September 2010 - Posts

If you were a kid in the 1970s, not a Saturday morning went by that you didn't get up and watch cartoons – and featured among those we watched were those cave-dwelling Bedrockians, the Flintstones.


"The Flintstones" was an animated cartoon that ran from Sept. 30, 1960 to April 1, 1966 on ABC.  The show centered around a working class Stone Age man, Fred Flintstone, and his wife Wilma, their daughter Pebbles and even the dog, Dino. The cartoon also featured his best friend and neighbor, Barney Rubble, and his wife Betty and, later on, their adopted son, Bam Bam. Today we celebrate that beloved show's 50th anniversary. 


When the cartoon first aired, it was criticized as being nothing more than an animated rip-off of the television show, "The Honeymooners." Created by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera, who probably dreamed in cartoons, the cartoon was modeled after the popular television show which, at that time, was the most popular television show on the air. At least that's what Hanna said. Barbera denied there was any inspiration taken from the popular series.


The show continues to air today, and has run in syndication pretty much since it went off the air in 1966. Why has a story about cavemen held the attention of children throughout the decades? Perhaps it's because it's still relevant. Fred and company lived in split-level homes, listened to music, ate in restaurants, drove cars, went to jobs, had babies…in other words, they lived their lives just like people have done throughout the ages.


But there were some prehistoric versions of modern-day conveniences. For example, the garbage disposal in the kitchens of Bedrock were simply pigs under the sink. When a person took a photograph with a camera, a bird inside the camera carved the picture into a stone tablet, which was then dispensed from the contraption. A baby wooly mammoth was the vacuum cleaner, while the adult was the shower; birds were horns and sirens; an electric razor was made from a clam shell with a honeybee inside to create the vibrating noise; a washing machine was a pelican with a beak full of soapy water; and a woodpecker's beak was used to play a record.


The show was full of gags and puns about rocks that made children laugh and adults groan. Hollyrock was the Stone Age version of Hollywood, and the stars there were Cary Granite, Stony Curtis and Rock Hudstone. Everyone's favorite band was Mick Jadestone and The Rolling Boulders.


The cartoon sparked a firestorm of marketing trinkets – everything from lunch boxes to plastic figures to dolls to linens. And kids everywhere ran around screaming Fred's trademark, "Yabba dabba doo!"


But the show also made history. It was the first American animated show to depict two people of the opposite sex sleeping together in one bed. The show also contained a laugh track, common to sitcoms in that era. The Flintstones was also the first animated series to last more than two seasons, a record the show held until 1992, when it was broken by "The Simpsons."


So Fred, Wilma, Barney, Betty and the rest, we salute you. Today we go barefoot in your honor. We will eat dinner at the drive-in, and we will order giant ribs. And when that whistle blows at 5 p.m., we'll take off toward home and hearth…just like you taught us to.


Happy anniversary!

Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

Paris Hilton thinks she coined the phrase, "That's hot." And apparently, she also thinks she owns it. This week, a judge sort of agreed.


Hallmark Cards created a greeting card using the phrase, along with her image, meant to be a parody. But Hilton didn't think it particularly funny, and she filed a lawsuit three years ago. That suit was settled this week. Nobody's tweeting any details, either…it's tightlipped in both camps.


While it is true that Hallmark didn't get permission to use her image on the card, it's also true that Hilton doesn't own the copyright to those two words, although she did make the phrase, well, hot.


The case has been called "significant" because it gave courts direction on how to judge a case dealing with the right of free speech versus the right of someone to control and profit from their persona. 


That "persona" as interpreted by Hallmark, was using HIlton's face atop a cartoon image. The card company maintained that the image had been altered so it became the company's own expression. 


But we worry about the precedent this will set. What about other celebrity catch phrases? What if they all go P-Hil and become sue-happy?


Here's some examples of some celebrity catch phrases that could be fodder for the courts…


• We all remember Jimmie Walker's famous 1970s character J.J. on "Good Times," and his famous phrase, "Dy-no-mite!" Could he sue the largest dynamite producer in the world and win, forcing the company to rename their product? 


• And what about Fonzie on "Happy Days," played by Henry Winkler? Could Winkler sue the writer of the Alphabet Song? The song does feature, after all, an elongated pronunciation of the first letter. Children everywhere would be affected. It would mean anarchy.


• Steve Urkel always asked the question, "Did I do that?" Will Jaleel White, who portrayed Steve, feel compelled to sue anyone who flops and poses that famous question? 


• Joey Lawrence portrayed – and it was a stretch – Joey on the show "Blossom," where his famous line was, "Whoa!" Will Mr. Lawrence be forced to sue equestrians everywhere?


• Will Mr. T take to the streets, body-slamming anyone and everyone who uses the word "fool?"


• Jodie Sweetin played sweet little Stephanie Tanner on "Full House" and was known for saying, "How rude!" Now that the precedent has been set, should she go after every person who utters those same words?


• Will Matt LeBlanc, who played Joey on "Friends," sue Wendy Williams, who has her own talk show, for stealing his scene-stealing phrase, "How you doin'?"


• And what about Arnold Schwarzenegger, now the Governator, who uttered the famous, "I'll be back" phrase in the "Terminator" movie? Will he have to chase down every person who ever leaves a room for just a minute?


Will the madness ever end? Not as long as people continue to be self-important and way too entitled…or as long it's "hot"…


Oops.

Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

We have heard it all now…


First of all, Israeli reservist soldiers who were keeping watch along a section of Israel's northern border with Syria were losing sleep. Apparently, their slumber was being constantly interrupted by wild pigs tripping the alert system. 


Somebody did some research, and it was discovered that the um, waste products, of lions and tigers can be an effective deterrent to keep other animals away. So the soldiers gathered large amounts of lion and tiger poop, and scattered mounds of it along the border fence.


They're now sleeping peacefully, as the pigs have gotten the message. 


Lion and tiger poop…who knew? What we want to know is, how did they get the lions and tigers to donate?


Another bit of news that has our mouths agape is the death of the Segway company owner, Jimi Heselden. 


Heselden, who was 62 and bought the company last year, apparently was out for a scoot on one of the machines when he lost control of the Segway and he ran off a cliff into a river.


The tycoon's body was found in the River Wharfe at Boston Spa near Weatherby, England Sunday morning, and the Segway was found nearby. A spokesman for the company says they are all stunned, and no one wants to talk about it.


We don't know whether to laugh or cry on this one, but we do send our condolences to Heselden's family and employees.


And last, but certainly not least in this odd news post, we find that the Octomom herself, Nadya Suleman, that famous mother of octuplets, held a yard sale over the weekend to try to save her home from foreclosure. 


Suleman sold baby clothes – we're sure the selection was unparalleled – and bikinis, as well as other items. She also allowed shoppers to have their picture taken with her for $10, and she posed with her children for photos at $100 a pop. She signed a Lakers jersey for someone who shelled out $125, and her little devils' Halloween costumes – they went as little devils – brought in $50.


According to reports, the mom who was already on welfare when she had the octuplets, is behind on her mortgage to the tune of about $7,500. She also has a $450,000 balloon payment due Oct. 9. 


We're thinking selling Halloween costumes and used bikinis aren't going to cut it. 

Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

This week's "Now THAT'S chutzpah!" Award goes to…LINDSAY LOHAN!

 

Who else? After the escape of a lifetime, this hollywood horror story has once again thumbed her nose at Lady Justice.

 

A judge in Beverly HIlls has ordered Lohan back to jail for violating her probation. She reportedly was on her game when it came to her acting skills, because she pulled off a great stunned expression as she was led away in handcuffs. She will sit in jail until her court date on Oct. 22

 

Under the terms of her probation, if she missed a drug test or got a positive result, she would face 30 days in jail. And this time, she won't spend a couple of weeks there and be released. It's only been a month since she was released from jail for violating her parole in a drunk driving case.

 

Lohan has quite the rap sheet. She was arrested twice in 2008 for driving under the influence, and pleaded no contest. She was supposed to attend alcohol education classes. But she failed to attend the required number of classes, and found herself in court facing a not-so-starstruck Judge Marsha Revel.

 

Revel ignored Lohan's "eff you" message so elegantly worn as part of her court-date manicure, but she did call the girl out on lying in the DUI cases, and for not following orders or attending the assigned classes.The judge even noted that Lohan had lied about her powder britches -- those famous pants Lohan was wearing that were covered in white powder. Lohan had lied, saying they weren't her pants and she didn't do any booger sugar. However, it was later determined that the pants were Lohan's favorite britches, and she had tested postive for cocaine in a court-ordered drug test.

 

Despite all of the tears and the pleas and the claims that she was "taking it seriously," Lohan went to jail. But she only did a couple of weeks.

 

Now she's tested positive for amphetamines and cocaine. She says she's prepared to face the consequences. But is she? Only time will tell.

 

In the meantime, we're completely starstruck. Not because of Lohan's acting chops or the way she can belt out a song about her daddy issues. We're in awe because Lohan has some serious chutzpah when it comes to owning up to her wrongdoing. Here's the Lohan formula: You do wrong. You blame others. You get all remorseful. You get a slap on the wrist. You go back to doing wrong.

 

Aaand...scene.


Note: Lohan was released later the same day on bond.

Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

Colonel Sanders is probably rolling over in his grave.


Kentucky Fried Chicken, in a little twisted bit of marketing, is using female college students to promote its new bunless Double Down sandwiches. The sandwich consists of two boneless chicken breasts, with cheese, bacon and a special sauce in between. 


The marketing ploy marks the second attempt in recent months to bring the chicken chain out of a dip in sales and name recognition. A survey showed that there are a lot of young people ages 18 to 25 – college-aged young people – who don't know who the "old dude" is in the KFC logo. Many of those surveyed thought the colonel was made up.


The fix? KFC is using social media and its Web site to promote an art contest, asking young people to create new artwork to represent the company. Now it is again calling on young people.


KFC is now using the buns of college coeds by paying each young woman $500 to hand out coupons for the sandwich while wearing fitted sweatpants with the words "Double Down" printed on the rear. We can only assume KFC is aiming this marketing toward the male portion of the aforementioned demographic.


So…let's get this straight…KFC is asking young women to parade around with "Double Down" on their fannies? All while selling KFC's latest concoction?


Interesting marketing twist.


Not everyone thinks so. In fact, some are actually angry about it. Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women says it's obnoxious to use women's bodies to sell "fundamentally unhealthy products." She adds that KFC seems to have forgotten that women often make the decision about what's to be consumed for dinner. Where's the marketing aimed at that demographic?


KFC has defended its decision, saying the marketing is, in fact, aimed at these young men who, according to their statistics, are the largest consumers of the Double Down. KFC spokespeople also say they've had no complaints about this method of advertising.


Well…we suppose the Double Down, at least in this scenario, isn't bunless.


Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

"Glee" kicks off its new season tonight…and all the world's Gleeks rejoice.


But there are those who hate the show. Some have blogged about it. Some have written articles in newspapers and magazines, not only criticizing the show, its actors/singers, but its writers and creator as well. They spew Glate everywhere.


But why? How can you possibly hate such a gloppy, sickly-sweet yet joyful music fest that features the delightfully sassy Jane Lynch as Sue Sylvester?


We read one guy's blog, and here's what he had to say…He called Glee a saccharine snorefest, and said it's a TV show you should ignore at all costs. We read that and think, "Bitter, table for one."


Here's why he hates the show. He says it's not funny. He says it's smugly satisfied with its own genius. He calls it average. He calls the characters lame. He also says he can't tell them apart. That explains a lot. 


He says everyone likes the show, remarks about its endless marketing, and says the songs are overproduced. He feels that no one cares about the type of teen angst that can be easily communicated through interpretive dance.


The ratings would suggest otherwise.


To the writer of this blog, we leave you with a quote from our beloved Sue: "I will go to the animal shelter and get you a kitty cat. I will let you fall in love with that kitty cat. And then on some dark, cold night, I will steal away into your house and punch you in the face."

 

Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

It has often been said – there's someone for everyone. In other words, your perfect match is out there…you just have to look for him or her.


Most dating sites have the same formula: you sign up, put up a photo and a description of yourself, and wait. You wait for someone else to do the same. You browse, send a few e-mail messages to those you're interested in, and you wait. You wait for someone to see your photo and profile, become smitten and send you a message. You wait. And wait. And wait.


And while you're waiting, you can read about or watch videos of people who've already been successfully matched on those sites. You're supposed to get a warm, fuzzy feeling as these seemingly love bug-bitten couples spout details about how they came together and how they're on their way to their happily-ever-after.


But what if you're, well, less than attractive? 


Well…Howard James thinks he might have the answer. His new dating site takes the aesthetically-challenged dater by the hand and guides him or her into the world of the socially up-and-coming. James launched his dating Web site, TheUglyBugBall.co.uk, recently, which has applications for other countries, including the United States. The site has about 1,500 daters signed up thus far. 


James, who also created DaterswithDogs.com and ForgetDinner.co.uk, has offered up "Five Ugly Truths" about dating as evidence of his site's worth. These are:


• Half the the daters in the U.K. aren't pretty, so instead of fishing in a small pool of prettiness and getting nowhere, you should dive into an ocean of uglies and have more choice. (He alludes that this is true in other countries as well.)


• Ugly people are a better caliber of human. Pretty people aren't very nice and often a bit shallow.


• Ugly people have had tougher lives and therefore tend to be more considerate and more loyal. 


• Once with an ugly partner, it is unlikely that anyone will try to take him or her away from you, so you can let yourself go once you've gotten together.


• Ugly people have lower expectations.


Many of the photos on the site look like they were posted as a joke, so it's hard to determine whether the people are serious about finding someone or not. And there's no photo of James. Is he ugly…or just shy?


The world may never know.

Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

This week's "Now THAT'S chutzpah!" Award goes to…BETH TWITTY!


Beth Twitty may be known in her community for a lot of things, but she's known the world over for being the mother of missing teenager Natalee Holloway, who went to Aruba some five years ago to celebrate her high school graduation.


Twitty made headlines this week for sneaking into a Peruvian jail and confronting the No. 1 suspect in her daughter's disappearance, Joran van deer Sloot. He once confessed to killing Holloway but retracted those statements. He was twice detained in her murder investigation, but was never charged. In June, he was indicted in the United States on extortion charges, after admitting that he took money rom the Holloway family in return for revealing the location of her body – which he never did.


Van der Sloot is being held in a maximum security prison in Peru on charges that he murdered another young woman, 21-year-old Stephany Flores, in his Lima hotel room in May. Flores' body was found in van der Sloot's hotel room, but he had already fled. Van der Sloot's visit to Lima was reportedly funded by the extortion money he had taken from the Holloway family.


Twitty visited Peru with a Dutch documentary filmmaker who is investigating Holloway's disappearance. On Wednesday, the pair managed to sneak into Castro Castro Prison, where van der Sloot is being held, even getting to the man himself. Twitty reportedly talked to van der Sloot for about five minutes before prison authorities removed her and the film crew.


Twitty's lawyer, John Kelly, has confirmed that his client did in fact see van der Sloot, saying that it was the pair's first face-to-face meeting since the night after her 18-year-old daughter disappeared. Kelly says Twitty didn't violate any laws or break any regulations. He called her a "mother acting on her instincts..she wants to bring Natalee home."


Kelly didn't know about the visit prior to the event, and said he felt Twitty didn't tell him because he would have encouraged her to rethink it.


Although he wouldn't divulge the details of the conversation, Kelly did say that Twitty did the talking, and told van der Sloot that he has "no hate in her soul" for him. 


So…for never giving up and having the cojones to sneak into a prison in a foreign country and face-off with the possible murderer of your daughter, we give our "Now THAT'S chutzpah!" Award to you, Beth Twitty. 

Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

Reggie Bush has to give back the Heisman trophy he was awarded in 2005. 


So what?


Bush isn't the only high profile player to take advantage of gifts during his college career. He's just become the poster child for it. Don't misunderstand – what he did was wrong, and he has only himself to blame. His once-glorified college career has now become fodder for late-night television jokes and sideline snickers. So we don't feel sorry for him.


But have college players learned anything? We don't think so.


During the past four years alone (the length of time it took the National Collegiate Athletic Association to determine whether Bush was ineligible for his 2005 season Heisman win), there have been numerous allegations of illegal contact between agents and college players. Just in the past few weeks, major programs have been called out, including Alabama, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia and Michigan. 


And that's not even the entire tip of the iceberg. You can't convince us that every top program in the nation doesn't have at least one player that will accept an illegal benefit. That's just how college standouts roll.


NCAA officials say they want this practice to end. They want stricter and swifter punishment for rule breaking. Yeah. In a pig's eye.


We'll tell you why this won't happen. It's because this is an issue that has been an issue for generations. And generations of NCAA officials have turned a blind eye to the problem. If they really wanted the problem fixed, every school would be disciplined the same and every program would be investigated with the same consistency.


These days, the NCAA seems to be preoccupied not with determining how to set the stricter and swifter punishments it wants into place, but instead is focusing on how to make an example of some schools by delivering harsh punishments.


Case in point: USC was cited for lack of institutional control regarding numerous improper benefits for Bush and hipster O.J. Mayo. The penalties included the loss of 10 football scholarships a year for three years, and vacating 14 victories in which Bush played from December 2004 through the 2005 season.


There have been other incidents that have been dealt with just as severely, but it just didn't seem to have the intended impact. Why is this? Start with the NCAA's reluctant approach to previous violators.


Instead of clamping down on guilty athletes and administrators, the NCAA has instead looked upon the incidents as things that should be kept hush-hush.  This is wrong because it only blocks young athletes from learning anything from the mistakes of their predecessors. 


Perhaps if Bush had this advantage back in 2004, he would have made different choices. Instead, he's the face of what's wrong in college football. And the NCAA is missing out on an opportunity to teach the next generation of athletes.


NCAA, here's what you need to do: Clean up your investigative system, find a way to punish agents who make illegal contact with players, and find a better way to compensate your student-athletes. There's enough money in the top programs to do this. It's time to grow up and face the music.

Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Filed under: , ,
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

A woman had to face a day in court for stealing hotel towels, while Lady Gaga walked around in basically no more than her underwear and carrying handcuffs…just what is going on in the world?


The woman was caught by a security guard at the Transcorp Hilton Abuja Hotel in Nigeria. He caught her as she tried to leave the hotel's grounds, and called the police. The woman was ordered to pay a $20 fine or spend three months in jail.


Three months? For some hotel towels? Come one…who among us hasn't pilfered some soap, shampoo and a towel or two from a hotel? 


While one woman was severely reprimanded for taking some towels, another breezed through security without an officer batting an eye, despite her wardrobe…or more accurately, lack thereof.


Lady Gaga walked through Los Angeles International wearing a bra, panties, fishnet stockings, boots and a jacket…and her trusty handcuffs were at her side. And she cleared security.


Security officials at the airport, when questioned, said their prohibited items list is based on what "experts" assess and analyze as a threat to aviation security. "Handcuffs do not pose an immediate threat," they said.


The airport's list of forbidden items does include, however, billy clubs, brass knuckles, kubatons, nightsticks, nunchakus, dynamite, flares, cattle prods, drills and gas torches.


Good thing the Lady packed light.

Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

The media has paid a lot of attention to the 10-year-old little girl with the big voice on America's Got Talent, Jackie Evancho. On the outside, she looks like she's all sweetness, with her blond hair, rosy cheeks and blue eyes. But then she opens her mouth and begins to sing.


Evancho has a voice that makes people stop in their tracks, mouths agape, before they leap to their feet and applaud. Both angelic and powerful, Evancho's voice is a mature soprano, rich and expressive. Her talent was first seen nationally on the show after her audition via YouTube. She's won over critics who originally said she had to be lip synching when she first appeared live on the show. Her renditions of "Pie Jesu" and "O Mio Babbino Caro" have stunned listeners nationwide.


But there are those that are worried about her. Some say she's frittering away her childhood by focusing on such grownup pursuits. Vocal coaches fear she's doing damage to her vocal folds. Others worry about the pain and pressure of finding stardom at such a young age. Remember Michael Jackson? Britney Spears? They both started young, and while one has passed on, the other still struggles to find herself while living in the spotlight.


But Evancho appears to have it together, and has a good support system in her family. She began her singing career at eight, and trains with a vocal coach. Her style is described as classical crossover. She also plays the violin and piano. She has performed in venues big and small, and will be singing at Carnegie Hall in December, the youngest female vocal soloist to ever have performed there.


But for now, she's preparing for the finals on the show, hoping to win the $1 million prize. The little girl who wants to do concerts someday must now, truly, sing her heart out. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnSEdl5GPG4


Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

The Portland (Maine) Press Herald editor/publisher apologized to the paper's readers Sunday after running a story about the end of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan that appeared on – you guessed it – Sept. 11. 


The story had no inaccuracies. It wasn't offensive. It contained no inflammatory remarks. It did not violate the paper's policy, standards or practices. No crime was committed. It was simply a piece about the end of the Muslim holiday. There was, actually, nothing to apologize for.


But apologize Richard Connor did. He was responding to the reaction from readers who saw the story being printed on that day as offensive. Connor wrote that the paper should have balanced the front page coverage with a story about Sept. 11, 2001 and its anniversary. He felt they should have shown more sensitivity in the layout of the page.


The criticism came via Facebook, Twitter and the paper's Web site, and there was apparently enough of it that the apology became, according to Connor, necessary.


But it wasn't. The paper did nothing wrong. It published an accurate story on the day that was the end of the holiday. The story did nothing to rub salt in the still-sore wound caused by Sept. 11.


The apology, however, is a different story. The paper now has to deal with injured credibility, since it has now effectively communicated to its readers – and beyond – that it can't be trusted. The apology has now not only alienated a portion of its readers, but it has made a negative statement about its own reporters. And worst of all, it has put its own editorial control in the hands of the outraged.


One blogger wrote that all of those who wrote, edited and placed that story were thrown under the bus by the apology. We couldn't agree more. 


It's okay to engage readers and let them have their say – it's what a newspaper, particularly a community newspaper, does best. Journalists need to hear what they're doing right, and what they're doing wrong, and the best place for that commentary to come from is readers. 


But part of the job of a journalist, and even more so an editor or publisher, is to take the crap flung at the paper because of its coverage, and turn it into productive fodder from which the paper and its employees can learn and grow. The job of an editor or publisher is not to cower and hand over the reins of the newsroom to the masses.


The worst part of this whole thing is that by wronging their own right, the Press Herald's leadership has now effectively taught its readers a lesson in intolerance, the one thing that no one wanted to see come out of the terrorism of Sept. 11. 


And when this is the case, the bad guys win. 

Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

A school in Canada has taken a different approach to slowing down traffic in a school district – and it's hoping drivers will, too.


The school teamed up with traffic safety groups to install a 3-D illusion, which looks like a young girl chasing a ball into the road. The image is painted on the road outside Ecole Pauline Johnson Elementary School in West Vancouver, Canada. When first approached, it looks like just a marking on the road, but it appears to rise up as the vehicle approaches. 


Designers created it to give drivers staying at the recommended 18 mph enough time to stop before "hitting" the girl. The design is part of a public awareness campaign, and police in the area are monitoring the effect the girl has on drivers.


But the campaign has opposition in those fearing that the image will cause more accidents than it will prevent.


The image will, however, only be in place one week, and then the results will be reported. If it appears to be effective, officials plan to add virtual speed bumps in other neighborhoods to deter speeding.


This whole thing got us to thinking that this technique might be useful elsewhere.


For example, it could be employed in bars. When a bartender sees that someone's had enough or is too drunk to drive, he could direct a person toward a 3-D image of a cop wielding a mean night stick. A thief might be deterred from breaking and entering with a similar image.


And for those who indulge a bit too much at the dinner table, a 3-D image of a giant, man-eating pork chop might encourage a little more discipline. Or maybe an image courtesy of the local slaughterhouse would do the trick.


And for those who have become addicted to porn on the Internet, perhaps instead of the image of a barely-clothed young lady, a man would see a 3-D image of his mother-in-law, looking very angry and wearing only a g-string.


The possibilities are endless.


Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

Today would have been Col. Harland Sanders' 120th birthday. We bet his birthday cake would have been finger-lickin' good.


The founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken was known for his white suits, black string ties, and that puff of white hair that matched his equally-white goatee. He started his restaurant in 1952, and today, when you say "KFC" or "finger-lickin' good," you can rest assured that everyone knows what you're talking about.


But although everyone knows KFC, apparently there are a lot of young people, ages 18 to 25, who have no idea who the "old dude" in the KFC logo is. In fact, five in 10 believe he's made up.


So the world's largest purveyor of fried chicken has plans to unleash a new marketing campaign aimed right between the eyes of those youngsters. And they plan to use social networking to do it.


KFC will use its Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and Web presence, including its Web site, to introduce Col. Sanders to young adults, who will be challenged to create and upload their own original recipe, er, um, artwork, that could be hung, if selected, at the company's headquarters, located in Louisville, Ky. The new piece of art would hang next to the famous Norman Rockwell painting of Sanders.


The winning artist will receive $1,100 ($100 for each of the 11 herbs and spices in Col. Sanders' original recipe) and get to paint a new portrait of the colonel. And get this: the paint used to create the masterpiece will be infused with that famous spice mixture.


No word yet on whether the paintbrushes will be made from actual leftover chicken leg bones.


Artists can upload their sketches of the colonel at kfc.com/portrait through Sept. 30.

Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web

Most people would agree that President Barack Obama has made history twice. The first time was when he was elected the country's first black president. The second time was when he signed the health care reform bill.

But there was a third time. When Obama pushed America further into debt than we've ever been before...with his economic stimulus bill. A bill that promised jobs and didn't deliver.

And now he's pushing again. This time it's a jobs program that will exceed $50 billion to rebuild roads, railways and runways. So he says.

Republican leaders have already thrown the first tomatoes at this one, saying it will accomplish nothing but increasing already excessive federal spending.

Many economists feel the economy could use another shot in the arm. Economic growth has grown at a snail's pace, sitting and looking fairly anemic currently at 1.6 percent, down from 3.7 percent at the beginning of the year. Although there has been slight increase in jobs in the private sector, it's far from the level of growth needed to pronounce the economy "robust," as the Obama administration would like us to believe.

Those same economists take that information and say that although another round of economic stimulus is justified, at this stage of the economic recovery, new government spending projects are not the answer.

We don't understand why Obama is using the words "jobs" and "economic stimulus" in the same sentence when describing his proposal, since no jobs will likely be created until next year. Stimulating jobs? Hardly. Stimulating Democrats and fence-sitters? Very likely.

Instead of explaining what this new stimulus would do, the president should instead explain to us why borrowing another $50 billion from China and other overseas lenders and injecting it into our economy will spark new economic growth.

They say you have to spend money to make money. But spending China's money isn't going to make the US of A one red cent. Obama is going into this with his eyes wide shut. Hopefully, when America heads to the polls to elect our next president, their eyes won't be.

Posted by bulldog | with no comments
Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web
More Posts Next page »