Strollerderby : business

Morning News - Rush Angers His Own People

Brett Singer — Mon, 04 May 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Rush Limbaugh angers a lot of people, but usually hunters are not in that group. But not anymore. The Washington Times reports that Rush has several groups of "sportsmen", specifically hunters (isn't "sportsmen" too generic a term?) all fired up because he's been working with the Humane Society. Why? Well, because gun owners hate puppies! OK, OK, I'm being silly. The real reason is because the Humane Society "is in fact an organization that opposes hunting, fishing, and trapping." So by hanging with them, Rush is now in the dog house with groups like Ducks Unlimited. (Better hope they're unlimited since you keep shooting at them! Get it? G'night, ladies and germs.)

We hear a lot about taxes. Ever wonder which companies pay the most -- or the least? Business Week has a surprising list. Some companies pay next to nothing. Yes -- almost NOTHING. Here's the list of those who pay the least, and the poor schnooks who pay the most.

Speaking of Republicans, Jeb Bush (remember him?) and of his fellow Republicans think that it's "time to leave Reagan behind." That would be interesting, since Reagan has kind of been the patron saint of all things Conservative and Republican since, like, forever. Or at least the last twenty or thirty years. Maybe the next guru of the past will be Nixon?

And speaking of Republicans and taxes, Jack Kemp died. I always thought Kemp got kind of a raw deal when he ran for Vice-President with Bob Dole. I guess it wasn't that bad, but that race was against Bill Clinton at the height of his popularity, and whoever ran on the Republican ticket was probably destined for failure. His legacy appears to be not as a Vice-Presidential loser but as an early champion of "supply-side" economics and Republican tax cuts. (I'm over-simplifying both for space and because I don't really understand economics. So if anyone wants to fill in the gaps, feel free to do so. You even have my permission to call me a dummy. It's OK. My kids do it all the time.) Kemp was 73 and died of cancer. Sad.

This isn't that new a story, but its pretty funny. Two people were caught, um, doing it, on the lawn in front of Windsor Castle. Yep -- that's the Queen's lawn. This sentence is as clasically British and Shakespeare: "Ignoring signs asking visitors to Please Keep Off The Grass, the man and woman, said to be in their early 30, selected a spot near the castle's Garter Tower and stripped off in full view of hotels, pubs and shops." Yes, because the real problem is that they were on the grass.

Oh, and let's not forget swine flu. Apparently there have been more cases reported, but it's not exactly Bubonic Plague. Yet. Here are some stats to scare ya into sanitizing your hands and those of your children. In the U.S. of A., 30 states are reporting swine flu cases. 19 countries. 800 people total, mostly in North America, with Colombia being the first in South America. (What an honor.) In Europe, Spain has the most cases, with 44. 30 people have been hospitalized. Yeah, it's a real party in the world these days.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go wash my hands. Again. See you tomorrow.

Image: s0rethumbs

Mexican Sesame Street Addresses Swine Flu

YouTube Helps Man Deliver Baby

OctoMom's Kid - Bite Mark And Black Eye

Consumer Reports Responds to Sling-Hate Outrage

Swine Flu - Are You Worried About Your Kids?

Mom Buys Nintendo, Gets a Box of Rocks Instead

JeanneSager — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:33:00 GMT

Somewhere in Florida, a kid is saying "aww, gee, Mom, you shouldn't have." No, really, we mean it. Because when a sixteen-year-old opened up his brand new Nintendo DS, all he found was a pile of rocks and some newspaper with Chinese lettering.

Someone was apparently watching Hotel For Dogs before they made their Wal-Mart return. There's a scene in the kiddie flick that features kids packaging up a box full of rocks and trying to sell it as high tech gear.

Wal-Mart said "don't look at us," and was reportedly refusing to give Mom her money back until a Florida TV station got involved. The store tracked the box . . . only to realize it had been returned to the store by another customer. Perhaps the one who grabbed the DS and ran?

The story comes with yet another reminder to always check boxes (this mom says she did - and nothing looked awry) and warns that if you're unsure you should always ask a store employee to open it in front of you to verify the contents. I understand caveat emptor, but how far do we have go to? Most kids products these days are so hard to get out of the box that having the store open 'em up and unpack them will mean never getting them back INTO the box . . . and all that protective packaging that's supposed to keep the item from breaking on the ride home is now gone. Plus the open box now makes it harder to keep all the pieces inside.

Of course, I'd hate to disappoint my kid by opening up her birthday present this June to find a box full of rocks. What about you readers, do you make the store open things before you check out?

Image: PBase

Abercrombie and Fitch (Finally!) Losing Its Cachet

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:28:00 GMT

Even recessions have a silver lining. Overpriced and oversexed teen clothier Abercrombie and Fitch is feeling the pinch in a big way as teenagers (or their parents) wise up to the fact that it’s just not worth it to pay $58 for a scarf—even if an impossibly dreamy, half-naked hunk is plastered over the cash register.

According to MSNBC, “The company is fiercely protecting its image as a ‘premium’ brand, and, as a result, it's getting snubbed big time by its once cultlike, ever-loyal fan base.” It’s ironic that “premium” means ripped jeans and flannel shirts, but, as Abercrombie sadly found out, if you put enough naked teenagers next to any product, it’ll sell.

That is, until hardly anyone can afford to buy it anymore. Abercrombie was the biggest retail loser in March, posting a 34 percent drop in sales. I wonder how those numbers compare to the drop in teenagers’ self-esteem after looking at an Abercrombie catalogue.

In case you haven’t recently had the joy of getting assaulted by club music and cheap cologne in your local Abercrombie lately, Jezebel has an anecdote to remind you just how abominable the king of preppy is. Writer Hortense remembers sharing in a hospital with a young woman who was being treated for anorexia. She had to be tube-fed around the clock. “The week before she was hospitalized,” Hortense writes, “she told me, she went to buy clothes at Abercrombie & Fitch, and the manager pestered her the entire time, begging her to apply for a job there, because she had ‘the look they wanted.’”

Perhaps the manager was so pushy because of the high employee turnover.

Photo: abercrombieandfitch.com

Baby Center Store Closing - FINAL DAY

Brett Singer — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:15:00 GMT

Pretty soon, parents won't be able to buy binkies, booster seats or bottles at the BabyCenter Store. Actually, they won't be able to buy anything at all – BabyCenter is closing their online store for good on January 6, 2009.

In other parenting-business news, a company called The Parent Company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Parent Company trades on the NASDAQ under the cute-as-a-button symbol KIDS – or at least they will until January 7, 2009, when they will be de-listed. Among the companies owned by The Parent Company are eToys, BabyUniverse and ePregnancy. From their website: "The Parent Company provides comprehensive eCommerce and eContent resources to help families plan, play and grow." Because if there's one thing families need, it's more eContent resources.

What does all of this mean? Economically, I have no idea. (I managed to avoid Econ 101 in college.) But it is interesting that even Internet retailers are having trouble staying afloat. When brick and mortar stores (aka, "places you actually have to go to in order to buy stuff") go belly up, it's less surprising, since they have to pay, like, rent and stuff. The Interwebs were supposed to be a place where any nudnik with a dream and/or a nightmare could slap up a digital shingle and make millions in mere minutes.

It's not that simple, of course; just ask the web site that lost their shirts offering free shipping of pet food during the dotcom boom. Still, you would think that a site as popular as BabyCenter would want to keep their store alive in some form. Over on DaddyTips.com, I created an Amazon store in about five minutes. There's not a lot there, it's more of a storelet, but it works and I don't have to do anything. Granted, I'm not exactly rolling in dough from my efforts. But if I spent some time designing it, adding products, I might make a few bucks. I know BabyCenter probably liked offering their own eCommerce outlet for their users. But all that inventory, staff, shipping, it's all overhead even if there's no actual store to deal with.

Does this mean the business of parenting and/or the business of selling stuff to parents is on the decline? I doubt it. Parenting is big business. No matter what the state of the economy, if you have kids, they're going to need diapers. And food. And, if they're lucky, the occasional toy. Somebody has to sell it to us, right? Ah, but there are other places to get it. Amazon, of course, will sell you just about anything. (I believe that they will one day sell body parts. You heard it here first.) And The Parent Company isn't gone; they're just taking a little Chapter 11 break. And I'm not mentioning the hundreds of other places that want your money. So maybe BabyCenter wasn't making enough scratch with the store and got tired of competing. Who knows.

One good thing about BabyCenter going bye-bye: everything is on sale, big time. Like, it was $60 and now it's $17.99. That kind of sale. A real, honest to goodness "everything must go, we're selling to the bare, virtual walls" sale. You've got a couple more days, check it out here.

Sources: BabyCenter (also image), NY Times

Working Parents Smackdown Part 2 – Dads With Jobs vs Moms With Jobs

Family Game Night: Haba's Toddler-Friendly Charades

Droolicious Shopping Guide: Britax Car Seats

Who Buys The Baby Products In Your House?

UPDATE: Time Warner and Viacom Reach Agreement, SpongeBob Saved

Brett Singer — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 03:52:00 GMT

The war has ended, and we are all winners -- the kids can watch Dora, the grown-ups can watch Colbert. Technically, the kids can also watch Colbert, and the grown-ups can even watch Dora.

Viacom and Time Warner have reached an agreement, terms to be fleshed out later, that will keep the various channels on the air for Time Warner Cable subscribers, according to the New York Times. Perhaps they took Dora's advice to "stop and think" for a minute.

One interesting idea did come from this, however, via the comments below: pay-per-minute television. I like it. They'll never DO it, but I like it. It would probably greatly reduce TV viewing in most households. "Hey kids, there's a Spider-Man marathon on! 65 episodes in a row!" (That was this morning, actually.) If you add, "It'll only cost us a dollar a minute!" I might just pick up a book, y'know?

Anyway, for now, everyone can keep watching their favorite shows. And thank goodness -- isn't there a new "Hills" spinoff? (Note: if there is, I don't know what it's called because I don't watch that show. But somebody must.)

Original post follows below:

*-*-*-*

If you get your TV service from Time Warner Cable and your kids love them some SpongeBob and Dora The Explorer, you might want to stock up on DVDs.

Viacom wants an increase in the fee Time Warner pays to carry their channels, and Time Warner doesn't want to pay it. The deadline is midnight tonight. What channels are those? A partial list: Nickelodeon, MTV, VH-1, Comedy Central. So no Diego for the kiddies, and no Daily Show and Colbert Report for you. (Or for your kids, if they enjoy a humorous take on current events.)

Unsurprisingly, both sides think they are right. In a press release, Viacom says the following: " Ultimately…if Nickelodeon, COMEDY CENTRAL, MTV and the rest of our programming is discontinued - over less than a penny per day – we believe viewers will see this behavior by their cable company as outrageous." The fee increase Viacom is asking for is "about 25 cents a month, or $3 a year, per subscriber for its package of channels," according to the LA Times. Time Warner says its about Viacom trying to make up for decreased ad revenue: the LA Times quotes Time Warner Cable spokesman Alex Dudley as saying, "Advertising revenue stinks so they are looking to stick our customers for the difference. We have to hold the line for our customers. They are holding our customers hostage for a bunch of networks with sagging ratings and only one or two good channels."

Personally, I've felt for years that it should be possible to pick and choose which channels you actually want to receive. For example, Comedy Central, sure. But no one in my house watches Nickelodeon, so that one can go. Of course, that's not how it works. Oh well.

The thing is, while both sides may or may not have valid points in this matter, customers don't really care. It's not like Time Warner will offer refunds if they drop the Viacom channels from their lineup (although I suppose they might if it lasts long enough). But I think it you ask cable customers, the vast majority would say that they pay too much for their service. Take away channels that they actually want to watch, and that makes it even worse. It's two rich companies fighting with each other over more money, and while they fight, I don’t get to watch "The Hills." (Note: I don't actually watch "The Hills." That's just an example.)

Anyway, midnight tonight. If Viacom and Time Warner can't come to an agreement by then, bye-bye Dora and Jon Stewart. Let's see what happens.

Source: LATimes

Disney Bails on Narnia

Miss Piggy Wants a Bailout For Christmas

Overachiever Alert! 13-Year-Old Owns Business, Is a Motivational Speaker and Rings Stock Exchange Bell

SunnyChanel — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:30:00 GMT

What were you doing when you were thirteen? Did you have your own business? Did you do motivational speaking? Did you get to ring the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange? Yeah, I thought not. But who did? Why 13-year old Long Islander Leanna Acher, teenager and over achiever. This spunky entrepreneur has her own hair care company aptly named Leanna, Inc., which she started when she was the ripe old age of nine. In her spare time, she does motivational speaking around the country. And today she became the youngest person ever to ring ~~the toll of death~~ the opening bell of the NY Stock Exchange.

What advice does she have about the financial crisis? “Stay positive," she said. "Be optimistic. If they're determined, if they keep going at it and really work hard, everything's going to be fine." Pretty amazing stuff for a thirteen year old don’t you think? She’s accomplished more than many twice or three times her age! *

(*I should mention that she doesn’t do it alone, her father helps run Leanna Inc. )

Via NY Daily News

Ailing Companies as Bad Children

Brett Singer — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:00:00 GMT

I always thought there was some childish behavior happening in the world of high finance. New York Magazine confirms my suspicions.

They also help to simplify an issue using pictures, which helps me out. A sample:

Bear Stearns is the little pyro—the kid who was always playing with matches. He could harm not only himself, but burns his own house down, and indeed, he could have burned down the entire neighborhood. The Fed stepped in not to protect him but the rest of the block.

See the "source" link below for Lehman Brothers ("the little kid pulling the tail of a dog") and AIG ("the kid who accidentally stumbles into a biotech- warfare lab … finds all these unlabeled vials…").

No word yet on what sort of child Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are.

Source/image: NYMag (originally bigpicture)

Read more:

Enormous baby sculpture

Arkansas Evangelist's compound raided, six children removed

More stuff my 3 year old broke

Mom finds hairy Goldilocks in 2 year old's bed

Palin's Email Hacked and posted online; UPDATE: Anonymous Hacker Speaks

Red eye? Nope, eye cancer

11 months old, 62 pounds

Mr. Rogers Talking Keychain (I find his voice soothing in times of stress)

Stay out of my room or I'll pee on your tree

Brett Singer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT

I've tried to write a summary of this story but I haven't been able to come up with a better intro than this one (from the New York Times):

When the men of the Phoenix Country Club saw their feeding ways in peril, they did not tarry. Some sent nasty e-mail messages, hectored players on the fairway and, for good measure, urinated on a fellow club member’s pecan tree.

As you can probably guess, it was that last one – the whole "urinating on a tree" thing – that grabbed my attention. What caused otherwise civilized men to make pee-pee on the pecan tree? Why, it was the women! They want to eat in the same dining room as the men! Well, if some chick wants to do that, I'm going to take a leak on her tree! That'll show those nosy broads.

The specifics are as follows: the Phoenix Country Club in Arizona does not allow women to eat in the men's grill room. According to the New York Times, this grill room is where high-level business deals are conducted, not to mention more pedestrian activities such as lunch. Well can't these persnickety hens go somewhere else? Actually, no. The "ladies' grill" has "a hot plate, some card tables and no bar." That's right. A hot plate.

Now, Arizona, Arizona… who's from Arizona? Oh! John McCain! Well, he's not a member. His son Andrew is, and so is Alice Cooper. (Kids, Alice Cooper is this rock star-type guy who used to really upset people because his act featured images of death and stuff. Yeah, we were pretty silly back then. Check out his Muppet Show episode, it's a lot of fun. And for those of you who remember Alice Cooper, yes. He's now a member of a country club that doesn't let women eat with men.)

This issue came to a head when Barbara Van Sittert and her husband Logan "appealed to the board of the club" to change the rules so they could have breakfast together. When they were told to stuff it, they went to the Attorney General's office, which recently issued an "advisory legal opinion that the club needed to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws." That doesn't mean anything yet; the club has 30 days to try and settle the matter before the AG gets all legal on them.

So remember guys. If women want to do something you don't want them to do, whip it out and pee on their lawn. That'll show 'em.

image: progressivemajoritywisconsin.org

Dick Cheney whispering hush: Goodnight Bush

Political Nanny: White Talk, Blackface ... Barf

McCain Finds Humor in Domestic Violence

Are bananas the new oil?

Brett Singer — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Everyone who thought bananas were this wonderful and inexpensive food that we stumbled onto here in the States – you were wrong. Very wrong.

At least that's what Dan Koeppel said in the New York Times this week. His OP-ED piece, "Yes, We Will Have No Bananas," is currently the most emailed article at nytimes.com. According to this extremely interesting essay, bananas are more exotic than we realize and shouldn't be so cheap. Fruit stands on the streets of Manhattan typically sell the yummy yellow-skinned fruit at 3 or 4 for a buck, which is a great deal by New York standards.

There are various reasons, Koeppel writes, why bananas have become such a staple in American households, despite the fact that they are not grown locally and were "virtually unknown" in the United States until the late 19th century. He refers to "banana barons" who did everything from creating jingles (to paying off doctors "to convince mothers that bananas were good for children." That's not to say that bananas aren't healthy, just that we didn't discover this miracle food by accident.

It gets political too, of course, with American business interests trumping any concern for human rights: "Over and over, banana companies, aided by the American military, intervened whenever there was a chance that any 'banana republic' might end its cooperation."

There's more, and it's worth reading Koeppel's OP-ED contribution if you have the time. If not, I'll leave you with this: apparently there is a fungus that could cause a banana shortage and a huge jump in banana prices. No more 3 for a buck snacks for you and your kids. I wonder what would take its place.

Now, just for fun, here are some banana-themed YouTube vids:
- The original Chiquita Banana commercial; it feels a bit like an infomercial after reading the Times article.

- A newer Chiquita Banana ad, also touting banana-related health benefits.

- The Swedish Chef Making Banana Split from The Muppet Show. Just because.

image: bananas.co.uk

Related posts:

Political Nanny: Cindy McCain Fakin' Bakin'

Q: Is It Harder to Raise Boys or Girls?

Kitchenista: Lemony Fresh

Fear of plastic + timing = big bucks

Brett Singer — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:30:00 GMT

Interesting article over on Forbes.com about the BornFree people. Turns out they not only make the bottles, they help make sure that people know how dangerous the BPA-filled versions are.

Apparently, when BornFree began back in 2006, very few people cared about BPA. So what does a dadpreneur (that's a dad entepreneur – see how dumb it sounds?) do? Make sure that everyone knows how bad plastic is. According to Forbes, BornFree's President Ron Vigdor "sometimes exaggerates when comparing bisphenol A-free bottles to polycarbonate versions. 'One is with arsenic, one without. Which one would you like to buy?'"

So what's wrong with that?

It makes me wonder how many supposedly dangerous things are the result of hype rather than fact. I'm not saying BPA-free bottles are a bad thing, or that Bisphenol-A isn't harmful. I have no idea. I'm not taking a side, and if people would rather use BPA-free bottles, I think it's great that they have the opportunity to do so. But think about it this way: if you have a product that you think meets a need, and nobody seems to care, how far do you go to create that need? Are you doing the world a favor or just making a quick buck? Or both? Does anyone have a problem with that? How many question marks can I use in a single post?

image: Amazon.com

Words Have Many Meanings, Part 2

Lingo-watch: Manimony

BPA-Free? Not So Much

Wee*Go's Soft-Shelled Glass Bottle Defies Toxins, Breakage Alike

A Cheap* Plastic Cup That Won't Kill or Maim You

Like Netflix for Your Toybox

Madeline Holler — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:06:00 GMT

File this one under Why Didn't I Think of That. (I know why: too lazy). A Houston mother of twin boys launched an online toy rental service last fall which might solve the duel problem of (1) shopping for toys with your kids and (2) being buried in crap.

Her service works like Netflix -- you pay a monthly subscription fee, pick out a set number of toys that you get to keep for a specified amount of time. You return the toys in the postage-paid box. New toys are shipped out as soon as others are returned.

Baby Plays stocks all the stuff you see in stores -- VTech, Playskool, LeapFrog -- and also more unusual stuff from Europe. She searches toy catalogs, picks easy to clean toys with few or replaceable parts. And she checks for lead before sending new products out. She also watches carefully for damage and safety hazards.

Four toys a month costs $28.99. For six toys a month, it's $35.99. Families who sign a yearlong contract can get six toys a month for $31.99.

What do you think? I'll pay extra if there's a part of the service that quenches grandparents' rabid thirst for buying one of each item in the toy aisles of Target.

Photo: AP

Digital Camera + Mom = Professional Photographer?

Melissa Summers — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:33:00 GMT

The New York Times tells us about another 'trend' where moms seem to think buying a digital SLR makes them a professional photographer. As digital SLRs have become more affordable, many mothers are expanding their love of photography into a business.

I love the clever marketing these women are using. Jodie Otte creates business cards using client photos knowing they'll be quickly passed on to the client's friends and family. Other women have created Portrait Parties, where several families get together and the photographer snaps shots of the kids at play. If the parents like what they see, they'll spread the word. Brilliant.

What's the problem? Well, it appears large studios and old-guard photographers have their undergarments in a twist. On photography message boards these women are disparagingly referred to as "MWAC", Mom With a Camera. They should call them Mommies With A Camera, because that's the best way to minimize women who have the audacity to have off spring and also do other things. See the internet's references to "Insipid Mommy Bloggers".

Best line in the article, "“It’s about making people comfortable and finding the emotion in their faces. The camera is just a tool.” Apparently, because my eyes are closed in over half of the professional photographs we've had taken, the emotion photographers find in my face is exhaustion."

It's funny, I thought moms bought digital SLRs so they could blog.

American International Toy Fair 2007: More Crap Your Kids Want That You Can't Afford

JasonAvant — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:35:00 GMT

Remember when you were a kid, and your dad would say things like, "Eh, back in my day, all we had to play with was a dried chicken bone and a ball of navel lint and we were happy!" and you'd say, "Yeah, pop, sounds great" and go right back to your prized possession, the new electronic game you had to have because it was the culmination of thousands of years of toy development? Well, as much as we'd like to think that ours is a unique generation, the toymakers still have kids' numbers, and they continue to push high tech - and high price - products out into the market.

The American International Toy Fair kicks off this Sunday in New York City. The fair's motto, "Inspiring Growth", surely refers to the profit margins of the companies that will be in attendance. Manufacturers will be rolling out the latest in cutting edge toys, with advances in electronics making it possible for 50 percent of toys sold in stores to have "some sort of microchip in them" (you know, people laugh at me when I take them to my fortified bunker, hidden somewhere in the Sierra Nevada range, but when TMX Elmo and his legions of robot toys become self-aware and rise up to slay their human masters and dominate the world, well...).

But these toys aren't cheap. Squawkers McCaw doesn't say "Polly wanna cracker" for nothin'; if you want him to annoy the shit out of you, you'll need to shell out $70.

Hot tickets toys that run into the $100+ dollar range are common; even so, the article points out that although the toy industry rakes in over $22 billion a year, growth over the past few years has been relatively slow. And the average price of a toy is still relatively low - $7.52 in 2006. Experts have several theories as to why this is, but parents know why: TBICI. TBICI has, and will remain, the toy that little kids show the most interest in, and when TBICI is around, the expensive toys just sit there and collect dust, and discourage parents from ever dropping a couple hundred bucks on a plastic talking parrot again. Toy manufacturers still don't get it.

(New parents might be asking: "What's TBICI? And where do I get one?" Veteran parents, say it with me now: "The Box It Came In".)

Photo Stamps Company Loves War, Hates Kids Who Love Cupcakes

thezeroboss — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:53:00 GMT

As if it weren't bad enough that some people don't like Christmas peace wreaths in their housing developments, Shana Weiss over at HuffPo reports that some people don't like cupcakes - even when eight-year-olds are the ones making them! Weiss tried to order some PhotoStamps of her son in his "Make Cupcakes Not War" t-shirt, and the company rejected her order because the image she used "makes a political statement."

Because, Goddess forbid, we wouldn't want people making political statements with their stamps now, would we? People's faces might fall off if they see a cupcake stamp!

What's farcical is that this isn't even a partisan political statement; it's a pacifist one. It's not like the shirt reads "Assassinate The President", or "Liberals Taste Best Deep-Fried in Vegetable Oil." You'd think that parents of any political stripe would bristle at a company dictating what they can and cannot print on their own damn stamps. Too bad Weiss didn't name precisely which company delivered the Anti-War Smackdown; I'd love to know who NOT to give my moolah to.

(Thanks to Evil Mommy for the pointer)