Auld Lang Syne (Smooth Jazz)
Happy New Year!
Dec 30, 2012
Dec 16, 2012
Dec 9, 2012
Ragbag Headliners
UN Tells Obama Admin To Crack Down On State Drug Laws
“Take all the necessary measures”
Despite the author’s cynical tone, the points made here are vital. This is about centralized and militarized power, and even globalism, as the UN presumes to tell the U.S. federal government what to do and how to do it.
William Grigg writes on LewRockwell’s blog:
The “war on drugs” didn’t begin with Richard Nixon. It is an outgrowth of a 1961 United Nations document called the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which created the framework for a global drug prohibition jihad.
In that same year, the JFK administration published a proposal called “Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World,” also known as State Department Document 7277. That proposal, which remains the operational framework for U.S. arms control policy, called for the creation of a nationalized, militarized “homeland security force” — in other words, exactly the kind of overtly militarized law enforcement bodies that have been prosecuting the “war on drugs.”
Residents of Washington and Colorado, expressing a winsome and entirely unjustified faith in voting as a means of reining in the state, approved measures decriminalizing recreational use of marijuana. In response, Raymond Yans, head of the UN’s International Narcotics Control Board, has called for Attorney General Eric Holder to ignore the law and continue cracking down on marijuana use and possession. Decriminalizing marijuana use, Yans insists, sends the “wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad.”
Like other prohibitionist Pharisees, Yans is willing to see people killed, kidnapped, and caged in order to send a “message.” Most of the same conservatives who properly abhor the UN and all of its works and pomps also support drug prohibition. Now that a high-ranking UN functionary has offered an official directive to Washington demanding that the Obama administration escalate its war against the American people, will conservatives of that ilk finally come out in opposition to drug prohibition? -By Joel McDurmon/American Vision/November 21, 2012
“Take all the necessary measures”
Despite the author’s cynical tone, the points made here are vital. This is about centralized and militarized power, and even globalism, as the UN presumes to tell the U.S. federal government what to do and how to do it.
William Grigg writes on LewRockwell’s blog:
The “war on drugs” didn’t begin with Richard Nixon. It is an outgrowth of a 1961 United Nations document called the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which created the framework for a global drug prohibition jihad.
In that same year, the JFK administration published a proposal called “Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World,” also known as State Department Document 7277. That proposal, which remains the operational framework for U.S. arms control policy, called for the creation of a nationalized, militarized “homeland security force” — in other words, exactly the kind of overtly militarized law enforcement bodies that have been prosecuting the “war on drugs.”
Residents of Washington and Colorado, expressing a winsome and entirely unjustified faith in voting as a means of reining in the state, approved measures decriminalizing recreational use of marijuana. In response, Raymond Yans, head of the UN’s International Narcotics Control Board, has called for Attorney General Eric Holder to ignore the law and continue cracking down on marijuana use and possession. Decriminalizing marijuana use, Yans insists, sends the “wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad.”
Like other prohibitionist Pharisees, Yans is willing to see people killed, kidnapped, and caged in order to send a “message.” Most of the same conservatives who properly abhor the UN and all of its works and pomps also support drug prohibition. Now that a high-ranking UN functionary has offered an official directive to Washington demanding that the Obama administration escalate its war against the American people, will conservatives of that ilk finally come out in opposition to drug prohibition? -By Joel McDurmon/American Vision/November 21, 2012
<><><>*<><><>
Ala. Chief Justice Who Said 'Gays Will Destroy Nation' Reelected
If you think Tuesday's election was a national endorsement of equality, that memo escaped Alabama's voters: they reelected a former state Supreme Court chief justice who was previously fired for refusing to take down a monument to the Ten Commandments and who believes "gay marriage will destroy the nation."
After being fired in 2003, Roy Moore handily won reelection on Tuesday as Alabama's most powerful judge. Moore bested two other opponents and received over 50% of the vote. Since he was removed from his position nine years ago after refusing federal orders to take down his religious monument, Moore hasn't had a change of heart about the separation of church and state. His victory party on Tuesday featured a cake shaped like the tablets of the Ten Commandments, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Moore also has no qualms about airing his biases of LGBT people. While campaigning earlier this month, he told a crowd of Tea Party supporters that "same-sex marriage will lead to the ultimate destruction of our country. " Click here to see his diatribe (http://www.advocate.com/politics/politicians/2012/10/06/watch-alabama-chief-justice-candidate-say-gay-marriage-will-destroyhttp://www.advocate.com/politics/politicians/2012/10/06/watch-alabama-chief-justice-candidate-say-gay-marriage-will-destroy). –By Neal Broverman/Advocate/November 7, 2012
If you think Tuesday's election was a national endorsement of equality, that memo escaped Alabama's voters: they reelected a former state Supreme Court chief justice who was previously fired for refusing to take down a monument to the Ten Commandments and who believes "gay marriage will destroy the nation."
After being fired in 2003, Roy Moore handily won reelection on Tuesday as Alabama's most powerful judge. Moore bested two other opponents and received over 50% of the vote. Since he was removed from his position nine years ago after refusing federal orders to take down his religious monument, Moore hasn't had a change of heart about the separation of church and state. His victory party on Tuesday featured a cake shaped like the tablets of the Ten Commandments, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Moore also has no qualms about airing his biases of LGBT people. While campaigning earlier this month, he told a crowd of Tea Party supporters that "same-sex marriage will lead to the ultimate destruction of our country. " Click here to see his diatribe (http://www.advocate.com/politics/politicians/2012/10/06/watch-alabama-chief-justice-candidate-say-gay-marriage-will-destroyhttp://www.advocate.com/politics/politicians/2012/10/06/watch-alabama-chief-justice-candidate-say-gay-marriage-will-destroy). –By Neal Broverman/Advocate/November 7, 2012
A New Kind Of Civil War
Now that all the excuses, rationalizations, analyses, number-countings, hand-wringings, finger-pointings, and tear-sheddings have largely passed, I feel that I can say something about why, on November 6th, Mitt Romney lost his bid for the presidency and Obama retained it. It seems that all that is left to do, for someone who realizes that a second Obama term will be more destructive, vindictive, and malicious than the first, is fulminate anew at a succession of fresh assaults on liberty, freedom of speech, property, wealth, standards of living, national security, the military, and on America from without and from within.
I'm guessing that about half the people who voted for Romney voted for him because he wasn't Obama. The choice can be likened to voting for Barney Fife because he isn't Hannibal Lecter. That was why I voted for Romney. Other than recommend that everyone who opposed Obama just stay home and let the Obamatons monopolize the polling places, there wasn't much choice in the way of action. Fife in the White House could have at least stalled the movement to full statism and allowed some serious steam to build up against big government - or of Hannibal Lecter not making a meal of everyone.
But Hannibal Lecter had the Chicago machine working for him and a brainwashed, idolizing fan club that could be counted on to vote for him. They turned out to vote early and often.
Romney's campaign, on the other hand, was reminiscent of a large-scale drive to get people to buy Girl Scout cookies.
Many who opposed Obama stayed home because Romney waffled on what he really believed and charged Obama with being an "extremist." Which is exactly why many disliked Obama, because he was an "extreme" advocate of policies and programs that were eating them alive or had targeted them for the cannibal's cooking pot. They already knew he was a Marxist extremist. What they wanted from Romney was a counter-extremism, one that was point for point the exact opposite of Obama's ideology. What they heard instead were approximations and equivocations and denials of being an "extremist."
What many who stayed home observed was that Romney's touting of financial independence and freedom of choice contradicted his enactment of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, which the administration has confessed served as the boilerplate for Obamacare. What, in these voters' minds, could be the difference between a state-enforced socialist program and a federally-enforced socialist program? There was no difference, except in scale.
Obama garnered the states with the most Electoral College numbers. Those are what count. And over the years Democrats were "hollering" for the abolition of the Electoral College because they said it was an anachronism and unfair, just as they hollered for and got the popular election of Senators (formerly appointed by the states), which, from a political mechanism perspective, undid the work of the Founders. The Senate was created as a bulwark against populist movements originating in the House. The Senate, as a result of this election, has become an unofficial departmental adjunct of the White House. I'm betting the Democrats are grateful they didn't succeed. Now it's the House that will need to act as a bulwark against the Senate and the White House.
But House Speaker John Boehner has telegraphed that the House will not stand against Obama and the Senate.
"Mr. President, this is your moment. We're ready to be led," said Boehner. "Not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans. We want you to lead not as a liberal or a conservative but as president of the United States of America.
"We want you to succeed," said Boehner. "Let's challenge ourselves to find the common ground that has eluded us. Let's rise above the dysfunction and do the right thing together for our country."
When I read that, I kept hearing Hitler saying the same thing to masses of uniformly clad zombies held rapt by this oratory. Or Evita Peron addressing her adoring Argentines. Or Mussolini daring anyone to smack his jutting jaw.
The people who voted for Obama are morally corrupt. You would have thought that the Benghazi debacle alone would have convinced voters that he was no good, that he was indeed a nihilist prepared to sacrifice American lives to protect a failed policy. You have to then examine what that means, which is that they don't mind seeing him destroy things, things on which their lives depend. You must grasp that they don't know what their lives depend on.
Or don't care to know. They just want it their way. They see no relationship between Obama being willing to see American lives sacrificed in a pesthole and sacrificing American lives at home. Or, if they do see the relationship, they don't care to dwell on it, because that would lead them to conclusions about Obama's character and intentions which are not pretty and which they don't care to dwell on. One of those conclusions would be that Obama is a moral monster, a Moloch to whom everything must be sacrificed, even their children. And that would imply that they, too, are moral monsters.
They didn't want to go there. They wanted to believe that Obama and his policies are a causeless cornucopia of free things and social justice and multicultural enrichment and diversification. And if some Americans have to be sacrificed to make their fantasies come true - tough.
You would have thought that the disasters and outrages of the last four years - including the lying and posturing and being stuck with the tab of the First Family's million dollar vacations - would have somehow penetrated the skulls of the most grotesquely slobbering Obamaton. But you, the individual who had always assumed that you own your own life and are responsible for it - not the state, not the collective - reside in a moral universe that is an anathema to Obama and his Obamatons. They are old and young, stupid and savvy, ignorant and learned, naïve and street-smart, the clueless and shrewd, the educated and indoctrinated- but all beholden to the state, to the collective.
They all want to go Forward, and if that means trampling on your dreams, effort, plans, and life -tough.
They will have nothing to do with reality. TARP, $16 trillion and counting national debt, Solyndra and other "can't fail" green businesses, Jeremiah Wright, Czars, rising prices at the gas pump and the supermarket, these are all irrelevant. Many voted for Obama because they're Democrats - can't you see the tattoos on their wrists? - and because Obama gives them that old-time religion feeling.
They'll be gathering at the river until it runs dry because you can no longer carry their water or have no more water to pour into the river. They'll be basking on the beach on your dime and will remark on how pretty the tsunami is on the horizon before it sweeps in and washes them and us away.
And they will blame you for the drought and the tsunami.
You've warned them for four years that four more years of Obama will see the collapse of this country. They replied that everyone sees things differently, reality is just a subjective "construct" and that your "perception" of things isn't any more valid than theirs, but because their perception is "better" they have a right to impose it on you and everyone else. They're "differently" abled, you see, and you're just a bigot and a racist and prejudiced against their crippled minds, and you ought to be penalized for it because you're fully abled and have a duty to respect their flawed metaphysics and warped epistemology and to help make their delusions become true.
To them, it was absolutely imperative to preserve and perpetuate the welfare state and all the premises that sanctioned it. Romney only seemed to threaten it (and he wouldn't have actually begun to dismantle it, either, because he believes in it). This is in light of the soaring national debt Obama has generated, the failure of his programs, the cronyism of his rich and poor supporters, his thuggish and adolescent behavior, in short, every evil thing that has happened in this country since he took office - you would have thought that any one of those things would have torpedoed his chances for a second term. But none of those things mattered.
The election has revealed not just an electoral division, but a division that goes deeper. The people who voted for Obama in light of and in spite of all his transgressions are the ones of whom one can't say that they "let it go." They never had it to begin with.
What is it that they either "let go" or never had?
The American "sense of life." Decades ago novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand wrote an essay, "Don't Let It Go."
Just as an individual's sense of life can be better or worse than his conscious convictions, so can a nation's. And just as an individual who has never translated his sense of life into conscious convictions is in terrible danger-no matter how good his subconscious values-so is a nation.
This is the position of America today.
If America is to be saved from destruction-specifically, from dictatorship-she will be saved by her sense of life.
America is now divided between those who have retained that "sense of life" and an alliance of those who did let it go and those who never had it to lose.
Since November 6th, I have severed ties with anyone I know voted for Obama a second time. There was nothing to gain by continuing friendships or even civil relationships with them, because they have shown that they are proof against reason and reality. I know of no other way to demonstrate that I mean it.
Thus making it a philosophical civil war. It's the children of the Age of Enlightenment vs. the spawn of the Age of Envy and Entitlements. –By Edward Cline/Family Security Matters/November 14, 2012
Foot Note: Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in England and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and suspense novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all available on Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other publications. He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security Matters, Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications.
I'm guessing that about half the people who voted for Romney voted for him because he wasn't Obama. The choice can be likened to voting for Barney Fife because he isn't Hannibal Lecter. That was why I voted for Romney. Other than recommend that everyone who opposed Obama just stay home and let the Obamatons monopolize the polling places, there wasn't much choice in the way of action. Fife in the White House could have at least stalled the movement to full statism and allowed some serious steam to build up against big government - or of Hannibal Lecter not making a meal of everyone.
But Hannibal Lecter had the Chicago machine working for him and a brainwashed, idolizing fan club that could be counted on to vote for him. They turned out to vote early and often.
Romney's campaign, on the other hand, was reminiscent of a large-scale drive to get people to buy Girl Scout cookies.
Many who opposed Obama stayed home because Romney waffled on what he really believed and charged Obama with being an "extremist." Which is exactly why many disliked Obama, because he was an "extreme" advocate of policies and programs that were eating them alive or had targeted them for the cannibal's cooking pot. They already knew he was a Marxist extremist. What they wanted from Romney was a counter-extremism, one that was point for point the exact opposite of Obama's ideology. What they heard instead were approximations and equivocations and denials of being an "extremist."
What many who stayed home observed was that Romney's touting of financial independence and freedom of choice contradicted his enactment of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, which the administration has confessed served as the boilerplate for Obamacare. What, in these voters' minds, could be the difference between a state-enforced socialist program and a federally-enforced socialist program? There was no difference, except in scale.
Obama garnered the states with the most Electoral College numbers. Those are what count. And over the years Democrats were "hollering" for the abolition of the Electoral College because they said it was an anachronism and unfair, just as they hollered for and got the popular election of Senators (formerly appointed by the states), which, from a political mechanism perspective, undid the work of the Founders. The Senate was created as a bulwark against populist movements originating in the House. The Senate, as a result of this election, has become an unofficial departmental adjunct of the White House. I'm betting the Democrats are grateful they didn't succeed. Now it's the House that will need to act as a bulwark against the Senate and the White House.
But House Speaker John Boehner has telegraphed that the House will not stand against Obama and the Senate.
"Mr. President, this is your moment. We're ready to be led," said Boehner. "Not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans. We want you to lead not as a liberal or a conservative but as president of the United States of America.
"We want you to succeed," said Boehner. "Let's challenge ourselves to find the common ground that has eluded us. Let's rise above the dysfunction and do the right thing together for our country."
When I read that, I kept hearing Hitler saying the same thing to masses of uniformly clad zombies held rapt by this oratory. Or Evita Peron addressing her adoring Argentines. Or Mussolini daring anyone to smack his jutting jaw.
The people who voted for Obama are morally corrupt. You would have thought that the Benghazi debacle alone would have convinced voters that he was no good, that he was indeed a nihilist prepared to sacrifice American lives to protect a failed policy. You have to then examine what that means, which is that they don't mind seeing him destroy things, things on which their lives depend. You must grasp that they don't know what their lives depend on.
Or don't care to know. They just want it their way. They see no relationship between Obama being willing to see American lives sacrificed in a pesthole and sacrificing American lives at home. Or, if they do see the relationship, they don't care to dwell on it, because that would lead them to conclusions about Obama's character and intentions which are not pretty and which they don't care to dwell on. One of those conclusions would be that Obama is a moral monster, a Moloch to whom everything must be sacrificed, even their children. And that would imply that they, too, are moral monsters.
They didn't want to go there. They wanted to believe that Obama and his policies are a causeless cornucopia of free things and social justice and multicultural enrichment and diversification. And if some Americans have to be sacrificed to make their fantasies come true - tough.
You would have thought that the disasters and outrages of the last four years - including the lying and posturing and being stuck with the tab of the First Family's million dollar vacations - would have somehow penetrated the skulls of the most grotesquely slobbering Obamaton. But you, the individual who had always assumed that you own your own life and are responsible for it - not the state, not the collective - reside in a moral universe that is an anathema to Obama and his Obamatons. They are old and young, stupid and savvy, ignorant and learned, naïve and street-smart, the clueless and shrewd, the educated and indoctrinated- but all beholden to the state, to the collective.
They all want to go Forward, and if that means trampling on your dreams, effort, plans, and life -tough.
They will have nothing to do with reality. TARP, $16 trillion and counting national debt, Solyndra and other "can't fail" green businesses, Jeremiah Wright, Czars, rising prices at the gas pump and the supermarket, these are all irrelevant. Many voted for Obama because they're Democrats - can't you see the tattoos on their wrists? - and because Obama gives them that old-time religion feeling.
They'll be gathering at the river until it runs dry because you can no longer carry their water or have no more water to pour into the river. They'll be basking on the beach on your dime and will remark on how pretty the tsunami is on the horizon before it sweeps in and washes them and us away.
And they will blame you for the drought and the tsunami.
You've warned them for four years that four more years of Obama will see the collapse of this country. They replied that everyone sees things differently, reality is just a subjective "construct" and that your "perception" of things isn't any more valid than theirs, but because their perception is "better" they have a right to impose it on you and everyone else. They're "differently" abled, you see, and you're just a bigot and a racist and prejudiced against their crippled minds, and you ought to be penalized for it because you're fully abled and have a duty to respect their flawed metaphysics and warped epistemology and to help make their delusions become true.
To them, it was absolutely imperative to preserve and perpetuate the welfare state and all the premises that sanctioned it. Romney only seemed to threaten it (and he wouldn't have actually begun to dismantle it, either, because he believes in it). This is in light of the soaring national debt Obama has generated, the failure of his programs, the cronyism of his rich and poor supporters, his thuggish and adolescent behavior, in short, every evil thing that has happened in this country since he took office - you would have thought that any one of those things would have torpedoed his chances for a second term. But none of those things mattered.
The election has revealed not just an electoral division, but a division that goes deeper. The people who voted for Obama in light of and in spite of all his transgressions are the ones of whom one can't say that they "let it go." They never had it to begin with.
What is it that they either "let go" or never had?
The American "sense of life." Decades ago novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand wrote an essay, "Don't Let It Go."
Just as an individual's sense of life can be better or worse than his conscious convictions, so can a nation's. And just as an individual who has never translated his sense of life into conscious convictions is in terrible danger-no matter how good his subconscious values-so is a nation.
This is the position of America today.
If America is to be saved from destruction-specifically, from dictatorship-she will be saved by her sense of life.
America is now divided between those who have retained that "sense of life" and an alliance of those who did let it go and those who never had it to lose.
Since November 6th, I have severed ties with anyone I know voted for Obama a second time. There was nothing to gain by continuing friendships or even civil relationships with them, because they have shown that they are proof against reason and reality. I know of no other way to demonstrate that I mean it.
Thus making it a philosophical civil war. It's the children of the Age of Enlightenment vs. the spawn of the Age of Envy and Entitlements. –By Edward Cline/Family Security Matters/November 14, 2012
Foot Note: Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in England and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and suspense novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all available on Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other publications. He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security Matters, Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications.
How To Avoid Grinches At Christmas
Liberty Counsel list of 15 companies that diss the reason for the season
Apparently Santa Claus no longer has exclusive rights to a “Naughty & Nice” list.
The nonprofit Liberty Counsel has one of its own that highlights “naughty” companies that have put Christmas in storage and are trying to cash in on “holiday” shoppers.
The organization’s “Naughty & Nice List,” a more pertinent document for contemporary consumers than Santa’s traditional review of boys and girls, is based on Liberty Counsel’s own research and reports from consumers.
“Be sure to thank retailers that acknowledge Christmas and give your respectful opinion to retailers that pretend it doesn’t exist,” the group says in its report.
Take, for example, 77kids, a brand of American Eagle Outfitters. A search of the website for “Christmas” produced no results.
“77kids has been ‘Naughty’ since 2009 because the subsidiaries of the American Eagle brand entices ‘Christmas’ shoppers through use of the sights, sounds and symbols of ‘Christmas’ yet offends the American majority Christian population by using winter scenes that dominate their advertising. 77kids website is purged of all things ‘Christmas,’” the Liberty Counsel report says.
Likewise for Abercrombie & Fitch.
Not only can “Christmas” not be found on the company website, it also is missing from its 2012 commercial and other advertisements, LC says.
Another American Eagle brand, aerie, features “young models in very, very skimpy lingerie” on its “Wishlist,” LC reports.
The American Eagle brand itself has been “Naughty” for five years “over egregious disregard” for Christmas, with mention at all of the holiday.
The company “profits off colors, sights, sounds and symbols of ‘Christmas’ yet remains exclusive of ‘Christmas.’”
Fifth on the list is Athleta, a Gap brand, which has no references to Christmas on its website.
Then comes Banana Republic, also a Gap brand, whose website uses Christmas colors, sounds and symbols but has purged the word “Christmas” from stores.
EB Games from GameStop “is silent” on Christmas, which is mentioned only in manufacturer-labeled products. Five of the products “associate the words ‘nightmare’ and ‘killing floor’ in their titles.”
The Gap brand itself has been “Naughty” for seven years “over flagrant disregard” of Christmas, no mention in stores, commercials or other advertisements.
Ninth is Garman. J. Crew Outfitters has 101 gift ideas without a single mention of “Christmas,” though it uses Christmas gold, green and red colors to attract and profit from Christmas shoppers, the report says.
Old Navy, another Gap brand, suffers from the same defects, the report said.
Piperline, yet another face for Gap, has “Shop Holiday Obsessions” but no “Christmas.”
At Polo Ralph Lauren & Ralph Lauren, a search for Christmas products is redirected to hunt for “holiday” products, the report says.
Fourteenth is Radio Shack, where Christmas has been purged from the website and printed and circular ads, and fifteenth is Tractor Supply Company.
The report’s online documentation also includes telephone numbers, emails and websites to contact the companies.
“Liberty Counsel encourages everyone … to use our ‘Naughty and Nice list’ that categorizes which businesses are censoring Christmas and which are celebrating it,” the organization said. “We are urging you to support the stores on the ‘Nice’ side as part of our 10th annual ‘Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign.’”
On the “Nice” list are AC Moore Arts & Crafts, Belk, Best Buy, Bronner’s CHRISTmas WONDERLAND, Cabela’s, Chick-fil-A, Christmasplace.com, ComputerGear.com, Cracker Barrel, CVS pharmacy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Dillard’s, Disney.com, Dollar General, Eddie Bauer, Frontgate, Hallmark, Hobby Lobby, HoneyBaked Ham, JC Penney, Kmart, Kohl’s, Land’s End, Lehman’s, Lifeway Christian Stores, L.L. Bean, Lowe’s, Martha Stewart, Menards, Michaels, Mrs. Fields, Neiman Marcus, Plow & Hearth, Sears, Sprint, Staples, Stein Gardens & Gifts, Target, T.J. Maxx, ToysRUs, Walgreens, Wallbuilders and Walmart.
Liberty Counsel says the lists reflect the companies’ handling of Christmas, not other policies or actions that may affect a consumer’s decision to patronize them. –WND
Apparently Santa Claus no longer has exclusive rights to a “Naughty & Nice” list.
The nonprofit Liberty Counsel has one of its own that highlights “naughty” companies that have put Christmas in storage and are trying to cash in on “holiday” shoppers.
The organization’s “Naughty & Nice List,” a more pertinent document for contemporary consumers than Santa’s traditional review of boys and girls, is based on Liberty Counsel’s own research and reports from consumers.
“Be sure to thank retailers that acknowledge Christmas and give your respectful opinion to retailers that pretend it doesn’t exist,” the group says in its report.
Take, for example, 77kids, a brand of American Eagle Outfitters. A search of the website for “Christmas” produced no results.
“77kids has been ‘Naughty’ since 2009 because the subsidiaries of the American Eagle brand entices ‘Christmas’ shoppers through use of the sights, sounds and symbols of ‘Christmas’ yet offends the American majority Christian population by using winter scenes that dominate their advertising. 77kids website is purged of all things ‘Christmas,’” the Liberty Counsel report says.
Likewise for Abercrombie & Fitch.
Not only can “Christmas” not be found on the company website, it also is missing from its 2012 commercial and other advertisements, LC says.
Another American Eagle brand, aerie, features “young models in very, very skimpy lingerie” on its “Wishlist,” LC reports.
The American Eagle brand itself has been “Naughty” for five years “over egregious disregard” for Christmas, with mention at all of the holiday.
The company “profits off colors, sights, sounds and symbols of ‘Christmas’ yet remains exclusive of ‘Christmas.’”
Fifth on the list is Athleta, a Gap brand, which has no references to Christmas on its website.
Then comes Banana Republic, also a Gap brand, whose website uses Christmas colors, sounds and symbols but has purged the word “Christmas” from stores.
EB Games from GameStop “is silent” on Christmas, which is mentioned only in manufacturer-labeled products. Five of the products “associate the words ‘nightmare’ and ‘killing floor’ in their titles.”
The Gap brand itself has been “Naughty” for seven years “over flagrant disregard” of Christmas, no mention in stores, commercials or other advertisements.
Ninth is Garman. J. Crew Outfitters has 101 gift ideas without a single mention of “Christmas,” though it uses Christmas gold, green and red colors to attract and profit from Christmas shoppers, the report says.
Old Navy, another Gap brand, suffers from the same defects, the report said.
Piperline, yet another face for Gap, has “Shop Holiday Obsessions” but no “Christmas.”
At Polo Ralph Lauren & Ralph Lauren, a search for Christmas products is redirected to hunt for “holiday” products, the report says.
Fourteenth is Radio Shack, where Christmas has been purged from the website and printed and circular ads, and fifteenth is Tractor Supply Company.
The report’s online documentation also includes telephone numbers, emails and websites to contact the companies.
“Liberty Counsel encourages everyone … to use our ‘Naughty and Nice list’ that categorizes which businesses are censoring Christmas and which are celebrating it,” the organization said. “We are urging you to support the stores on the ‘Nice’ side as part of our 10th annual ‘Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign.’”
On the “Nice” list are AC Moore Arts & Crafts, Belk, Best Buy, Bronner’s CHRISTmas WONDERLAND, Cabela’s, Chick-fil-A, Christmasplace.com, ComputerGear.com, Cracker Barrel, CVS pharmacy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Dillard’s, Disney.com, Dollar General, Eddie Bauer, Frontgate, Hallmark, Hobby Lobby, HoneyBaked Ham, JC Penney, Kmart, Kohl’s, Land’s End, Lehman’s, Lifeway Christian Stores, L.L. Bean, Lowe’s, Martha Stewart, Menards, Michaels, Mrs. Fields, Neiman Marcus, Plow & Hearth, Sears, Sprint, Staples, Stein Gardens & Gifts, Target, T.J. Maxx, ToysRUs, Walgreens, Wallbuilders and Walmart.
Liberty Counsel says the lists reflect the companies’ handling of Christmas, not other policies or actions that may affect a consumer’s decision to patronize them. –WND
6 Gifts Your Guy Will Hate
Picking out the right holiday gifts for loved ones is challenging enough, but when it comes to the man in your life, finding that "special something" can be especially tricky. Here's a list of gifts that your man will, most likely, hate.
Digital Photo Frames
This once-trendy tech gift flew off the shelves in years past but digital photographs ended up being a huge waste of money when consumers found them to be clunky and overrated. However, technology in general is still a crowd pleaser for geeks and guys alike.
Also See: America's Biggest Shopping Regrets
"This year's hottest tech gifts are gadgets that make life a little bit easier," says Hallie Gould, editor at RealBeauty.com. "One that really I love is the Belkin @TV Plus. You just hook it up to your TV so you can watch live or recorded television anywhere you go.
Generic Ties
Ties are often considered sophisticated fashion statements, but if you think generic, run of the mill neckwear will wow your man, think again. If your guy actually wears ties on a regular basis, give him one that speaks to his personality. If the statement is unique and just for him, then there should be no complaints.
Also See: Sales You Should Ignore
Gifts That Send a Message
Nothing fails to say, "I love you" more than a passive aggressive gift that asks for something in return. If that certain home project is on your mind when you buy your mate a tool, your generous gift might be construed as a backhanded request, stirring up some serious awkwardness.
"If your man is handy and you are going to get him a tool, the most important thing is to get him specifically what he wants. Make sure you know the make, model and brand," says Gould. "Something I really like is an all-in-one multi-tool like a Swiss Army knife. He can use it in all kinds of situations, more than once or you can go on a trip, like camping, and use it together."
Also See: Common Money Traps to Avoid
Novelty Trinkets
Digital Photo Frames
This once-trendy tech gift flew off the shelves in years past but digital photographs ended up being a huge waste of money when consumers found them to be clunky and overrated. However, technology in general is still a crowd pleaser for geeks and guys alike.
Also See: America's Biggest Shopping Regrets
"This year's hottest tech gifts are gadgets that make life a little bit easier," says Hallie Gould, editor at RealBeauty.com. "One that really I love is the Belkin @TV Plus. You just hook it up to your TV so you can watch live or recorded television anywhere you go.
Generic Ties
Ties are often considered sophisticated fashion statements, but if you think generic, run of the mill neckwear will wow your man, think again. If your guy actually wears ties on a regular basis, give him one that speaks to his personality. If the statement is unique and just for him, then there should be no complaints.
Also See: Sales You Should Ignore
Gifts That Send a Message
Nothing fails to say, "I love you" more than a passive aggressive gift that asks for something in return. If that certain home project is on your mind when you buy your mate a tool, your generous gift might be construed as a backhanded request, stirring up some serious awkwardness.
"If your man is handy and you are going to get him a tool, the most important thing is to get him specifically what he wants. Make sure you know the make, model and brand," says Gould. "Something I really like is an all-in-one multi-tool like a Swiss Army knife. He can use it in all kinds of situations, more than once or you can go on a trip, like camping, and use it together."
Also See: Common Money Traps to Avoid
Novelty Trinkets
We Are The Media, And So Are You
It’s easy to frame the fight over SOPA and PIPA as Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley — two huge industries clashing over whose voice should dictate the future of Internet policy — but it’s absolutely wrong. The bills are dead, thanks to widespread protest. But the real architects of the bills’ defeat don’t have a catchy label or a recognized lobbying group. They don’t have the glamour or the deep pockets of the studios. Yet they are the largest, most powerful and most important voice in the debate — and, until recently, they’ve been all but invisible to Congress.
They are you. And if not you personally, then your neighbors, your colleagues, your friends and even your children. The millions of people who called and wrote their congressional representatives in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act were “organized” only around the desire to protect the Web sites that have become central to their daily lives.
Change like this needed a fresh set of voices. The established tech giants may have newfound political influence, but their fights are still the same closed-door tussles over minor details. They have been at the table, and they have too much invested in the process to change it. More important, they are constrained by obligations to their shareholders and investors, as well as by the need to maintain relationships with their advertisers, partners and customers.
Wikipedia, its users and its contributors don’t have the same constraints. We don’t rely on advertising dollars or content partnerships. The billions of words and millions of images in our projects come from the same place as our financial support: the voluntary contribution of millions of individuals. The result is free knowledge, available for anyone to read and reuse.
Wikipedia is not opposed to the rights of creators — we have the largest collection of creators in human history. The effort that went into building Wikipedia could have created shelves full of albums or near-endless nights of movies. Instead it’s providing unrestricted access to the world’s knowledge. Protecting our rights as creators means ensuring that we can build our encyclopedias, photographs, videos, Web sites, charities and businesses without the fear that they all will be taken away from us without due process. It means protecting our ability to speak freely, without being vulnerable to poorly drafted laws that leave our fate to a law enforcement body that has no oversight and no appeal process. It means protecting the legal infrastructure that allowed our sharing of knowledge and creativity to flourish, and protecting our ability to do so on technical infrastructure that allows for security and privacy for all Internet users.
We are not interested in becoming full-time advocates; protests like the Wikipedia blackout are a last resort. Our core mission is to make knowledge freely available, and making the Web site inaccessible interrupts what we exist to do. The one-day blackout, though, was just a speed bump. Breaking the legal infrastructure that makes it possible to operate Wikipedia, and sites like ours, would be a much greater disruption.
Two weeks ago we recognized a threat to that infrastructure and did something we’ve never done before: We acknowledged that our existence is itself political, and we spoke up to protect it. It turned out to be the largest Internet protest ever.
The full-time advocates of freedom of information, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge, have been fighting for decades to help create the legal environment that makes our work possible. We cannot waste that effort by failing to speak in our own defense when that environment is threatened.
It’s absolutely right that Congress cares about the content industry, recognizing its ability to innovate, to create wealth and to improve lives. But existing copyright enforcement laws were written in a world in which the information we had access to on a broad scale came from a few established media outlets. The players were easy to identify. They organized into groups with common interests and fought to protect those interests. The “content industry” is no longer limited to those few influential channels.
The laws we need now must recognize the more broadly distributed and broadly valuable power of free and open knowledge. They must come from an understanding of that power and a recognition that the voices flooding the phone lines and in-boxes of Congress on Jan. 18 represented the source of that power. These laws must not simply be rammed through to appease narrow lobbies without sufficient review or consideration of the consequences.
Because we are the media industry. We are the creators. We are the innovators. The whole world benefits from our work. That work, and our ability to do it, is worth protecting for everyone. -By Jimmy Wales and Kat Walsh/Washingrton Post/February 9, 2012
They are you. And if not you personally, then your neighbors, your colleagues, your friends and even your children. The millions of people who called and wrote their congressional representatives in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act were “organized” only around the desire to protect the Web sites that have become central to their daily lives.
Change like this needed a fresh set of voices. The established tech giants may have newfound political influence, but their fights are still the same closed-door tussles over minor details. They have been at the table, and they have too much invested in the process to change it. More important, they are constrained by obligations to their shareholders and investors, as well as by the need to maintain relationships with their advertisers, partners and customers.
Wikipedia, its users and its contributors don’t have the same constraints. We don’t rely on advertising dollars or content partnerships. The billions of words and millions of images in our projects come from the same place as our financial support: the voluntary contribution of millions of individuals. The result is free knowledge, available for anyone to read and reuse.
Wikipedia is not opposed to the rights of creators — we have the largest collection of creators in human history. The effort that went into building Wikipedia could have created shelves full of albums or near-endless nights of movies. Instead it’s providing unrestricted access to the world’s knowledge. Protecting our rights as creators means ensuring that we can build our encyclopedias, photographs, videos, Web sites, charities and businesses without the fear that they all will be taken away from us without due process. It means protecting our ability to speak freely, without being vulnerable to poorly drafted laws that leave our fate to a law enforcement body that has no oversight and no appeal process. It means protecting the legal infrastructure that allowed our sharing of knowledge and creativity to flourish, and protecting our ability to do so on technical infrastructure that allows for security and privacy for all Internet users.
We are not interested in becoming full-time advocates; protests like the Wikipedia blackout are a last resort. Our core mission is to make knowledge freely available, and making the Web site inaccessible interrupts what we exist to do. The one-day blackout, though, was just a speed bump. Breaking the legal infrastructure that makes it possible to operate Wikipedia, and sites like ours, would be a much greater disruption.
Two weeks ago we recognized a threat to that infrastructure and did something we’ve never done before: We acknowledged that our existence is itself political, and we spoke up to protect it. It turned out to be the largest Internet protest ever.
The full-time advocates of freedom of information, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge, have been fighting for decades to help create the legal environment that makes our work possible. We cannot waste that effort by failing to speak in our own defense when that environment is threatened.
It’s absolutely right that Congress cares about the content industry, recognizing its ability to innovate, to create wealth and to improve lives. But existing copyright enforcement laws were written in a world in which the information we had access to on a broad scale came from a few established media outlets. The players were easy to identify. They organized into groups with common interests and fought to protect those interests. The “content industry” is no longer limited to those few influential channels.
The laws we need now must recognize the more broadly distributed and broadly valuable power of free and open knowledge. They must come from an understanding of that power and a recognition that the voices flooding the phone lines and in-boxes of Congress on Jan. 18 represented the source of that power. These laws must not simply be rammed through to appease narrow lobbies without sufficient review or consideration of the consequences.
Because we are the media industry. We are the creators. We are the innovators. The whole world benefits from our work. That work, and our ability to do it, is worth protecting for everyone. -By Jimmy Wales and Kat Walsh/Washingrton Post/February 9, 2012
Dec 1, 2012
Ragbag Headliners
How Smoking Can Hurt Your Grandchildren
Smoking, drinking alcoholic beverages, eating foods high in all the things (fat, sugar, sodium, etc.) that we are told to avoid: any damage to our health only happens to us and then is over and done with, right?
Possibly not, at least in regard to smoking. Scientists from the Los Angeles Biomedical Institute have found that if you smoke, you could be putting your grandchildren at risk for some of the effects.
The reason lies in epigenetics, the study of how changes in your environment and your own lifestyle choices can affect how your genes are expressed, through modifications of the network of chemical “switches” within our cells. That is, epigenetics studies not changes in the underlying DNA sequence, but others including DNA methylation (the addition of methyl groups to the DNA) and histone modification (the addition of acetyl groups to the histones, the proteins in which DNA is wrapped). As The Economist puts it,
Methylation switches genes off. Acetylation switches them on. Since, in a multicellular organism, different cells need different genes to be active, such regulation is vital.
The Los Angeles Biomedical Institute scientists’ research suggests that epigenetic switches can be passed on and for more than one generation.
Virender Rehan, M.D. studied the intergenerational effects of nicotine. He and his colleagues injected pregnant rats with nicotine and found that not only their offspring, but their offspring’s offspring developed asthma from the drug. The Economist describes the study:
The pups of the treated mothers had asthmatic lungs. The organs’ airways were constricted, and molecular analysis showed abnormally high levels of fibronectin and collagen—which would stiffen the lung tissue—and also high levels of receptor molecules for nicotine. That was expected, since the developing embryos were exposed to the nicotine when their mothers were treated. However, when the team did similar tests on the grand-offspring of the treated mothers, they got similar results. Those grand-offspring had not been exposed to nicotine.
The cause of the grand-offsprings’ asthma, Dr Rehan believes, is epigenetic modification. Nicotine is not only affecting lung cells, but also affecting sex cells in ways that cause the lungs which ultimately develop from those cells to express their genes in the same abnormal ways.
Epigenetics suggests that the choices you make in your diet and lifestyle can, possibly, lead to changes in how your cells express their genes, with implications for your children and other descendants. As The Economist notes, it is not that your DNA sequence is changed; other studies suggest that inherited epigenetic changes can be reversed. But Rehan’s study shows that, to invoke a Biblical tone, “the sins of the fathers (or, in this case, the mothers) will be visited on the sons, even unto the third and fourth generations.”
Epigenetics is a reminder that when making choices about what you eat and drink and put into your body, and what you do (go for that daily walk or hunker down on the couch with a bowl of something salty), you’re not only doing it for yourself, but for future generations and for the future of all of us. –By Kristina Chew/Care2/November 12, 2012
Smoking, drinking alcoholic beverages, eating foods high in all the things (fat, sugar, sodium, etc.) that we are told to avoid: any damage to our health only happens to us and then is over and done with, right?
Possibly not, at least in regard to smoking. Scientists from the Los Angeles Biomedical Institute have found that if you smoke, you could be putting your grandchildren at risk for some of the effects.
The reason lies in epigenetics, the study of how changes in your environment and your own lifestyle choices can affect how your genes are expressed, through modifications of the network of chemical “switches” within our cells. That is, epigenetics studies not changes in the underlying DNA sequence, but others including DNA methylation (the addition of methyl groups to the DNA) and histone modification (the addition of acetyl groups to the histones, the proteins in which DNA is wrapped). As The Economist puts it,
Methylation switches genes off. Acetylation switches them on. Since, in a multicellular organism, different cells need different genes to be active, such regulation is vital.
The Los Angeles Biomedical Institute scientists’ research suggests that epigenetic switches can be passed on and for more than one generation.
Virender Rehan, M.D. studied the intergenerational effects of nicotine. He and his colleagues injected pregnant rats with nicotine and found that not only their offspring, but their offspring’s offspring developed asthma from the drug. The Economist describes the study:
The pups of the treated mothers had asthmatic lungs. The organs’ airways were constricted, and molecular analysis showed abnormally high levels of fibronectin and collagen—which would stiffen the lung tissue—and also high levels of receptor molecules for nicotine. That was expected, since the developing embryos were exposed to the nicotine when their mothers were treated. However, when the team did similar tests on the grand-offspring of the treated mothers, they got similar results. Those grand-offspring had not been exposed to nicotine.
The cause of the grand-offsprings’ asthma, Dr Rehan believes, is epigenetic modification. Nicotine is not only affecting lung cells, but also affecting sex cells in ways that cause the lungs which ultimately develop from those cells to express their genes in the same abnormal ways.
Epigenetics suggests that the choices you make in your diet and lifestyle can, possibly, lead to changes in how your cells express their genes, with implications for your children and other descendants. As The Economist notes, it is not that your DNA sequence is changed; other studies suggest that inherited epigenetic changes can be reversed. But Rehan’s study shows that, to invoke a Biblical tone, “the sins of the fathers (or, in this case, the mothers) will be visited on the sons, even unto the third and fourth generations.”
Epigenetics is a reminder that when making choices about what you eat and drink and put into your body, and what you do (go for that daily walk or hunker down on the couch with a bowl of something salty), you’re not only doing it for yourself, but for future generations and for the future of all of us. –By Kristina Chew/Care2/November 12, 2012
Limbaugh: 'Very Difficult To Beat Santa Claus'
Rush Limbaugh, the popular voice of the political right, says he’s genuinely perplexed by the re-election of Barack Obama to the presidency.
“I went to bed last night thinking we’ve lost the country. I don’t know how else you look at this,” Limbaugh said today in his post-race analysis.
“Small things beat big things yesterday. Conservatism in my humble opinion did not lose last night. It’s just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Claus, especially when the alternative is being your own Santa Claus,” he continued. “In a country of children where the option is Santa Claus or work, what wins?”
“Every Obama voter may not be religious, but they believe in Santa Claus. And you know what else they believe about Santa Claus? That Santa Claus doesn’t judge anybody. You’re gonna get your stuff no matter how you behave. You’re gonna get your stuff whether you’re a good guy, bad guy, or a non-entity. Santa Claus isn’t judgmental. In fact, Santa Claus loves you because you have the deck stacked against you.”
Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly proffered a similar comment Tuesday night when he was asked why the race was so tight between Obama and the Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
“Because it’s a changing country. The demographics are changing,” O’Reilly said. “It’s not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50 percent of the voting public who want STUFF. They want THINGS. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it and he ran on it. Whereby 20 years ago, President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney. … The voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them, and they want STUFF. … People feel that they are entitled to things, and which candidate between the two is going to give them things.”
Limbaugh said there is no rising to responsibility among the majority of the current U.S. populace.
“There’s just a demand that the gravy train to continue, and we have an administration that’s promising an endless gravy train,” he said.
“Until people understand how big government reduces prosperity for all, they’re going to be fooled by little things, by marketing, by smooth talkers, by faux compassion.”
Limbaugh noted conservative have to face some truths.
“We are outnumbered and we are losing ground. This was not a glitch, this is the trend,” he said.
“We’re four years into tyranny winning. And guess what. No matter what happens, it’s Bush’s fault. Obama’s getting a Mulligan. Obama’s getting a do-over.”
But while some have suggested the Republican Party abandon some of it principles to appeal to a wider audience, Limbaugh disagreed.
“If there’s one option that hasn’t been tried in a long time, it’s called conservatism with a capital C,” he said. “This was not a conservative campaign.”
“We’re gonna have to go back and redefine how prosperity happens in this country. And conservatism and the Constitution are the best way to make it happen.”
Limbaugh also offered praise for Mitt Romney, calling him “one of the best human beings that I’ve ever met.” -Joe Kovacs/WND/November 7, 2012
Foot Note: Joe Kovacs is an award-winning journalist and, since 1999, executive news editor of WND. He is the author of two best-selling books: "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told" and its 2012 sequel, "The Divine Secret: The Awesome and Untold Truth About Your Phenomenal Destiny."
“I went to bed last night thinking we’ve lost the country. I don’t know how else you look at this,” Limbaugh said today in his post-race analysis.
“Small things beat big things yesterday. Conservatism in my humble opinion did not lose last night. It’s just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Claus, especially when the alternative is being your own Santa Claus,” he continued. “In a country of children where the option is Santa Claus or work, what wins?”
“Every Obama voter may not be religious, but they believe in Santa Claus. And you know what else they believe about Santa Claus? That Santa Claus doesn’t judge anybody. You’re gonna get your stuff no matter how you behave. You’re gonna get your stuff whether you’re a good guy, bad guy, or a non-entity. Santa Claus isn’t judgmental. In fact, Santa Claus loves you because you have the deck stacked against you.”
Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly proffered a similar comment Tuesday night when he was asked why the race was so tight between Obama and the Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
“Because it’s a changing country. The demographics are changing,” O’Reilly said. “It’s not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50 percent of the voting public who want STUFF. They want THINGS. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it and he ran on it. Whereby 20 years ago, President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney. … The voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them, and they want STUFF. … People feel that they are entitled to things, and which candidate between the two is going to give them things.”
Limbaugh said there is no rising to responsibility among the majority of the current U.S. populace.
“There’s just a demand that the gravy train to continue, and we have an administration that’s promising an endless gravy train,” he said.
“Until people understand how big government reduces prosperity for all, they’re going to be fooled by little things, by marketing, by smooth talkers, by faux compassion.”
Limbaugh noted conservative have to face some truths.
“We are outnumbered and we are losing ground. This was not a glitch, this is the trend,” he said.
“We’re four years into tyranny winning. And guess what. No matter what happens, it’s Bush’s fault. Obama’s getting a Mulligan. Obama’s getting a do-over.”
But while some have suggested the Republican Party abandon some of it principles to appeal to a wider audience, Limbaugh disagreed.
“If there’s one option that hasn’t been tried in a long time, it’s called conservatism with a capital C,” he said. “This was not a conservative campaign.”
“We’re gonna have to go back and redefine how prosperity happens in this country. And conservatism and the Constitution are the best way to make it happen.”
Limbaugh also offered praise for Mitt Romney, calling him “one of the best human beings that I’ve ever met.” -Joe Kovacs/WND/November 7, 2012
Foot Note: Joe Kovacs is an award-winning journalist and, since 1999, executive news editor of WND. He is the author of two best-selling books: "Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told" and its 2012 sequel, "The Divine Secret: The Awesome and Untold Truth About Your Phenomenal Destiny."
Discover Your Dream
A British journalist arrived in Manila, Philippines with an assignment to write about the 'essential Filipino'. He smiled confidently over what he thought was an easy assignment and relished the idea of the free tour of the Philippines as complementary reward.
For three days, he ran around searching for the 'essential Filipino'.
He rejected Makati, Metro-Manila's main financial district, which reminded him of many cold and calculating world cities, like London.
He went to historical places like the old, walled city of Intramuros but saw only a glimpse of the past, not the present.
Next, he tried the native cuisine in various famous eating places. Delicious but nothing on the 'essential Filipino'.
Before he realized it, he started to not only get tired but also nervous that he has not found his ‘easy’ story yet. Time was running out, he had to go back to London in two days. He spent the next day on inconsequential probes into churches, malls, monuments.
On his last day, he twitted his editor saying that no one can possibly write about the 'essential Filipino' in so short a time. He asked for an extension. He expected at least a week. The editor was kind but gave the journalist only one lousy extra day.
In desperation and panic, on his last day, he took a wild stab at market places.
In Singalong, he sat on a curb too tired to think. Then he realized his mistake. He was looking for places not people. The thought hit him like a terrorist’s bomb. The 'essential Filipino' is a person, not a place. "How stupid could I be!" he thought.
In Singalong, he sat on a curb too tired to think. Then he realized his mistake. He was looking for places not people. The thought hit him like a terrorist’s bomb. The 'essential Filipino' is a person, not a place. "How stupid could I be!" he thought.
Sitting on the curb in exasperation, he began looking at faces that passed by when he noticed a boy selling fishballs from a rolling cart. The kid wore a torn shirt and a pair of raggedy, wrinkled short pants, and was barefoot. What attracted him was the boy's a la Michael Jackson gyrations. The kid was unmindful of the noisy crowd around him.
As the journalist approached him, he noticed the earjack the kid had. He instantly realized it was loud music that drowned the noise and transported the boy into his own personal "inner other world". The journalist had to scream in order to bring the little one back into the real world. The boy removed the earjack. The journalist started to talk with the kid.
JOURNALIST: ‘Hey, what are you selling?’
BOY: ‘Fishballs, Sir. Wanna buy?’
JOURNALIST: ‘Nice earjack, you've got.’
The boy handed the earjack to the journalist. The journalist put the earbuds on, one in each ear. He instantly removed them after almost losing his balance and reeling backwards after the deafening music almost blasted his eardrums.
The boy smiled, and put the headset back on his head, one earbud into each ear.
JOURNALIST: ‘Hey, wait, we’re talking.'
The boy once again took the earbuds off. From the pocket of his trousers, he pulled out a tiny MP3 player and handed it to the journalist. The journalist examined it.
JOURNALIST: ‘Where did you get this? This is expensive, first-class MP3 player with first-class earphones. It doesn’t match your 'air-conditioned' shirt.'
He flicks at one of the holes in the boy's torn shirt.
He flicks at one of the holes in the boy's torn shirt.
BOY: 'I bought it. Nice, huh? I saved all the money I earned from one whole year of selling fishballs to buy it.'
JOURNALIST: ‘Why didn’t you buy yourself new shirt and shoes instead?’
BOY: ‘No need. Not important. Waste of hard earned money. Clothes don’t make me happy, only music does.’
JOURNALIST: ‘You kill yourself selling fishballs the whole day for a year just to buy this?’
BOY: ‘Why not? What would you buy? What is your dream? Me, this is my dream, but it is no longer a dream. It’s real now. I don’t need shirts and shoes, just a dream of dancing to music. What is your dream anyway?'
At first the journalist was at a loss for words because he really had no dream in mind. Perhaps, his dream is to file a story. That's all. But that is not really a dream. A dream must be something spiritual and forever as the boy's words implied.
At first the journalist was at a loss for words because he really had no dream in mind. Perhaps, his dream is to file a story. That's all. But that is not really a dream. A dream must be something spiritual and forever as the boy's words implied.
JOURNALIST: ‘I guess I have no dream. Oh, I take that back. yes I have a dream but it is not a good dream.’
BOY: ‘Too bad. You must be very sad. Buy yourself an MP3.’
JOURNALIST: ‘But that is not my dream.’
JOURNALIST: ‘But that is not my dream.’
BOY: ‘So what is your real dream then? There must be something you really, really like.'
JOURNALIST: ‘I have been working so hard to survive that I forget what I really, really like. My life is work, work, work.'
BOY: ‘But I also work, work, work. You must find your true dream and go for it.’
Finally, the British journalist began to discern the 'essential Filipino'. He was amazed at how the boy in his dire poverty rejected the very materialism which has been gradually destroying the more affluent in society.
Finally, the British journalist began to discern the 'essential Filipino'. He was amazed at how the boy in his dire poverty rejected the very materialism which has been gradually destroying the more affluent in society.
The 'essential Filipino' is a free spirit -- poor and happy all at once. Perhaps, it came from his insular environment or from his distant past -- his Austronesian roots of nomads in tiny boats roaming the vast seas. The journalist took out a notebook and started writing frantically. The boy peered and tried to read aloud the journalist's writing: 'Essential Filipino...free spirit...spiritual dreams...nomadic boat people...
The boy tapped the British journalist on the shoulder.
BOY: 'I know this is your dream. You just don't know it. What you just wrote on your notebook is your dream.'
The Brit was stunned at the kid's perception.
JOURNALIST: 'I...I guess so.'
BOY: 'It is not a guess. You know it. Once you know your dream, you must go for it or else you will be very sad and soon you will die because you know you have no more reason to live for. You must go for a dream or you die. You cannot live just to exist, can you?'
BOY: 'It is not a guess. You know it. Once you know your dream, you must go for it or else you will be very sad and soon you will die because you know you have no more reason to live for. You must go for a dream or you die. You cannot live just to exist, can you?'
JOURNALIST: 'I guess not. Thank you for telling me my dream.'
Almost in tears, the journalist hugged the boy and gave him a 100-peso bill. The boy was stunned.
Almost in tears, the journalist hugged the boy and gave him a 100-peso bill. The boy was stunned.
BOY: 'What is this for?'
JOURNALIST: 'For helping me find my dream which was right in front of my nose all the while.'
BOY: 'Yes, many times you cannot see things clearly when they are too near. You have to step back a little to see.'
JOURNALIST: 'Go and buy yourself more music.'
The journalist returned to his hotel. It took thirty minutes for him to write his story. In ten electronic milliseconds, the story was on the editor's desk in London.
The editor replied: 'This is the best story yet. For the longest time, our staff writers have written about absurd things. What you wrote is an important pearl of wisdom for the affluent world from the impoverished world. Stay there for a month and write me more stories.'
The journalist had a field day. His dream, like the boy's, was now a reality. He started to hang around the street vendors.
JOURNALIST: 'Go and buy yourself more music.'
The journalist returned to his hotel. It took thirty minutes for him to write his story. In ten electronic milliseconds, the story was on the editor's desk in London.
The editor replied: 'This is the best story yet. For the longest time, our staff writers have written about absurd things. What you wrote is an important pearl of wisdom for the affluent world from the impoverished world. Stay there for a month and write me more stories.'
The journalist had a field day. His dream, like the boy's, was now a reality. He started to hang around the street vendors.
Later, he moved from the big city of Manila to the Philippine countryside and wrote about the 'wisdom of farmers and fishermen'. He immersed himself in the 'essential Filipino' -- poor, happy, equipped with a different kind of wisdom alien in the affluent world.
It was a "rich poor little boy" selling sticks of fishballs for six U.S. cents a stick who ignited the journalist's soul.
The 'essential Filipino' and his ancient wisdom is hard to find in civilized places.
Where goodness abounds, there is also evil lurking to sow confusion and hatred; where evil abounds, there also is virtue lurking to sow harmony and peace. The tension between good and evil is everywhere we perpetrate either one or the other.
The 'essential Filipino' and his ancient wisdom is hard to find in civilized places.
Where goodness abounds, there is also evil lurking to sow confusion and hatred; where evil abounds, there also is virtue lurking to sow harmony and peace. The tension between good and evil is everywhere we perpetrate either one or the other.
The destiny of the world is up to each of us.
Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of non-violence revolves around the concept that peace is a more powerful weapon than war; a smile is more powerful than a sneer; a whisper is louder than a scream; the calm is in the eye of the storm; and total darkness recedes when a single candlelight glows.
Society has the bad habit of putting on pedestals supposedly great men and making them as demi-gods, not knowing that the fame and fortune we bestow upon them would devour their spirits and consume them totally. Of what use is the pedestal society tells one to scale when as a giant one falls with a resounding crash? Better to be a happy, unknown ant than a sad, noted giant.
There is virtue in anonymity and folly in popularity.
There is virtue in anonymity and folly in popularity.
Author Unknown
Real Funny Dumb Laws In The United States
In some states, including California, Florida, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii a motorist can be cited for driving too slowly.
In counties having populations of not less than 56,500 nor more than 59,000, according to the 1970 or any subsequent federal decennial census, domino games shall be lawful in billiard rooms or other rooms in which billiard tables are located. Source: Alabama Criminal Code Section 34-6-12
In counties having populations of not less than 56,500 nor more than 59,000, according to the 1970 or any subsequent federal decennial census, domino games shall be lawful in billiard rooms or other rooms in which billiard tables are located. Source: Alabama Criminal Code Section 34-6-12
A United States Federal law states one can be fine up to $1,000,000 for partaking in the act of Genocide. Source: US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 50A > 1091
United States federal law makes it illegal to issue a fake Weather Bureau forecast. Source: 18 U.S.C. 2074)
Alabama
State code allows only 5 minutes for one to vote. Source: Section 17-9-13 of Alabama Code
Arkansas
Arkansas drive-in aren't very convenient thanks to this law... No person shall drive a motor vehicle onto the premises of a drive-in restaurant and leave the premises without parking such motor vehicle, unless there is no unoccupied parking space available on the premises. Source: Code 1961, 25-156 25-158
Sec. 18-54. Sounding of horns at sandwich shops. No person shall sound the horn on a vehicle at any place where cold drinks or sandwiches are served after 9:00 p.m. Source: Code 1961, 25-74
California
In Los Angeles, It is not legal to bathe two babies at the same time in the same tub.
In Riverside, Kissing on the lips, unless both parties wipe their lips with carbonized rose water, is against the local health ordinance.
In Walnut, No person shall wear a mask or disguise on a public street without a permit from the sheriff. Source: 17-32 Mask or disguise--Wearing.
In Walnut, It shall be unlawful for any person to fly, above an altitude of ten feet above the ground, or near any electrical conductive public utility wires or facilities, any kite or balloon which has a body or any parts, tail, string or ribbon Source: 17-1 Kite flying restricted
China
According to a law in China, you must be intelligent to go to college. Guess the guy who wrote this did NOT go to college.
Colorado
Colorado Water laws prohibit the use of rain barrels or any methods to catch rain for use. They claim the rain has already been legally allocated to the state and individual may not capture and use water to which he/she does not have a right. New Laws passed in June 2009 eradicate this law.
Connecticut
No hanky panky allowed in Connecticut.. A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. It is illegal for unmarried couples to commit lewd acts and live together Source: 775.082 or s. 775.083
Illinois
A state law requires that a man's female companion shall call him "master" while out on a date. The law does not apply to married couples.
In Zion, It is illegal for anyone to give cats, dogs, or other domesticated animals a lighted cigar.
Indiana
In Indianapolis, No horse shall be driven or ridden on any street in the city at a speed in excess of ten (10) miles per hour. Source: Code 1975, 29-5
Iowa
In Ottumwa, It is illegal for any man, within the corporate city limits, to wink at any female with whom he is "unacquainted."
Kansas
In Topeka, Servers are forbidden to serve wine in teacups.
Kentucky
A female shall not appear in a bathing suit on any highway within this state. section 1376m-1, 1376m-2 Repealed: January 1, 1975
Louisiana
In Mansfield, Anyone caught wearing sagging pants that expose underwear will be subject to a fine of up to $150 plus court costs or face up to 15 days in jail. A court later overturned the law, declaring it unconstitutional.
In New Orleans, Fire Code outlaws the cursing of firefighters while they are in the performance of their duties. Source: Sec. 74-2
Maryland
In Baltimore, It is illegal to take a lion to the movies.
Minnesota
Many municipalities in Minnesota (including Anoka County) still have a Vagrancy law on the books that makes it misdemeanor for a person, with ability to work, who is without lawful means of support, and does not seek employment, and is not under 18 years of age.
Mississippi
A state law prohibits the seduction of a female over the age of eighteen by promised or pretended marriage. Source: 97-29-55. Codes, 1892, 1298;
Nebraska
It is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.
Nevada
In Reno, It is unlawful for any person to carry on, conduct or maintain any marathon dancing or marathon walking Source: Code 1966, 11.12.130
New Jersey
In Bergen County, Blue laws still in effect. The only retail outlets permitted to be open on Sundays are grocery stores and liquor stores.
New York
It is against the law to throw a ball at someone's head for fun.
A license must be purchased before hanging clothes on a clothesline.
A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street and looking "at a woman in that way." A second conviction for a crime of this magnitude calls for the violating male to be forced to wear a "pair of horse-blinders" wherever and whenever he goes outside for a stroll.
In Carmel, A man cannot be seen in public while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.
In Greene, During a concert, it is illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards on the sidewalks.
In Ocean City, It is illegal to eat in the street in residential neighborhoods, and the only beverage you can drink on the beach is water in a clear plastic bottle.
In Ocean City, It is illegal for men to go topless in the center of town.
In Staten Island, You may only water your lawn if the hose is held in your hand.
In Staten Island, It is illegal for a father to call his son a "faggot" or "queer" in an effort to curb "girlie behavior."
New York City
You may not smoke within 100 feet of the entrance to a public building.
Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business.
It is illegal to have permit dancing in an establishment that sells food without a cabaret license.
It is illegal for a woman to be on the street wearing "body hugging clothing."
Citizens may not greet each other by "putting one's thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers".
North Carolina
It is illegal to hold more than two sessions of bingo per week, and those sessions may not exceed 5 hours each session. Source: 14-309.8.
Ohio
In Oxford, It is unlawful for a woman to appear in public while unshaven. This includes legs and face.
In Youngstown, You may not run out of gas. Source: Youngstown City Ordinances, Section 331.44
Oklahoma
It Is Illegal To Have A sleeping Donkey In Your Bathtub After 7pm
South Carolina
There's no place for fun... It is unlawful for a minor under the age of eighteen to play a pinball machine. Source: 20-7-8915
Tennessee
It is unlawful for any person to import, possess, or cause to be imported into this state any type of live skunk, or to sell, barter, exchange or otherwise transfer any live skunk, except that the prohibitions of this section shall not apply to bona fide zoological parks and research institutions. Source: 70-4-208. Unlawful importation of skunks - Penalty.
You must believe in god to be elected into office. You also are not permitted into office if you were in contendant in a duel. Source: Tennessee Constitution - Article IX
Vermont
In Montpelier, No law was violated when 42 cyclists rode through Vermont's capital naked on May 14, 2009. The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus reported that Vermont has no ban on public nudity. Disrobing in public is a crime, but the cyclists disrobed before venturing out and would not be charged. Source: http://www.wptz.com/news/19749434/detail.html
United States federal law makes it illegal to issue a fake Weather Bureau forecast. Source: 18 U.S.C. 2074)
Alabama
State code allows only 5 minutes for one to vote. Source: Section 17-9-13 of Alabama Code
Arkansas
Arkansas drive-in aren't very convenient thanks to this law... No person shall drive a motor vehicle onto the premises of a drive-in restaurant and leave the premises without parking such motor vehicle, unless there is no unoccupied parking space available on the premises. Source: Code 1961, 25-156 25-158
Sec. 18-54. Sounding of horns at sandwich shops. No person shall sound the horn on a vehicle at any place where cold drinks or sandwiches are served after 9:00 p.m. Source: Code 1961, 25-74
California
In Los Angeles, It is not legal to bathe two babies at the same time in the same tub.
In Riverside, Kissing on the lips, unless both parties wipe their lips with carbonized rose water, is against the local health ordinance.
In Walnut, No person shall wear a mask or disguise on a public street without a permit from the sheriff. Source: 17-32 Mask or disguise--Wearing.
In Walnut, It shall be unlawful for any person to fly, above an altitude of ten feet above the ground, or near any electrical conductive public utility wires or facilities, any kite or balloon which has a body or any parts, tail, string or ribbon Source: 17-1 Kite flying restricted
China
According to a law in China, you must be intelligent to go to college. Guess the guy who wrote this did NOT go to college.
Colorado
Colorado Water laws prohibit the use of rain barrels or any methods to catch rain for use. They claim the rain has already been legally allocated to the state and individual may not capture and use water to which he/she does not have a right. New Laws passed in June 2009 eradicate this law.
Connecticut
No hanky panky allowed in Connecticut.. A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. It is illegal for unmarried couples to commit lewd acts and live together Source: 775.082 or s. 775.083
Illinois
A state law requires that a man's female companion shall call him "master" while out on a date. The law does not apply to married couples.
In Zion, It is illegal for anyone to give cats, dogs, or other domesticated animals a lighted cigar.
Indiana
In Indianapolis, No horse shall be driven or ridden on any street in the city at a speed in excess of ten (10) miles per hour. Source: Code 1975, 29-5
Iowa
In Ottumwa, It is illegal for any man, within the corporate city limits, to wink at any female with whom he is "unacquainted."
Kansas
In Topeka, Servers are forbidden to serve wine in teacups.
Kentucky
A female shall not appear in a bathing suit on any highway within this state. section 1376m-1, 1376m-2 Repealed: January 1, 1975
Louisiana
In Mansfield, Anyone caught wearing sagging pants that expose underwear will be subject to a fine of up to $150 plus court costs or face up to 15 days in jail. A court later overturned the law, declaring it unconstitutional.
In New Orleans, Fire Code outlaws the cursing of firefighters while they are in the performance of their duties. Source: Sec. 74-2
Maryland
In Baltimore, It is illegal to take a lion to the movies.
Minnesota
Many municipalities in Minnesota (including Anoka County) still have a Vagrancy law on the books that makes it misdemeanor for a person, with ability to work, who is without lawful means of support, and does not seek employment, and is not under 18 years of age.
Mississippi
A state law prohibits the seduction of a female over the age of eighteen by promised or pretended marriage. Source: 97-29-55. Codes, 1892, 1298;
Nebraska
It is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.
Nevada
In Reno, It is unlawful for any person to carry on, conduct or maintain any marathon dancing or marathon walking Source: Code 1966, 11.12.130
New Jersey
In Bergen County, Blue laws still in effect. The only retail outlets permitted to be open on Sundays are grocery stores and liquor stores.
New York
It is against the law to throw a ball at someone's head for fun.
A license must be purchased before hanging clothes on a clothesline.
A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street and looking "at a woman in that way." A second conviction for a crime of this magnitude calls for the violating male to be forced to wear a "pair of horse-blinders" wherever and whenever he goes outside for a stroll.
In Carmel, A man cannot be seen in public while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.
In Greene, During a concert, it is illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards on the sidewalks.
In Ocean City, It is illegal to eat in the street in residential neighborhoods, and the only beverage you can drink on the beach is water in a clear plastic bottle.
In Ocean City, It is illegal for men to go topless in the center of town.
In Staten Island, You may only water your lawn if the hose is held in your hand.
In Staten Island, It is illegal for a father to call his son a "faggot" or "queer" in an effort to curb "girlie behavior."
New York City
You may not smoke within 100 feet of the entrance to a public building.
Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business.
It is illegal to have permit dancing in an establishment that sells food without a cabaret license.
It is illegal for a woman to be on the street wearing "body hugging clothing."
Citizens may not greet each other by "putting one's thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers".
North Carolina
It is illegal to hold more than two sessions of bingo per week, and those sessions may not exceed 5 hours each session. Source: 14-309.8.
Ohio
In Oxford, It is unlawful for a woman to appear in public while unshaven. This includes legs and face.
In Youngstown, You may not run out of gas. Source: Youngstown City Ordinances, Section 331.44
Oklahoma
It Is Illegal To Have A sleeping Donkey In Your Bathtub After 7pm
South Carolina
There's no place for fun... It is unlawful for a minor under the age of eighteen to play a pinball machine. Source: 20-7-8915
Tennessee
It is unlawful for any person to import, possess, or cause to be imported into this state any type of live skunk, or to sell, barter, exchange or otherwise transfer any live skunk, except that the prohibitions of this section shall not apply to bona fide zoological parks and research institutions. Source: 70-4-208. Unlawful importation of skunks - Penalty.
You must believe in god to be elected into office. You also are not permitted into office if you were in contendant in a duel. Source: Tennessee Constitution - Article IX
Vermont
In Montpelier, No law was violated when 42 cyclists rode through Vermont's capital naked on May 14, 2009. The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus reported that Vermont has no ban on public nudity. Disrobing in public is a crime, but the cyclists disrobed before venturing out and would not be charged. Source: http://www.wptz.com/news/19749434/detail.html
West Virginia
If any person arrived at the age of discretion profanely curse or swear or get drunk in public, he shall be fined by a justice one dollar for each offense Source: 61-8-15. Profane swearing and drunkenness; penalty.
It is illegal to taunt someone for not accepting a challenge for a duel. Actual: If any person post another, or in writing or in print use any reproachful or contemptuous language to or concerning another, for not fighting a duel, or for not sending or accepting a challenge, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be confined in jail not more than six months, or fined not exceeding one hundred dollars. Source: 61-2-24. Taunting for non-participation in duel; penalty.
State code deems it unlawful for any person to have in his possession or to display any red or black flag. Source: West Virginia Code 61-1-6
Wisconsin
The serving of colored oleomargarine or margarine at a public eating place as a substitute for table butter is prohibited unless it is ordered by the customer. Source: 97.18(4)
In Sun Prairie, No rider of a bicycle shall remove both hands from the handlebars or practice any trick or fancy riding in any street in the city nor shall any bicycle rider carry or ride any other person so that two persons are on the bicycle at one time, unless a seat is provided for a second person. Source: Section 10.32.020 Manner of operation restricted.
In Wauwatosa, No person shall spit... upon the floor or stairways of any public hall or building or upon the floor ...or upon any sidewalk abutting on any public street or alley of said city. –Tjshome
Employers, Workers Navigate Pitfalls Of Social Media
If you've ever wondered what a social-media presence is worth in an increasingly digitized business world, just ask Noah Kravitz's former employers.
According to them, his Twitter followers are worth about $42,500 a month -- and they've gone to court to make him pay up.
Kravitz has been sued for flipping followers from his work account to a personal one when he changed jobs. His case shines a spotlight on some thorny and confusing truths for both companies and their workers in the digital age.
In 2012, it is nearly impossible to imagine any company engaging with the public without using Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or other social networks.
"Social media now is not an option, it's a necessity," said Anthony DeRosa, who, as social-media editor for Reuters news service, works to both share the company's content across the Web and help his co-workers do the same. "A couple of years ago that wasn't the case, but I think now people have to be a part of it, whether it's one social network or a couple of them."
But at the same time, creating an online relationship with customers comes with risks.
The past few months have seen more and more cases arise in which employees' personal and professional use of networking sites have created uncomfortable situations. Yes, there appears to be real and lasting value for employers in having an online presence that feels human, not corporate, sanitized and aloof. But it's a delicate balance that sometimes is just one angry rant or accidental over-share away from disaster.
"It's so easy to start these [social media] profiles that a lot of people might not have thought right away [about] what are going to be some of the repercussions down the road," said Jesse Dill, a Milwaukee attorney specializing in labor and employment issues.
"You're seeing there's some value to it ... but it seems like every year something new is going to pop up that is going to catch employers' attention."
PhoneDog vs. Kravitz
Dill and others in the legal community say there's little, if any, legal guidance on many aspects of social media in the workplace and that Kravitz's case could go a long way toward establishing a precedent in at least one area.
Last week, a federal judge decided to allow the case against Kravitz by PhoneDog, a website that reviews mobile gadgets, to move forward.
Kravitz worked at PhoneDog from 2006-2010, piling up 17,000 Twitter followers on the account @PhoneDog_Noah. But when he left, he switched the name of the account [a move the micro-blogging site allows] to @noahkravitz. He began sharing things he wrote for other tech sites, a move PhoneDog said wasn't fair because the company had helped establish his online identity on Twitter and elsewhere.
As the legal case moved forward, PhoneDog asked for damages equal to $2.50 per month for every Twitter follower Kravitz took with him.
"It takes both sides to compromise in order to settle their differences, and while I can't speak for Noah, I can assure you that we are looking to find a fair and reasonable solution," PhoneDog CEO Tom Klein said in a written statement earlier this month. "Noah has the ability to stop the legal nonsense and move on; it's his choice."
Kravitz, of course, sees it differently. He says PhoneDog agreed that the account would remain his, even sending out a message to followers to that regard, and that he hopes his case can clear up such questions in the future.
"If people can learn from my case and avoid the situation that I'm in -- be they companies or individuals -- then that's great," Kravitz said in an e-mail interview. "I'd hate to see the unique and newly developing power of social media -- the spirit of individual voices speaking on a variety of topics and such -- squelched by concerns over legal gray areas and shortsighted contracts."
Dill said, regardless of the outcome of that case, a few things are becoming clear. If a company wants to stake a legal claim to a social media account, it needs to make sure its employees know that's the case, enforce the social-media policies it creates and, when possible, have more than one employee maintaining company profiles on the sites.
"I really think this year you're going to see people starting to draw attention to the value of these profiles and really want to go out and protect what is developed on the company's dime," he said.
'Don't be stupid'
Ownership, however, is far from the only social-media issue that has bubbled to the surface in the workplace.
What of the cases when an employee uses his or her personal or professional networking accounts to do something that embarrasses the company? Or, even worse, insults its customers?
Take this ill-tempered tweet: "I find it ironic that that Detroit is known as the #motorcity and yet no one here knows how to f---ing drive."
That could be considered a pretty bad Twitter post for a contract employee at a company based in Detroit. It's a worse one if that company happens to be Chrysler Motors.
And it's a four-alarm meltdown if, as happened last year, that employee accidentally tweets it from the official @ChryslerMotors account. (Yes, he was fired).
Then there was the time Microsoft offered condolences to Amy Winehouse fans by trying to sell them her music. Or the avid Facebook admirer of a new car who turned out to be easily identifiable as an executive for that car's manufacturer. Or whoever at Kenneth Cole thought it would be funny to joke that pro-liberty protesters in Egypt were rioting because they heard how good the clothing company's spring collection was going to be.
"Not everyone is cut out to use social media," said DeRosa, who was recently named one of the "Top 100 Influencers in Social Media" by Social Technology Review. "Some people just don't know how to handle themselves in public."
At Reuters, he said, it's about striking a balance. He works mainly with people who are, themselves, professional communicators, so he wants them to have fun and be themselves while using networking sites. At the same time, however, they must remember they represent the entire organization.
"[When] you have a platform where they can say things instantly and the world can see it, you're always running a risk that someone's going to say something stupid," DeRosa said. "We try our best to lay out the guidelines and have the workshops, but it kind of comes down to common sense. There's not much more you can do than tell people not to be stupid."
From the NFL to the Olympics
Companies are increasingly realizing they need more on paper than just a plea for common sense.
Major corporations of all kinds are crafting more detailed social-media policies, hoping to avoid a public faux pas or, in the worst case, to have something to fall back on if they need to sack a worker with poor Twitter skills.
Professional sports offers a clear, if sometimes exaggerated, look. Virtually every pro league has instituted some sort of social-media rules for its players. Mostly, they're designed to keep players from tweeting or otherwise sharing shortly before, during and shortly after games.
Not that it always works.
Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen was fined $20,000 and suspended two games for violating Major League Baseball's policy last year when he went off on a profane Twitter rant after being ejected from a game.
Is anyone surprised that the always flashy Chad Ochocinco went afoul of the NFL's rules with a pregame tweet last season? (Don't call them the "No Fun Leagues" just yet, though. The front office loosened its tie and let players tweet during the Pro Bowl last week).
Sometimes image isn't all that's at stake. Volunteers with this year's London Olympics have been forbidden to post behind-the-scenes details about their experiences, with organizers citing the safety of athletes and other dignitaries as a concern.
It's routine for media companies like the BBC to require editorial employees to curtail online political speech and for most all employers to say company logos may not be used by individuals.
For example, CNN employees are told not to post anything online that does not meet editorial standards or, in most cases, has not been cleared as reportable on CNN platforms. Employees also aren't allowed to take public positions about the issues, people or organizations on which they report, unless they have been given specific permission to do so. Bottom line is, in most cases employees are told not to post something online about the stories we cover that they wouldn't say on air or write online.
Then, there are companies whose social media policies are full of quirks.
IBM's policy goes so far as to tell employees not to "pick fights" on social sites and that they must "speak in the first-person."
Cisco Systems requires that any public posting about the company be accompanied by this line: "The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cisco." (If nothing else, that should avoid problems on Twitter. That statement sucks up 92 of the site's maximum 140 characters.)
In addition to telling airmen not to lie or post porn, the U.S. Air Force also urges them to "stay in their lane," or area of expertise.
"If you're an aircraft mechanic, you're well suited to communicate messages about aircraft maintenance," the policy reads. "If you're an aircraft mechanic blogging about legal issues -- reconsider your blog."
'Drawing a line'
In the United States, the federal government may be having a say as to when those policies infringe too much on freedom of speech.
In several cases, employers have cracked down on employees for negative comments they made online. But the National Labor Relations Board has said they can't do so with impunity.
The NLRB is an independent government agency charged with investigating and remedying unfair employment practices.
"Employer policies should not be so sweeping that they prohibit the kinds of activity protected by federal labor law, such as the discussion of wages or working conditions among employees," the NLRB said in a report released January 25.
Last year, the board weighed in on behalf of an ambulance driver who had been fired because of a negative Facebook post about the company he drove for. The board said the company's policy, which prohibited negative comments by its employees on the Internet, was too broad. In February, the two sides settled the case.
"They seem to be drawing a line between employees complaining about the terms and conditions of their employment and employees just making personal gripes about their employers or the customers they serve," Dill said. "The employer has to be careful about their policy, but also how they react to an employee's posts."
To slice it another way: An employee is legally protected if he or she is sharing thoughts and opinions about job conditions with co-workers. But whining about them to anyone who will listen can still get you fired, especially when it happens on a platform that can spread those complaints all over the world in seconds.
"As people start to pay attention to these issues -- to see what employees might be doing with the social media accounts -- then we'll see more issues identified," Dill said.
He and other legal experts agree on one thing: With social media becoming ubiquitous in the workplace, those issues won't be going away anytime soon. -By Doug Gross/CNN/February 7, 2012
According to them, his Twitter followers are worth about $42,500 a month -- and they've gone to court to make him pay up.
Kravitz has been sued for flipping followers from his work account to a personal one when he changed jobs. His case shines a spotlight on some thorny and confusing truths for both companies and their workers in the digital age.
In 2012, it is nearly impossible to imagine any company engaging with the public without using Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or other social networks.
"Social media now is not an option, it's a necessity," said Anthony DeRosa, who, as social-media editor for Reuters news service, works to both share the company's content across the Web and help his co-workers do the same. "A couple of years ago that wasn't the case, but I think now people have to be a part of it, whether it's one social network or a couple of them."
But at the same time, creating an online relationship with customers comes with risks.
The past few months have seen more and more cases arise in which employees' personal and professional use of networking sites have created uncomfortable situations. Yes, there appears to be real and lasting value for employers in having an online presence that feels human, not corporate, sanitized and aloof. But it's a delicate balance that sometimes is just one angry rant or accidental over-share away from disaster.
"It's so easy to start these [social media] profiles that a lot of people might not have thought right away [about] what are going to be some of the repercussions down the road," said Jesse Dill, a Milwaukee attorney specializing in labor and employment issues.
"You're seeing there's some value to it ... but it seems like every year something new is going to pop up that is going to catch employers' attention."
PhoneDog vs. Kravitz
Dill and others in the legal community say there's little, if any, legal guidance on many aspects of social media in the workplace and that Kravitz's case could go a long way toward establishing a precedent in at least one area.
Last week, a federal judge decided to allow the case against Kravitz by PhoneDog, a website that reviews mobile gadgets, to move forward.
Kravitz worked at PhoneDog from 2006-2010, piling up 17,000 Twitter followers on the account @PhoneDog_Noah. But when he left, he switched the name of the account [a move the micro-blogging site allows] to @noahkravitz. He began sharing things he wrote for other tech sites, a move PhoneDog said wasn't fair because the company had helped establish his online identity on Twitter and elsewhere.
As the legal case moved forward, PhoneDog asked for damages equal to $2.50 per month for every Twitter follower Kravitz took with him.
"It takes both sides to compromise in order to settle their differences, and while I can't speak for Noah, I can assure you that we are looking to find a fair and reasonable solution," PhoneDog CEO Tom Klein said in a written statement earlier this month. "Noah has the ability to stop the legal nonsense and move on; it's his choice."
Kravitz, of course, sees it differently. He says PhoneDog agreed that the account would remain his, even sending out a message to followers to that regard, and that he hopes his case can clear up such questions in the future.
"If people can learn from my case and avoid the situation that I'm in -- be they companies or individuals -- then that's great," Kravitz said in an e-mail interview. "I'd hate to see the unique and newly developing power of social media -- the spirit of individual voices speaking on a variety of topics and such -- squelched by concerns over legal gray areas and shortsighted contracts."
Dill said, regardless of the outcome of that case, a few things are becoming clear. If a company wants to stake a legal claim to a social media account, it needs to make sure its employees know that's the case, enforce the social-media policies it creates and, when possible, have more than one employee maintaining company profiles on the sites.
"I really think this year you're going to see people starting to draw attention to the value of these profiles and really want to go out and protect what is developed on the company's dime," he said.
'Don't be stupid'
Ownership, however, is far from the only social-media issue that has bubbled to the surface in the workplace.
What of the cases when an employee uses his or her personal or professional networking accounts to do something that embarrasses the company? Or, even worse, insults its customers?
Take this ill-tempered tweet: "I find it ironic that that Detroit is known as the #motorcity and yet no one here knows how to f---ing drive."
That could be considered a pretty bad Twitter post for a contract employee at a company based in Detroit. It's a worse one if that company happens to be Chrysler Motors.
And it's a four-alarm meltdown if, as happened last year, that employee accidentally tweets it from the official @ChryslerMotors account. (Yes, he was fired).
Then there was the time Microsoft offered condolences to Amy Winehouse fans by trying to sell them her music. Or the avid Facebook admirer of a new car who turned out to be easily identifiable as an executive for that car's manufacturer. Or whoever at Kenneth Cole thought it would be funny to joke that pro-liberty protesters in Egypt were rioting because they heard how good the clothing company's spring collection was going to be.
"Not everyone is cut out to use social media," said DeRosa, who was recently named one of the "Top 100 Influencers in Social Media" by Social Technology Review. "Some people just don't know how to handle themselves in public."
At Reuters, he said, it's about striking a balance. He works mainly with people who are, themselves, professional communicators, so he wants them to have fun and be themselves while using networking sites. At the same time, however, they must remember they represent the entire organization.
"[When] you have a platform where they can say things instantly and the world can see it, you're always running a risk that someone's going to say something stupid," DeRosa said. "We try our best to lay out the guidelines and have the workshops, but it kind of comes down to common sense. There's not much more you can do than tell people not to be stupid."
From the NFL to the Olympics
Companies are increasingly realizing they need more on paper than just a plea for common sense.
Major corporations of all kinds are crafting more detailed social-media policies, hoping to avoid a public faux pas or, in the worst case, to have something to fall back on if they need to sack a worker with poor Twitter skills.
Professional sports offers a clear, if sometimes exaggerated, look. Virtually every pro league has instituted some sort of social-media rules for its players. Mostly, they're designed to keep players from tweeting or otherwise sharing shortly before, during and shortly after games.
Not that it always works.
Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen was fined $20,000 and suspended two games for violating Major League Baseball's policy last year when he went off on a profane Twitter rant after being ejected from a game.
Is anyone surprised that the always flashy Chad Ochocinco went afoul of the NFL's rules with a pregame tweet last season? (Don't call them the "No Fun Leagues" just yet, though. The front office loosened its tie and let players tweet during the Pro Bowl last week).
Sometimes image isn't all that's at stake. Volunteers with this year's London Olympics have been forbidden to post behind-the-scenes details about their experiences, with organizers citing the safety of athletes and other dignitaries as a concern.
It's routine for media companies like the BBC to require editorial employees to curtail online political speech and for most all employers to say company logos may not be used by individuals.
For example, CNN employees are told not to post anything online that does not meet editorial standards or, in most cases, has not been cleared as reportable on CNN platforms. Employees also aren't allowed to take public positions about the issues, people or organizations on which they report, unless they have been given specific permission to do so. Bottom line is, in most cases employees are told not to post something online about the stories we cover that they wouldn't say on air or write online.
Then, there are companies whose social media policies are full of quirks.
IBM's policy goes so far as to tell employees not to "pick fights" on social sites and that they must "speak in the first-person."
Cisco Systems requires that any public posting about the company be accompanied by this line: "The views expressed on this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cisco." (If nothing else, that should avoid problems on Twitter. That statement sucks up 92 of the site's maximum 140 characters.)
In addition to telling airmen not to lie or post porn, the U.S. Air Force also urges them to "stay in their lane," or area of expertise.
"If you're an aircraft mechanic, you're well suited to communicate messages about aircraft maintenance," the policy reads. "If you're an aircraft mechanic blogging about legal issues -- reconsider your blog."
'Drawing a line'
In the United States, the federal government may be having a say as to when those policies infringe too much on freedom of speech.
In several cases, employers have cracked down on employees for negative comments they made online. But the National Labor Relations Board has said they can't do so with impunity.
The NLRB is an independent government agency charged with investigating and remedying unfair employment practices.
"Employer policies should not be so sweeping that they prohibit the kinds of activity protected by federal labor law, such as the discussion of wages or working conditions among employees," the NLRB said in a report released January 25.
Last year, the board weighed in on behalf of an ambulance driver who had been fired because of a negative Facebook post about the company he drove for. The board said the company's policy, which prohibited negative comments by its employees on the Internet, was too broad. In February, the two sides settled the case.
"They seem to be drawing a line between employees complaining about the terms and conditions of their employment and employees just making personal gripes about their employers or the customers they serve," Dill said. "The employer has to be careful about their policy, but also how they react to an employee's posts."
To slice it another way: An employee is legally protected if he or she is sharing thoughts and opinions about job conditions with co-workers. But whining about them to anyone who will listen can still get you fired, especially when it happens on a platform that can spread those complaints all over the world in seconds.
"As people start to pay attention to these issues -- to see what employees might be doing with the social media accounts -- then we'll see more issues identified," Dill said.
He and other legal experts agree on one thing: With social media becoming ubiquitous in the workplace, those issues won't be going away anytime soon. -By Doug Gross/CNN/February 7, 2012
Economic Chaos Ahead
Let’s think about the kind of mess that we’re in. Federal 2010 Medicare and Medicaid expenditures totaled $800 billion. The projected annual growth of both programs is about 7 percent. Social Security expenditures are more than $700 billion a year. According to the 2009 Social Security and Medicare trustees reports, by 2030, 49 percent of federal revenues will go for Social Security and Medicare payments. The unfunded liability of both programs is already $106 trillion.
But not to worry. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it’s possible to sustain today’s level of federal spending and even achieve a balanced budget. All that Congress would have to do is raise the lowest income tax bracket of 10 percent to 25 percent and the middle tax bracket of 25 percent to 66 percent and raise the 35 percent tax bracket to 92 percent. That’s a static vision that assumes that people will have no response and they’ll work just as hard and send more money to Washington. If Congress did legislate such tax increases, it would be the economic equivalent of committing national hara-kiri.
Professor Daniel Klein, editor of Econ Journal Watch, and Professor Tyler Cowen, general director of the Mercatus Center, both based at George Mason University, organized a symposium to promote a better understanding of the U.S. debt crisis. The symposium’s title, “U.S. Sovereign Debt Crisis: Tipping-Point Scenarios and Crash Dynamics” (http://econjwatch.org), is a strong hint about the seriousness of our nation’s plight.
Professor Cowen introduced the symposium pointing out that in 2011, the major crisis was in the eurozone, where Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland dealt with the risk of default. The survival of the eurozone is now seriously doubted. Cowen added: “When it comes to a sovereign debt crisis, it is no longer possible to say ‘it can’t happen here.’ Right now, we are borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar the federal government spends, and the imbalance has no end in sight.”
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, associate professor of economics at San Jose State University, says that a default on Treasury securities appears inevitable.
He says that the short-run consequences for the economy will be painful but that the long-run consequences, both political and economic, could be beneficial. That’s because an economic collapse is the only way we will come to our senses. That’s a tragic statement about the foresight of the American people.
Participant Garrett Jones, associate professor of economics at George Mason University, is a bit more optimistic, seeing default as being less likely. But he argues that “default is still possible, and the GOP offers a uniquely American path to default: an unwillingness to raise taxes.”
Dr. Arnold Kling is a member of the Financial Market Working Group at the Mercatus Center and tells us that the “U.S. government has made a set of promises that it cannot keep.” He says that the “promises that are most important to change are Social Security and Medicare.”
Joseph J. Minarik is senior vice president and director of research at the Committee for Economic Development. He argues that a “U.S. financial meltdown today is eminently avoidable. The wealthiest nation on earth, despite a painful economic slowdown, maintains the wherewithal to pay its bills. The open question is whether it maintains the will and the wisdom.”
Peter J. Wallison holds the Arthur F. Burns chair in financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He agrees with Kling that “the most likely source of a U.S. sovereign debt crisis … is a failure of the U.S. political system to address the growth of the major entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”
My translation of the symposium’s conclusions is that it is by no means preordained that our nation must suffer the same decline as have other great nations of the past — England, France, Spain, Portugal and the Ottoman and Roman empires. All evidence suggests that we will suffer a similar decline because, as Professor Cowen says, “the American electorate has dug in against both major tax increases and major spending cuts.” -By Walter Williams/Front Page Mag/February 7, 2012
But not to worry. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it’s possible to sustain today’s level of federal spending and even achieve a balanced budget. All that Congress would have to do is raise the lowest income tax bracket of 10 percent to 25 percent and the middle tax bracket of 25 percent to 66 percent and raise the 35 percent tax bracket to 92 percent. That’s a static vision that assumes that people will have no response and they’ll work just as hard and send more money to Washington. If Congress did legislate such tax increases, it would be the economic equivalent of committing national hara-kiri.
Professor Daniel Klein, editor of Econ Journal Watch, and Professor Tyler Cowen, general director of the Mercatus Center, both based at George Mason University, organized a symposium to promote a better understanding of the U.S. debt crisis. The symposium’s title, “U.S. Sovereign Debt Crisis: Tipping-Point Scenarios and Crash Dynamics” (http://econjwatch.org), is a strong hint about the seriousness of our nation’s plight.
Professor Cowen introduced the symposium pointing out that in 2011, the major crisis was in the eurozone, where Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland dealt with the risk of default. The survival of the eurozone is now seriously doubted. Cowen added: “When it comes to a sovereign debt crisis, it is no longer possible to say ‘it can’t happen here.’ Right now, we are borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar the federal government spends, and the imbalance has no end in sight.”
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, associate professor of economics at San Jose State University, says that a default on Treasury securities appears inevitable.
He says that the short-run consequences for the economy will be painful but that the long-run consequences, both political and economic, could be beneficial. That’s because an economic collapse is the only way we will come to our senses. That’s a tragic statement about the foresight of the American people.
Participant Garrett Jones, associate professor of economics at George Mason University, is a bit more optimistic, seeing default as being less likely. But he argues that “default is still possible, and the GOP offers a uniquely American path to default: an unwillingness to raise taxes.”
Dr. Arnold Kling is a member of the Financial Market Working Group at the Mercatus Center and tells us that the “U.S. government has made a set of promises that it cannot keep.” He says that the “promises that are most important to change are Social Security and Medicare.”
Joseph J. Minarik is senior vice president and director of research at the Committee for Economic Development. He argues that a “U.S. financial meltdown today is eminently avoidable. The wealthiest nation on earth, despite a painful economic slowdown, maintains the wherewithal to pay its bills. The open question is whether it maintains the will and the wisdom.”
Peter J. Wallison holds the Arthur F. Burns chair in financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He agrees with Kling that “the most likely source of a U.S. sovereign debt crisis … is a failure of the U.S. political system to address the growth of the major entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”
My translation of the symposium’s conclusions is that it is by no means preordained that our nation must suffer the same decline as have other great nations of the past — England, France, Spain, Portugal and the Ottoman and Roman empires. All evidence suggests that we will suffer a similar decline because, as Professor Cowen says, “the American electorate has dug in against both major tax increases and major spending cuts.” -By Walter Williams/Front Page Mag/February 7, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)