Evidently, it's illegal -- or immoral, or actionable, or something -- to reuse a Post Office Prority Mail box. Even if you turn it inside out so that nobody can see what it is.

The terms of Agreement for the use of United States Postal Service shipping supplies is as follows: I understand that Express Mail service, Priority Mail service, Global Express Guaranteed, Express Mail International and Priority Mail International packaging is the property of the United States Postal Service and is provided solely for sending Express Mail, Priority Mail, Global Express Guaranteed, Express Mail International and Priority Mail International. Misuse may be a violation of federal law.

And, evidently, the Post Office is sending nastygrams to people who dare engage in such anti-social behavior ...

Filed under :: Big Business
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (2) · Pings (0) · TR/G

I'm glad Microsoft has given up on buying Yahoo! -- for the nonce, at least. I think both companies are better off -- integration would have been horrible -- but I think consumers are better off, too. I want more out there than just Microhoo and Google, and I think everyone benefits in a three-way race.

Filed under :: Big Business
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

And let me tell you that hearing that the airline you flew out on (and, presumably, will fly back on) has Google News is always good for a few seconds of adrenaline. Though kudos to Frontier for being the first to tell me (since, in a soothing and calm message that only made me immediately run to Google News (on my Blackberry, which was still working at that point) to confirm WTF.

Filed under :: Big Business :: Travel
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Well, it's taken over six months, but the Mystery Pads over across the street at the Denver West Shopping Center are showing progress ... I guess. 

A couple of days ago, they installed fencing across all the driveways/lot area around the pads, with gaps for gates to be installed at the main points (including the driveway from Colfax). These aren't cheesy mobile gates, mind you, but full-blown green chain link, with the posts cemented into the asphalt.

So it looks like they're getting ready for construction of some sort -- what sort, I'll continue to report on (cue mysterious music) -- not because anyone is likely to be interested, but because I walk past the site every day I go to lunch. :-)

Filed under :: Big Business
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

As one of those folks who has a mortgage he can afford to pay -- something I in fact pay a lot of money toward every month, something I went through a lot of planning and work to obtain, something I work hard to continue to afford -- I am supposed to be hopping mad about proposals floating about to spend federal money to "bail out" all those deadbeats and stupid-heads who got themselves into mortgages they couldn't afford, not to mention the financial institutions who funded them. "Why," I am supposed to be asking, "should my tax dollars go to people who can't add, to the greedy, to the lazy, to the speculative investors in 'cheap' real estate when I've been prudent, hard-working, and etc.?"

To which I say, as Horace did, "When your neighbor's wall is on fire, it becomes your business." Yeah, I'm peeved that some folks were so unscrupulous as to sell mortgages they could reasonably know couldn't be paid back. And that some other folks were so dimwitted, optimistic, or gullible as to take out those mortgages. And that other folks got into trouble by overextending their investments in property. I'm peeved at all that.

I'm also peeved that a lot of folks are also facing disaster because of factors that weren't under their control -- economic downturns eliminate their jobs and suddenly change, unexpectedly, their ability to pay that mortgage. That sort of thing could happen to anybody. Including you and me.

But, ultimately, it doesn't matter. The greedy, and the gullible, will get bailed out here, and should get bailed out here, because the alternative, though more "just" is even more harmful to society, to our economy, and (self-interestedly) to me as part of that society and economy. Nobody benefits when banks go out of business. Nobody benefits when millions of people are foreclosed upon. Everybody gets hurt. Including me.

It's like welfare, or any other social welfare system. Yes, you can point to people who game the system, people who are lazily on the dole, who exploit loopholes to get out of working, etc. You can also point to people who are legitimately in trouble and need help. And the numbers involved are such that, Scrooge's invocations of workhouse and "surplus population" notwithstanding, it's in society's interest to perhaps unfairly reward some rather than allow others to suffer (and, indirectly, bring ourselves to injury, both morally and socially).

So, no, while the whole sub-prime mortgage thing and the resulting economic tsunami do, in deed, irk me mightily (and worry me more than a bit), I don't automatically reject any "bail out" as an unjust theft of my Hard-Earned Money. 

My neighbor's house is on fire, metaphorically. It's stupid for me to complain that he should have chopped down the dead grasses and bought a tile roof, and thus choose not to help him. Not only because mercy is better than strict justice (if not, who could rest comfortably?), but because my house may well be next.

Filed under :: Big Business :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (3) · Pings (0) · TR/G

'Topless' meetings encourage human interaction

Filed under :: Big Business
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

There have been rumblings about it for some months, but Disney has now confirmed that it will be making changes to Disneyland's "It's a Small World" ride.

So what, some would ask. After all, it's a slow boat ride past treacly animatronics chanting over and over again one of the insidiously brain-addictive Disney songs of all time. Why shouldn't visitors welcome change?

The specific changes mentioned are:

1. Inclusion of Disney characters into some of the scenes, as deemed appropriate. E.g., Alice (in Wonderland) showing up in the UK.
2. Removal or reduction of the New Guinea rain forest scene with an "American" tribute.

Fie! say some Disney loyalists (and, all things considered, I probably number myself among them here). 

1. The attraction has existed as-is (with maintenance) since the 1964 World's Fair. As such, it deserves some respect, as well as respect to the memories of those who have enjoyed it, as well as to Mary Blair, who did the primary design work for this and so much other Disney and Disneyland art.
2. The Blair family has protested the planned changes.
3. It's actually nice having one corner of the park left that isn't a constant marketing pitch for Disney's licensed characters.
4. It's inappropriate to turn a ride that's designed around world peace and friendship into one that pushes commercial properties and includes a special nationalistic section for Americans.
5. The ride's been plenty popular. "Plussing it up" isn't needed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

To be fair:

1. The Disney character inclusion may actually be done somewhat tastefully. Disney asserts that it won't be as full-blown a change as what was done in building the ride's cousin in Hong Kong (which incorporated 30-odd characters). And in the one example shown (Alice in Wonderland), the figure would be based on some of Mary Blair's design work for the character, so it might be a bit more tasteful than otherwise dreaded.
2. While the LA Times article below confirms the use of (some) licensed characters, no confirmation was made I could find of the (oh so ironic) ripping out of the rain forest in exchange for an "American" section.

But I really have to ask a simple question, in keeping with the maxim that not having a good reason to do something is a reason not to do it: why? Have people been complaining about the ride? Have people been wondering why Simba isn't in the African forest, or Mulan in China? Have too many patriots been offended by the lack of a distinct "USA" zone?

Small World is a throwback to a kinder, simpler time, as a nation and as Disney. Tweaking it should be done with great caution, and only for a strong  reason. No such reason has been forthcoming.

Any change at the park is going to bring howls of protest. Changes that are too blatantly commercial are not only a bad idea per se, but are going to alienate (and create bad press from) some of the most vocal Disney loyalists. There might have been ways to effect some of these changes -- leaving out the geopolitical rebalancing of the USA Zone -- through a careful, very quiet, very gradual slipstreaming of "new character" Easter Eggs into the ride ("Just spotted -- Alice in UKland!"). Instead, by trying to do it under stealth of some other needed maintenance, and then trying to color it as a tribute and "respectful" enhancement, Disney's managed to make a mediocre idea even worse.

But, one might argue, isn't this just protesting by nostalgic adults? Aren't the kids going to want to see Disney characters in ever nook and cranny? Isn't that why they're there? It's an arguable point -- but, then, aren't the Small World characters also "lovable" by kids? Disneyland started -- and still continues -- with lots of areas not specifically branded, except by vague association and by costumed folks giving out autographs. I'd argue that kids aren't just there to see Mickey Mouse everywhere, but for the overall fun, pleasant, even nurturing experience overall. Tweaking Small World doesn't improve that.

All it does is -- maybe -- sell more toys and movies. Which may be a good enough reason for the Disney suits, but not for the attending public.

it's a changed world
Re-Imagineering: A World of Tears
Disneyland to add ‘Alice’ to Small World ride - Travel - LATimes.com
The Disney Blog: Disneyland to add Disney Characters to Its A Small World - confirmed
Save Small World, ride creator’s family begs Disneyland - Travel - LATimes.com
Re-Imagineering: There's so much that we share...
Re-Imagineering: With Utmost Reverence 

Filed under :: Big Business :: Media Moguls :: Travel
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (4) · Pings (0) · TR/G

So we watch a very limited number of TV channels at home. Whilst watching some others at some point traveling in the past few weeks, I ran across this Mountain Dew ad, which, for some reason, just struck me as hilarious.

I decided I'd show it to Margie (both because it was funny, and was a great misuse of statistics (which she'd find even funnier). I looked around on YouTube and thought I'd found it. And I did, but ... with an odd difference.

Both have their funny -- I'm just ... bemused/curious as to the difference between the YouTube version and what's on the air (and on the Mountain Dew site).

Filed under :: Big Business :: Media
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (3) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Which megafoodcorp owns which friendly, small, organic brands?

In some cases, it's a matter of acquisition (adding something organic to the portfolio). In other cases, it's a matter of "crafting" something small and cuddly for the public. In either case, nobody'd feel warm and healthy quaffing Coca-Cola organic natural juices -- but slap an Odwalla label on it ...

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. It doesn't necessarily take away from the "goodness" of the products themselves -- and, if successful, it encourages the parent companies to continue producing organic/healthy stuff.

Still, there's a bit of dissonance that comes about seeing some of the names associated (Heinz owns Celestial Seasonings? Naked Juice is really Pepsi? Mars owns Seeds of Change? Gardenburger is a Kellogg brand?). Welcome to the modern world.

Filed under :: Big Business :: Food & Drink
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (3) · Pings (0) · TR/G

So once upon a time, United had frequent flier awards. If you flew X miles with them, you could trade in those miles for flights, but, more important, as you reached various tiers, you got access to various privileges -- early seating, better seats, access to the spiffy flight lounge, etc.

But times change, and now it's not just enough to offer these as rewards for regular customers -- to turn a profit (or less of a loss), the "honors" need to be for sale, too.

So I've mentioned before how I lost my Premier status because I didn't fly enough miles last year. I could have, for an extortionate (four figure, as I recall) price have bought the miles to do so -- sort of like Indulgences, I guess (literal indulgences, as far as that goes), but I simply could not justify the cost.

Now it turns out that those "Economy Plus" seats -- the ones that give you an extra five inches of leg room -- well, originally they were sort of, "see what nice things we're doing for you?"

Then it became "and if you're a premier or higher member, you can get an upgrade."

Now it's "you can also just pay money to get access to them, otherwise fuggedaboudit."

But, wait, there's more. Yeah, for $350 you can buy access to Economy Plus seating (which, honestly, is quite likely worth it).  But for $750 you can get that access to the Red Carpet Room. Or for $800 you can get Economy Plus access plus reduce the miles you need to fly in order to get Premier membership (again, for me).

Get it? You're paying extra money, not to actually get anything, but to make it easier for you to get something (by paying more).

*sigh*

The airlines and the TSA seem to be racing to see who can make air travel more intolerable first. And that way, we'll all win, right?

Filed under :: Big Business :: Travel
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G