Fool’s News

pApparently, presidential candidate Herman Cain believes that homosexuality is a choice.  During an interview with Piers Morgan, Cain responded to inquiries with:  ” What does science show? Show me evidence other than opinion and you might cause me to reconsider that…Where is the evidence?”  /p
pPart of the rest of the interview follows:/p
pCain: … I respect their right to make that choice. You don’t see me bashing them. I respect them to have the right to make that choice. I don’t have to agree with it. That’s all I’m saying/p
pMorgan: It would be like a gay person saying, Herman, you made a choice to be black./p
pCain: You know that’s not the case. You know I was born black./p
pMorgan: Maybe if they say that, they would find that offensive./p
pCain: Piers, Piers. This doesn’t wash off. I hate to burst your bubble./p
pMorgan: I don’t think being homosexual washes off./p
pIn response to this interview, radio personality Dan Savage made the following offer to Mr. Ca/p
blockquotepin:/p
/blockquote
pDear Herman,/p
pIf being gay is a choice, show us the proof. Choose it. Choose to be gay yourself. Show America how that’s done, Herman, show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick, Herman. Name the time and the place and I’ll bring my dick and a camera crew and you can suck me off and win the argument. Very sincerely yours,/p
pDan Savage/p
pLo/p
blockquotepve it!/p
/blockquote

Ryan Dunn died on June 20, 2011.  Any loss of life is tragic.  However, to those who have taken Roger Ebert to task for tweeting about Ryan’s death, I say get over it.

Again, the loss of any life is tragic.  However, this death was likely avoidable.  Having read about this story, many comments complain that it is wrong and unfair to assume that Ryan was drinking or speeding.  Well, as it turns out both are true.  His blood alcohol was .198% – more than double Pennsylvania’s limit.  Police has determined that he was driving at least 120 mph (possibly as fast as 140 mph).

While Roger Ebert’s tweet was awfully close after Ryan’s death, the time to take lessons from tragedy is immediately after it.  Some people say Ebert should have allowed Ryan’s family and friends time to mourn.  This raises a few points.  First, as I wrote above, the time to learn from tragedy is when it happens, not weeks or months afterward.  Second, I think it is unlikely that his family is reading internet articles about his death.  Third, his loved ones certainly do not have to read news stories.

Rather than viewing Ebert’s comments as malicious or ill-intended, they should be viewed as cautionary.  Tragedy can strike anyone.  Neither fame nor wealth insulates you from such tragedies. 

Despite the sadness that accompanies any death, Ryan’s conduct prior to his death was nothing more than selfish.  Reports now claim he may have had as many as 11 drinks before hopping in his Porsche.  It is nothing less than serendipity that he did not injure or kill anyone in another vehicle.  That would have amplified this tragedy about a million fold.  As it is, his [far less talked about] friend, Zachary Hartwell, was killed in the accident.  The relatively little attention paid to Mr. Hartwell’s death is a true tragedy as he was the passenger in the vehicle.

In this day, there is no excuse for Ryan to not have known the dangers attendant in driving under the influence.  Ryan was anything but petit.  For him to have a BAC of double the state limit means he drank a lot.  This emphasizes the selfishness of his actions. 

Some commenters have expressed a hope that the bar or bartender at the bar where he was drinking will be punished.  To me, this is more offensive that Roger Ebert’s comments.  Yes, I realize most states have laws imposing liability on bars or bartenders for allowing patrons to drive if they "appear" intoxicated.  Since such laws began cropping up, I have disagreed with them.

Americans spend billions of dollars a year on lawsuits to assert their individual rights.  I am all for individual rights.  However, along with your individual rights come individual responsibilities.  They are as – if not more – important as your individual rights.  Exercise your rights to drink yourself silly.  That’s great.  However, once you exercise your right to become intoxicated, you must exercise your responsibility to not drive.  It is not the bar’s fault that Ryan elected to drive.  That failure was Ryan’s and Ryan’s alone.  He, above most people, could certainly afford a car service or a taxi to take him home.  There is absolutely no excuse for a person of his fame and wealth to not have spent the money for an alternative ride home. None.

We want our rights, but when we exercise those rights and something goes wrong we, Americans, seek to blame someone else.  We take credit for our successes and blame others for our failures.  This is the failure of America: the abdication of personal responsibility.  The bartender did not force Ryan to drive.  He did that on his own.  It was not the bartender’s fault.  To suggest that the bartender was responsible for Ryan’s demise is foolish.  That is far more offensive than Ebert’s comments.

As far as I am concerned, responsibility should be laid at the feet of Ryan’s friends who were at the bar with him.  Yes, those people who now express their profound love for him and extreme loss at his demise.  Perhaps that love should have taken the form of preventing him from driving.  Love involves difficult decisions.  If anyone should be punished, it should have been those who were with him – not the bar or bartender.  If Ryan was not willing to take personal responsibility, his friends should have.

Again, while Ryan’s passing is tragic, with some luck, others can learn from this tragedy,  That is what Roger Ebert was trying to express.  Although sad and regrettable, it is nonetheless difficult to view Ryan’s conduct as anything but selfish and reckless.

A week after Apple was sued by iCloud Communications for the name of its upcoming cloud service, iCloud, NYC publisher John T. Colby is claiming that he has used the name long before Apple popularized the it.  In fact, he has sued Apple over the name.

According to Bloomberg:

Colby bought in 2006 and 2007 the assets of various entities owned by New York publisher Byron Preiss, who had published more than 1,000 hardcover and paperback books under the “ibooks” name starting in September 1999, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan today.

Not surprisingly, no comment from Apple.

No, seriously.  While we appreciate that John McCain saw fit to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, the fact remains that Sarah Palin lacks any creditials that would qualify her to run for President.  Indeed, what a sad day it would be if she were to be elected President.

Worse, the republican base that has been kidnapped and brainwashed by FoxNews will vote for this unqualified potential candidate simply to vote against the democrat incumbent – or any democrat, for that matter.

Let’s look a few things that woud, without a doubt, disqualify most other Americans for future employment:

• Palin believed that her ability to see Russia from her backyard gives her the credentials to manage America’s foreign policy [source];
• Palin stepped down as governor of Alaska with one year left of her term citing she did not want a year of being a lame duck [source];
• Palin, in 2006, expressed her support for abstinence-only sex education [source];
• Palin actually appears/stars in "Sarah Palin’s Alaska" on TLC [source]; and
• Palin recently arrived in Washington D.C. riding second on a motorcycle decked out in leather and heels [source].

Is this who we want as President?  If she really wanted to lead this country, perhaps she could have served her full term as governor of Alaska, dedicated her time to learning something about politics and the world instead of huntin’, fishin’ and 4-wheelin’ in Alaska.  Don’t get me wrong, I am all for huntin’, fishin’, 4-wheelin’, etc.  However, those are not activities that any potential future commander-in-chief should engage a mere 18 months before an election.

However, can Palin expect to adopt, implement and enforce policies when she could not enforce abstinence in her own home?  Palin’s daughter, Bristol, became pregnant out of wedlock [source].  If she cannot enforce abstinence in her own home, how can she enforce abstinence (or any other policy) nationwide?

Really, a photo op of riding into D.C. on a motorcycle.  If you like to ride motorcycles, that’s great.  However, to roll into the capital on the back of a Harley for a cheap photo op is repulsive.  It is pandering.  It is insincere.

Finally, after running for office in Alaska, Palin steps down as governor citing not wanting to be a lame duck.  Invariably, she would have a lame duck period as President.  Would she just quit after winning a second term to avoid having 4 years of lameness.  [Let's face it:  it would be 8 years of lameness.]

I just don’t understand how this woman is taken seriously at all.  If the press would stop covering her, she would simply disappear.  She has no credentials.  She has no viability.  Why is she still here?

Rob Mariano, 4-time Survivor player, won this season’s Survivor: Redemption Island in Nicaragua.  Well, whooppee for him.  It seems to me that this win is particularly unimpressive.  I mean – let’s face it – this is his fourth season on Survivor.  Add to that two seasons of The Amazing Race.  I guess practice does make perfect.  However, given it’s his fourth effort at winning Survivor, regardless of how well or not well he may have played this season, the win seems a little lame.

Doesn’t anyone else think that if after 4 attempts at this game if he had not won, that would have been sadder.

God, I hope that America has had enough of him and he doesn’t appear on any more reality TV.

Apparently, Obama’s rare Sunday night speech will announce that Osama bin Laden has been killed by U.S. or coalition forces.  No link yet since the speech hasn’t taken place.

WSJ

So much for the theory that Obama was an al-Qaeda sympathizer…

Do we think that this taking place right in the middle of Donald Trump’s “Celebrity Apprentice” is a coincidence?  I don’t.

I recently learned that I have a friend who works for ConstantContact and another who works for large news/legal software company.  One of their titles is "Head of Global ____". 

I asked both about the possibility of obtaining a discount for their companies’ services.  In one case, I was told no.  In the second, I was referred to a generic sales rep, who said no additional discounts could be obtained.

So, I ask:  What good is having friends in high places?

I’ll remember that when I am asked for contributions to their pet causes.  I’m just saying…

WIPO, by a longshot, in my opinion.

In the past year, I have filed several domain dispute complaints (UDRP and usDRP) on behalf of clients.  I have generally used WIPO (http://www.wipo.int).  However, because some of the domain names in dispute were .usTLDs, I was forced to file those proceedings with the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) (http://www.adrforum.com).

Having used both, I prefer the WIPO system.

Initiation of Proceedings

WIPO permits filing of the initial complaint online (i.e., electronically) only.  By contrast, NAF requires filing of a hard copy of the complaint even if the original complaint is filed online.  Not only do you have to file a copy of the complaint, you have to file three hard copies of the complaint.

In every complaint I have filed with WIPO, the case has been initiated within 24 hours of filing electronically.  NAF does not initiate the proceeding until it has received and reviewed the hard copy of the complaint.  It won’t review the complaint for deficiencies until it receives the hard copy.  Therefore, there is a delay of at least 3 days in the initiation of the proceeding.

The requirement to submit hard copies seems ridiculous.  It is particularly silly in the context of domain name disputes which, by their very nature, are digital disputes.  In 2011, the requirement to submit hard copies seems archaic.  It also adds to the cost of the proceeding.  As an aside, it seems environmentally unfriendly.

Cost(s)

While, at first blush, NAF’s pricing system may seem more appealing, it’s not.  Even if the parties are the same, NAF requires a complainant to pay by the number of domain names involved.  By contrast, so long as the parties and the issues are the same, with WIPO you can include as many domain names as appropriate.  In other words, with WIPO you can pay “per complaint”.  However, NAF’s fees are calculated by the number of domain names in dispute.

Timing

Once the proceeding is instituted and the Respondent’s response deadline passes, WIPO should issue a decision within 20 days.  NAF should issue a decision within 14 days.  While NAF may seem faster, the fact is that when you factor in the additional time for NAF to process the original complaint, the timing from filing to decision is about the same.

Accessibility

Every time I have telephone WIPO (during its business hours), someone has answered, I have been correctly transferred and have had my question answered.  Every time I have called NAF (3 times) I get stuck in voice menu hell.  NAF encourages users to contact it my email.  An interesting proposition given it requires complaints to be filed by hard copy, no?  Although I did receive prompt responses by email from NAF, it would have been faster for both of us to have just answered my question by phone.

Documentation

WIPO’s documentation is clear; it is easily accessible.  On NAF’s documentation page (for usDRP proceedings), it provides a link to the Rules governing domain disputes; however, the link for usDRP rules is broken.  The linked-to page does not exist.  Not a ringing endorsement for the Forum’s tech-savviness.

Next, it furnishes the usTLD Policy in the same .pdf document at the Rules.  This is neither intuitive nor logical.  They are two different documents with two distinct purposes.  To lump them into a single document demonstrates and incredible amount of laziness.

As a general observation, the information available at the NAF web site is very fragmented.  The information you need is rarely, if ever, found on the same page.  When it is, links are broken.

All told and given the choice, I would always opt for a UDRP proceeding before WIPO, and not NAF.  Just my two cents.

Okay, so this woman too busy texting walks across a mall and falls into the fountain:

This is absolutely hilarious.  When I worked in NYC, I was also so angry about people walking down the sidewalk texting; they walk at an angle across the sidewalk, bump into you and are just generally a little annoying.  This video, to me, proves that you cannot text and pay sufficient attention to more – shall we say – important things like driving, biking or, as this video proves, even walking.

This woman pops up and goes about her business…allbeit a little wetter.

This woman has now hired an attorney and is considering suing the mall.  She appeared on Good Morning America today to discuss this (with her lawyer, of course).  It seems she’s not so upset that her stupidity was uploaded to YouTube and subsequently went viral.  No, she’s mad the security guards didn’t come to her aid.  However, she does jump up right away, climb out and walk away.  She appears fine.  We assume, of course, that even Paul Blart, Mall Cop could trace the wet trail to find the woman to ensure she was okay.

Because this woman wants to sue, I have no problem contributing to the world learning about her.  Her name is Cathy Cruz Marrero.   According to Perez Hilton, she is a born-again Christian.  (I guess God didn’t warn her about the approaching fountain.)

Ms. Marrero, you should be lucky you walked away from this mostly unharmed.  Rather than suing, just take your punishment (embarrassment) and learn from it (don’t text and walk).  Really, this should be a lesson to you – and everyone – that texting takes much of our attention.  Thus, one should not text while driving, biking, walking or even thinking.  Just don’t do it.

While I appreciate your embarrassment, you should be embarrassed.  It was stupid.  You were stupid.  Do you really want to aggravate and draw out that stupidity by filing a law suit?  It was your fault.  No one else’s.

Indeed, on GMA, you conceded when you first saw it on YouTube you thought it was funny.  Defense lawyers note that.  She thought it was funny, too – just like everyone else.  Can’t be that damaged.  Let’s assume that the security guards should have come running to your aid, what damage did you suffer?  The embarrassment had already taken place.  It seems to me that being escorted through the mall by a security guard while soaking wet would only exacerbate your embarrassment – not minimize it.

In sum, get over yourself.  Move on.  Don’t sue.  And, for God’s sake, stop texting!