Generally Out-Managed...er

Have you ever wondered what does the term "fair market value" really mean? It's often bantered about in the sports world when an athlete vying for a new contract, tries to sell his talents to the highest bidder. I hear it all the time. To me, it means getting paid for the service you're providing balanced against what others in your specific field are being paid for doing the same. Sounds fairly simple right? You get paid according to what your peers are being paid and how well they perform. That's how it works for everyone- everyone with the exception of one Robert Allan Dickey. 

You see, Mr. Dickey, he's just weird. First off, what's with the name? Dickey. Really? He play's professional Baseball for a living but that's a loose term since he happens to play for the New York Mets. Don't get me started on that - talk about having regrets. He's a pitcher but I'll be damned, he's a weird one at that too. He's a knuckleball pitcher. The knuckleball happens to be a last resort pitch used by those trying desperately to hold onto their career.

It's kind of like when Lindsey Lohan play's Elizabeth Taylor in a Lifetime made-for-TV movie. He's also missing a ligament or a nerve or something in his elbow; weird and damaged goods I tell you. Oh and here's the cherry on the top of this sundae, he's 38 years old! He's weird, old, damaged goods - and he wants to get paid "fair market value". I got his nerve- right here.

I admit he did ok last year. He led the Mets in practically every pitching category including usage of the word "enigmatic" 247 times. He was the first Mets pitcher ever to quote Faulkner in a post game interview that left the dreamy Kevin Burkhardt mesmerized in the moment. Oh yeah, and he won the Cy Young award. It's not that I'm minimizing what he means to the Mets but he's replaceable especially that he thinks he should get both "fair market value" and long term security. Sure I know he's just looking for a 3 year extension but he's 38 years old for crying out loud. And you know I don't like long term relationships plus we all know I've had to put a ring on one player this winter so far - two is pushing it! Damn that Beyonce.

Word on the street is that Anibal Sanchez just inked a 5 year, $80 million dollar deal to return to the Detroit Tigers. That's a lot of coin for a guy who's career record is under five hundred. Then you have that kid with the mental issues in Anaheim, Grienke. He just signed a 6 year deal with the Dodgers worth almost $160 million. I guess I have to agree that Dickey is worth somewhere in between those guys, right? Damn market. Here I was hoping it would bottom out and come to me (that's code word for I was hoping Dickey would finally exibit oxygen deprivation from his Kilimanjaro ascent and sign for pennies on the dollar).

Well needless to say, he's feeling fine, a little peeved but otherwise ok. I would be peeved too if my boss asked me to dress like an Elf at the company Christmas party. Maybe asking him to park the cars took it too far. Oh well, you live and learn. I have to get going now, I'm currently texting Alex Anthopoulos but don't worry, I'm multitasking here. My box of chocolates order from Swiss Colony just got approved - on company credit no less. Now that's winning!

All my best and happy holidays,

Sandy

This IS the Mega Deal You Were Looking For

There’s something about being in your mid-thirties to early forties where you can say without a shadow of a doubt, what a major impact Star Wars has had on your life.  I remember being so sick and home from school with a cold in 1980 and all I wanted was for my dad to sneak me into the local theater to see The Empire Strikes Back.  Of course that didn’t happen.  Those crazy parents, always being so parental; bless their souls.  Little did they know the scars it left me with as I had no choice but to watch the greatest of all Star Wars films on VHS – FOUR YEARS LATER and after having seen The Return of the Jedi.  Oh the humanity.

Of course I eventually forgave my parents for their…insidious lack of vision – as I’m sure Palpatine would be remissed to point out.  Yes my parents raised a good (hopefully) person who’s turned into a well adjusted, successful adult and a married parent to his own two year old daughter - who’s soon to be initiated into the world George Lucas envisioned some 35 years ago.  So when I heard a few weeks ago that George Lucas announced his retirement from filmmaking and decided to sell Lucasfilm to the Walt Disney Corporation, I became full of more mixed and odd emotions than the result of a Luke and Leia kiss.  I felt as if a part of my childhood had been surgically removed via lightsaber and sold to a bunch of pesky Jawas (for $4 billion no less). Yet at the same time I felt that if there was one company that could not only preserve but also cultivate the Star Wars Universe for years to come, it would be Disney. 

The Walt Disney Company already has quite the portfolio having acquired Pixar (which ironically was a subsidiary of Lucasfilm created in the 70’s and later sold in 1986 to Steve Jobs) early in 2006 and most recently in 2009, added Marvel Studios. And with the success of this past summer’s The Avengers, it’s a safe bet that Lucas’ decision to sell to Disney will solidify that company for years to come.  But the questions on the minds of fanboys and girls alike are, “Did the maker sell out?” Meaning will the Star Wars franchise become even more watered down now that Disney is in control?  Granted, that’s somewhat overly critical but I thought about this for a while and with respect to George Lucas, after seeing the prequels, can it really get more watered down for the masses?

"Say Rebel...one...more...damn time."

I get it, George Lucas isn’t Quentin Tarantino and it’s not as if everyone is pining for a Star Wars version of Pulp Fiction (other than me perhaps).  Part of what makes Star Wars so universal is that it speaks to everyone at any age but at its core, lay the very foundations of classic storytelling.  Themes such as redemption, revenge, friendship, loyalty, the very battle of good versus evil, all of which make Star Wars timeless.  As jaded as some Star Wars fans have become thanks to the mixed bag that are the prequels, I’m actually not worried that Disney will suddenly slip mouse ears onto Vader’s shiny dome – well maybe if it’s to sell merchandise – but hasn’t all of that cheese been done already and under Lucas’ force grip? 

"Gratuitous product placement you have"

I’ve always believed that the qualities that make George Lucas as great as he is are some of the very same qualities that have constricted much of his work and disappointed some of his fans.  Like any filmmaker, Lucas has always desired (and more times than not has attained) total control over his films as he was essentially one of the original independent filmmakers in Hollywood.  Sometimes the trade off that comes with total control ends up resulting in tunnel vision.  As much as I’m a fan of his work, I don’t think there’s one fan of filmmaking that thinks George Lucas is a master of the English language.  Dialogue has just never been his strong suit as even Harrison Ford was always fond of saying, “You can write this shit, but ya can’t say It.” – in regards to Lucas’ scripts. 

Another drawback of Lucas’ is his almost fervent desire of filming everything digitally.  Any Star Wars fan worth his salt knows the visual differences between the original versus the prequel films.  Because the technology didn’t exist back in the late 70’s and 80’s, Lucas literally had to create the technology himself thus ushering in ILM.  There isn’t a filmmaker in Hollywood today who doesn’t owe a bit of gratitude for the work Industrial Light and Magic have afforded them but sometimes a good thing can be overused and abused. 

There’s a lack of substance and physical reality to some of the work ILM did on the prequels.  Was it really necessary to digitally create a single clone trooper in a single scene?  Was it necessary to replace actual landscapes with digital mock ups?  Sometimes just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should and Hollywood seems to be gravitating more towards blending technology with traditional techniques rather then totally relying on computers to enhance their films.

It has to be difficult for Lucas to turn what has essentially been his life’s greatest work over to someone else even if it is someone he’s known his entire career.  But letting go of the reigns may be exactly what is needed to bring in new, fresh ideas. Luckily for both Lucas and fan’s alike he’s turning it over to someone who has had a hand in creating some of the most memorable films ever to grace the silver screen, films such as, E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, to name a few. 

Kathleen Kennedy has been given quite the daunting task of maintaining one of the greatest film franchises ever made.  Kennedy, a highly respected Hollywood vet, has worked along side the likes of Spielberg, Eastwood, Fincher and Scorsese over the years.  She’s one half of the powerhouse producing team of Kennedy and Frank Marshall, her husband, and alongside Steven Spielberg, formed a triumvirate at Amblin Entertainment. 

Letting go for a filmmaker is probably the most difficult thing to do.  There’s a quote that films are never really finished, only abandoned.  I for one feel great hope about the future of Star Wars and what it’s going to mean not only to my child very soon but perhaps even to her children someday.  Plans have already been in place for new films to hit theaters starting in 2015, starting with Star Wars: Episode VII.  Star Wars is rightfully going to become a rite of passage passed down from one generation to the next.  That my friend is what Star Wars is truly about.  Not the special effects or the merchandise or the theme parks. 

In the words of Master Yoda (sort of):  Hopeful, you should be.  

Have Knee Will Jerk

We can file this under the title:  Well that didn’t take long. 

Over the weekend we learned of a tragedy out of Kansas City when Kansas City Chief’s linebacker Jovan Belcher murdered his girlfriend and committed suicide - in front of team officials.  Apparently according to reports, Belcher thanked general manager Scott Pioli and head coach Romeo Crennel then shot himself in the team’s practice facility parking lot. 

Police reports over the weekend had a woman reporting that her daughter had been shot multiple times at a home just outside of Arrowhead Stadium.  It turned out to be the mother of Kassandra Perkins, Belcher’s girlfriend. 

There were serious questions as to would the Chief’s ask the NFL to cancel their Sunday game versus the Carolina Panthers but the team chose to play on despite the horror that took place.  It was during that game, which was aired on NBC’s Sunday Night Football that Bob Costas gave an on air opinion of the situation and took the proverbial knee jerk reaction that in my opinion, is beneath him as one of the finer sports broadcasters of our generation.  Here is what Costas said:

BOB COSTAS:

Well, you knew it was coming. In the aftermath of the nearly unfathomable events in Kansas City, that most mindless of sports clichés was heard yet again: Something like this really puts it all in perspective. Well, if so, that sort of perspective has a very short shelf-life since we will inevitably hear about the perspective we have supposedly again regained the next time ugly reality intrudes upon our games. Please, those who need tragedies to continually recalibrate their sense of proportion about sports would seem to have little hope of ever truly achieving perspective. You want some actual perspective on this? Well, a bit of it comes from the Kansas City-based writer Jason Whitlock with whom I do not always agree, but who today said it so well that we may as well just quote or paraphrase from the end of his article.
 

"Our current gun culture, “Whitlock wrote, "ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead."
 

"Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows?"
 

"But here," wrote Jason Whitlock," is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."

First off I’m not against anyone giving their opinion, even a sports broadcaster during a football game.  But for Costas to come out and sort-of kind-of separate himself from Jason Whitlock - by saying he normally doesn’t agree with him but on this he does, is just a cop out if you ask me.  Anytime you try to explain actions of insanity with rationality not only are you missing the point that crazy has no boundaries but you prove the point that good intentions mean jack shit. 

If a mother drowns her children in a bathtub do we place a ban on Mr. Bubble? If a husband cheats on his wife & she decides to snip off his Twinkie with a scissor do we ban scissors or Twinkies if that?  Don't get me started on Twinkies.  What about the mother who drove her minivan full of her kids into oncoming traffic on a  Long Island highway after she did a few lines of coke...what should we ban there Bob?  Minivans?  Soccer mom’s with suspiciously deviated septums?

Human beings are capable of the most vile behavior.  Yes, if guns didn’t exist, perhaps Jovan Belcher and Kassadra Perkins would be alive today.  You could say the very same about minivans or bath tubs and exacto knives. 

I’m disappointed in you Bob, I always thought of you as someone far more intelligent and far less susceptible to knee-jerk reactions to even the most horrible of situations.  I can understand being emotionally distraught, I’ve been there. I guess the culture at NBC has even taken its hold onto you.

Fall Movie Review - Skyfall

James Bond will be back. 

That’s been the promise moviegoers have been given over the past 50 years at the end of every Bond film dating back to the early days of Sean Connery.  The world’s most famous spy is back on the big screen for the 23^rd time in Skyfall as MGM studios has finally navigated its way out of a financial abyss.  Daniel Craig reprises the role of the British MI6 agent for the third time.  His first sip of the Martini came in 2006, when the series was re-booted and left the audience happily shaken and stirred for the future of the franchise.  

The producers wisely tapped into the original and realistic Ian Fleming source material.  Gone was the fanciful turn that was beginning to embody the Brosnan films.  The studio scored a major box office hit with Casino Royale and continued in 2008 with the somewhat disappointing Quantum of Solace.  

Let’s just say, the four year wait was more than worth it.

In Skyfall we see a Bond, especially since he earned his double-o status in Royale, far more polished if not a bit weary from the realities of the job.  He’s teamed with a fellow agent, Eve, who are both in pursuit of a terrorist(s) who has acquired a hard drive containing the names of MI6 operatives inbedded in terrorist organizations globally.  This may not be an entirely original premise as I’m sure Tom Cruises’ Ethan Hunt would raise an eyebrow to this, however it works for Skyfall and leads into one of the best opening Bond scenes to date.

Sam Mendes, who directed Craig in Road to Perdition, has created not just a stand-alone Bond film with Skyfall but a Bond film that pays proper homage to the 50 year history of the franchise with many alluding references to previous themes of redemption to the joy that is the Bond Aston Martin.  In fact I would consider Casino Royale as the much needed re-boot of Bond with Quantum of Solace transitioning him past the personal loss of Vesper Lynd with Skyfall bringing him back full circle to the roots of his character – both figuratively and literally as Skyfall just so happens to be Bond’s childhood home.

One of the reasons for EON’s reboot of the franchise was the fact that they felt it was headed into a more unrealistic slightly video game-esque genre.  And with Pierce Brosnan getting up in age and no longer under contract, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson decided to go in a different direction casting a younger Bond and stripping the character of its previous fanciful turns, i.e. no more crazy Q gadgets and an almost complete lack of humor.  

In both cases the producers took it too far and in Quantum of Solace you would be hard pressed not to assume you were watching a Jason Bourne film and not Bond.  Mendes and the producers finally realized this and while they have remained true to re-booting Bond, Skyfall does put a smile on the faces of long time Bond fans.

Once again Q branch is resurrected and this time around Q is played by Ben Whishaw.  He’s incredibly young, cocky and the perfect Yin to Bond’s Yang.  No pun intended there, really.  The sly and comedic repertoire between he and Bond are part of what made these films so fun and to see it back in the franchise and done this way was enjoyable. 

Judi Dench returns for the seventh time as the head of MI6, M.  Beyond bringing obvious gravitas and weight to the film, Dench’s’ M, referred to by her aides and agents as ‘Mum’, is about as close to a mother Bond has had.  And without giving away too many spoilers let’s just say at the end of Skyfall, that feeling is more than shown and appreciated by Bond. 

Ralph Fiennes joins the cast as Gareth Mallory, a minister in the PM’s cabinet who’s essentially M’s boss, and with the loss of the hard drive, is intent on seeing M sent out to pasture.  Again without giving too much away, it’s safe to assume we’ll be seeing Mr. Mallory again in future Bond films. 

It’s not really a spoiler to mention that Javier Bardem plays the baddie – Silva.  There’s something about Bond villains that either puts them in the forgettable category or the infamous category.   

Bardem’s acting chops clearly put him in the latter.  You can see that Bardem really relished this role and while there were times he came awfully close to camping it up, he kept it just creepy enough to keep it in check.  The scene where he meets Bond for the first time turns into the most uncomfortable yet amusing seduction scene ever in a Bond film.  Yes, a seduction scene. 

Skyfall centers on the relationships between Bond, M and Sliva and how they all interconnect with each other.  Silva is looking to kill M for some past indiscretion and Bond acknowledges the ‘Mum’ relationship that he has with her and takes it upon himself to protect her.  The writers and Mendes do a remarkable job at giving the audience a view into Bond’s history unlike any we’ve seen in previous films.  

The ending will leave you shaken and stirred that the future of Bond is now firmly re-booted and re-set properly and fully.  Bond once again can laugh at himself and the audience can once again feel the future for this iconic character is set to go, even when the ending credits come and tell us, he’ll be back.

What Can Be Learned From The Yankees Collapse

Ok, I admit, I did my best Quagmire impersonation the other night, in spite of my better angels trying desperately to keep me in check.  Not even Charlie’s Angels could keep me from succumbing to the dark side when I saw the best team money could buy get brutally swept by the best thing to come out of Detroit that wasn’t bailed out by the government.  It’s one thing to get to the American League Championship Series and lose but for the New York Yankees to lose 4 in a row and lose them by barely showing up was hard to watch, even for a Mets fan. 

To think that the Yankees actually made President Obama look thoroughly engaged in his first debate in comparison to their performance against the Tigers.  But I digress, who are we kidding; it wasn’t that hard for me to watch.  I may have revelled in the poetic justice of it all yet I ironically realized in the end that I don’t despise the New York Yankees as some people do, and I’m very ok with that.  Now, as to some of their fans – well that’s a whole different ballgame altogether.

Look I get it.  Who am I to criticize the Yankees for being swept in the Playoffs? My team hasn’t even had a whiff of a whiff of playoff baseball since Carlos Beltran stood like a deer in headlights taking Adam Wainwright’s curveball for strike three in 2006.  You can make a good argument that stemming from that moment the Mets began their spiral into the mediocre mess that they have become today.  And make no mistake about it; it’s rare to find a Yankee fan that doesn’t like to remind us of that among other things.  Because you know, it’s always endearing to be a bully. 

What other things you ask?  How about their 27 World Championships?  Sure I’d be proud of my team if they racked up that many Championships, who wouldn’t?  But I’m pretty sure, no I’m very sure I wouldn’t rub it into everyone’s faces or use it as my main retaliatory weapon anytime someone criticizes my team.  It reeks of elitism – and that is why no one is shedding a tear that Detroit handed the Yankees a beatdown of the ages.  I particularly enjoy the brand of Yankee fan who just about takes personal credit for those 27 championships.  As if it weren’t for their bloviating ad nauseum about their greatness, those teams never would have existed.  Over-compensating much pre tell? We get it, your team is great.

I know I’m not breaking any new ground here saying this.  We all know where the Mets are financially as an organization or at least we think we do and it’s no secret that times have been better.  There’s that certain percentage of Yankee fans that love to say how the Mets are cheap and don’t care about their fans.  Hell at times even I’ve felt the same malaise from this organization but when you look at the facts you realize that to say the Mets have always been cheap is more like a cheap shot than fact. 

It doesn’t take much to Google the numbers and see where the Mets have ranked in payroll over the years.  We all know they spend (spent).  They’re just very good at doing it very bad.   Athlon Sports ranks the Mets the worst of all MLB teams from 2001 to 2010 when it comes to spending in relation to wins.  But don’t try and get intellectual when arguing with these particular Yankee fans.  To them it’s all about the bling and boy do they have the bling in the Bronx enough so that even their mistakes (Carl Pavano, Jose Contreras, Brien Taylor, A-Roid) can be easily swept under the rug.  However even the mighty have their limits as Hank and Hal Steinbrenner have made it clear that they want to get their payroll under the luxury tax threshold.   

Of course there’s that “aura” that playing for the Yankees brings.  Even I fell for it when Raul Ibanez seemed to channel every Yankee great in this postseason with his homerun fest.  Not bad for a 39 year old.  Yet if you ask anyone impartial, which team regardless their finances, has a better crop of young talent making its way up, one would be hard pressed to say it’s the Yankees. 

It’s not like I’m drinking the Kool-Aid here.  I know the Mets aren’t exactly overflowing with minor league talent – as a Mets fan I know that’s hardly the case – but tell me what version of Zach Wheeler or Matt Harvey or even Wilmer Flores do the Yankees have?  If they did, don’t you think one or two would have been promoted this year and don’t try to pull Ivan Nova out of your pinstriped posterior. If he’s really one of their top prospects Brian Cashman has a lot more to worry about than how he’s going to try to convince a team to take Alex Rodriguez off his hands.  It seems Cashman could care less that his team has become the professional sports poster children for AARP as they have the oldest team on average in MLB.  This is what Cashman said about his geriatric lineup:

“I don’t care if it’s old.  I care about if it’s good.”

Well Socrates has spoken I suppose.  Talk about short sighted and the epitome of elitist.  The only reason Brian Cashman can say that is solely because of his owner’s pockets. 

The Mets and we as fans can learn a great deal from the debacle that is unraveling in the Bronx.  Sure if you’re one of those superficial, seasonal Yankee fans that only come out of the woodwork in October then you probably should ignore the warning signs.  Yes having almost unlimited funds can buy great players – eventual Hall-of-Famer players even.  But if history has shown, it doesn’t buy championships.  It’s signing the right players to augment your team, when you’ve developed it enough from within. Sure the Yankees can sign whoever they want and I’m pretty sure they’ll make a push for Texas’ Josh Hamilton this winter.  Talk about lighting a fuse on a Molotov cocktail.  The moment he steps out of his taxi cab onto 42^nd street, expect an epic implosion worthy of wall-to-wall TMZ coverage.

Some of those Yankee fans might think I sound like just another jaded Met fan.  Sure it’s been rough the last few years but what they call being jaded I call appreciation.  Mets fans appreciate their team.  Darren Meenan over at the 7Line rounded up hundreds of his troops on the final game of the year at Citifield with his mantra: loyal to the last out.  Now compare that to the empty seats in Yankee stadium during the playoffs.  It was shameful that Yankee officials asked fans to move to the lower decks to keep the empty seats out of the TBS camera view.  Elitist, entitled, arrogant and now you can add indifferent.  There is no other way to define it. 

If the Wilpons can ever get their financial house in order, hopefully with the proper gameplan which includes taking advantage of the amateur draft, including signing and developing the players they draft, and spending wisely in the free agent market, perhaps the Mets can right this ship.  If the finances continue to tighten just enough to keep the Wilpon’s treading water and whatever funds made available are spent poorly, then nothing changes.  The greatest success the Yankees had happened when their core players were supplemented with talent around them.  The opposite of that is what never seems to truly work at least not long term.  All that’s going to do is make you laugh under your breath at your TV when that house of cards comes falling down. 

Giggity. Giggity. 

The Apple Bites Back

I remember when Apple first introduced the iPhone in 2007.  How can anyone forget?  Steve Jobs stood there dressed in his iconic blue jeans and turtleneck with what looked like a prop straight out of Star Trek – but this was far from being science fiction. It was unlike anything anyone had ever seen before.  It was seductive with its sleek, curved edges.  Its screen was incredibly vibrant, nearly covering the entire face of the device. 

Yes it was a device – far more than just the cell phone it was designed to be.  It was…art and I wanted it…bad.  Since then the iPhone has taken the cellular industry by storm and has advanced it immeasurably in the past 5 years.  It set the industry standard and became the juggernaut that it is today – with Apple having sold more iPhones in five years than it has sold Macs in the past 28 years. 

I admit I’m a bit of a technophile perhaps a borderline tech geek – so sue me.  I probably shouldn’t say that and give anyone an idea.  It seems to be the way business in America – if you still have a business – is done these days.  If you didn’t build it, then I guess the next best thing you can do is sue it – especially if that business is your main competitor and you can claim they’re culpable of copyright infringement.

That’s exactly what Apple did when it sued Samsung in April of 2011 and just a few days ago won that lawsuit with a landmark decision when that jury determined that Samsung “was guilty of patent infringement time and time again on many devices spanning many carriers”.  The jury then slapped Samsung with a fine of over a billion dollars. 

Apple has since filed notices with the courts as to which devices they now want banned from being sold in the U.S.  Here’s the list:

Galaxy S 4G

Galaxy S2 (AT&T)

Galaxy S2 (Skyrocket)

Galaxy S2 (T-Mobile)

Galaxy S2 Epic 4G

Galaxy S Showcase

Droid Charge

Galaxy Prevail

And just the other day Apple included Samsung’s newest flagship the Galaxy SIII, the Galaxy Note and the Galaxy Note 10.1.  Keep in mind this is separate from the first decision that was rendered by the jury, so in essence, the lawsuits continue perhaps in perpetuity.  According to the website Engadget, at issue here are some of Apple's utility patents that it says Samsung has infringed upon. The headliner patents at issue are '721 which covers slide to unlock, and '604, which could apply to the universal search feature Samsung has been pulling from its phones recently. Another familiar entry is the '647 patent Apple slapped HTC with in 2010, which has a vague description but applies to clicking on a phone number in an email, for example, to call it.

Ok, so I might have lost some of you with that last paragraph, right?  I mean I’m fairly sure that all you want to do is have a cell phone that actually makes a phone call and maybe do some cool stuff like listen to music and check the internet maybe even toss around a few Angry Birds.  Now you have to wonder if you’re holding some kind of contraband akin to a Mexicali cartel with the ATF ready to bust down your door for crossing the mighty wunderkinds in Cupertino. 

Allow me to get a few things out of the way here.  First, I’m neither a lawyer nor do I try to pretend to be – that in and of itself would just be weird.  My opinions on this matter don’t originate from a legalistic point of view but from what I like to think of as a practical, common sense point of view.  I don’t believe anyone has the right to steal copyrighted ideas and sell them off to consumers as their own.  As a part of the lawsuit against Samsung, Apple claimed that Samsung “stole” many of Apple’s aesthetic designs such as the “rounded corners” of the iPhone and iPad and the universal search function along with the pinch-to-zoom function – which allows you to zoom in on pictures. 

First off, let’s talk design.  Now I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed but I find it hard to believe that anyone has a corner on the market of rounded cellular phone edges.  And God forbid they make a cell phone with rounded edges, they’re open to litigation for doing so.  In 2006 Samsung designed a cell phone called the F700.  Here is what it looked like.  

Look familiar?  Now who’s to say that the boys over at Apple didn’t take some, I don’t know, divine inspiration from this and use it in their iPhone designs? 

It’s kind of a silly argument that Apple is trying to make because what they are saying is they invented the rectangle.  Elmo better get his checkbook ready because he and his friends on Sesame Street need to cough up some coin if they want to keep using that signature Apple product.  Apple didn’t invent the touchscreen.  No that honor goes to Mr. E.A. Johnson of the Royal Radar Establishment in Malvern, UK around 1965 to 1967.  They certainly didn’t invent the cell phone.  That would be Mr. Martin Cooper of Motorola. 

So what is it with Apple and they’re litigation happy mentality that seems to be on an unending, self-sustained path?  Does the Ford Motor Company get to sue Chevy because it too makes cars with four tires and an engine?  Could all of this be something far grander and far more Machiavellian than trying to take out the expected competition from other cell phone designers?  It’s not like Apple needed the billion dollars, they’re more valuable as a company than some nations – perhaps the U.S. included. 

When Walter Isaacson wrote his unauthorized biography of the late Steve Jobs, he shed a great deal of insight into how deep a dislike Jobs had for Google and it’s Android operating software – the lifeblood if you will of all of the competitors Apple is suing.  In his book Isaacson reports Jobs saying,

“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,” Jobs said. “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

Interesting because according to the history of Apple’s rise to power, it is well know that Jobs was given access to some of Xerox’s technology, including the mouse – and upon paying for the rights to see the technology – Jobs instructed his people at Apple to design a cheaper and better version of Xerox’s mouse.  The better mousetrap – pun intended was underway.  I don’t recall Xerox soiling their panties on that one.

This is pretty simple if you ask me.  This is a new Cold War and Apple has Google and Android in its crosshairs.  Apple doesn’t give two rips about rounded edges or pinch-to-zoom or screen size.  This is Steve Jobs’ final edict as CEO of Apple – destroy Google.  Just like the actual Cold War – the United States and the Soviet Union never fired one shot at each other directly – only against their subordinates – the Vietnam’s and Latin American nations of the world. 

There was a time I really wanted that iPhone.  Guess what happened?  I found the better mousetrap.  This saga is far from over and you can be sure the only winners of all of this and the future litigation's will be the lawyers.  Shakespeare was right I think.  

Keep F@*k*#g That Chicken

So it seems the fast-food industry has now become the new battleground for politics in the United States.  No, Mike Bloomberg hasn’t put a hit out on Ronald McDonald...yet.  No this time is was the CEO of Chick-fil-A, Dan T. Cathy, who a few days ago proclaimed his opposition to gay marriage – setting off a debate not only on gay marriage but also freedom of speech across the country. 

Since his proclamation, groups supporting gay marriage have issued statements condemning Chick-fil-A and its CEO, calling for boycotts and the ultimate failure of the company.  In fact his proclamation even prompted the Jim Henson Company to announce that they would sever ties with the company, even though they’ve had a relationship for many years. 

When I first heard what the CEO of Chick-fil-A said regarding gay marriage I wasn’t really all that shocked.  The last time I was in a Chick-fil-A was about ten years ago and I then remember hearing Christian music playing in the lobby and I noticed they were closed on Sundays – I assumed to acknowledge the Christian Sabbath.

 I thought the CEO, making such a personal opinion public, was selfish at best, considering the backlash it opened up to all of his employees from those who don’t agree with him.  At worse, it speaks to the foolishness of a business decision that does nothing but alienating its consumers – some of the same consumers who’ve probably been patrons for years, simply because the CEO had to make a grand political statement.  Sure it’s well within his rights, but you’re selling chicken man.  You’re not changing the world one nugget at a time. If you were in business to make grand political statements versus making a profit then you’d be giving your chickens on a biscuit away for free, no?

What I always find amazing is how some of us fall comfortably into our little boxes with the predetermined views that we use to define and separate ourselves from one another.  It’s one of the reasons why I consider myself a Libertarian.  My views aren’t easily sorted and collated.  I’m not your typical demographic.  I can’t be ‘expected’ to follow marching orders; voting a certain way like a good little lemming.  I hate being grouped and I certainly don’t fall in line with what “the cool people” think.  Democrats I’m pretty sure don’t like me thinking that I’m probably a Republican and Republicans think I should be more like them - if I only had a brain- and yes you can hum the tune to that, I did. 

What really annoys me about this poultry fiasco is the rampant hypocrisy being volleyed back and forth – by each side. You have a few groups here, all vying to scale the summit of the socially conscious mountaintop.  Take for instance those who are so incensed by Chick-fil-A’s stance that they’re setting up rallies against the company around the country.  Just as the CEO of the company was within his rights to make his statement, the folks who disagree are well within their rights to do so as well. 

But it would be nice if they were consistent with their ire.  It was just a few months ago that President Obama had the very same opinion regarding same sex marriage until he rightfully changed his mind – whether due to convictions or softening polls with his base is debatable.  Where was this group then?  Where was the outrage?  Quite selective.

Most of us drive a vehicle or are driven by vehicles.  Over 50% of the oil the United States uses comes from OPEC nations.  Countries such as Saudi Arabia have prosecuted homosexuals for their orientation and Iran in particular has put men and women to death for the crime of being homosexual. In fact while giving a speech at the UN, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied the very existence of homosexuals in Iran all together.  I have yet to see a rally at my local Mobil station decrying that however.

Look I get it; we rely on fuel.  It’s the lifeblood of our economy and it’s vital to our way of life.  But that doesn’t change the facts and because it would put a crimp in many lifestyles, some choose to take on the evil incarnate that is a fast food joint.  It’s very easy and awfully convenient to thump your chest and scream at the top of your lungs at a ridiculous decision some owner of a company made – a company that has about 1600 locations in 39 states.  But if that decision enrages you how can you justify in ANY way the use of OPEC supplied oil?  If you’re going to have righteous indignation shouldn’t it be somewhat consistent?  Or at least look as if you’re being consistent?  Some people are consistent and walk the walk, but so many others are playing this up far more than the coverage it deserves.

Then you have those who are calling for a ‘Chick-fil-A Day’, an idea spawned by the former Arkansas governor – no, not that one – Mike Huckabee.  Even Sarah Palin, the dimmest bulb in the GOP LiteBrite playset made it a point to head to a Chick-fil-A and snap a Twitter pic with her husband, giving the thumbs up.  You betcha!  It reeks of an Al Sharpton move – total ambulance chasing – and in Palin’s case, in the name of “American Values”.  Sorry I call BS.  It reeks of cheap personal gratification politics. 

I also get annoyed when the argument is made that marriage is an ‘institution’, to be respected and honored and somehow homosexuals will somehow sully that.  Yeah, let’s see the divorce rate for first marriages in the US is between 41 to 50%.  Second marriage divorce rates are between 60 and 67% and the third time is certainly not the charm as the rate is between 73 and 74%.  But somehow, heterosexuals are showing marriage great deference and respect and I didn’t even bring up the Kim Kardashians or Britney Spears of the world. 

Everyone needs to step back for a moment and stop trying to win the award for the most socially conscious citizen in America.  Chick-fil-A isn’t the reason gay marriage isn’t becoming more accepted.  The reality is - it is.  But to those who want to equate religious beliefs automatically with oppression are doing a disservice.  I was raised a Roman Catholic.  I did the whole Catholic grade school thing.  I have many issues with the Catholic Church.  I believe Jesus didn’t judge school children by what their parent’s net worth was.  I believe Jesus drank out of a carpenter’s cup and not the 24 karat gold jewel incrusted joke the Pope sips out of at each mass.  Those who claim gay marriage is going to unravel society as we know it need to admit to themselves that the very institutions they hold dear have done far greater damage to society than whether or not Ellen should be allowed to marry Portia.  It’s time for people to stop listening to the masses, the groups, the parties, the churches, the states, and start listening to themselves and what is inside themselves.  You are your best judge of what is right and wrong.  Never forget that.