Before the Movie Starts.......

Over the weekend, I went to see a movie with my wife. It had been a long time since I had gone to a theater, and I wasn't aware that I was going to a hybrid of regular TV and cable. What is one of the reasons we PAY to go a movie theater? To see first-run movies, uncut and uninterrupted? If that is the case, why are there commercials before the movie starts? It's one thing when they show previews of upcoming films as, even though they are essentially commercials, it relates back to the movie-going experience. But seeing commercials for Coca-Cola, or the local auto dealership? Are theater operational costs that outrageous that they need the additional revenue that commercials bring in? It's ridiculous! It's bad enough that I had to pay an arm and a leg just to see the movie (and that's before I even got to the concession stand with my loan application for nachos.) But do I have to be bombarded with hemorrhoid commercials before I sit for two hours for the movie?

At least with cable, I get to see the same movies that are in the theater, just later on. Better still, I can rent them a couple of months after they leave the theater. I just have to be sure to bring them back before the "not a late fee" late fee is assessed. For what I'm paying to see the movie in the first place, I don't want to see commercials before, during, or after the movie. I don't think that is too much to ask.

The End of Late Fees, Part 2

I posted my article on Blockbuster's new policy on Monday, January 10th, 2005. Today, I was told by my brother that the radio news was reporting that the Attorney General's office in Michigan is receiving complaints from people regarding the misrepresentation about the "no late fees".

Reading this blog can keep you ahead of the curve and impress your family and friends.

Shoot The Moon

By now, everyone has seen or heard about Randy Moss' touchdown celebration last weekend in Green Bay. After scoring a touchdown, Moss went to the goalposts and faked pulling his pants down so that he could "moon" the crowd. This was broadcast live, and Joe Buck, the Fox Television play-by-play announcer said that it was a disgusting act and was disappointed that the cameras caught it live. Yesterday, Red McCombs, the owner of the Minnesota Vikings, demanded that Joe Buck be taken off the broadcast of the Vikings game this weekend. Whether you agree with Buck that Moss was disgusting, or that McCombs has any ground to stand on with his demand, something I heard on the radio today regarding this situation compelled me to write.

On my way home from work, Art Regner of 1270 AM got into an argument with a caller named Ray about McCombs, yelling that he had no right to make demands upon another institution (Fox Sports) because they were paying the NFL rights fees, and then he said "What about Freedom of the Press??!!" Right there, he went too far.

As a reminder, here is what the First Amendment says: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine)

Did I miss something? When did Red McCombs become Congress? I was not aware that a private citizen, asking another private citizen (in this case, a private business) was censorship and a violation of freedom of the press. I think the argument can be made that not only is this not a violation in any way, but Fox Sports, in the capacity of broadcasting a sporting event, is not even "the press". In this particular capacity, they are acting as BROADCAST ENTERTAINMENT. The other part of Regner's argument, that Fox pays the NFL rights fees and therefore can do whatever they want in terms of whom the broadcasters are is true to an extent. Fox does not have to do anything that McCombs wants. Just the same, the Vikings do not have to grant any access whatsoever to Fox, in terms of its players, coaches, or whatnot. Oh, and Fox would be very dumb to tick off one of the NFL franchises. After all, Fox pays for the rights to broadcast games for a reason: PROFIT. Even though Fox pays multi-millions for the privilege of showing the games, keep in mind how much Fox gets back in terms of advertising revenue, and the ability to pimp all of their other programming during the games. I'm sure if Fox were to drop the NFC coverage because they were threatened by McCombs, NBC, WB, UPN, ESPN, TBS, The Weather Channel, and the Discovery Channel would all be fighting each other for those rights. In this case, I think McCombs was proper to demand of Fox Buck be pulled. That being said, I also think Fox Sports should put whomever they think is best behind the microphone, and if it is deemed to be Joe Buck, so be it. But to call this censorship is ridiculous.

The general problem with the line of thinking that private parties disagreeing over speech is censorship continues to permeate. It is an accepted viewpoint that if you have something to say, and the public disagrees with you and shouts you down, it is censorship. Just think back to a year or two ago around the Iraq War. People like the Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, and Tim Robbins were booed heavily and boycotted against. This was called censorship and abridgment of freedom of speech. It was no such thing. What government institution stepped in and forbade these people from speaking? What laws were passed to silence them? Exactly. None. It was the general public using THEIR freedom of speech as well. Isn't it funny how when the public attempts to shut up someone whom they don't agree with, be it the Dixie Chicks and the U.S. public (particularly down south), or in this case, Red McCombs vs Fox Sports, censorship and the First Amendment always get bandied about.

Freedom of Speech applies to EVERYONE, not just the complainers. By the way, one person's freedom of speech does NOT include the right to be listened to.

The End of Late Fees?

Blockbuster Video has declared the end of late fees. Rent games or videos, bring them back, basically, whenever you want, and never pay a late fee. If you believe this, you must also believe in gnomes and leprechauns.

Here's how the 'No Late Fees' works. Rent a video on a Saturday, and its due back Monday before noon. If you fail to return the item on time, but return the item before seven days, you will be charged a $1.50 "restocking" fee, per item. Then, if you hold the item for more than seven days, the transaction converts from a rental to a sale, which will be processed against either your credit card used to open your account, or against your membership card. If you return it within thirty days, the sale will be canceled, and you will still have the restocking fee.

To me, the words "No Late Fees" means if you rent an item, and return it late, you incur NO fee. Well, then what is a restocking fee? Is it not a fee that is incurred if you return an item late? Blockbuster's web site Q&A regarding this policy states "BLOCKBUSTER incurs processing, administrative and other costs when we have to convert rental product to a sale, as well as when you return the product after that sale. The restocking fee helps to cover that cost." Ok, to help offset that lateness CREATED fee, don't convert the rental to a sale. And if putting the item back on the shelf incurs expenses for the company (even though, if you return it on time, apparently this expense does not incur), I have a solution. When I bring an item back late, I'LL put it back on the shelf. No need to assess a restocking fee to me.

The end of late fees. What a misnomer. It may be the end of accumulating late fees, but if bringing an item back to the store still generates a fee, it's a late fee, no matter what you call it. "A rose by any other name is still a rose".

Voting is a right, not an obligation

Would you watch the World Series if you weren't interested in baseball? Would you invest your money without knowing anything about the investment? No? Then why would you vote if you don't know and/or don't care?

Why am I writing about voting in early January, 2005? Because this thought had been nagging me, and then when I learned that Richard Gere apparently speaks for me, I thought it was time. In case you haven't heard, Richard Gere is appearing in TV ads advocating voter turnout in this Sunday's Palestinian elections by saying "I'm Richard Gere and I'm speaking for the entire world. We’re with you during this election time. It’s really important: Get out and vote.” Of course, he's also standing with two individuals who advocate the destruction of Israel and Jews. Truly democratic beliefs. Beyond the sheer arrogance of the fact that Dick Gere does NOT speak on my behalf, I'd like to focus on his last sentence "Get out and vote".

How many people think we live in a pure democracy? If you do, your civics knowledge is incorrect. We live in a Representative Republic. A pure democracy would be the people directly make the governing decisions. We instead elect officials to local and federal government to make the decisions for us in theory based upon what the majority of the constituents desire.

Every time there is an election, there's always various events and people trying to get as many people as possible to go vote. For example, MTV has 'Rock the Vote', and Puff Daddy, P Diddy, Sean Colmbs, or whatever he's decided to call himself on this given day, had 'Vote or Die', supported by other celebrities such as Paris Hilton. Catchy, huh? (Ironically, they didn't bother to vote in the last election, so does that mean they should die? Well, hopefully their careers will).

Ever heard the expression 'Driving is a privilege, not a right?' Well, voting is a right, but not an obligation. I'm tired of hearing about these efforts to increase voter turnout, and then the expected newscasts afterward saying voter turnout was low once again. So what? I think it's better that way. Why? Simple. If someone doesn't know what he's voting for, or has no interest in what's going on, stay away. All your vote can do is muck up the process. The true obligation in our society is to be informed, and then to make an intelligent decision on whom to vote for, based upon what information you have gathered. We're Americans, and we enjoy great freedom. Part of that freedom is the freedom from your obligation to be informed. If you're not interested, that's your choice. Enjoy your life. But don't wreck it for the rest of us who care with your clueless vote. If you don't know, don't bother.