Tag: blockheaded

What are they thinking in Iowa?

A recent care2.com article reports on proposed legislation in Iowa that would go far beyond the already idiotic ban on caffeinated alcoholic beverages such as Four Loko. As reported by Reason and cited within the care2.com story:

The bill defines “caffeinated alcoholic beverage” as “any beverage containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume, including alcoholic liquor, wine, and beer, to which caffeine is added.” Hence it apparently applies not only to drinks with a noticeable caffeine kick but also to coffee-flavored liqueurs with detectable amounts of the stimulant, such as Kahlua or Tia Maria, and any cocktails made with them, such as a Black Russian or a Mudslide.

Elsewhere in the article, the penalty is listed, which is a fine between $65 and $625 and up to 30 days in jail, and revocation of any liquor license if applicable.

This is a giant step too far and smacks of knee-jerk reactionism. (While I disagree with the FDA’s hardball stance on Four Loko and its ilk, that’s not what is at issue here.) For decades, bars have been making such drinks and serving them with no observed ill effects.

I fail to see what possible good could come of passing this bill. Seriously, don’t the cops in Iowa (and for that matter, Iowa’s ABD agents) have better things to spend their time on? Are they really going to cite people for ordering a shot of bourbon, a cola, and actually mixing the two?

A Texas-sized Super Bowl seating snafu

I didn’t watch the Super Bowl this year; the only reason it’s on my DVR is so I can watch the commercials and study them like any other marketing guy. And the story I’m writing about here is on a PR disaster that’s probably going to leave Jerry Jones with a Texas-sized headache–and which may well preclude the Dallas Cowboys franchise from hosting another Super Bowl any time soon.

The New York Times and the New York Daily News reported on a seating snafu caused by the failure to complete some sections of temporary bleachers in time for the game. The story also hints that part of it had to do with Jerry Jones’s desire for a Super Bowl attendance record, which was ultimately unsuccessful (103,219 versus the record set in 1980 at the Rose Bowl of 103,985).

To their credit, the NFL did something to try and make things right, offering the fans who were not able to be relocated to other seats in the stadium free food and merchandise and the chance to watch the game from one of the stadium’s private clubs and/or the standing-room-only rooms, as well as a refund of three times the face value of the tickets.

The refund may well not cover what some scalpers charged for tickets. But I’ve ranted about scalpers before, and my opinion of them has not changed at all. Suffice it to say I have a low opinion of those who would profit at the expense of the NFL and their fans, and I’m disappointed the NFL and its member teams have done almost nothing about Super Bowl ticket scalping. It’s entirely possible the NFL doesn’t care, but that’s kind of a side issue here.

Anyway, this quote from Ashante Green of Pittsburgh (at the end of the NY Times story), who was relocated from an unusable section 240A seat to one in section 448 (in the upper deck), sums it up nicely:

It’s ridiculous… What am I supposed to do? Not go in?

I consider what happened here an embarrassment to all of Texas. Mr. Jones should be ashamed of himself and the bad PR he brought to not only his franchise, but the NFL, his city, and his state. Look, guys, if you’re going to put in temporary seating to try and break the attendance record, make sure it’s ready to use by game time. Otherwise, you just look like a bunch of idiots. And let’s be honest here, there are enough people that have this mistaken stereotype in their heads about Texas being full of “dumb cowboys” or worse. Mr. Jones, and his greedy, selfish quest for a Super Bowl attendance record, didn’t exactly help.

The least that could have been done, was to acknowledge that there were tickets out there for unusable seats prior to game time, and have the contingency plan ready to go and announced. It’s much better from a PR standpoint to admit a goof like this before you have hundreds of disgruntled fans rather than after.

That’s illegal in Sudan?

NewsBlaze.com recently reported on one of the more bizarre police blotter cases on the planet. And it comes out of a Muslim fundamentalist part of Sudan.

A Sudanese court convicted seven men and one woman for indecency and fined them each the local currency equivalent of US$80. The men’s “indecency” was wearing makeup during a fashion show in the town of Khartoum; the woman’s “indecency” was being the makeup artist.

Unfortunately this is par for the course for countries ruled by law based in religious fundamentalism. It’s not entirely unexpected that a fundamentalist regime takes such a dim view of free expression rights, acknowledged in Article 19 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Regardless, this is such a pathetic use of law enforcement resources that it deserves condemnation on those grounds alone.

Shame on you, Sudan. If you wonder why the world looks down on you, this is why.

A thin line between vandalism and art: the graffiti controversy

CultureMap Houston recently reported on Houston’s new Graffiti Mobile and a photo opportunity featuring the truck and Houston Mayor Annise Parker. The story describes the event and contains a few key quotes from Mayor Parker which I would like to address:

“I have mixed emotions about being here,” Mayor Annise Parker told the crowd. “This is a great new graffiti truck and we are going to do wonderful things with it. The bad news is that we have to do it at all… As we get more aggressive, they [graffiti artists] seem to get wilier and find new places to put graffiti.”

[…]

“This is a feel-good event,” Parker said, “but since the media is here, I think we need to make a really strong point: Graffiti is a crime. We spend tens of thousands — in fact, I think it’s about a million dollars a year cleaning up graffiti. Those are your tax dollars we’re spending.”

A previous story on Culturemap Houston takes a different tack and features an interview with well-known urban artist GONZO247 of Aerosol Warfare. These quotes in particular stand out (from Carolyn Casey, the education program director for Aerosol Warfare):

“Awhile back, they [City Council] had a meeting open to the public, and they specifically invited all the art people and us because they said they wanted to discuss the graffiti problem,” Casey says. “We thought they were being open to an idea of ours, but they really just called us all there to tell us to tell our friends to stop doing it. They weren’t open to new ideas, and said that as long as they’re spending money on abatement, they’re not going to spend any money on programs.

“But the city’s going to continue spending money on abatement if they don’t have a real solution for it. We see vandalism as different from art, and they consider them to be one.”

I think it’s rather cowardly and pathetic on the part of our city’s government to blur the lines between vandalism and art. There is a huge difference; the most obvious component of the difference between the two is the consent of the owner of the property being “decorated.” If the owner approves, it’s art; if the owner has not consented, it’s more than likely vandalism. I would usually define most lower forms of graffiti such as “tagging” as vandalism. In fact “tagging” is usually what comes to mind when most people think of graffiti. I believe this is a shame as there is a huge difference between legitimate street art and marking one’s “turf” with spray paint. The latter is more directly compared to the behavior of animals who urinate to mark their territory. Unfortunately, spray paint is more visibly noxious and permanent, as well as more difficult to clean up.

I do not support vandalism. I support art, and more importantly I support public awareness of the differences between vandalism and art. If the government of the City of Houston cannot understand the difference between the two, I believe they have failed us all.

What’s all the fuss about “Skins” on MTV?

The Hollywood Reporter’s Live Feed blog recently reported on the Parents Television Council’s vicious condemnation of the MTV series “Skins” and followed it up with a report that the PTC called for a Federal investigation into the show. The show is about high-school-age characters, and features casual sex and drug use. The PTC has made their condemnation of the series as “the most dangerous show for teens” in spite of a TV-MA rating.

I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. Teenagers have used drugs and partaken of casual sex before “Skins” and will continue to do so afterwards. Seriously, folks, don’t blame the show for the actions of the kids, even if they are your kids. I would like to think by the age of 13 or 14 that most young adults have learned the difference between fantasy and reality. And again, just because the PTC doesn’t like a show, doesn’t mean MTV should bow down and kiss their feet and pull the show.

The latter report also states the PTC is calling for a boycott of Taco Bell, who sponsors the program. This smacks of censorship, which as any regular reader of this blog knows, is one of my biggest pet peeves. So I’m calling on my readers out there, sometime within the next couple of weeks, to eat out at Taco Bell at least once. In fact, let the staff know you’re doing it because Taco Bell sponsors “Skins” and in spite of the PTC.

As I have learned from my time at the poker table, the best way to respond to a bluff is to call it. Maybe once word gets out this has actually been a PR boost for Taco Bell and MTV, the PTC will back down. But I’m not holding my breath.

Maybe the PTC should spend more time explaining to parents how to use the parental control features on TV sets and cable boxes. Or better yet, how to explain the dangers of drug use and casual sex to their sons and daughters.

To be fair, I honestly think MTV can do a better job. Did it ever occur to the PTC that maybe that’s what “Skins” is about?