| |
Thursday, September 26, 2002
Still Waiting for the Remake of "Mork & Mindy"
Another '70s TV show to become a movie.
Throwing It All Away
She is only indicted by the federal grand jury, not convicted, but the facts don't look good for this professor:
A federal grand jury in Boston indicted a prominent professor at Case Western Reserve University's medical school yesterday, accusing her of taking part in a multimillion-dollar scheme to defraud the Compaq Computer Corp.
The grand jury returned a 14-count indictment on charges of mail and wire fraud against Dr. Janice Douglas, 59, of Bratenahl, along with three others - Douglas' former boyfriend, Leroy Anthony Sallee, 43, of Ashtabula, and two men from suburban Kansas City, Mo.: Herbert Cates, 44, and Dennis McIntosh, 49.
...
Douglas, who also serves as chief of University Hospitals' Division of Hypertension, could not be reached for comment yesterday.
CWRU officials said they suspended her until the case is resolved.
...
It was predicated on a ruse that Douglas had obtained a research grant from a major drug manufacturer that was soon to receive approval from the federal Food and Drug Administration for a new product.
The conspirators told Compaq officials that Douglas' grant required the collection of testing data from hundreds of cities across the country and that Douglas would need to buy 300 computer servers, thousands of hard drives and supporting equipment worth millions of dollars, the prosecutors said.
Sallee, posing as the project's equipment "integrator," submitted the first of many purchase orders to Compaq for $5 million worth of computer equipment, the indictment says. By claiming CWRU was running the project, Sallee fraudulently obtained a $2 million educator's discount.
Compaq delivered the computers to a warehouse in Tewksbury, Mass., run by Sallee, who then resold the computers at a hefty mark-up and shipped them to customers outside of the country - an illegal transaction known as a "gray market sale," according to the indictment.
Sallee never paid the company a dime, the indictment said. Instead, he spent more than $2 million to pay off personal debts and to buy a Lexus. He also allegedly gave $8,000 to McIntosh, who had posed as an "independent business development consultant"; $10,000 to Cates, an account executive at a Kansas City computer company; and $6,000 to an unnamed relative of Douglas'.
The indictments depict Douglas as an active player in the scheme. She is accused of sending a letter to Compaq explaining her needs for the equipment and requesting prices and a detailed parts list, plus a purchase order on CWRU letterhead. Prosecutors documented faxes and parcel shipments from her CWRU office to Compaq and other accused conspirators.
The defendants are accused of taking steps to prevent Compaq from contacting anyone at CWRU except Douglas, and she read from a script - provided by her co-defendants - when responding to technical questions posed by Compaq officials, the indictment said.
This is not just some minor professor toiling in obscurity:
Douglas' rise to prominence was documented in a book written in 1999 by noted child psychologist Dr. Sylvia Rimm titled "See Jane Win: The Rimm Report on How 1,000 Girls Became Successful Women."
Douglas was the daughter of doctors, an over-achieving student who graduated from Shaker Heights High School with a grade-point average near 4.0. She was Phi Beta Kappa in chemistry at Fisk University in Nashville and graduated second in her class at Meharry Medical College in Nashville.
Since 1976, when she was hired at CWRU, she had risen to the top of her field as a clinical researcher. She earned numerous national awards, and her work was published in several respected medical journals. In February, she won a Women of Color Health Science and Technology Award, drawing praise from Nathan A. Berger, dean of the School of Medicine.
"She is one of our million dollar professors,' meaning that her research is supported by more than $1 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health," Berger told CWRU's Campus News, "and her work is doing much to heighten our understanding of hypertension, especially in the African-American population."
She has a house in Bratenhal (very pricy area) and probably pulls in a six figure salary. With all that going for her, she appears to have decided it wasn't enough.
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
CAIR Claims Bias
I know this story is a shocker:
Fox News Channel is the most biased major media outlet toward Muslims, Ibrahim Hooper, communications director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told this website. His group is asking members to contact FNC CEO Roger Ailes to express concern over the purported anti-Islam bias.
No wait, that's just poorly written. Fox isn't biased towards Muslims; Fox is biased against Muslims.
CAIR still pissed at Pat Robertson (who isn't?) has its press release detailing the "thousands" who have written FOX. There is also their "alert" titled "FOX news allows attack on Prophet Muhammad" again complaining about Robertson -- interestingly, of all the releases, this is one of the only one where there isn't a date.
Still in the original story cited, check out the freaky comments section -- going both ways pro/con Fox. Of course there are the morons.
Ali Alarabi, Chicago..PR (9/25):
...
Muslim should consider a legal action against hate speech by FOX because it will directly and indirectly lead to innocent Muslim Americans being killed, or losing their jobs and being subject to discrimination.
Uh, yeah.
Even the Consultants Say Big Media Is Off-Base
Here's an article talking about a KPMG study saying that media companies need to worry less about protecting their content and more about making money in digital formats. At least, that's what the article and the KPMG partner who was interviewed seem to be saying:
"What we don't see is a real questioning of business models," said Ashley Steel, a partner in KPMG's Information, Communications and Entertainment practice.
"They complain about the Napsters," she said, referring to the bankrupt music swap site that was found to violate U.S. copyright laws. "But why do the Napsters exist, because the marketplace wants them."
Steel said that if the issue "is not on boardroom table ... then that boardroom has problems."
...
The study found that some 81 percent of the executives relied on encryption to prevent piracy, but Steel argued that the pirates will always exist.
"The next stage of encryption just means it will take a hacker a couple of days longer," to crack software codes and make digital copies of material.
She pointed to the home video industry that as far back as 20 years ago was battling video pirates, but the media firms found ways to profit from video in spite of the pirates.
Steel said that in order to build new business models, the companies' digital content must first be valued properly.
Sounds reasonable. Sounds a lot like what many people have been saying.
The only problem is: either there is a different study, or the reporter was told what he wanted to hear.
The only study at the KPMG site under Information, Communications & Entertainment for Media & Entertainment, is one titled " Current Issues, Future Implications for the Media and Entertainment Industries." Statements in the document do not necessarily match what the story claims.
On the subject of "Protecting Intellectual Property" (page 4):
Building Technology to Limit Piracy
Standardized encryption and access management systems will be crucial in reducing, but
likely not eliminating, the damage from copyright violations. Enabling digital rights management
technologies to aid the industry will require widespread cooperation among copyright
holders, content producers, and hardware companies. In the meantime, media companies
will need to challenge the legality of file-sharing applications and other technology developments
as they emerge.
Seeking Legal Solutions
To date, the media industry has used the legal systems reactively, entering into costly litigation
with technology companies that have enabled mass piracy. Going forward, offensive
measures, coordinated globally to create strong uniform legal protection, must be adopted.
Global cooperation to vigorously enforce the protection of intellectual property is imperative.
...
The Enforcement Tightrope
As new technologies increasingly allow millions of consumers to copy and use copyrighted
content in their own creations, both online and offline, media companies are challenged to
determine which types of infringements are worth fighting. While strict interpretations of
copyright laws would prevent any use of copyrighted materials, viewing all intellectual property
as merchandise, others see intellectual property as part of the national cultural fabric,
part of the free flow of information that enhances society. Media companies will need to
understand both views, maximizing profits by balancing the need to prevent systems that
enable mass piracy against the need to limit enforcement initiatives that alienate consumers.
Future Implications
The traditional economics of the content industries will continue to be threatened by international
piracy unless lawmakers and industry players can implement uniform rules and systems
to compensate copyright owners. Further, the investment in, and development of, new
content in all media sectors may be in jeopardy if the protection of intellectual property as
well as the compensation for its use are not secured. Media companies may look to own not
only content and distribution but also the means to track and protect content as it moves
through various distribution platforms. Finally, governments will have to work together to
synchronize intellectual property laws and enforcement efforts. [emphasis added]
While there is some material that can be seen as encouraging the ''big media" to find a middle ground with piracy and not so strict copyright controls, the paper speaks just as plainly to seeking more controls through lawmakers and heavy copyright enforcement.
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
Just Keeps Getting Stranger
The Chuck Finley-Tawny Kitaen divorce saga drags on. Now Tawny has filed a $12 million dollar lawsuit against Chuck.
In the lawsuit, made public Monday, Kitaen accused her husband of breach of contract, saying Finley broke his promise to financially support her for the rest of her life. Finley filed for divorce in April, three days after Kitaen, 41, was arrested for spousal abuse.
...
When Kitaen became pregnant with the couple's first daughter in 1992, Finley requested she become a fulltime mother in exchange for financial support, the lawsuit said.
Kitaen gave up her career of making $15,000 a week on the sitcom "WKRP in Cincinnati" and $22,000 an episode as host of "America's Funniest People," the lawsuit said. She stopped working fulltime in 1993.
Clearly both of those gigs were going to be long-term deals.
Starbucks and Its Myths
A very interesting article in the WSJ (subscription req'd) on Starbucks and the reality of its impact on independent coffee houses.
The battle between independent coffeehouses and Starbucks may be one of the most hostile -- and most misunderstood -- rivalries in retailing. Starbucks is prospering, with earnings up 22.4% in the first nine months of the year that ends Sept. 29, and a compound annual growth rate from fiscal 1997 to 2001 of 26.8%. Conventional wisdom, meanwhile, says Starbucks is clobbering the independent -- invading its turf, stealing its customers, bankrupting its owners.
In fact, most independents are doing fine -- and not just in spite of Starbucks, but perhaps because of it. Here in Kansas City, nearly all of the coffeehouses operating before Starbucks arrived in 1998 remain in business. Since then, other independents have opened, pushing their numbers well beyond the 25 stores Starbucks has in the market. Like Broadway Cafe, many of the independents operate within a stone's throw of a Starbucks outlet.
Nationwide, independents accounted for more than half of the industry's growth between 1996 and 2001, when the number of U.S. coffeehouses doubled to 13,300, including Starbucks, according to Mintel Consumer Intelligence, a Chicago market-research firm. Moreover, the large majority of independent coffeehouses started within the past decade have survived, industry experts say. By comparison, close to half of the country's sit-down, slow-food restaurants are less than two years old, according to D&B, another market-research firm.
Educating the Market
Many coffeehouses have found proximity to Starbucks to be a blessing. A small Seattle chain called Tully's Coffee Corp. has even developed the strategy of placing its stores near a Starbucks shop. Chicago entrepreneur Doug Zell in 1995 started his Intelligentsia Coffee Roasters within walking distance of two Starbucks outlets. "It's double-digit growth every year," Mr. Zell says.
A third of Americans who drink coffee away from home order gourmet coffee from a specialty shop, according to Mintel. Many people believe that Starbucks increases the overall market, attracting new customers to the product who then patronize the independent provider next door. "When a Starbucks opens, it educates the market, expanding it for everyone," says Bruce Milletto, president of Bellissimo Coffee InfoGroup Inc., a Eugene, Ore., company that provides consulting services to independent coffeehouses.
The coffeehouse may be that rare thing in retailing -- a concept that doesn't heavily favor chains. Never mind that critics of Starbucks routinely compare it with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Starbucks simply doesn't enjoy the advantages that have made Wal-Mart the bane of countless Main Street retailers -- lower prices, longer hours, wider selection. The Starbucks offering isn't less expensive or more extensive than the independent's, and the chain's hours often are shorter.
This may be why, contrary to popular perception, independents still dominate the industry. Independents and small chains boast a 61% share of the industry, says Mintel. In fast food, by contrast, independents and small chains hold only a 27% share, according to Technomic Inc., a Chicago food-consulting firm. Indeed, the coffeehouse industry boasts only one big chain -- Starbucks, with 3,167 company stores in the U.S. Of the countless others that have tried mimicking it, not one has matched its success. The nation's second-largest chain, Diedrich Coffee Inc., of Irvine, Calif., boasts only 237 U.S. stores.
I've worked in a coffee house. I like coffee houses (just behind a good bar), and before my daughter was born I liked to spend my Sunday mornings at a coffee house reading the Sunday Paper and writing. The one thing I have never seen in Chicago, Cleveland, or Pittsburgh is the opening of a Starbucks leading to the closing of another coffee house. In Chicago (actually Evanston) I worked at a now defunct (according to some friends because of squabbling partners) coffee house, The Bean Counter, that had opened a block from a Starbucks. It did fine. The Bean Counter got a fair amount of spillover in the mornings from commuters stopping for a coffee while heading for the Metra stop. In the afternoon and evening business was steady and the fact that music and outdoor seating was available helped differentiate it.
Debate or Pithy Slogans
Alan Dershowitz issues a challenge to a signatory to the divest Israel crowd:
Among those who signed this immoral petition was Winthrop House Master Paul Hanson.
I wrote to Prof. Hanson challenging him to debate me in the Common Room of Winthrop House about his decision to sign the petition. He refused, citing “other priorities.” I can imagine few priorities more pressing than to justify to his students why he is willing to single out Israel for special criticism. Accordingly, I hereby request an invitation from the students of Winthrop House to conduct such a debate, either with Hanson present or with an empty chair on which the petition which he signed would be featured.
Universities should encourage widespread debate and discussion about divisive and controversial issues. A House master who peremptorily signs a petition and then hides behind “other priorities” does not serve the interests of dialogue and education. I hope that Hanson will accept my challenge, and that if he does not, that I will be invited by his students to help fill the educational gap left by the cowardice of those who have signed this petition and refuse to defend their actions in public debate.
Dershowitz, deserves some credit for offering an alternative to those who feel some stand must be taken with Harvard's investment strategies:
Let me propose an alternative to singling out Israel for divestment: let Harvard choose nations for investment in the order of the human rights records. If that were done, investment in Israel would increase dramatically, while investments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Philippines, Indonesia, the Palestinian Authority and most other countries of the world would decrease markedly.
But that would be racist.
Who Writes This S--t?
Apparently the reporter for this story seems to think local mayors are contacted by their constituents about the US plans for attacking Iraq. It starts off with Rep. Dennis (hairpiece now made from non-flammable materials) Kucinich (D-OH) railing against possible war with Iraq and his claims that he is receiving calls to his office running 9-1 against war (of course he concedes that he is getting "some" calls from outside his district; and he fails to mention that he has one the highest concentrations of Arab-Americans in a Northeast Ohio district).
In an attempt to refute/prove (?) Kucninch's point, the reporter then talked to local mayors and a state representative that are in Kucinich's district. Shockingly, these local political hacks haven't heard much from their constituents about their feelings on a war with Iraq. I can't, just can not, believe that the mayors of Parma and Rocky River have better things to do than to debate federal foreign policy.
Residents seem much more concerned, he said, about "all those day-to-day activities that touch people's lives," such as the West Nile virus, flooded sewers, the possibility of layoffs, city finances and road repairs.
"I haven't had a single person come into my office or call me and ask about it or even discuss it," he said about the Iraq debate.
Monday, September 23, 2002
Pissed-Off Comic
Larry Miller just fires away this time. Minimizing the humor to deliver a blast after his pleasant anecdote:
And this is our problem today with Iraq. The folks on the left have seen, over and over, Saddam Hussein refuse to allow weapons inspections, and then they insist we try it again. They have seen him, over and over, perpetrate the most evil slaughters he can manage, and then they insist we wait and see what he does. They have railed for ten years against the "horrors" of our economic sanctions, and then they insist we give sanctions a chance. And in each instance, we conservatives, moronically loyal to the theory that people can always be swayed by logic and proof, smile back at them and restate our case.
Well, it's time to move forward. They don't get it, and they never will. Which is fine, most of the time, but this time it involves our lives, the lives of our allies, and, just incidentally, the future of civilization. On September 10 on Fox, Rep. Nancy Pelosi said, "Going to war would show our power, but not going to war would show our strength." She followed this with the vacant smile usually associated with a village idiot, which, by the way, is just about what she is.
All of them, Daschle, Biden, Leahy and the rest of the not-so-loyal opposition, know the truth and have always known it, but for whatever the reason--ambition or stupidity--have decided to blink and say, "Nah, it's just a tough crowd tonight." And it's time we shrug, let them run out of the theater, straighten our collars and shoot our cuffs, and enter from the wings to do exactly the job we know needs to be done.
You'll never get to work for Norman Lear at this rate, Larry.
Bagge Sums It Up
I can't believe I missed this one (via Damian Penny).
|
|
