Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
November 04, 2008
CONGRATULATIONS TO BARACK OBABA
And thanks to John McCain for being first-class in accepting defeat. Though I didn't vote for you, you are a great American.
September 30, 2008
Now, This IS A Scary Thought
From a Newsweek commentator, interviewed by CNN...
CNN: Does [the selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate] make you concerned about Sen. McCain as a president?
Zakaria: Yes, and I say this with sadness because I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. However, for him to choose Sara Palin to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. He did not put the country first with this decision. Whether it is appropriate or not, considering Sen. McCain's age most people expected to have a vice presidential candidate who would be ready to step in at a moment's notice. The actuarial odds of that happening are significant, something like a one-in-five chance.
Here's a link to Zakaria's artical at Newsweek, "Palin is Ready? Please." Frankly, a better title, there isn't.
CNN: Does [the selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate] make you concerned about Sen. McCain as a president?
Zakaria: Yes, and I say this with sadness because I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. However, for him to choose Sara Palin to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. He did not put the country first with this decision. Whether it is appropriate or not, considering Sen. McCain's age most people expected to have a vice presidential candidate who would be ready to step in at a moment's notice. The actuarial odds of that happening are significant, something like a one-in-five chance.
Here's a link to Zakaria's artical at Newsweek, "Palin is Ready? Please." Frankly, a better title, there isn't.
September 28, 2008
September 27, 2008
"Everyone Has Their Dan Quayle"
I love my best friend, JLowe. But I can't, CAN NOT, see how we can let this person be a heartbeat away. I'm no state governor, and I'm certainly no vice presidential candidate, but I'd argue that putting this person in line to be president is reason enough to vote against John McCain.
Sarah Palin seems like a great lady. But she's not presidential, she's not vice presidential, and she's not the person to put in the batter's box.
Sarah Palin seems like a great lady. But she's not presidential, she's not vice presidential, and she's not the person to put in the batter's box.
August 29, 2008
I have a dream, too...
That some day, this day, a man will fulfill his promise.
And that this country, our country, will let him.
Go Barack.
June 03, 2008
A Great Night for America; A Small Moment for Clinton
America celebrates a great moment in its history tonight, as a land that once counted blacks as 2/5 of a person now has one poised to become the nation's President.
The best reason to vote for Barack Obama for President, though, is not his color. It's because, between him and John McCain, Barack is the best person for the job.
Obama steps forward tonight as the duly-elected nominee for the Democratic Party for President of the United States. In his victory speech tonight, both out of real character and political need, he was magnanimous and kind to his primary opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And, beyond that, he caught fire in a speech which captured the imagination and created a thrill for what could be.
Meanwhile, the greatest hope that America has ever had of seeing a woman run the country showed just how little she could be tonight. After having already started trying to push her name forward as a good VP candidate to go to the White House on Obama's coat-tails, Clinton further embarassed herself tonight by deciding not to concede, even as she essentially acknowledged that she'd lost.
Obama will be forced to consider her as a possibility for the back seat on his ticket. But, really, why should he entertain the thought? Clinton doesn't have the temperament of a number two, and her ambition (I believe) would prevent her from fulfilling the tacit understanding that a Vice President's job is to support her boss.
One line of thinking is that Obama needs to reach out to Clinton, because otherwise Clinton's voters won't support him in the national election. But, really, does that make sense? Sure, some of Clinton's supporters are racist whites who'll decide not to vote for Obama simply because of his skin color, but the majority are committed liberals who want to loose the Republican grasp on the White House. In a national election with no Hillary, where will they cast their vote? They certainly won't sit on it, and they certainly won't give it to McCain. Out of a lack of options, their votes will go to Obama, even if they don't like pulling the lever in his favor.
Obama's likely running mate, in my opinion, will be John Edwards. A Northern and a Southern candidate, both energetic and (at least publicly) committed to some pretty sweeping and, frankly, exciting social reforms, would excite the whole base of the Democratic party, while Edwards would wisely see this as a good stepping stool to the Presidency and would behave in an appropriately supportive fashion.
Of course, much remains yet to be seen. For tonight, I simply see confirmation of what I've known for weeks: the right person with the right temperament won, and the other person continues to be a classless and graceless loser, just as she's been for years.
The best reason to vote for Barack Obama for President, though, is not his color. It's because, between him and John McCain, Barack is the best person for the job.
Obama steps forward tonight as the duly-elected nominee for the Democratic Party for President of the United States. In his victory speech tonight, both out of real character and political need, he was magnanimous and kind to his primary opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And, beyond that, he caught fire in a speech which captured the imagination and created a thrill for what could be.
Meanwhile, the greatest hope that America has ever had of seeing a woman run the country showed just how little she could be tonight. After having already started trying to push her name forward as a good VP candidate to go to the White House on Obama's coat-tails, Clinton further embarassed herself tonight by deciding not to concede, even as she essentially acknowledged that she'd lost.
Obama will be forced to consider her as a possibility for the back seat on his ticket. But, really, why should he entertain the thought? Clinton doesn't have the temperament of a number two, and her ambition (I believe) would prevent her from fulfilling the tacit understanding that a Vice President's job is to support her boss.
One line of thinking is that Obama needs to reach out to Clinton, because otherwise Clinton's voters won't support him in the national election. But, really, does that make sense? Sure, some of Clinton's supporters are racist whites who'll decide not to vote for Obama simply because of his skin color, but the majority are committed liberals who want to loose the Republican grasp on the White House. In a national election with no Hillary, where will they cast their vote? They certainly won't sit on it, and they certainly won't give it to McCain. Out of a lack of options, their votes will go to Obama, even if they don't like pulling the lever in his favor.
Obama's likely running mate, in my opinion, will be John Edwards. A Northern and a Southern candidate, both energetic and (at least publicly) committed to some pretty sweeping and, frankly, exciting social reforms, would excite the whole base of the Democratic party, while Edwards would wisely see this as a good stepping stool to the Presidency and would behave in an appropriately supportive fashion.
Of course, much remains yet to be seen. For tonight, I simply see confirmation of what I've known for weeks: the right person with the right temperament won, and the other person continues to be a classless and graceless loser, just as she's been for years.
May 14, 2008
Can Obama Win?
I think a better question might be "does it matter?"
JLowe sent me a link to an interesting article discussing the inherent racism on display in our current Democratic race for the presidency.
Basically, the point raised is this: Hillary Clinton asserts, perhaps not always openly, that she's the only candidate who can challenge John McCain, and the primary reason is because she's white.
The article also notes that Barack Obama understands the challenge of race in this election: "as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it."
And that, I think, is an important point. I think that it's important for Barack to be the candidate to face John McCain in the actual presidential election not only because I believe he is the best person for the White House (yes, I'll be voting for him, despite being a registered Republican), but also because it will finally break a glass ceiling that is in place in our current society.
Sure, people have a problem with the concept of a female president. But, as a whole, women have had much more ready access to power and opportunity in this country (especially white ones) than racial minorities. By admitting that, as a white, she's in a better position to win, Hillary Clinton reinforces a shameful truth of America today--that we only see skin deep--and asks us to affirm its correctness.
America may not be ready for a black president. I hope we are. But for those who can't wrap their head around the idea, the only way to get them to acknowledge the possibility, and start thinking about substance over form (or content over color) is to force them to consider whether to cast their vote for a black (or yellow, or green, or red, or whatever) person and then explain why they won't.
Can Obama win? I don't know. I hope so. But, whether he can or can't, Obama for President is, in my mind, an important message to perpetuate for as long as possible.
JLowe sent me a link to an interesting article discussing the inherent racism on display in our current Democratic race for the presidency.
Basically, the point raised is this: Hillary Clinton asserts, perhaps not always openly, that she's the only candidate who can challenge John McCain, and the primary reason is because she's white.
The article also notes that Barack Obama understands the challenge of race in this election: "as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it."
And that, I think, is an important point. I think that it's important for Barack to be the candidate to face John McCain in the actual presidential election not only because I believe he is the best person for the White House (yes, I'll be voting for him, despite being a registered Republican), but also because it will finally break a glass ceiling that is in place in our current society.
Sure, people have a problem with the concept of a female president. But, as a whole, women have had much more ready access to power and opportunity in this country (especially white ones) than racial minorities. By admitting that, as a white, she's in a better position to win, Hillary Clinton reinforces a shameful truth of America today--that we only see skin deep--and asks us to affirm its correctness.
America may not be ready for a black president. I hope we are. But for those who can't wrap their head around the idea, the only way to get them to acknowledge the possibility, and start thinking about substance over form (or content over color) is to force them to consider whether to cast their vote for a black (or yellow, or green, or red, or whatever) person and then explain why they won't.
Can Obama win? I don't know. I hope so. But, whether he can or can't, Obama for President is, in my mind, an important message to perpetuate for as long as possible.
February 05, 2008
Arlen Specter, Patriot(hater)
Arlen Specter, long-in-the-tooth Republican senator and general boob, is raising a ruckus trying to pull the commissioner of the NFL before Congress to discuss the destruction of the "Spygate" NFL tapes. Specter's reasoning appears to be that, as football enjoys some protection from federal anti-trust laws, it is important to police the game to guarantee integrity to the fans.
Whatever.
It's one thing for Congress to prod into baseball. There, the only American game to be completely shielded from anti-trust laws was (at least tacitly) encouraging the use of drugs that are (and have long been) illegal to drive interest in particular players and the game in general, and as such was promoting a product that was wrong on many, many levels.
But with the NFL, and Spygate, we have one team using lawful measures (videotaping) to gain a competitive advantage, and the league stepping in and taking pretty extraordinary measures when it was investigated.
My guess is that Congress is trying to throw MLB a bone by drawing attention away from them, even as Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite are being grilled on Capitol Hill. It reeks of cronyism to me.
But, just to make my point, here are just a few things I'd like Congress to deal with before worrying about who videotapes who in professional football:
Whatever.
It's one thing for Congress to prod into baseball. There, the only American game to be completely shielded from anti-trust laws was (at least tacitly) encouraging the use of drugs that are (and have long been) illegal to drive interest in particular players and the game in general, and as such was promoting a product that was wrong on many, many levels.
But with the NFL, and Spygate, we have one team using lawful measures (videotaping) to gain a competitive advantage, and the league stepping in and taking pretty extraordinary measures when it was investigated.
My guess is that Congress is trying to throw MLB a bone by drawing attention away from them, even as Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite are being grilled on Capitol Hill. It reeks of cronyism to me.
But, just to make my point, here are just a few things I'd like Congress to deal with before worrying about who videotapes who in professional football:
- The War(s) in the Mid-East
- Funding cures for cancer, AIDS, and a plethora of other diseases
- Adequately funding our educational institutions (and students)
- Forgiving my student loan debt
- Encouraging business to go green while still being profitable
- Interstate Bridge repair
- Expatriating OJ Simpson
- Finally, once-and-for-all annexing Canada
- Strengthening the dollar
- Making a world safe for my 2 year-old daughter.
Once Congress does something on each of these fronts, I'll entertain their notion that valuable time needs to be devoted to "Spygate." But unless and until there's some sort of satisfactory demonstration of why this is worthy of such devoted attention by the lawmakers of our nation, I'll just call it what it is.
Ridiculous.
January 23, 2008
January 14, 2008
For What It's Worth
Theoretically, the quiz linked below helps you find the candidate most closely alligned with your personal viewpoint. Who knows how true it is. Until now, I was actually favoring Barack Obama. Now I guess I have to investigate substance.
Fred Thompson (a joke): 23
Kucinich: 23
Ron Paul: 20
Huckabee: 20
Chris Dodd: 18
Obama: 18
Billary: 18
| Mitt Romney Score: 28 | Agree Taxes Health Care Abortion Social Security Energy Marriage Death Penalty Gun Control | Disagree Iraq Immigration Stem-Cell Research Line-Item Veto Environment Education | |||
-- Take the Quiz! -- | |||||
Other candidate scores:
Giuliani: 27Fred Thompson (a joke): 23
Kucinich: 23
Ron Paul: 20
Huckabee: 20
Chris Dodd: 18
Obama: 18
Billary: 18
November 06, 2007
Get Out and Vote!
Generally I don't like people holding signs along the roadside. I always appreciate the get-out-the-vote signers you see as you drive into downtown at election time, though. Honestly, it's a great service.
Here's my ballot, which I just delivered at Courthouse Square.
You may agree with how I voted. You may not. Either way, the only legitimate means of voicing your opinion in an election is to vote it. So comment if you'd like, but more importantly, GET OUT AND VOTE.
Here's my ballot, which I just delivered at Courthouse Square.
You may agree with how I voted. You may not. Either way, the only legitimate means of voicing your opinion in an election is to vote it. So comment if you'd like, but more importantly, GET OUT AND VOTE.
November 05, 2007
The Boycott Shall Never Cease!
Sam Adams noted on Mark & Dave's show last week that Sam Adams (the non-candidate) had "said uncle" and told him that he could use the websites registered by Mark & Dave. He seemed to imply that the arrangement was not-so-open-ended, but he certainly didn't say that there was any restriction.
Whatever. I don't care. Without a formal apology, I don't regard this as being over.
This boycott, as far as the web goes, has become old hat and uninteresting. I'll let you know if I ever give up, but know for now that Sam Adams beer is verboten in the Rusty universe.
By the way, the eggheads at Harvard dissected the letter here. I'm not sure what their final analysis indicates. To me, it says Sam Adams Beer never had a leg to stand on.
Whatever. I don't care. Without a formal apology, I don't regard this as being over.
This boycott, as far as the web goes, has become old hat and uninteresting. I'll let you know if I ever give up, but know for now that Sam Adams beer is verboten in the Rusty universe.
By the way, the eggheads at Harvard dissected the letter here. I'm not sure what their final analysis indicates. To me, it says Sam Adams Beer never had a leg to stand on.
October 29, 2007
Sam Adams Boycott, Days 5-7
Well, the (3-day) weekend (for me, that is) is past. After spending a full day celebrating my daughter's second birthday, I've had a chance to play a little catch up.
As noted here this weekend, Sam Adams (the beer) has taken conciliatory steps towards Sam Adams (the candidate). In fact, in a press release issued by Boston Brewing, the company appears to be stepping down entirely.
This half-assed effort at smoothing things over isn't convincing to me or to anyone else. In my own ear, these words ring hollow to me for (at least) a couple of reasons.
First, the implicit statement here is that, until the sites are actually legally transferred to Adams, there's still an issue. "We hope these URL will...be transferred to candidate Sam Adams where they rightfully belong," along with being grammatically incorrect, injects the corporate IP lawyers' thought that there's a difference between buying them for a candidate, and a candidate buying them for himself. By saying "shout your name from...your website," it appears that Boston Brewing is saying "once it's in your name, we no longer care."
Subtle, but still troubling.
Let me ask you this, Boston Brewing geniuses. Having myself once run a campaign for a local candidate, and having gone to steps to put together a website, I'm privy to a couple of facts. Many candidates don't own their campaign. It's actually funded by a committee, run by a campaign manager, and manned by a bunch of different people who do different things, often without the candidate's specific knowledge. What's the difference between a campaign committee buying a candidate a URL and a couple of well-wishing DJ's doing the same? It seems to me the implication here is that, unless Sam Adams himself actually owns these URL's, we're still operating solely by the good graces of Boston Brewing. They're being nice, as opposed to actually acknowledging that they're full of shit.
Further, I was thinking about their original Cease and Desist letter (again, viewable here). It alleges a serious violation of Federal law by Mark and Dave and, if read in the broad sense it was meant, by Sam Adams (the candidate) if used for his campaign. Suddenly we're supposed to just accept that Federal law was not an issue?
This pisses me off. Lawyers (which, again, I am one of) threaten non-lawyers with inaccurate readings of laws, implicitly accusing people of violating the law in a strong-arm attempt to bully people into submission. When it doesn't work, or when the back-lash finally hits them, they drop the issue. If the law was really being broken, I'm sure they wouldn't. They knew when they wrote the letter that the use of the URL's, as intended, was legal. They were simply trying to protect their monopoly on the name Sam Adams.
Really, they expect me to believe they don't use Google? Either that's true and these are the stupidest people alive, or it's a lie and they are guilty of super-assholery. Either way, I'm still not done boycotting.
Not unless, and until, a full apology is rendered for this capricious act of corporate violence against everyman will I back down from this boycott. Mark and Dave themselves continue to request that a Boston Brewing lackey speak directly to them, and they continue to be refused. Not until their website indicates that they've been given a satisfactory apology will I consider this war over.
I encourage anyone still reading this drivel to take the same stand.
(P.S. Still waiting for someone to accept the Wikipedia challenge...)
As noted here this weekend, Sam Adams (the beer) has taken conciliatory steps towards Sam Adams (the candidate). In fact, in a press release issued by Boston Brewing, the company appears to be stepping down entirely.
On the other hand, there have been occasions over the years when individuals actually named “Sam Adams” have registered domain names that included the words Sam Adams, and we have had no quarrel with that.
Similarly, we believe that Sam Adams, the mayoral candidate, has every bit as much right to use his name as we do. Our namesake, the patriot Samuel Adams, stood for public service and free speech, and we do too. We hope these URLs will, in fact, be transferred to candidate Sam Adams where they rightfully belong.
Candidate Sam Adams – shout your name from the rooftops and your Web site!
This half-assed effort at smoothing things over isn't convincing to me or to anyone else. In my own ear, these words ring hollow to me for (at least) a couple of reasons.
First, the implicit statement here is that, until the sites are actually legally transferred to Adams, there's still an issue. "We hope these URL will...be transferred to candidate Sam Adams where they rightfully belong," along with being grammatically incorrect, injects the corporate IP lawyers' thought that there's a difference between buying them for a candidate, and a candidate buying them for himself. By saying "shout your name from...your website," it appears that Boston Brewing is saying "once it's in your name, we no longer care."
Subtle, but still troubling.
Let me ask you this, Boston Brewing geniuses. Having myself once run a campaign for a local candidate, and having gone to steps to put together a website, I'm privy to a couple of facts. Many candidates don't own their campaign. It's actually funded by a committee, run by a campaign manager, and manned by a bunch of different people who do different things, often without the candidate's specific knowledge. What's the difference between a campaign committee buying a candidate a URL and a couple of well-wishing DJ's doing the same? It seems to me the implication here is that, unless Sam Adams himself actually owns these URL's, we're still operating solely by the good graces of Boston Brewing. They're being nice, as opposed to actually acknowledging that they're full of shit.
Further, I was thinking about their original Cease and Desist letter (again, viewable here). It alleges a serious violation of Federal law by Mark and Dave and, if read in the broad sense it was meant, by Sam Adams (the candidate) if used for his campaign. Suddenly we're supposed to just accept that Federal law was not an issue?
This pisses me off. Lawyers (which, again, I am one of) threaten non-lawyers with inaccurate readings of laws, implicitly accusing people of violating the law in a strong-arm attempt to bully people into submission. When it doesn't work, or when the back-lash finally hits them, they drop the issue. If the law was really being broken, I'm sure they wouldn't. They knew when they wrote the letter that the use of the URL's, as intended, was legal. They were simply trying to protect their monopoly on the name Sam Adams.
Really, they expect me to believe they don't use Google? Either that's true and these are the stupidest people alive, or it's a lie and they are guilty of super-assholery. Either way, I'm still not done boycotting.
Not unless, and until, a full apology is rendered for this capricious act of corporate violence against everyman will I back down from this boycott. Mark and Dave themselves continue to request that a Boston Brewing lackey speak directly to them, and they continue to be refused. Not until their website indicates that they've been given a satisfactory apology will I consider this war over.
I encourage anyone still reading this drivel to take the same stand.
(P.S. Still waiting for someone to accept the Wikipedia challenge...)
October 27, 2007
Have They Really Apologized?
Read here.
Sam Adams (the beer) has offered a semi-apology to Sam Adams (the candidate). It's not clear to me if they've allowed the usage of the websites registered by Mark and Dave, or if (as their attorney said earlier) such use would be subject to constraints placed by Boston Brewing.
Tell me what you think. Should the Boycott end now? Has Boston Beer surrendered their ludicrous stand?
Sam Adams (the beer) has offered a semi-apology to Sam Adams (the candidate). It's not clear to me if they've allowed the usage of the websites registered by Mark and Dave, or if (as their attorney said earlier) such use would be subject to constraints placed by Boston Brewing.
Tell me what you think. Should the Boycott end now? Has Boston Beer surrendered their ludicrous stand?
Sam Adams Boycott: The Weekend
Today I'm drinking beer. If plans go my way, I'll have a few. That'll compliment the few I had to celebrate the end of the week yesterday.
Yesterday, on Day 4 or the Boycott, I had some Bridgeport Blue Heron Pale Ale.
Today, I'll have some Hammerhead from McMenamins.
By the way, when the Boycott ends, when Sam Adams Beer does the right thing, I'll buy a sixer of that swill and drink it. Not all at once, but I will reward the corporation for doing the right thing.
Another by the way: Sam Adams Beer has brewed blends named after various patriots, including our first president, George Washington. Given their celebration of political types, they should feel honored to have a candidate, whom they were named after (if not in spirit, in time) who is doing his patriotic duty of serving his community (whether you agree with his politics or not, public service is, in and of itself, a noble quality). They should feel embiggened that Sam Adams, the candidate, is running for mayor of Portland, and they should do their part to support such endeavors, instead of quashing them.
Boston Brewing, and Sam Adams Beer, I call on you to honor America, and honor our political process, and honor the spirits of the very Founding Fathers whose names you yourselves take advantage of for your own pocketbooks. Cease and desist your ridiculous demands of Mark and Dave and Sam Adams to do the same. Immediately.
Yesterday, on Day 4 or the Boycott, I had some Bridgeport Blue Heron Pale Ale.
Today, I'll have some Hammerhead from McMenamins.
By the way, when the Boycott ends, when Sam Adams Beer does the right thing, I'll buy a sixer of that swill and drink it. Not all at once, but I will reward the corporation for doing the right thing.
Another by the way: Sam Adams Beer has brewed blends named after various patriots, including our first president, George Washington. Given their celebration of political types, they should feel honored to have a candidate, whom they were named after (if not in spirit, in time) who is doing his patriotic duty of serving his community (whether you agree with his politics or not, public service is, in and of itself, a noble quality). They should feel embiggened that Sam Adams, the candidate, is running for mayor of Portland, and they should do their part to support such endeavors, instead of quashing them.
Boston Brewing, and Sam Adams Beer, I call on you to honor America, and honor our political process, and honor the spirits of the very Founding Fathers whose names you yourselves take advantage of for your own pocketbooks. Cease and desist your ridiculous demands of Mark and Dave and Sam Adams to do the same. Immediately.
October 26, 2007
Sam Adams Beer: Watching Wikipedia
No, I don't think they're watching Wikipedia. At least, not yet.
I've checked to see if it has been updated with this recent flap yet. In this day and age, these sorts of things end up in all sorts of places. Given that, as the Mark & Dave website notes, this story is now an international sensation (I saw a Guardian story, from the UK paper, discussing it, and they also mention Pravda and some other international mentions), it would seem it's reached a legitimacy threshold where a Wikipedia update is in order.
Of course, I'm not good at Wikipedia. Otherwise I'd be inclined to do it myself.
Anyone interested in updating the Sam Adams Beer Wikipedia page in a clear and factual way to highlight the corporation's current shenanigans, and skilled in the Wiki mojo, is encouraged to do so here. If I did it, there'd be enough snotty editorializing that it probably would get removed post-haste...
I've checked to see if it has been updated with this recent flap yet. In this day and age, these sorts of things end up in all sorts of places. Given that, as the Mark & Dave website notes, this story is now an international sensation (I saw a Guardian story, from the UK paper, discussing it, and they also mention Pravda and some other international mentions), it would seem it's reached a legitimacy threshold where a Wikipedia update is in order.
Of course, I'm not good at Wikipedia. Otherwise I'd be inclined to do it myself.
Anyone interested in updating the Sam Adams Beer Wikipedia page in a clear and factual way to highlight the corporation's current shenanigans, and skilled in the Wiki mojo, is encouraged to do so here. If I did it, there'd be enough snotty editorializing that it probably would get removed post-haste...
Sam Adams Boycott, Day 4
The boycott's still on, people. Sam Adams has not yet acknowledged the legitimacy of Sam Adams.
I was sitting at breakfast with some lawyer friends today, discussing the boycott. The discussion on their part turned to the legitimacy of the action taken by Boston Brewing to protect their brand from dilution. Which is why, though I am a lawyer, I hate lawyers. We're too good at over-analyzing these simple issues and legitimizing bad arguments in our own minds. As the Boston Brewing Legal Department has demonstrated, lawyers have little in the way of common sense most of the time.
Boston Brewing is stupid, and is acting like the typical middle school bully hitting up all the smaller kids for lunch money. The bully doesn't need the lunch money, has no really logical reason why the kid who was given said money by their parents shouldn't get to use it, and only does what he does because he's gotten used to being able to run roughshod over the other children on the schoolground. Like that bully, Boston Brewing, with a moment of gentle and serious introspection, would realize that it's an asshole and that, really, there's room in this world for a kid who was given lunch money by his mom and dad to use it legitimately to buy his own lunch, which in no conceivable way threatens the bully.
So, keep up the good work. And, by work, I mean continue to not drink crappy Sam Adams Beer, nor to give them your money, and make sure the word on the boycott spreads. I've been meaning to put up links to stuff going on related to this story and the protest, but I haven't been able to. Check the latest at Witigonen, which is keeping tabs of everything (including updated coverage, the online petition, and so on) and Mark and Dave's site, which is being updated everyday with new links.
Libertad! Keep the world free for people named Sam Adams to use their name in a website address!
I was sitting at breakfast with some lawyer friends today, discussing the boycott. The discussion on their part turned to the legitimacy of the action taken by Boston Brewing to protect their brand from dilution. Which is why, though I am a lawyer, I hate lawyers. We're too good at over-analyzing these simple issues and legitimizing bad arguments in our own minds. As the Boston Brewing Legal Department has demonstrated, lawyers have little in the way of common sense most of the time.
Boston Brewing is stupid, and is acting like the typical middle school bully hitting up all the smaller kids for lunch money. The bully doesn't need the lunch money, has no really logical reason why the kid who was given said money by their parents shouldn't get to use it, and only does what he does because he's gotten used to being able to run roughshod over the other children on the schoolground. Like that bully, Boston Brewing, with a moment of gentle and serious introspection, would realize that it's an asshole and that, really, there's room in this world for a kid who was given lunch money by his mom and dad to use it legitimately to buy his own lunch, which in no conceivable way threatens the bully.
So, keep up the good work. And, by work, I mean continue to not drink crappy Sam Adams Beer, nor to give them your money, and make sure the word on the boycott spreads. I've been meaning to put up links to stuff going on related to this story and the protest, but I haven't been able to. Check the latest at Witigonen, which is keeping tabs of everything (including updated coverage, the online petition, and so on) and Mark and Dave's site, which is being updated everyday with new links.
Libertad! Keep the world free for people named Sam Adams to use their name in a website address!
October 25, 2007
Sam Adams Boycott, Day 3
On day 3 of The Boycott. I doctored an image I found using GIS from boston.com.
Since you're discouraged from buying the beer in a misdirected act of protest, please use this picture to show your support for the protest of Boston Brewing Company and Sam Adams Beer.
Stand up for good ol' American values. Stand up for Sam Adams' right to use his own name for a mayoral campaign, and stand up for the principles represented by the real Sam Adams! Tell Sam Adams Beer to shove it.
(By the way, looking around at various websites discussing this little row, I've seen a lot of people mentioning that they already boycott Sam Adams Beer because it sucks. I suppose that's just as good a reason...)
October 24, 2007
Sam Adams Boycott, Day 2
The boycott is getting some play. From my usual peeps (like Jack) and from people I've never met.
Sweet.
Today I was considering buying a Sam Adams to photograph some sort of poetic-justice sort of destruction. Mark and Dave have been playing listeners dumping and flushing the stuff. I figure there are other creative ways to show your disdain.
But then I realized, a sale is a sale to good ol' Sam Adams (the beer). To buy a protest beer, even to destroy it, is to add to their coffers. And, damn it, I won't let them win that easy.
I call upon all boycotters to actually boycott. No protest beers to destroy. No nothing. Do not buy Sam Adams. If you have some, take it back and pull money back from their pockets. Tell your local store to please stop carrying it. Tell them you won't come back until they stop.
This is a serious boycott, people, born of a ridiculous and humurous circumstance. Even if you don't care for Sam Adams (the candidate), you must stand up against the tyranny of Sam Adams (the beer).
P.S. I say we sue them to drop the name of the famous patriot before they destroy his rich legacy with their weak brew...
Sweet.
Today I was considering buying a Sam Adams to photograph some sort of poetic-justice sort of destruction. Mark and Dave have been playing listeners dumping and flushing the stuff. I figure there are other creative ways to show your disdain.
But then I realized, a sale is a sale to good ol' Sam Adams (the beer). To buy a protest beer, even to destroy it, is to add to their coffers. And, damn it, I won't let them win that easy.
I call upon all boycotters to actually boycott. No protest beers to destroy. No nothing. Do not buy Sam Adams. If you have some, take it back and pull money back from their pockets. Tell your local store to please stop carrying it. Tell them you won't come back until they stop.
This is a serious boycott, people, born of a ridiculous and humurous circumstance. Even if you don't care for Sam Adams (the candidate), you must stand up against the tyranny of Sam Adams (the beer).
P.S. I say we sue them to drop the name of the famous patriot before they destroy his rich legacy with their weak brew...
October 23, 2007
Boycott Sam Adams
Not the Commissioner, but the beer.
Personally, I don't often drink it. Not that it's swill. It's okay. But it's just not in my wheelhouse.
But I won't be drinking it again, due to the idiocy of their corporation.
Mark and Dave, the afternoon drive guys at KEX radio, recently registered a couple of domain names for Commissioner Sam as he runs for mayor of Portland. One is www.samadamsformayor.com, and the other is www.mayorsamadams.com .
All well and good, right? Well, it was all well and good until the Boston Brewing Company, owners of Sam Adams Beer, got wind of it. After hearing that the domain names had been purchased, they knee-jerked a reaction and fired off a cease-and-desist letter as fast as can be. If Mark and Dave don't give up the domain names by October 29, something ominous will apparently occur.
Better bloggers than me are all over this. You can check out Isaac Laquedem, Jack Bogdanski, and Betsy over at Metroblogs, among others. Isaac in particular notes that it appears that Sam Adams is arguably in a more legally actionable position than Adams for some sort of election law violation. It's ridiculous, of course, but not as ridiculous as a beer company getting all nutted up over a guy named Sam Adams, running for mayor (and likely to win), using his name as part of a web address. Any responsible IP lawyer would have looked into things before firing off the letter, and (as it seems that KEX's attorneys have talked to them to fill them in on the context) likely would have dropped the issue once some light was shed on their apparent confusion.
Just stupid. So I call on whoever sees this to boycott Sam Adams Beer for being un-American and generally ridiculous, for having no sense of humor, and for generally sucking. And, while you're at it, tell them they suck and that they should drop this idiotic issue before they get even more negative press than they're already getting from it.
Viva La Revolucion!
Personally, I don't often drink it. Not that it's swill. It's okay. But it's just not in my wheelhouse.
But I won't be drinking it again, due to the idiocy of their corporation.
Mark and Dave, the afternoon drive guys at KEX radio, recently registered a couple of domain names for Commissioner Sam as he runs for mayor of Portland. One is www.samadamsformayor.com, and the other is www.mayorsamadams.com .
All well and good, right? Well, it was all well and good until the Boston Brewing Company, owners of Sam Adams Beer, got wind of it. After hearing that the domain names had been purchased, they knee-jerked a reaction and fired off a cease-and-desist letter as fast as can be. If Mark and Dave don't give up the domain names by October 29, something ominous will apparently occur.
Better bloggers than me are all over this. You can check out Isaac Laquedem, Jack Bogdanski, and Betsy over at Metroblogs, among others. Isaac in particular notes that it appears that Sam Adams is arguably in a more legally actionable position than Adams for some sort of election law violation. It's ridiculous, of course, but not as ridiculous as a beer company getting all nutted up over a guy named Sam Adams, running for mayor (and likely to win), using his name as part of a web address. Any responsible IP lawyer would have looked into things before firing off the letter, and (as it seems that KEX's attorneys have talked to them to fill them in on the context) likely would have dropped the issue once some light was shed on their apparent confusion.
Just stupid. So I call on whoever sees this to boycott Sam Adams Beer for being un-American and generally ridiculous, for having no sense of humor, and for generally sucking. And, while you're at it, tell them they suck and that they should drop this idiotic issue before they get even more negative press than they're already getting from it.
Viva La Revolucion!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
