!

It’s pretty much official. The world is almost completely united in it’s stance, that Zimbabwe’s newly “mis-elected” government is comprised of criminals, thugs, and liars, bent on retaining power through whatever means they wish to employ. The many nations and critics seem united on one singular point..that Mugabe is no longer legitimate as the ruler of Zimbabwe.

So, with that clear, why are various powers so intent on a “power sharing” deal? We don’t arrange these deals with thugs, nor with criminals, nor with liars. So, just because Mugabe has a large collection of cronies, it suddenly becomes favorable to allow him to remain in power? I say, send in some troops.

Mugabe was criminally re-elected. He, and his “supporters” forced voters to vote, and with himself as the only candidate, he could not technically lose. Even when there was an election with an opposing candidate, who won a majority vote, Mugabe still managed to corrupt and delay the results. If you recall, Mugabe’s government made an official public statement during that first vote, claiming that any releasing of poll results, conjecture, exit polls, or anything of that nature, would be considered a crime against the nation of Zimbabwe. Well, Mugabe has committed such a crime, because he declared he was the winner before the “results” were in. His Justice Minister, a senior party ally, also did this, confirming that the ruling party is indeed a government staffed by criminals. Even if international consensus didn’t count, they’re criminals by their own official press statements.

What idiot would want to share power with people like this? Certainly not I. I’m sure the US government wouldn’t want to deal with such criminals in power. I’m actually hard-pressed to figure out why anyone would want Mugabe to remain out on the streets, much less in Presidential power of any kind. So, what is the deal? And, more importantly, is this how we reward criminals, and open election fraud? I recall, not too long ago, we invaded countries for engaging in less severe activity than Mugabe has displayed. So why? What is so special about this elderly man? Does he know the locations of some graves or something?

We say the word “humanitarian” very much in society. We dance around it seemingly so well, that at times we forget what it means. The people of Zimbabwe are suffering. They suffer, because they have a sham for a government, a collapsed economy, and criminals in power. It would be genuinely humanitarian, to help these people out. They don’t need a deal that sweeps Mugabe’s crimes under the proverbial carpet. They need justice, but first and foremost, they need to be safe. When you have a thug, and his gang of thugs, in the position to cause more damage, that safety does not exist. I suggest, that Mugabe be stopped, rather than aided, by the international community, or by whomever has the ability to do so. He forgets himself, so it is up to others to help remind him of who and what he is.

Don Imus fails again..

Don Imus, a talk-radio personality, has been in and out of trouble over his comments for a long time. He has pledged to mend the wounds his comments have caused, yet, the pledge seems empty now.

Here’s a tip, Imus, if you’re in trouble for racial comments on-air, don’t make racial comments on-air. That’d, atleast to my reasoning, be at the forefront of your changed behavior, wouldn’t it? Instead, he has a mixed-race staff working on his show, and continues to bring race up in the program. Seems to me, that this guy can’t have a show without offending someone. Maybe he thinks this is the only way to get noticed?

Well, it’s got him noticed, that’s for sure. Not certain it’s the kind of noticed he’d prefer, though.

Imus, on his radio show Monday, commented on Adam Jones, Dallas Cowboys cornerback. He tried talking about his arrest record. I don’t know, honestly, what sort of thought went into his program for this day. He appeared to be saying that Jones was arrested for his skin color. I’m not sure what this has to do with talk-radio. I’m most definitely not sure what this has to do with his pledge to try to mend wounds caused by his earlier racially-inappropriate comments about a women’s basketball team. He later commented on Tuesday, and seemed to be suggesting that the police arrested Jones multiple times for a single offense. Maybe he just didn’t bother to research any of the material. Of course, that would make him an idiot. Or, perhaps just a tired old man. Are you tired, Imus? Do you need a break…again? Maybe Imus should retire, move on, take up golf or something of that nature.

Imus has an African-American co-host. who came to his defense, suggesting that people who were complaining didn’t hear the show, or didn’t understand who Imus is. Gee. I know who Imus is. He’s a radio host who got in trouble ALREADY for racial comments. I certainly don’t need to ‘tune-in’ to his show, boost the ratings, while trying to further assess the situation. Clever marketing ploy, though. I give him points for trying to capitalize on this for ratings gains.

I think Imus’ time is past, really. He either doesn’t understand what the listeners want, or he’s too stubborn to change. Either way, he’s a poisoned commodity better left alone.

PETA being openly dishonest again..

I just read a report that PETA (a fringe animal-rights group that at times borders on terrorist-like activity) has claimed that the officials at Wimbledon are involved with “cruel and illegal” behavior in having marksmen shoot pigeons at the tennis tournament. The group claims that Wimbledon’s use of marksmen appears to have been the first resort.

Of course, everyone already knows they employ hawks as a deterrent first resort. For those confused, this means PETA is lying, since they’d know as well. Hey, atleast they aren’t sneaking into Wimbledon’s office and trying to set animals free, or vandalize something, right?

PETA also claims that Wimbledon “appears to be in clear violation of the law”, whatever that means. If the violation is clear, why say appear? That’s like saying “I think I’m sure you did it.” Actually, it’s not like it, that’s exactly what it is.

I wonder if it’s illegal to tell lies in public, accusing someone of breaking the law, simply to get in the news spotlight. It’d not be the first time, for PETA. Apparently they’re very self-conscious in that respect. Let the police and courts decide what’s a violation of the law, PETA. You “clearly” are not in a position to make that determination.

Con artists, or just ‘dodgy’ marketing strategy?

I’ve talked before about telemarketers. You know, the ones who want your “business” enough to call you, yet for whatever reason don’t actually expect you to pick up, and terminate the call without leaving a message, and in many cases not even allowing time for anyone to get to the phone.

Well, acouple of days ago, this person came to my door. I want to say teenager, except I didn’t really get a good look at him, as he was wandering off when I finally got there. Not exactly sure how long he waited, but obviously not enough for me to get to the door to greet him. He left a business card, with “(insert unknown name here) services” on it, and “your satisfaction is our concern”. It then went on to list the person’s name again, claiming he is a “company specialist”, then the usual address and telephone, and email information. No mention on what this guy does for a living, or any clue as to why he might be sending people to put his business cards in doors.

Being the curious kind, I sent an email, asking what exactly this guy does. I have yet to receive a reply. I searched his name online, and determined the business card address is likely a residence. I could probably pay some sort of records search agency to find more, but that’s beside the point.

What bothers me about this, is when someone comes to your door, or sends someone to your door, they should either say something about what work they do, or write it down somewhere. Generic cheap business cards that don’t state your line of work, do not sell your business. If anything, they make people suspicious, as this made me.

If you’re not going to offer some detail about the business, don’t market it. Plain and simple.

I’ve dealt with lawn services run by father and son, that had more forthcoming sense than this. They didn’t have business cards, either.

Update

——

The e-mail I sent, well, I finally got a reply. They are now claiming to be offering handyman services, and that the “person” (their words) that came to the door is a good spray-painter and noticed my house needs a paint job. Perhaps it does, but there’s nothing “corporate specialist” about painting houses, is there? Teenagers mis-marketing themselves. I wonder if he gives these cards out to offices. That might explain the need for the wording.