- Tyrone Banks of Raleigh, N.C. is a bit-time Carolina Hurricanes fan. That in and of itself makes him a rare person in these here United States because let’s face it, hockey fans aren’t exactly in great supply. If they were, hockey wouldn’t be perpetually sliding down the list of America’s favorite sports, falling behind not only the three majors (MLB, NFL, NBA) but also golf, X-Games and non-sports that people think are sports like auto racing. So one the one hand you could argue that the Hurricanes should be thrilled that Banks not only cheers for their team, but that he was willing to go above and beyond the call of fandom and do something that 99.999 percent of fans would never do: write a song for his team. Banks, a hip-hop artist, produced a song promoting the franchise. Yet the Hurricanes have a beef with him because a) he referred to the song "the official Carolina Hurricanes song" and b) wore a Hurricanes jersey in promotional material. They’ve sued Banks in a federal lawsuit accusing him of misusing trademarks in "Carolina Hurricanes,” released in 2007. Banks seems to have expedited the process of being sued by sending a copy of the song to the team and asking them to play the music during games. Oddly enough, things didn’t go sour right then and there. The Hurricanes actually did use the song during games and short segments of it appeared in a television ad and online video. Heck, Banks was even given tickets to a game and when the song was played during that game, he was shown on the arena’s video scoreboard with his name displayed. Where the Hurricanes appear to have issues is Banks’ promotion of the song, which they claim incorrectly suggests an affiliation between him and the team. Their first step was to send Banks a cease-and-desist notice in February, which led to him removing the term "official" or "anthem" from his Web site and adding disclaimers. That simply wasn’t enough for the Hurricanes because Banks’ promotional materials still show him in a team jersey, which they believed damages the franchise through the unauthorized use of trademarks. The lawsuit, filed on Friday, also alleges that Banks has demanded compensation for the song, claiming that he authorized use of the music only during games so long as the team displayed his name, song title, and name of his record company while the song was playing. So yes, he is legit enough to have a record company. It’s just a shame that something that started out with good intentions and a fan who truly cares about his team has turned into an ugly legal battle……….
- Attention residents of Montville, Connecticut: Clean the area around your docks and build improved boat ramps at your own risk - or at least get a permit to do so. Michael Liebig apparently felt he didn’t need no stinking permit to build a ramp or clear the sea grass along the river at his Montville home. "I didn't think I needed a permit to clean up down here," said Liebig. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection heartily disagreed and has levied a heavy fine against Liebig. For his indiscretions, he’s been touched up with a $100,000 penalty that just might be a tad excessive. "There was a launch here already and I made it better," Liebig reasoned. "I can't afford a $100,000 fine," he said. "I mean, it's gonna break me." The fine is indeed one of the state’s largest fines for violating tidal wetlands laws. At this point you’re probably asking just what sort of horrendous, gaudy boat ramp this guy built to incur such a harsh fine. Well, Liebig built an eleven-foot-wide concrete ramp without a permit, although he removed most of it after receiving a Cease and Desist Order from the DEP in October 2006. You’d think that would be enough to placate the DEP, but of course The Man wanted someone to bleed and so it pressed ahead in the case against Liebig. Because he didn’t remove all of the boat ramp or restore the wetlands, which would cost about $75,000, the $100,000 fine was levied. “I have to hire a scientist to make the mud," said Liebig. "I have to hire someone to grow the grass. I know I did wrong so it has to go back; there's no 'ifs, ands, or buts' about it.” Still, he is attempting to come up with a plan to repair the wetlands and hopes that doing so would convince the state to give him a break on the fine. Looking at this from afar, I have to say I agree with both sides. Liebig was an idiot to think he could undertake such a major project in a wetlands area without approval, but the state is being a big ass hat for imposing such a ginormous fine. I know, I know, it’s to prove a point and discourage anyone from following Liebig’s example. What do you say we knock that fine down to $50,000 and a call it a day? Thanks for nothing……..
- Not so fast, General Motors. Sure, the Chevrolet Volt is exciting because it’s your take on an electric car that could go a long ways towards addressing both the quest for alternative fuels and lessening the impact of driving on the environment. However, the absolute sunniest, best-slanted stats GM was spouting when it introduced the Volt to the world just aren’t that realistic and genuine. This car allegedly gets an estimated 230 miles per gallon, but there is a catch. You’ll be able to drive the Volt for about 40 miles using its lithium-ion batteries, but if your commute is longer than 40 miles at a time, the mileage drops significantly. After 40 miles, the Volt begins using gas just like any other car. GM’s optimistic prognostications have the Volt possibly getting as much as 50 mpg when running on gasoline, but don’t bet on that. "Having a car that gets triple-digit fuel economy can and will be a game changer for us," said GM CEO Fritz Henderson. That would be great, F. - if it were true. Quite a few people need to make drives of longer than 40 miles in their car, so even if the miles per gallon they get are better than the average car, it’s going to be closer to that figure than to the 230 mpg. Factor in that the Volt will cost $40,000 freaking dollars and I don’t think it’s the boon for business that GM is projecting it will be when the car goes on sale in late 2010. Oh, and the Environmental Protection Agency for years on the issue, the agency says it has not tested a Chevy Volt and therefore cannot confirm the fuel economy values claimed by GM. The company would also have you believe that 75 percent of American drivers actually drive less than 40 miles per day, a figure I highly doubt. Lastly, let’s take a look at how quickly fuel economy for the Volt drops if you exceed for miles per day - again, that’s per day, not per trip. If a driver goes 80 miles, total fuel economy would drop to about 100 mpg. Should you go on a road trip and or otherwise need to drive 300 miles in a day, the fuel economy would be just 62.5 mpg. Oh, and the Volt will need to be plugged in at night to recharge. So if you go on a road trip and are staying at a hotel, good luck on recharging it. If you think I’m simply being too cynical and small-minded about this, just listen to the good folks at Edmunds.com because they’ve got my back. "Even if the Volt's fuel savings could possibly be as dramatic as today's numbers suggest, the expected purchase price will be much higher than that of existing hybrids, and it will take years to pay off its price premium," notes Edmunds.com senior analyst Jessica Caldwell. Thanks for supporting the right side in this debate, J., we’ll come out on top in this, I have no doubt…….
- Convicted criminals having their cases overturned by DNA evidence is not a new phenomenon, but this case is still pretty freaking bizarre. Frank Hatley of Georgia spent a year in jail for nonpayment of child support -- despite the fact he has no children. Yes, dude was in the hole for 13 months for being a deadbeat dad because an idiot judge ordered him jailed in June 2008 for failing to support his "son" -- a child who DNA tests proved was not fathered by Hatley. Basically, the story begins with a relationship Hatley had in 1986 with Essie Lee Morrison, who gave birth to a son. Morrison told Hatley that the child was his, but that didn’t stop their relationship from ending shortly after the child was born (something tells me that revelation may have expedited it). The couple never lived together or married and ostensibly went their separate ways after the split. When the child turned 2, Morrison applied for public support for the child. State law in Georgia allows the government to recoup the cost of the assistance from a child's non-custodial parent. And so it was that for the next 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state. He ceased to do so in 2000 when he learned that the child might not be his. A DNA test that year confirmed the child was not fathered by Hatley, so he was able to return to court and be relieved of any future child support payments. However, he was ordered to pay more than $16,000 he owed the state before the ruling. Never damn mind that he couldn’t have owed the state any money because THE KID WAS NEVER HIS, let’s shake him down for that $16,000. So Hatley dutifully paid the debt and whittled it down to about $10,000. He was doing his best until 2006, when a period of unemployment resulted in him falling behind on his payments. As a result, he was jailed for six months. Yet again he bounced back and began making payments following his release and even continued to do so after he lost another job and became homeless in 2008. Bascially, arcane, asinine laws helped drive this guy into homelessness and he was periodically thrown in jail for something he didn’t do. The cycle continued in 2008, when Hatley was again unable to make payemtns and was again jailed. That led to his just-ended 13-month sentence which ended after Cook County Superior Court Judge Dane Perkins signed an order stating, "defendant is no longer responsible for paying any amount of child support." So what argument did the state use for repeatedly jailing a man who had committed no actual crime at all? Apparently they based their actions on the fact that Hatley signed a consent agreement with the Office of Child Support Services. The government argued that Hatley still needed to comply with the consent agreement for the period he believed the child was his son and the court stupidly agreed. The irony here is that not everyone - not even government officials - agreed that Hatley was being treated fairly. Cook County Sheriff Johnny Daughtrey felt that Hatley's incarceration was fair, given that the child was not his. "I knew the gentleman's plight and didn't know how to help him," Daughtrey recalled. It wasn’t until the Southern Center for Human Rights visited the jail earlier this year that Daughtrey found a way to help Hatley by telling the SCHR his story. The organization took up his case and was able to secure his release after Perkins ruled he was indigent and should not be jailed for failing to make the payments. "We're satisfied with the result for Mr. Hatley, but still troubled by the state's monumental lapse of judgment in this case,” declared attorney Sarah Geraghty with Southern Center for Human Rights. Oh, and in a nice case of too little, too late, Georgia Department of Human Services, which includes the Office of Child Support Services, recently announced plans to propose legislation in the next session of the state Legislature that would prevent similar situations in the future. What I want to know is whether Hatley will be reimbursed for the $6,000 in payments he made since 2000, which I tend to think is the least the state could do for the guy. Either way, this decision will finally allow the state's Office of Child Support Services to close its file on Hatley and it should allow Hatley to at least attempt to move forward with his life un-harassed by the state…..I think…….
- Perpetual optimists may be super annoying, but a new study suggests something that may make them even more so. As irritating as these a-holes and their constantly sunny demeanor may be, how much more would you hate them if you knew that they may actually live longer because of their optimistic approach to life. This study suggests that women 50 or older who are optimistic are less likely to get heart disease and die of any cause in a given time period compared to women their age who are more pessimistic. You can read all about it in the most recent edition of Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association. "In the grand scheme of things, the real importance is recognizing and raising awareness of the link between attitude and health," said lead author Dr. Hilary Tindle, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh She goes so far as to liken living with pessimism to living with high blood pressure. The study found that the most optimistic women had a 9 percent lower risk of developing heart disease and a 14 percent lower risk of dying from any cause compared to their most pessimistic counterparts over an eight-year period. Participants in the study included 97,253 women ages 50-79 who were enrolled in the government-funded Women's Health Initiative. To assess their level of optimism or pessimism, these women were asked to agree or disagree with statements such as "In unclear times, I usually expect the best" and "If something can go wrong for me, it will.” Using the results from those inquiries, Tindle reached the stunning conclusion that optimists tend to experience less stress than pessimists when faced with problems, and they tend to assess the situation, cope with the problem head-on, and mobilize support to solve. So optimists stress out less about problems? No way! You needed to conduct a study and use up tens of thousands of dollars in research grants to figure that out? In the end, the study paints another sunny picture for optimists, but only the most optimistic women. Such women had a 16 percent lower risk of stroke, a 30 percent lower risk of heart disease-related death, and a 24 percent lower risk of cardiovascular disease-related death than those who were pessimists. Other medical factors were considered as well, but the bad news for the rest of us is that the most insanely, annoyingly optimistic people we know are not only in a better mood than we are, chances are that they will also live longer…….
No comments:
Post a Comment