North Country Public Radio has a story on food multinational General Mills' brave struggle against a dangerous enemy: the Potsdam (NY) food Co-Op.
Apparently, the Co-Op used the term 'Bake Off' as the title for its annual fundraiser. The previous nine editions didn't seem to bother anyone. But this year, General Mills decided to sic its lawyers on the non-profit.
The smart thing would have been for General Mills to make a donation to the Co-Op in exchange for them changing the name. Or even for them to actually sponsor the event. A drop in the bucket for General Mills in exchange for good PR.
The Co-Op changed the name of its contest for fear of being sued by the corporate behemoth (annual revenues: $12.2 billion).
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Friday, December 07, 2007
The media and mass murderers
Another day, another Bush administration truth-telling scandal. Only a few days after the previous one. And not long after the one before that.
But I need to take a break from blogging about Bush scandals, for the sake of my mental health.
A few days ago, a 19-year old opened fire at a mall in Omaha, Nebraska and killed eight people before making himself the ninth victim.
A woman who took him in after he left home said he left a note saying he was sorry for everything and did not want to be a burden to anybody.
He is said to have suffered from depression. I'm sorry for that but let's keep things in perspective. He's become quite a burden to and probably caused quite a bit of depression in the families of the eight people he murdered.
But what really interests me is the media reaction to such shootings. Often in these cases, a shooter leaves a note saying that he wants to me famous or to be remembered or to make his mark (and it's almost always a he).
Nearly every media outlet I could find has shown a picture of the killer. Why are they obliging the last request of a mass murderer? Does seeing his picture add any news value at all? Do readers and viewers gain any more understanding of the story by seeing the guy's face? If they're going to show anyone's picture, shouldn't it be of victims?
In sporting events, every so often, some idiot will run on to the field to make a spectacle of himself. Television networks have made a habit of having announcers explain why there's a delay in the action but NOT showing the idiot in question because they don't want to give him his 15 minutes of fame and encourage future idiots to do the same.
If the media rightly refuse to glorify streakers and people who are nuisances at sporting events, why don't they apply the same standard to mass murderers?
But I need to take a break from blogging about Bush scandals, for the sake of my mental health.
A few days ago, a 19-year old opened fire at a mall in Omaha, Nebraska and killed eight people before making himself the ninth victim.
A woman who took him in after he left home said he left a note saying he was sorry for everything and did not want to be a burden to anybody.
He is said to have suffered from depression. I'm sorry for that but let's keep things in perspective. He's become quite a burden to and probably caused quite a bit of depression in the families of the eight people he murdered.
But what really interests me is the media reaction to such shootings. Often in these cases, a shooter leaves a note saying that he wants to me famous or to be remembered or to make his mark (and it's almost always a he).
Nearly every media outlet I could find has shown a picture of the killer. Why are they obliging the last request of a mass murderer? Does seeing his picture add any news value at all? Do readers and viewers gain any more understanding of the story by seeing the guy's face? If they're going to show anyone's picture, shouldn't it be of victims?
In sporting events, every so often, some idiot will run on to the field to make a spectacle of himself. Television networks have made a habit of having announcers explain why there's a delay in the action but NOT showing the idiot in question because they don't want to give him his 15 minutes of fame and encourage future idiots to do the same.
If the media rightly refuse to glorify streakers and people who are nuisances at sporting events, why don't they apply the same standard to mass murderers?
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Why soccer is the all-American sport
In The Boston Globe, Boston College professor Zine Magubane explains why soccer, not baseball or football, is the quintessentially American sport.
Reminder about commenting
This blog will not publish anonymous comments. If you are not registered with Blogger, you can still leave comments if you leave them under a consistent nickname. Unsigned comments will be rejected.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Bush adminstration claims right to kidnap British bankers
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Theodore Roosevelt
From denying the most basic freedom of western civilization to denying other fundamental tenets of justice to supporting torture (and repeatedly so) to the maintenance of a kidnapee camp in violation of all norms of decency, the Bush administration has repeatedly shown beyond any shadow that it is pathologically unable or unwilling to follow the law, either American or international.
Some people will be upset at my reference to Guantanamo Bay as a kidnapee camp, even though it clearly fits the commonly accepted definition of the word. (Though I'd accept 'abduct' as a suitable alternative)
Despite all evidence to the contrary, some may indignantly deny that the US government kidnaps people but the Bush administration is quite open about this reality. Its war against civilization is quite overt. Recently, Bush administration lawyers told a Court of Appeal in London that it has the right to kidnap British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the US.
This is despite the fact that the UK is allegedly Bush's strongest ally in the so-called war on terror, despite the fact that there is already an extradition treaty between the two countries and despite the fact that the men sought by Washington are not evil Muslim terrorists but bankers.
Bankers: a true national security threat! I know communists might argue this but I know expected this of neo-con corporatists.
Bush apologists claim that the fate of the free world depends on his and his administration's good judgement. If the future of freedom depends on a government who claims the inalienable right to abduct bankers off the streets of countries with whom it has good relations and an extradition treaty, then we really are screwed.
Bush and Cheney should not be impeached for his war against Iraq. A simple war crimes trial will do. What they should be impeached for is their almost non-stop assault on the rule of law and the most basic tenets of American values. Although you may have forgotten, they did twice put their hand on the Christian Bible and swear an oath of office. And although you may not have forgotten this, they clearly have.
Update: Now the head of the most secretive US administration in history is deamdning transparency of the Iranian regime. Mind-blowing hypocrisy is nothing new with these folks. The amusing/terrifying part is that they still seem to be under the delusion that they have any credibility left.
From denying the most basic freedom of western civilization to denying other fundamental tenets of justice to supporting torture (and repeatedly so) to the maintenance of a kidnapee camp in violation of all norms of decency, the Bush administration has repeatedly shown beyond any shadow that it is pathologically unable or unwilling to follow the law, either American or international.
Some people will be upset at my reference to Guantanamo Bay as a kidnapee camp, even though it clearly fits the commonly accepted definition of the word. (Though I'd accept 'abduct' as a suitable alternative)
Despite all evidence to the contrary, some may indignantly deny that the US government kidnaps people but the Bush administration is quite open about this reality. Its war against civilization is quite overt. Recently, Bush administration lawyers told a Court of Appeal in London that it has the right to kidnap British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the US.
This is despite the fact that the UK is allegedly Bush's strongest ally in the so-called war on terror, despite the fact that there is already an extradition treaty between the two countries and despite the fact that the men sought by Washington are not evil Muslim terrorists but bankers.
Bankers: a true national security threat! I know communists might argue this but I know expected this of neo-con corporatists.
Bush apologists claim that the fate of the free world depends on his and his administration's good judgement. If the future of freedom depends on a government who claims the inalienable right to abduct bankers off the streets of countries with whom it has good relations and an extradition treaty, then we really are screwed.
Bush and Cheney should not be impeached for his war against Iraq. A simple war crimes trial will do. What they should be impeached for is their almost non-stop assault on the rule of law and the most basic tenets of American values. Although you may have forgotten, they did twice put their hand on the Christian Bible and swear an oath of office. And although you may not have forgotten this, they clearly have.
Update: Now the head of the most secretive US administration in history is deamdning transparency of the Iranian regime. Mind-blowing hypocrisy is nothing new with these folks. The amusing/terrifying part is that they still seem to be under the delusion that they have any credibility left.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Iran has no nuclear program: US intelligence
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Theodore Roosevelt
In a devastating blow to neo-conservative militarists desperate to invade yet another country, US intelligence agencies have conclude that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program way back in 2003. This despite the fact that Vice-President Dick Cheney and other belligerents have spent the last two years fanatically to whip up another round of war hysteria to support an aggression against Iran. This report surely won't stop their efforts. They've never been deterred by reality in the past. But hopefully the public, already burnt by having believed the deceit about Iraq, won't bite again.
Update: To the surprise of no one, the Bush administration (author of wars that have destabilized two regions) is trying to spin the report to suggest that Iran still remains a threat to global security. But by now, their credibility is nil. This administration has been deceitful for so long that they no longer know how to recognize or tell the truth. The fake FEMA press conference is a great example. By most accounts, FEMA did a GOOD job in the San Diego fires recovery. They didn't need to lie or deceive. But the habits have become so ingrained in the Bush administration that they simply don't know any other way anymore. And that's why no one believes a word they say anymore.
In a devastating blow to neo-conservative militarists desperate to invade yet another country, US intelligence agencies have conclude that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program way back in 2003. This despite the fact that Vice-President Dick Cheney and other belligerents have spent the last two years fanatically to whip up another round of war hysteria to support an aggression against Iran. This report surely won't stop their efforts. They've never been deterred by reality in the past. But hopefully the public, already burnt by having believed the deceit about Iraq, won't bite again.
Update: To the surprise of no one, the Bush administration (author of wars that have destabilized two regions) is trying to spin the report to suggest that Iran still remains a threat to global security. But by now, their credibility is nil. This administration has been deceitful for so long that they no longer know how to recognize or tell the truth. The fake FEMA press conference is a great example. By most accounts, FEMA did a GOOD job in the San Diego fires recovery. They didn't need to lie or deceive. But the habits have become so ingrained in the Bush administration that they simply don't know any other way anymore. And that's why no one believes a word they say anymore.
If all the members of the National Academy of Science were women...
Here's yet another scientific study to prove what mothers have known for at least decades.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Teddy bear 'infidel' pardoned
I don't mean to be insensitive but Sudan is one [mess]ed up place.
You have a military dictatorship that refuses to uphold a peace deal that ended a long civil war in the south of the country. One that sponsors a genocide in the west of the country.
But the rent-a-mobs want a teacher to be murdered for naming a teddy bear.
I realize there's more to it. Clearly, the dictatorship doesn't want the planned UN peacekeeping force to be deployed in Darfur... a mission which it has been resisting for years. So authorities whipped up this tempest about a British teacher who let her class name a teddy bear Mohammed... a boy in the class named Mohammed suggested the teddy bear have the same name.
This tempest in a teapot allowed the regime to whip up pseudo-religious and nationalist fanaticism that would give it an excuse to resist the UN force a little longer.
Plus, the decision of the dictator, Gen. Omar al-Bashir, to pardon the teacher makes him look like the good guy. It made him look like a moderate, bravely resisting the hysterical rent-a-mobs (which his regime was probably instrumental in creating in the first place)... illustrating yet again that religious extremism is dangerous regardless of who does it.
I guess when you're sponsoring genocide, you need all the good PR you can get... no matter how you get it.
You have a military dictatorship that refuses to uphold a peace deal that ended a long civil war in the south of the country. One that sponsors a genocide in the west of the country.
But the rent-a-mobs want a teacher to be murdered for naming a teddy bear.
I realize there's more to it. Clearly, the dictatorship doesn't want the planned UN peacekeeping force to be deployed in Darfur... a mission which it has been resisting for years. So authorities whipped up this tempest about a British teacher who let her class name a teddy bear Mohammed... a boy in the class named Mohammed suggested the teddy bear have the same name.
This tempest in a teapot allowed the regime to whip up pseudo-religious and nationalist fanaticism that would give it an excuse to resist the UN force a little longer.
Plus, the decision of the dictator, Gen. Omar al-Bashir, to pardon the teacher makes him look like the good guy. It made him look like a moderate, bravely resisting the hysterical rent-a-mobs (which his regime was probably instrumental in creating in the first place)... illustrating yet again that religious extremism is dangerous regardless of who does it.
I guess when you're sponsoring genocide, you need all the good PR you can get... no matter how you get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)