Philonoist.net

Three seperate lawsuits are now facing the McDonald’s corporation. And all three of them are going to get thrown out, if I’m understanding them correctly. All three center around McDonald’s french fries, which McDonald’s publicly acknowledged last week contain milk and wheat ingredients. One child allergic to gluten became ill after eating the fries, and a woman in Illinois with celiac disease also became ill. Finally, one women in California who has sworn off animal products sued and claimed she wouldn’t have eaten the fries if she had known they contained animal products.

I’ll start with the last, since it’s the easiest: You’re in a McDonald’s, and you expect something to not contain animal products? The air in McDonald’s probably contains animal products. The fries are cooked in the same oil as the Chicken McNuggets. Put two and two together lady. Same goes for the folks with gluten problems. Why are you at McDonald’s? Celiac disease requires a specific (gluten-free) diet that fits your need. McDonald’s isn’t part of that diet. And there are plenty of bread products in the vicinity that I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near McDonald’s if I was allergic to wheat.

Don’t sue a company because their food made you fat or because you’re allergic to gluten and you thought “the fries are safe”. Save lawsuits for real issues that matter. Like their coffee being too hot.

Edit: We’re going down the rabbit hole, Alice! Last week, McDonalds claimed their fries contained allergen products. Today they issued a press release saying the opposite. Curiouser and Curiouser. Apparently, I’m not alone in the confusion over this.

Technorati Tags: McDonalds, legal, lawsuit

First of all, I love the Olympics, even if it is the greatest time-suck known to man. What I mean is, you sit down, flip on NBC, USA, CNBC, MSNBC, or Universal HD, and you’re completely sucked in. You watch event after event. NBC claims to average 24.5 hours of coverage across all of its networks. I completely buy that. I’ve probably watched most of them. But here’s the thing: I don’t want to turn on NBC ever again, until Bejing 2008. How could the network have gone from must-see-thursday night to monday-crap-o-rama? “Coming after the Olympics: The Apprentice followed by Medium!” Two shows I don’t ever want to see. And Conviction? Every curling fan alive can now tell you the average age of a New York prosecutor is 28. (But it’s just another legal drama…. shouldn’t NBC plug “Law and Order” instead?)

Naturally, ABC did the same thing with its Super Bowl coverage. I admit: I tuned in to the post-Super Bowl Grey’s Anatomy. And, looking back on it, I’m not proud of it. (Though the ploy of a bomb in a body is nice. Kudos, writers of Grey’s Anatomy.) But there’s this little thing called “advertising to the right audience”. Fans of Olympic Hockey will not watch a show about up-and-coming attorneys. Hell, up-and-coming attorneys probably won’t watch a show about up-and-coming attorneys. And football fans aren’t going to possibly remember to watch an all new Grey’s Anatomy Sundays at 10. Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way.

I’m grateful to NBC for airing the Olympics, something that they’ve overpaid to air. Seems to me though that it would be easier to recoup your heavy investment by selling advertising time instead of using it to plug your own shows.

To the networks: We both know there are some people out there who want to watch schlock, but get real. You want to know why more and more people are turning to cable? Because your schedules are filled with garbage.

(While I was writing this, Cory Doctorow commented on my earlier post. Whee!)

Technorati Tags: Olympics, media, NBC, television, commercials

I’ve been throwing around in my head for a few days now how to write this, so I’m going to cut to the chase: I sell cosmetics. And I’m proud of it, dammit.

I know, you’re probably shocked. A male engineering student, selling makeup? Why? Because I’ll need money for grad school. Because Cutco Knives are cliche.

But mostly, because I think they’re good products. Now, I couldn’t tell you the difference between foundation and lip gloss, but I could tell you that the ones I sell are all-natural, cheap, and look pretty good. I coud tell you that harmful chemicals are included in department-store cosmetics, and that the ones I sell are chemical-free. I can tell you that the shampoo and conditioner I do use make a big enough difference that even a guy like me can tell my hair is healthier. I could say that the weight loss products (again, all-natural) are great too because I know people who have lost weight on them. There’s a suprising range of products, and they all seem to do what they claim. When was the last time you heard that about a product?

At the very least, you could check out the online store I set up. Please. Do it for the children.

Technorati Tags: cosmetics, makeup, skin care

It takes a lot to get me to write about politics, especially when there’s plenty of other stuff on my plate, but the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq(PDF Courtesy of the Beeb) is the most laughable document I’ve had the pleasure of reading in a while. It is little more than overt propaganda for the war and current administration, chock full of the best-of-the-best sound bites from National Security Council Members since 2003.

“There’s always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it’s not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday’s brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve, and we will win that victory.”

-President George W. Bush, October 6, 2005 (emphasis in original)

I suppose I wouldn’t have such a problem with this document if it were written as, say, a position paper, with thoughtful, well-researched opinions from someone not a bedfellow of the White House. But the format of this document is what pisses me off most: it’s a PowerPoint slide show in printed form.

There are no less than 4 levels of data: The title at the top of a section, a big arrow point, a bullet point, and a potentially misleading checkmark point. At first glance, it seems like we’ve already done the things checked off (especially after reading the introduction, which declares “The following document articulates the broad strategy the President set forth in 2003 and provides an update on our progress as well as the challenges remaining.” Emphasis mine, but there is no section labelled accomplishments anywhere in the document.)

I have to think the style of the document is intentional, since this is for mass public consumption. In a society where some 100 Billion PPT slides are manufactured yearly, how better to gloss over 2 years and 2,000 American Casualties than by watering down the war into a few bullet points?

I’m not asking for a timetable to end the war. We’ve tried that already, and the White House has balked. Fine. But I do expect the troops home soon. I expect that American problems should be treated with more importance than building a society centered around 8 pillars of varying Republican-Conservative ideals like non-regulated business and self-reliance. In a scary thought, as their own country turns against them slowly, the Bush White House is forcing more and more of itself onto Iraq.

“America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, to attain their own freedom and to make their own way.”

Yeah, right.

Partial Text of the Iraqi Constitution

Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status.

Wow. Pretty amazing that it’s explicitly stated in a “democracy” that’s been going strong for about, oh, 6 months, and not stated in our constitution, which has had about 228 years of practice.

You know, we should probably fix that. We could learn a thing or two from these Iraqi folk.

The most disgusting thing in the world is racism. And yet, one would argue, this is the oldest thing in the world. Why do we fight wars? Quite frequently, because of race, or religion, or nationality, or reasons that for those lost in the war, is something they cannot control. Men, women, children, have died because their skin was too black, too yellow, too dark. And, without being overly dramatic, who can forget those who perished in religious skirmish after skirmish, be it Protestant vs. Catholic, Christian vs. Muslim, Jewish vs. Everyone else.

Who is to say that whites are the “best”? To the <a href=http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2005/jul/20/072010065.html”>White Peoples Party of Nevada: I am white. I should be an easy sell. I want one reason you think I should join your party. But I bet that no matter what you throw at me, it will be vile, horrible filth.

Minorities are taking the jobs of America? Well, if they work harder, they should have the jobs. May the best person win. Whites are unfairly treated due to affirmative action? Perhaps, but if there were no racism in the world, we wouldn’t need programs like affirmative action in the first place? Blacks carry AIDS more frequently? Again, maybe, but that could be because they’re uninformed about safe sex thanks to poor schooling, which is due to a lack of funding, which is probably due, again, to racism. Minorities are lazy. Minorities are worthless. Mixed-Marriage is a sin. Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong.

As you can see, racism is not the answer. It is the problem. And the problem needs, to paraphrase Einstein, a new way of thinking. One where the only thing excluded from the table is racism.

These groups are driven by hate, by, by bad experiences and misinformation by turning a blind eye to the present and following the perverse ways of the past. I feel nauseous now. I want to cover my ears, hide my eyes, and pretend that racism no longer exists, that is a thing of history. That the world is a place without boundries, without borders, without fear, without hate. But that world is a long way off. That world does not, may never exist.

If the only thing I have to fear is fear itself, then right now I’m very, very afraid.

I always get a big kick out of the kind of commercials shown during the time when most people are at work. Apparently, the target audience is people who have crashed their car, are out of work, have menopause, need fast cash now, etc. Which, if you’re at home from 10-3, there’s a good chance you fall into one of those categories.

I guess I should be used to this: when I watch sports in primetime on TV, I’m constantly reminded to drink more beer and take my Viagra. But the quality of those commercials seems just so much better than these. I’m sick of the grainy-no-sound-”I can’t believe we can get paid to make video games!” advertisement.

And, I wouldn’t really have a problem with it. Advertising is advertising. But the number of law commercials during the soap-hours is absurd. Every 3 commercials, John “for the people” Morgan reminds me that if I’ve been injured, I may be entitled to compensation. I guess my beef is this: If you choose your lawyer based on their television advertisement, that’s pretty vile. You should, in my opinion, choose a lawyer because they’re the best. You almost certainly wouldn’t choose a doctor because they’ve got the flashiest ad campaign, would you? (Even for popular outpatient surgeries, you’d maybe have an idea of who to go to, but you’d probably consult with your own primary care physician first.)

Ah, but the best lawyers are the ones who have money to advertise, right? Well, not exactly. The best lawyers are the ones with the most money, that’s true, but that doesn’t mean they’re the best. That just means they charge the most. And, really, what defines a good lawyer? (Let’s ignore the obvious “a dead one” joke.) Total number of cases? Total number of cases won? Both of those can be bumped up through higher inventory. Percentage? 1 case won out of 1 is an excellent average, but you probably wouldn’t go with them. Years of experience? I’d bet that the track record stays the same, or improves slighty, over time. A ratio of cost and cases won? We could come up with baseball-like statistics for lawyers. (Which, come to think of it, why hasn’t someone done that already? Think of the bar arguments: “Johnny Cochran hit a lifetime .898 with a lifetime ACPC of $120,000. The man’s a legend. It’s why he’s in the hall-of-fame.” Think of the trading cards. Think of the fantasy law teams.)

Odds are, you probably pick your lawyer for the same reasons you pick a doctor, a carpenter, or a plumber: based on word-of-mouth. I honestly wouldn’t know how people pick these things: My doctor’s been set for more-or-less life, and I’ve never needed the other three. (I guess that’s true for anyone: if you’ve got a parent in a service-based business, you’re set.) But if I needed a lawyer, I’d probably ask one of my friends or neighbors before tuning into All My Children or picking one out of the phone book.

In fact, why do we have TV commercials in the first place, and why is advertising so pervasive? I guess, since word-of-mouth is so strong, advertising serves as the initial gateway into understanding a product or service. I’m certainly not going to seek out a Burger King and demolish a Monster Omelete sandwhich unless someone I trust tells me it’s really good, or I can get one for free. I may decide between the ATI or the NVidia graphics card, but I’m going to ask someone I know before making up my mind. I assume most people are the same, waiting for the advice of a trusted person (or, in the case of internet review sites, persons) before seeking out the product and (hopefully) making an opinion for yourself.

This leads us to the ultimtate question: who are the people who try a product first? In many cases, these people are paid to try these things either by the distributor itself, or more commonly, by an independant company, such as movie critics and their affiliated newspapers. In the case of the former, the opinion itself is rarely trusted (unless the link between distributor and reviewer is blurred, such as the current radio payola set-up); in the latter case, the review is trusted by people who are interested in that genre of products.

But I’m digressing. The point is: who’s the first to try a lawyer or doctor? And maybe here, the only way is advertising. But I don’t think so. Usually, unless you’re backed by a large law firm or large medical group, you lack the necessary funds to advertise en masse. (I suppose the cost of an ad in the classified section is small and acceptable, though.) Perhaps your friends and neighbors will direct clients your way, but if you’re a new urologist in town, you’re probably not going to have friends who can help. And I guess this reason is why so many doctors and lawyers are connected with large groups in their field to start.

Interesting. I’m not really sure where I’m going with this. So I’ll stop here.

When I read about the Delhi cow problem a few days ago, I wondered how they were going to handle repeat cow business. It turns out the government has its answer.

I’m impressed with the government’s handling of the problem. The Delhi government is providing $1.8 million to combat what is a serious traffic hazard (as well as a health risk).

Ah, if only the almost $300 Billion bill Bush signed into law yesterday gave me money for removing stuff from roads. Armadillos. Homeless people. Anything.

Link

Journalism as we know it, as we had known it since the early 1980s, died last night, along with Peter Jennings. Jennings had been fighting lung cancer for several months, and had told his viewers about it in an April 5th episode of his show.

But you’ll hear about Jennings over the next few days. It’s the death of journalism that’s far more important, far more relevant than one man who devoted his life to it. The era of the Big Three and Nightly Network news is now gone, departed after a decade long slow crawl into the grave dug by the internet and cable. Brokaw; Rather; Jennings. The names of the men who delivered the news, will, in as little as a generation, be lost to time.

Who will we get our news from now? CNN? Fox? If you’ve been with those networks at any point since their inceptions, you know that you have to like being yelled to by twenty-two different talking heads each hour, each given 90 seconds to present their case like screaming schoolchildren fighting over a toy to be able to watch an hour of CNN or Fox.

Personally? I liked having someone sit down with me, either before, during, or after dinner, and telling me what’s happening in the world, in my country, in my neighborhood. That’s what nightly news was. It was having an old friend over, night after night.

I’m partial, of course. Who isn’t? Everyone I know picks on a mysterious mix of network and anchor. Jennings was my favorite. Some liked Rather. Others like Brokaw. It was like Coke & Pepsi & RC, really.

Towards the end, they all merged into cover stories and high-profile interviews and consumer alert specials, until you couldn’t tell one from the other. Each half-hour was exactly the same as the one being presented the next channel over, or two channels down. The networks all stole story ideas from each other. And you know what happens if you try to mix Coke and Pepsi? It tastes like garbage.

Tonight, on all three networks, they’ll spend time talking about Jennings. And maybe tomorrow too. And if Wednesday’s a slow news day, they’ll look back “one last time” on the life and career of Peter Jennings. But the news will continue on, marching foward around the globe, and so the journalists will march their weary march alongside. But soon, the networks will lose their already damaged stranglehold on evening news dominance to fresh young hip urban sophisticated faces on CNN and MSNBC and Fox. And perhaps in turn, those networks will lose to the bloggers, who will keep blogging, screaming their primal tribal yell of “Death to the mainstream media!” from all the rooftops in Monterey and Miami.

And I will sit in front of my computer screen and read the lastest RSS feed from the BBC in London and wonder who will bother to tell the bloggers that mainstream media is already dead. That journalism died last night. And a small piece of me died with it.

Nothing, it appears, is sacrosanct, at least not anymore. Maybe I’m the only one who cares, but shouldn’t things in the Bible stay, you know, in the Bible?

I guess I don’t understand, and to be fair, I’m not going to bother to try. And perhaps Bible re-enactments occur frequently and I’m just not aware. There’s nothing wrong with having an electric manger scene set up in front of your house, nor is there anything wrong with having a sukkah built and living in it for a week (though, for the Jews, that does serve a purpose: A sukkah, children, is a large hut built in the field during Sukkot, or the festival of the harvest. When families had too large of a field to harvest, people would live in the decorated sukkah. And, if my childhood is any indicator, eat rasins. And shake giant lemons and palm fronds. Seriously. Ask a Jew. They’ll tell you.)

To cut off the complaints, I don’t have a problem with religion. I don’t have a problem with expressing your religious beliefs. I’ll go so far as to say I don’t have a problem with you, within reason, acting out things of historical significance from your religion. Want to drag a giant cross through town, then strap yourself to it? Awesome. Want to dive into cold, murky water to look for a cross? Go for it. Want to fast for one, or even thirty, days? Fantastic.

But I think there’s a big difference between having a low-key bible re-enactment and having CNN.com Mel Gibson ‘recreate’ a scene from a movie ripped off from the holiest book. That would be like asking the director of Gone with the Wind to ‘re-create’ the Burning of Atlanta scene during a Civil War rememberance day.

Oh, wait, we don’t have a Civil War rememberance day. Actually, huh, we don’t have days specifically devoted to any war. Sure, there’s Memorial Day, which honors all who have bravely fought defending our country. And we have Labor Day. And Veterans Day, which is the closest (as November 11th marked the end of the first World War). And people remember D-Day, and Pearl Harbor Day. And, of course, if you cut through the hot dogs and fireworks, there’s some meaning behind Independence Day. But still, when was the last time you remembered the war of 1812? Or the Civil War? Or, without mentioning current conflicts abroad, Vietnam?

But we have Easter. And Christmas (which is a federal Holiday). And people take off Good Friday. And Palm Sunday. And, to be fair, Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur.

Which is more important? The Church or the State? If we take the time to remember Christ, shouldn’t we also take the time to remember men like Baldomero Lopez, a casuality of the Korean War. Lopez was wounded as he prepared to throw a handgrenade into the next pillbox whose fire was pinning down that sector of the beach. Taken under fire by an enemy automatic weapon and hit in the right shoulder and chest as he lifted his arm to throw, he fell backward and dropped the deadly missile. After a moment, he turned and dragged his body forward in an effort to retrieve the grenade and throw it. In critical condition from pain and loss of blood, and unable to grasp the handgrenade firmly enough to hurl it, he chose to sacrifice himself rather than endanger the lives of his men and, with a sweeping motion of his wounded right arm, cradled the grenade under him and absorbed the full impact of the explosion, saving who knows how many men from his company.

Which man made the larger sacrifice? Arguably, whatever your religion, you can say that there are perhaps men alive today because of Lopez’s courage. And even if those men are dead now, the probably had children. And even if those children are now dead, they had children of their own.

Maybe, just maybe we can figure out a way to say to the agreement of everyone of all faiths that Christ’s death has had the same effect. But I doubt it.

But who do you know more about, regardless of your religion (or lack thereof)? Jesus Christ or Baldomero Lopez?

The Jews control the media? Bullshit.