AGAIN!?!?!

I really thought she'd have to struggle to screw up her life more -- particularly with K Fed out of the picture.

But there are rumors flying about that she's pregnant with number 3.

Reuters: Report: Britney Spears Pregnant With #3

Britney Spears is pregnant with #3 according to the new issue of In Touch magazine.

We reported exclusively a couple of months back that Britney was already carrying #3.  I am not sure of the math or if that pregnancy did truly exist, is this one, or was terminated.

If Britney wants to be pregnant again then that’s her right.  I mean some people think the best way to gain custody of your kids is to just replace them with new ones.

Her sons Jayden James and Sean Preston continue to be the real losers in the Carnival de Britney.

Meanwhile, other sources are also saying that she's been shoplifting.

US Magazine: Britney Spears Strips Off Underwear in Porn Shop; Shoplifts Wig

Shortly before 1 a.m. on November 18, Britney Spears entered the X-rated Hustler Store in West Hollywood.

Spears loaded up on naughty skivvies and headed to the fitting rooms. But store employees "told her they don't allow people to try on underwear," a source at the scene says. "She was really upset."

...

At that point, Spears threw a fit, and took off her own underwear before trying on a pair of boyshorts (with "Barely Legal' stitched across the rear end) in the middle of the store while 15 other customers looked on.

...

Spears' tantrum only continued. "The staff told her she had to pay, and she rolled her eyes, but paid with a credit card," the source tells Us. As payback, "on her way out, she went up to a mannequin, snatched the wig off the head, and stole it!"

Disgraceful.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 01:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 303 words, total size 3 kb.

Mind Your Own Business!

I'm convinced that much of the world's problems could be solved or greatly reduced if people would just mind their own damn business.

The international news is all aflutter about Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf's antics in Pakistan.  Apparently, he's been bending the law to his own ends and having people jailed, beat up, and some other stuff.  This is a terrible thing for the Pakistani people.

But then I heard that we're sending our Deputy Secretary of State over to tell Musharraf to settle down and make this right.

Um, excuse me, but mind your own business.

It is not our concern what Pakistan is doing with their government -- unless they take to launching their nuclear weapons at us or something, of course.  I mean, a wary eye to the goings on in Pakistan would not be remiss, but telling them what to do?  As if we know better than Pakistan what Pakistan wants for Pakistan?

If you came to my house and tried to tell me what shirt I should wear, I'd tell you to mind your own business.  Go home and pick out your own shirts!

Some people argue that the stability of Pakistan's government is in our interest.  Well, if you have to look at me every day, what shirt I wear is arguably in your interest, but I don't let my coworkers pick out my clothes, either.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 03:08 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 236 words, total size 1 kb.

It's Not Called "News" Because No One Cares About It

Did you know that there is a Category 5 Cyclone named Sidr out there pummeling Bangledesh?  I just found out about it yesterday, but apparently it's been rolling around out there for a while and PZ at Pharyngula complained a little that it wasn't covered by American News sites.

Try checking the major American news sites: CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the New York Times, you can even try the BBC. There's a major news story missing.

I can't go check those sites now because they've been updated, so I will just take his word for it that there was no sign of Sidr on those sites two days ago.  But do I care?  No, not really.

I certainly don't want the kind people of Bangladesh or any place to suffer unnecessarily, (The body count according to CNN HNN this morning was 500) but no reasonable person can occupy themselves being concerned for every misfortune that befalls people all around the world.

The American news outlets cover stories that are of interest to Americans and they're a business, so they have to pick and choose from all the possible stories.  I doubt that Bangladeshi news outlets were covering Governor Spitzer backing down from offering illegal immigrants driver's licenses here in New York.  (That particular policy would affect one of the US's largest metropolitan areas and home to many, many immigrants.)

Usually when people bemoan the limited perspective on the world offered by American news, they are trying to make the case that Americans are ignorant and apathetic about world events.  I'm sure that case can be made, but it begs the question of whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

The assumption is that ignorance and apathy are a bad thing.  When I hear of the people who have died or have been hurt by this storm, my heart does go out to them, but there is no justification for suggesting that the harm or death of another person -- least of all those on the other side of the planet of whom I know nothing -- should rank very highly on my list of priorities.

If I could save some Bangladeshi person's life without compromising any significant goals, values, or objectives of my own, I would, but to suggest that  I don't because I am a bad person is presumptuous and insulting.  Mind your own business!

I have no expectation that the people of Bangladesh will pool their resources to fish Americans out of their sub prime mortgage crisis, but given the context of those Americans' lives, that is a serious problem.  Of course, people using this argument to lay unearned guilt on people don't much care for context.  The same sort of context dropping can be attributed to people who argue for minimum wage laws in Africa.

And before I let this go, I would also point out that the new agencies themselves are businesses who make money by getting people to pay attention to the news they report.  It would be idiotic to expect them to report on things no one cares about.  If they did, it wouldn't be called "news."  It'd be called "bird cage liners" or "landfill material."

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 02:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 541 words, total size 3 kb.

The Power of Prayer

Yesterday/Last night parts of Atlanta received up to an inch of rain.  Many parts received less.  The cause of this rain according to several viewers of CNN HNN this morning is clear: prayer.

You heard me.

On Tuesday, Governor Sonny Purdue lead a prayer vigil on the steps of the Capitol Building in Atlanta in which he asked God to send rain and yesterday his prayers were answered a little bit.

Skeptics have pointed out that the forecast prior to the prayer vigil already predicted yesterday's rain, but the faithful note that God's plan included the rain, the vigil, and even the forecast since before there were stars in heaven or unicorns in the Garden of Eden.

Gov. Purdue has noted that the drought is a message from God that people in Georgia need to conserve their water better.  Today, the faithful are taking God's message or mercy to heart and celebrating his love with long showers and tall, cool glasses of iced tea made from the water of Lake Lanier.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 11:05 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Religion Kills

Diana posted a link to this article about a lady in Nicaragua who died of an ectopic pregnancy.

MSNBC: Women die after Nicaragua's ban on abortions

MANAGUA, Nicaragua - Two weeks after Olga Reyes danced at her wedding, her bloated and disfigured body was laid to rest in an open coffin — the victim, her husband and some experts say, of Nicaragua’s new no-exceptions ban on abortion.

Reyes, a 22-year-old law student, suffered an ectopic pregnancy. The fetus develops outside the uterus, cannot survive and causes bleeding that endangers the mother. But doctors seemed afraid to treat her because of the anti-abortion law, said husband Agustin Perez. By the time they took action, it was too late.

Nicaragua last year became one of 35 countries that ban all abortions, even to save the life of the mother, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York. The ban has been strictly followed, leaving the country torn between a strong tradition of women’s rights and a growing religious conservatism. Abortion rights groups have stormed Congress in recent weeks demanding change, but President Daniel Ortega, a former leftist revolutionary and a Roman Catholic, has refused to oppose the church-supported ban.

I've been reading books on both sides of the god argument.  Right now, I'm in the middle of a spate of pro-god books.

The pro-goddies, Christians in all the cases I've been reading, always seem to argue that when other people claiming to the Christians do something bad, then they aren't reeeeaaally Christians.

That last book I finished spent considerable time on the question of whether or not Christianity supports slavery.  There are lots of Christians in history who supported slavery.  There are lots of notable Christians who opposed it.  Both of them quote scripture.

Seeing the intellectual yoga masters that are these Christians, I suspect that if those people who vehemently supported slavery before it was banished were still alive, they would find some way of arguing that in supporting slavery they were actually opposing it.

I think it's safe to say that most Christians are opposed to abortion in principle.  The pope uses his pope-by-way-of-nazi mind control powers on a HUGE numbers of Christians around the world and the proddies here in the US are always having big meetings about how they're opposed to it, so I think that conclusion is safe.

Of course, there ARE Christians who are fine with abortion.  My own mother is a Christian and while she doesn't love abortion, I know that she supports a woman's right to do with her own body as she pleases.  (At least she used to think that when I was younger.  She's grown a little more conservative over the years, so things may have changed.)

Other Christians allow for abortion under certain circumstances such as that of Sra. Reyes where the mother might get dead from it.

Every single one of the people in these categories has good, Christian reasons for thinking what they think.  They look in the Bible.  They talk to god or one of his appointed representatives.  They each pursue the typically Christian methods for sussing out what the right answer is to these ethical questions.  (I don't know if they negotiate about it, but I have heard sermons denouncing the practice of negotiating with god, so I will give them credit for being at least less stupid than that.)  And Christians in each group are as sure of their answer as the others.

There is a way for Christians to resolve the conflicts once and for all.  According to (at least some) Christians, they can all die.  The ones that are wrong go to hell.  The ones that are right get a pat on the head for being good little dogs to their faith.  Or at least so the story goes.

Actually, that story has some variations, too.  There's purgatory and there is the option of begging forgiveness at the last minute so that you get to go to heaven in any and every case.  And I do not want to hear from any Christians suggesting that the salvation of Christ's blood has any limits.

With so many Christians saying so many things, it's hard to say what the Christian answer is.  ACTUALLY, we have several Christian answers.  It's just that we can't tell who this "god" agrees with.

We find ourselves descending into a tangent about the nature of good here.  Does god define good or is god subject to good, too?  The Greeks answered this one.  But if god must conform to good himself (We're ignoring the omnipotence question for a minute to ask this) then surely there must be some way for us to figure out what good really is as it applies to abortion.

As far as I know, Christianity has not provided any satisfying answers to that last line of thinking.  I welcome arguments to the contrary.

It's difficult for me to think like a Christian.  They start from a set of insane premises, apply crazed methodologies, and arrive at conclusions that generally rankle polite people everywhere.  But do lets try.

It seems like abortions would be fine for Christians because babies are innocent.

Yes, there is the concept of Original Sin, but I have recently learned that the goal posts on that have been moved.  Christians no longer inherit the sins of their fathers (Please don't let's quote scripture.  I'm afraid our methods won't stand up to reason.) but that people are merely born imperfect.  It is not that we have sinned, but that we must sin.  It is impossible for a human being to live a sin-free life (Please don't tell me that Jesus was sin-free for his entire life and that he was both wholly human and wholly god at the same time.  Our methods... you get the picture.) and that is what is meant by Original Sin.

But babies haven't had a chance to sin, so if they die, they get to go and listen to Jesus tell them about salvation and then they can choose to go to heaven or go to hell.  (At least, that's what I was told happens to dead babies and cannibals living in the jungle.)  Mothers, on the other hand, have sinned and they will certainly sin again.  You'd think we would want to give her a chance to repent and redeem herself through following the path of righteousness.  That seems like the merciful thing to do.

It seems mighty presumptuous of us to take on the role of god and condemn a woman to death unnecessarily.

But mysteriously, most Christians object to abortion.

Atheists have no prescribed methods for coming to the truth.  They bumble around trying to figure things out for themselves.  There is really only one method for finding truth and that method is reason, but simply being an atheist does not mean you're rational.

Atheists who aren't really all that rational about their ethics tend to believe that an abortion for Sra. Reyes would have been the right thing to do.  We have no way of saying what most atheists think on this matter.  But we can say that it's likely they can see the obvious facts of the situation -- one potentially happy baby and one actually dead mother.  The pro-abortion conclusion is the likely one for someone unconstrained by edicts, dogma, and blind faith.

So, we have to ask ourselves: what set of methods led to the prohibition of the procedure that would have certainly saved her life?  What system of thinking contributed directly to her death by making abortion illegal?

I'm sure that there are some people out there who oppose abortion who aren't Christian.  I cannot imagine any non-Christian reasons for opposing abortion.  All of the convoluted rationalizations I've ever heard have been backed by Christians, whole churches, and theologians at some point or another.  And god has remained unsurprisingly silent on the matter.

It really didn't take all of these words to state the obvious conclusion here: religion killed Sra. Reyes.

As usual, religion brings pain, sadness, misery, and death.  I expect that if or when people wake up to the idiocy of religious dogma -- particularly Christian dogma -- as it applies to abortion, those who've opposed abortion during these trying times will disavow anti-abortion arguments as non-Christian. 

Sra. Reyes unfortunately will not be able to enjoy the luxury of that ethical and intellectual "flexibility."

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 11:12 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 1407 words, total size 9 kb.

¿Por qué no te callas?

I hate Hugo Chavez. He's an idiot and a tyrant. When I see those oil commercials with Americans, New Yorkers, talking about how thankful they are for Venezuela selling them discounted heating oil, I want to puke.

It's discounted because it's stolen, you idiots.

So, even though Spain is run by Socialists right now, when King Juan Carlos asked why Chavez doesn't shut up, I kind of cheered.

The title of this post is the king's verbatim remark as I found it on Barcepundit.

My Spanish is functional but not fluent, but I feel comfortable giving you a break down of the translation.

Por qué means Why. Literally, I guess you could break it into Por meaning "For" and qué meaning "what" leaving "reason" implied.

No is the standard term for negation in English as well.

Callarse is a reflexive verb which means that when it is used, you have to include an object pronoun (I think that's what it's called) with the conjugation to let the listener know who is affected by the verb. Callas is the second person form of the word.

Callarse means "to keep quiet , be quiet, shut up, be silent, remain silent." So, literally, te callas means "you shut yourself up." It's not a very polite thing to say to someone.

What's more, the king has used the informal you in the pronoun te. The formal is se.

Speakers of French will recognize a parallel to tous tu and vous. Feel free to correct me here, my understanding of French is very limited and constrained by my ability to quickly figure out cognates between it and all the other words I know in English and every other language. English lost its thees and thous and all that a long time ago, so English speakers sometimes have trouble with this.

Te is familiar. You only use it when talking to friends or other people you know very well. It is could be considered impolite, unprofessional, or even rude to misuse it. You can also use it to address children.

In this particular context, professionalism would be expected, which makes the king's comment combined with the fact that he got up and walked out of the session all that much more devastating.

I agree with Gus Van Horn's analysis of the event, but before I get to that, watch the video:


Around 0:23, Juan Carlos leans forward and asks Chavez why he doesn't shut up.  You don't have to speak Spanish to tell that he is exasperated by Chavez's attempts to interrupt the speaker, Sr. Zapatero, the current Spanish Prime Minister.

As Gus tells it rightly (daily and nightly*), Chavez doesn't shut up because no one ever holds him accountable for behaving like a childish ass.  Even here, the BBC makes it sound like Juan Carlos was the one out of line even though Hugo Chavez is the one following the Bill O'Reilly school of debate.  That might work on Fox News, but it isn't anywhere considered to be polite.

From Gus:

Hugo Chavez is has a long track record of behaving like an infant on the international stage, and is well-known for oppressing his own people, as well as for meddling in the affairs of other countries. He should remain uninvited to any summit of civilized nations. The leftist press is not blameless here, but the greater share of the blame lies with the many politicians who will not stand up to Chavez, even if only to call a spade a spade.

Now that I think of it, the king of Spain can be called for something here: stooping so low as to attend a conference in which Hugo Chavez got to pose as a civilized man in the first place!

Indeed.

* I'm so very, very sorry for that.  I'll stop.  (Collaborate and listen...)

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 11:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 643 words, total size 5 kb.

A Fool and Her Panties...

So, as you probably already know (because I am so sure everyone who reads my blog follows the life of Britney the way that I do), Britney Spears spends $16,000 a month on clothes.

If I had just $5,000 a month to spend on clothes, I can promise you would never ever see my crotch when I get out of a car.

But this woman spends $16,000 a month and we still see where babies come from on a regular basis.

And if she's spending a five digit number on clothing, WHY is she photographed shopping at The Gap?  How can you possibly spend $16,000 on hoodies, white t-shirts, and khaki pants?

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 11:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Better a Dead Hetero Than an Absent Gay?

Joe.My.God quotes Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney:

Even when there's a divorce, you still have a mom and a dad. And even where one member of the partnership may pass away, the memory and the characteristics of that gender, of that partner influence the development of a child. I'm in favor of promoting, as a society, the marriage of men and women and the development of children in that kind of setting.

Unlike Joe, I do not take these remarks to mean that Mitt thinks it's better to have one dead parent than two gay ones.  I think he just means to say that if, somehow, a child winds up with just one parent, it's better to have a straight one than a gay one.

The part that perplexes me is that in addition to that, he seems to think that the child somehow benefits from the memory of the absent parent only when he is able to contrast the gender of the absent parent against the remaining one.

I know.  It's weird.

I can see the conversation with my dad now.

Big Daddy Flibbert: Son, I don't know what to get your mother for Christmas.  I was thi--

Flibbert: Wait.  Mother.  She's the one with the boobs and the longer hair, right?  Sometimes she wears odd garments that are loose and flap around her legs when she walks?

Big Daddy Flibbert: That's right.  I was thinking that I'd get her --

Flibbert: Waitaminute.  There's that other one with boobs, too. 

Big Daddy Flibbert: That's your sister.

Flibbert: I'm so confused.

Big Daddy Flibbert: Your mother is the one with the darker hair.

Flibbert: My cousin has darker hair and he has boobs, too.  Moobs, really.  But I believe you told me before that he is not, in fact, mother.

Big Daddy Flibbert: ...

Flibbert: I'm so confused.  Without mother here for us to point at, I just can't remember how she's different from EVERY OTHER FEMALE ON THE WHOLE GODDAMN PLANET.

Big Daddy Flibbert: I know how you feel son.  It kind of terrifies me that I can't tell my wife from my own mother when neither of them are in the room, but I've told you not to take the Lord's name in vain.

Flibbert: Fine.  Give the phone to mom, I'm going to talk to her about the man with moobs who thinks he can tell me what to do. I heard from Santa he's getting coal in his stocking this year.

I think maybe Mitt Romney thinks that when gay parents separate, one of the gays just disappears and never shows up again and neither feels nor shows any concern for raising the child thereafter.

And then the child is left not knowing anything about females (if the gays are man gays) or males (if the gays are lesbionic women) and so they grow up developmentally stunted or something.

That particular hypothesis about childhood development is not well-supported by research.  The American Psychological Association website says:

Many lesbians and gay men are parents. In the 2000 U. S. Census, 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. Despite the significant presence of at least 163,879 households headed by lesbian or gay parents in U.S. society, three major concerns about lesbian and gay parents are commonly voiced (Falk, 1994; Patterson, Fulcher & Wainright, 2002). These include concerns that lesbians and gay men are mentally ill, that lesbians are less maternal than heterosexual women, and that lesbians' and gay men's relationships with their sexual partners leave little time for their relationships with their children. In general, research has failed to provide a basis for any of these concerns (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). First, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder (Conger, 1975). Although exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation may cause acute distress (Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003), there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.

But I don't want to make Mitt Romney sound mean or ignorant.  His remarks do reflect the consensus of many reputable psychologists... from 1962.  He's not merely mean and ignorant, he's so like a mad cow: stupid and dangerous.  (Cows really aren't all that bright.  Trust me, I've met several and the conversation was nothing to write on a blog about.)

I mean, I know the Republicans have deep hatred for everything Kennedy, but need I remind you that the APA officially removed the label of mental illness from homosexuality during Nixon's administration (or was it Ford's?  It was right around that time and they're both Republicans, so the point remains.)?  I mean, by partisan thinking, wouldn't that mean that the Republicans should stop with this idiotic psychologizing?

OH!  And I know this point has been made elsewhere, but I would like to say that over the course of human history the vast majority of gay people are not born to homosexual unions.  I don't know if you've studied the physics of the process, but gay sex doesn't get people pregnant NEARLY as often as straight people sex. I have several charts and diagrams at my disposal. I can prove this to you if you're interested.

History also tells us that serial killers and dictators also tend to be the results of heterosexual unions.

I've gone on about this quite long enough.  I think you can all see the point I'm trying to make here: Mitt Romney is an asshat.  Don't vote for him.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 08:46 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 1092 words, total size 7 kb.

Floppy Swatches of Cotton with Wings

I don't completely understand the presumption of privacy that some people have about some things they do.  I'm sorry, but if you write in your diary in the middle of Starbucks, you can't possibly demand that no one notice you doing that or even not read what you're writing.  If you want privacy, you have to take steps to ensure that others cannot find out what you're doing.

Now, if you've taken such steps, like drawing the blinds on your windows and whatnot, and someone breaks into your house and hides in your closet in order to spy on you, well, then I think you'd probably have solid grounds for a number of complaints.

I'm already off track and I haven't even told you what inspires this rant.

I woke up to CNN this morning and they were jibbering on about something called a Do Not Track list that some people want the government to start up.  Basically, some "consumer group" is upset about the use of cookies to track users on the internet and target them for advertising messages.

A cookie is a TINY little file on your computer that some websites use to identify users or user-settings.

You can set your browser not to accept cookies if you don't like the idea of this and you can delete your cookies at any time as well.

CNN made it sound like a cookie is an encyclopedia of your personal information stored on your computer and possibly read by any and every website that you visit.  They also said that advertisers use cookies to "put ads on your computer" that you don't want.  This is all so very, very wrong and not at all true.

Wired: Privacy Groups Ask for Online 'Do Not Track' List

A coalition of privacy and consumer advocacy groups are asking government regulators to create a "Do Not Track" list that Americans can use to block online advertisers from silently recording people's browsing habits. Advertisers use the data to display targeted ads.

The groups petitioned the Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday to establish the anti-tracking measure, loosely modeled on the popular and successful anti-telemarketing National Do Not Call Registry. The proposal is timed to an FTC-hosted conference devoted to the topic of behavioral online advertising.

...

World Privacy Forum director Pam Dixon, who coordinated the proposal, argued that online marketers and the Network Advertising Initiative industry group have failed to police themselves.

"If you look back at the Do Not Call list, it was at one time managed by industry. But it didn't gain widespread acceptance until the FTC took it over," said Dixon. "The industry has had seven years to prove they can manage online opt-outs. It is time to move toward something structured like the Do Not Call list to address the problems we are seeing, and have now seen for seven years."

Technically, the proposed list (.pdf) would work very differently from the Do Not Call Registry. Any advertiser that tracks user behavior would have to report what servers they use to serve up a cookie or other tracking device. Individuals would then update their browsers to include a plug-in that could download the list and block some or all of the tracking cookies.

*sigh*

This is so ridiculous.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I work for an interactive marketing agency and we make extensive use of cookies for our clients.  (We are also adhere ardently to CAN-SPAM requirements as do all other reputable interactive marketing agencies.)

Why do we use cookies?  We want to track you.  We want to know what you want.  We want to give you what you want.

When you're watching television, you may notice that the commercials that play during certain shows are geared toward the imagined audience that is watching the show.  During sports programming, you'll see lots of commercials for beer and trucks and things that boys like.  If you're watching soap operas, you'll see commercials for scraps of cotton with "wings" and dust catchy sweepy things because those are things women buy.  But if you're a dude watching soap operas or a housewife watching sports, you may or may not realize that those commercials are largely not relevant to you and, even if they are, they're not stylized in a way that would appeal to a typical man or woman of your age or circumstance.  That is as sophisticated as television marketing gets, though.

If your television knew who you were (and Tivo and DVR systems present some opportunities to do this) television advertisers could target their commercials so that you see commercials that appeal to you.  Are you a post-pubescent, pre-menopausal woman who likes funny commercials best?  Maybe there's a funny joke about floppy swatches of cotton with wings that could be made that would get you to think of that product and brand when you're at the store.  Are you a clean fellow who likes sharing intimate conversations with your pals about the latest in cleaning technology?  Picture a commercial like those coffee creamer things, but instead of the group of buddies crying out with laughter, "JEAN LUC," they chuckle about "SWIFFER!"

These are just a couple of ideas that spring to mind.

On the internet, we may not know that you're a dog, but we know you like Alpo^tm. And we want to make sure that you remain informed about the latest deals, flavors, contests, and events related to Alpo^tm.

It is beyond stupid for a marketer to want to waste money showing you ads for things that you do not want, do not like, and will never buy.

I will concede that marketers are still trying to figure out their interactive channels.  When it comes to email marketing, there are still some marketing managers who like the idea of blasting out ten million emails indiscriminately.  They get a 5% click rate and they think it's a good thing.  We spend our days changing their minds and convincing them to send ten different campaigns, each to a million people, but with targeted messages and they get click rates that often break the 15% mark.  You make more money.  You annoy fewer people.  And slowly people are catching on.

In fact, with some additional effort paid to targeted online advertising, the ROI is vastly greater than other channels and it's fully reportable.

No one can tell you exactly how much money was made from a billboard ad, but I can tell you down to the cent how many of my customers' users bought something from an email we sent for them.

I'm pleased to say that spending on email marketing is increasing just as marketer intelligence about email marketing is growing.

Again, we do not want to show you anything you do not want to see.  It is idiotic to piss off your customers.  It's generally stupid to annoy people with your advertisements.  (People talk about how those horrible Head On commercials have been great for building brand recognition, but I haven't heard anyone talk about how it built brand affinity.)

I'm annoyed with all this worry about online marketing for lots of reasons, not the least of which is the automatic assumption that marketers are just sitting around trying to think of ways to annoy you.  We aren't, I promise.  Some of the most vehement defenders of consumer peace of mind are marketers.

There's also the technology issues.  Things just do not work the way that some people seem to think they work.  We're not talking about spyware or adware here.  We're talking about banner ads, like the one you see at the top of my blog.  You've probably ignored it this whole time.  The only person who probably considers that banner obtrusive is me and that's just because it covers up part of my header.  Further, if you really hate banner ads that much, I suggest you use a mozilla browser and install some kind of content filtering plugin, like, I don't know, AdBlock.

But  this consumer group says that most people are ignorant of cookies and while that's possibly true (Shame on them for exploiting it to make people scared of online marketing.  Someone should put a Do Not Help list on them.) I see no reason why people should be protected against their ignorance of something so easy to comprehend and easy to deal with according to your own needs.

But let's talk about privacy.  I have some important news for this consumer group: IT'S THE INTERNET!

I don't know what they think the internet is, but it's not a truck, that's for damn sure, and I am pretty certain that it's mostly not a series of tubes.  By definition, the internet is a lot of interconnected computers.

What makes you think that you could possibly request and transmit data around the world by way of thousands and thousands of computers and no one will know it?

This expectation of privacy on the internet is pretty absurd.

I understand that people get lulled into complacency on the internet and even a person like me, who works on the tubes, doesn't know all the mean things that malicious people do to annoy and harass. But it's not a legitimate business who is trying to do those things.  (They sometimes do do annoying things, but it's usually because they don't know it.)

So, who do you think this law will affect more: businesses who want to strike up a profitable, long-term business relationship with you or fly-by-night spammers who want to make a quick buck and run?

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 02:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 1603 words, total size 10 kb.

Free Speech Abridged

Washington Post: $11 Million Awarded in Funeral Protest Suit

A federal jury in Baltimore awarded nearly $11 million in damages yesterday to the family of a Marine from Maryland whose funeral was disrupted by members of a Kansas-based fundamentalist church.

One of the defendants said the civil award was the first against the church, whose members have stirred anger across the nation by picketing at funerals for service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, often carrying placards bearing virulent anti-gay slogans. The church maintains that God is punishing the United States, killing and maiming troops, because the country tolerates homosexuality.

Apparently the plaintiff won out with the argument that a funeral is a private thing and that those idiotic signs caused some kind of damage and emotional stress.

Over $2MM of the ruling was supposed to be compensatory.  Compensatory for what?  I don't know.

This is a bad precedent, I think.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 10:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.