Creeper
Who is Woody Allen? I was curious so I did a little checking. Without my usual eloquent elaboration here are some basic facts I learned.
Woody Allen got married for the first time in 1954 to Harlene Rosen. He was 19 and she was 16. The marriage took place in California with the blessing of Harlene’s parents. Reportedly it was Allen’s parents who were more resistant to the joining.
The marriage lasted about five years. After the divorce, Allen referred to Harlene as “the dread Mrs. Allen” in his comedy act and she sued him for defamation regarding comments he made on TV.
Later, when Allen was in a relationship with Mia Farrow, who he never married, he was discovered (while they were still a couple) with nude photographs he had taken of Soon-Yi Previn, Farrow’s adopted daughter who was about 19 years old at the time.
Later, Allen described Farrow’s discovery of the photographs as “one of the great pieces of luck” in his life. Allen later denied this series of events was a “scandal.”
What was the scandal? I fell in love with this girl, married her. We have been married for almost 15 years now. There was no scandal, but people refer to it all the time as a scandal and I kind of like that in a way because when I go I would like to say I had one real juicy scandal in my life.
Source: Reuters
After the relationship with Farrow ended, Allen was free to pursue Soon-Yi Previn. Allen was 57 and Soon-Yi was reportedly about 19. They were married about five years later in 1997 and remain married to this day. There is a 35-year difference in ages.
When asked about the age difference, Allen famously shrugged it off, saying, “The heart wants what the heart wants.”
I’d buy that for a penny! #WSJ
 How WSJ advertises their iPhone app |
 How it actually appears (unpaid version) on my iPod |
For some time I’ve been meaning to do a post about the Wall Street Journal app on my iPod. I think it was back in July 2011 when I took the screenshot shown above (on the right).
Notice what is peculiar about it? Here’s a little hint:
Without further ado, here are some excerpts from my official review of the WSJ app for iOS devices.
It’s the best goddamn app for showing locked content (keys) that I’ve ever seen in my whole fucking life.
–Tom B. TakerSeriously. If you love little key icons you’re going to love this app.
–Tom B. TakerThis app will make you lose your shit. If you can unlock anything in it, that is.
–Tom B. TakerFinally! The Wall Street Journal has taken the time-honored model of frustrating customers and achieved sublime perfection.
–Tom B. TakerSo many keys – you’ll think you’re on a vacation in Florida! And that’s an economical vacation!
–Tom B. Taker
I’d post the review in full, but unfortunately that is restricted content. Lucky for you it’s only $9.99. Send me your credit card information and I’ll pass it along.
Now obviously I could pay money and remove those little locked icons. How much would you pay? Well, for that priviledge the WSJ wants $1.99 a week. (That’s about $103/year.) Or you could get the actual print version delivered to your door six days a week for $2.29 a week. (About $119/year.)
Yep. That’s right. Go online and save the trees, gas, and cost of paying a human being to schlep a physical object to you and you’ll save a whopping 13 percent. Erm, 13 percent? Say what?
Yes, here we have the WSJ model that web content should be almost the same price as traditional distribution.
Now how much would you pay?
Wait! Before you answer, check this out. What if you could only pay one penny? Then would you be interested?
In a story this morning The Guardian reports on a WSJ scam that cost an executive his job. (Is The Guardian one of the hundreds of media owned by Rupert Murdoch? I’m not sure. There are so many it’s hard to keep them straight. Luckily there’s an app for that! Good news – they’re not!)
In wake of the scandal, the European Publishing Chief for the WSJ resigned. The Guardian reports that under the scheme WSJ newspapers were sold for one cent each in a bid to increase circulation numbers.
By the way, in case anyone forgets, the WSJ is owned by News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch. (Why do I feel like I should be referring to him as He-Who-Should-Not-Be-Named?) Shudder!
Anywho, under the scheme, companies who sponsored the WSJ paid a reduced “knock-down” rate of 5 cents or less per newspaper. In the case of a Dutch company known as Executive Learning Partnership (ELP), the rate was 1 cent per newspaper for 12,000 sponsored purchases per day.
The Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) eventually determined that the scheme was responsible for 41% of the daily circulation the WSJ claimed in Europe, about 31,000 copies out of a total of 75,000.
Things fell apart when ELP complained they were not getting enough return on their investment. Gee, ya think? Perhaps it isn’t wise to invest in a newspaper that artificially inflates its circulation numbers, eh? To placate ELP, the WSJ executive created an addendum to their contract, and it is that addendum that The Guardian reports led to his resignation.
The Guardian found evidence that the Journal had been channelling money through European companies in order to secretly buy thousands of copies of its own paper at a knock-down rate, misleading readers and advertisers about the Journal’s true circulation.
The bizarre scheme included a formal, written contract in which the Journal persuaded one company to co-operate by agreeing to publish articles that promoted its activities, a move which led some staff to accuse the paper’s management of violating journalistic ethics and jeopardising its treasured reputation for editorial quality.
Source: The Guardian
Ethics? Reputation? Editorial quality? Those are not words one normally associates with something owned by the likes of Rupert Murdoch.
The highly controversial activities were organised in London and focused on the Journal’s European edition, which circulates in the EU, Russia, and Africa. Senior executives in New York, including Murdoch’s right-hand man, Les Hinton, were alerted to the problems last year by an internal whistleblower and apparently chose to take no action. The whistleblower was then made redundant.
Don’t you hate it when you get made “redundant?” I know I do! (Or did I already say that?)
If Rupert Murdock is involved, why do I feel that even a mere penny is too much to pay?
Oils well that ends up in the gutter
Putting the grease trap out front is actually very clever guerilla advertising.
New blog feature: “News you might have missed – oh holy mother of God!” What should I call it? NYMHMOHMOG? Yeah, that sounds good.
A greasy crime syndicate has been busted in China. Authorities were able to slip in and arrest 32 members of a well-oiled criminal machine. These greedy lard-ass criminals were caught literally living off the fat of the land.
Know what I mean?
As a wise fish in Star Wars once said, “It’s a trap!” Now we now that he meant the wholesome residual stuff that sticks around after good down home cookin’. It was the infamous Grease Trap located near the outer rim and the rebel base on one of the moons of Yavin.
Police seized something like 100 tons of “illegally recycled food oil” in China spanning 14 provinces. Where did it come from? Oil gutters in restaurants, of course.
According to police, six different oil processing workshops were closed including one operated by Jinan Green Bio Oil Co., a company that claimed to convert used cooking oil into fuels. What it actually did was filter the oil, recycle it, then sell it wholesale as “new” back to restaurants. (Not quite extra-virgin but I wonder if it would still qualify as Freshly Pressed?)
That sounds a lot like the slippery version of the circle of life. Anyone besides me hungry yet?
A news report in the Washington Post said that the recycled oil can contain carcinogens and traces of aflatoxin. Aflatoxin? Shit! I better check my medicine cabinet to make sure my doctor hasn’t prescribed me any. Side effects include death and oily anus syndrome. (I’m not sure which is worse.)
Dear Lord, bless this food we are about eat.
Actually, aflatoxin is described as a potentially deadly mold. It goes much better with some dishes than water chestnuts or cilantro.
This isn’t exactly the first food scandal to hit China. Other greatest hits include golden moldies like fish treated with “cancer-causing antimicrobials,” eggs laced with industrial dye, and fake liquor that can cause blindness or death.
And, in 2008, there was the tragedy where milk and infant formula laced with melamine killed six children and made 300,000 people sick.
In America, just this week, a man named Dr. Oz has been making waves by claiming that apple juice (a favorite of youngsters) contains unacceptably high levels of arsenic. No word yet on the old lace.
Industry, the FDA, and some other doctors have been quick to defend the wholesome product.
I have a question: What the fuck is arsenic doing in there in the first place? What levels are acceptable?
Of arsenic, Wikipedia says this:
Arsenic and its compounds, especially the trioxide, are used in the production of pesticides (treated wood products), herbicides, and insecticides. These applications are declining, however, as many of these compounds are being phased out. Arsenic poisoning from naturally occurring arsenic compounds in drinking water remains a problem in many parts of the world.
And, to bring this back around full circle, guess who is the largest producer of arsenic in the world? Yep. China.
Rebekah Brooks: Arrested and resigned
Source: Flickr ssoosay
In case you don’t know, Rebekah Brooks was the editor of the News of the World newspaper and at the helm during the phone hacking scandal. That paper is, of course, one of the many holdings of News Corp. headed by chairman and chief executive Rupert Murdoch.
Brooks and Murdoch are tight like this, yo.
So yeah, you may have heard that as a result of the scandal, Brooks was forced to resign. That’s true. She resigned as the chief executive of News International on July 15, 2011.
She was arrested on by London police on July 17, 2011, for suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications and suspicion of corruption. She was in custody for 12 hours then released on bail.
Although coverage of the News Corp. hacking scandal has died down a bit it is far from over.
Did you know that despite widespread coverage of Brooks’ “resignation” she was still on the board of directors for 22 News Corp. holdings?
Here’s the list of Brooks’ directorships:
TIMES NEWSPAPERS HOLDINGS LIMITED
NEWS INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS LIMITED
NEWS 2026 LIMITED
NEWSCORP INVESTMENTS
NI SYNDICATION LIMITED
NI FREE NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
NEWS INTERNATIONAL TRADING IRELAND LIMITED
NEWS PRINTERS GROUP LIMITED
NEWSPRINTERS (EUROCENTRAL) LIMITED
NEWSPRINTERS (KNOWSLEY) LIMITED
NEWSPRINTERS (BROXBOURNE) LIMITED
NEWS PRINTERS ASSETS LIMITED
NEWS INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISEMENTS (IRELAND) LIMITED
TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT LIMITED (THE)
NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
NI GROUP LIMITED
NEWS INTERNATIONAL NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
NEWS INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
NEWS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATED SERVICES LIMITED
NEWS INTERNATIONAL (ADVERTISEMENTS) LIMITED
NEWS INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITEDSource: Political Scrapbook
Wow. It must be nice to have someone rich and powerful like you. A lot.
In a statement, Brooks said back on July 15th, “… my resignation has been accepted.”
You keep using that word “resignation.” I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Daily Telegraph reported that despite resigning from her position, Brooks remained on the company payroll and continued to receive her salary from News International, having been told by Rupert Murdoch to “to travel the world on him for a year.” (Source: Wikipedia.)
Keep an eye on this one even if the story occasionally drops from the main street spotlight. News of the World has been accused of doing some really slimy things and she was in charge. With Murdoch as her friend and mentor, I’m sure that apple didn’t fall from the tree.
Churches and high school homecomings
Oh the humanity!
Imagine a 15-year-old girl attending her high school homecoming dance. For one girl in October 2009 in Richmond, California, the night turned into a horrible excursion into hell. The girl was raped and beaten by 7 to 10 men and “boys.” Those arrested by police included boys aged 15, 16 and 17 and men aged 19 and 21.
Worse, if there can even be such a thing as “worse,” the event was witnessed by up to an estimated 20 bystanders. As word of the rape spread, it was reported that more came to watch. None did anything to stop the attack or report it to authorities. It was reported that some allegedly laughed and some even allegedly took pictures with their cell phones.
The event was significant for getting the phrase “bystander effect” into the media for a while.
Last week the Catholic sex abuse scandal also became news. According to Wikipedia, “much of the scandal focused around the actions of some members of the Catholic hierarchy who did not report the crimes to legal authorities and reassigned the offenders to other locations where they continued to have contact with minors, giving them the opportunity to continue their sexual abuse.”
An extremely troubling response from the Vatican in Sept. 2009 estimated that “only” 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse. (Remember – this is the incidence rate they gave themselves. No doubt the actual rate could be even higher.) The response also indicated that the church was “busy cleaning its own house” and in a logically spurious argument that completely avoids personal responsibility claimed that sex abuse in other churches occurred at a higher rate.
In the Richmond incident, bystanders did nothing to prevent a crime in progress. In the Catholic sex abuse scandal, persons in positions of authority did not report the possibility of crimes when they were discovered.
I submit that both of these examples are cut from the very same cloth.
Aside from resolving these ongoing cases by helping the victims and punishing the guilty, the primary question becomes: What do we do now?
My proposal is something I’d like to call the “do the right thing” law. Or perhaps it could be known as The Bystander Law.
The tragedy in the Richmond case is that our justice system will only prosecute actual participants in the attack. The witnesses who stood by and did nothing, spread the word to others, and/or enjoyed the show will never be held accountable for what they have done. Similarly, in the sex abuse case, persons who facilitated protection of the guilty who then went on to commit additional offenses will also never be held accountable.
That lack of accountability is unacceptable. We need a solution with more teeth.
In short, a “do the right thing” law would hold witnesses and abettors fully accountable as if they committed the act themselves.
Come across a rape in progress? Immediately report the act or you will face the same penalty of law as if you were the one who committed the act. If the rapist gets eight years, the witness who did nothing should also get eight years.
If you are an official in the Catholic church and receive allegations of sex abuse, immediately turn them over to the police. Fail to do so and you will be held accountable for that person’s actions from then on. Fail to turn over allegations of abuse to the proper authorities and you should go to jail. These reported incidents are not “internal matters” to be handled as the church sees fit. They are crimes. The church has clearly demonstrated it is unfit to investigate them.
This is important. The people who did nothing, laughed, took photographs, or facilitated additional cases of abuse are still out there among us.
I don’t give a shit if psychologists and social scientists say there is a so-called “bystander effect” or not. We need a law that says “do the right thing or you will pay.” Or else next time it might be you or your own little girl that gets attacked for hours while society stands by and does nothing.
Does the Pope writ in the woods?
Best mobility device evar! Now with secret Snuggie compartment and cup holder.
Mind if I pontifficate for minute?
On March 20, 2010, the Vatican released a letter from Joseph Alois Ratzinger that apologized for abuse on the part of “priests, brothers and nuns.”
You might know Ratzinger better by his more popular name: Pope Benedict XVI.
The letter was prompted by a report released by the Irish Child Abuse Commission 2009 that documented testimony of nearly 2,000 witnesses in over 200 Catholic-run schools from the 1930s until the 1990s.
Benedict, who became the Pope in 2005, probably never imagined that he’d be writing a letter apologizing for sexual abuse committed by members of the Catholic Church. Now some are calling on him to resign.
It turns out this wasn’t just another unpleasant duty that falls on the shoulders of the Pope. It turns out that he may have been personally involved in some of the events surrounding the sex abuse scandal.
As reported by the BBC, the Pope has been accused of “failing to act on complaints from two archbishops in the US about a priest who allegedly abused 200 deaf boys.”
Back when Benedict was still known as Cardinal Ratzinger he “allegedly failed to respond to letters about the case.” Something known as a “church trial” was halted after the priest wrote to Ratzinger complaining of “poor health.”
For more than 20 years before he was made pontiff, Joseph Ratzinger led the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith – the Vatican office with responsibility, among other issues, for response to child abuse cases.
The Pope is also against condoms in Africa, furthering a ridiculous church doctrine that could help reduce the spread of AIDS. The church preaches abstinence and fidelity yet somehow that isn’t enough:
This is the reality: a married woman living in Southern Africa is at higher risk of becoming infected with HIV than an unmarried woman. Extolling abstinence and fidelity, as the Catholic Church does, will not protect her; in all likelihood she is already monogamous. It is her husband who is likely to have HIV. Yet refusing a husband’s sexual overtures risks ostracism, violence, and destitution for herself and her children.
Source: Catholic Church condom prohibition comes face to face with reality of AIDS in Africa.
I don’t know enough to know if the Pope should resign, but I do know this: Some people in positions of trust have gotten away with sexual abuse for far too long. I would guess that only a fraction of them have ever been exposed and even less of them have ever been held accountable. This is one of the greatest travesties of justice of all-time, in my humble opinion. Not only on the part of those who committed heinous acts but also on those who knew and did nothing to stop it or even worse helped cover it up so it could continue somewhere else.
How many abuses could have easily been prevented? Only God can answer that question. The guilt is shared by far too many.
Anyone suspected of sexual abuse of a minor should be treated the same regardless of their role in any church. Period. The fact that church membership helped protect this sort of behavior is unconscionable.
Steps need to be taken to make sure this never happens again. And this time, we can’t leave it up to the Catholic Church to take care of it on their own. They have more than demonstrated than any such efforts are utterly pointless. The entire organization needs to be put on some sort of probation with forced compliance.
Shouts from the Abyss 
Recent Comments