3.15.02
Human-Not-So-Kind
-- OR --
Animal Pelt InFURiates Man with Bat
Believe it or not, there are still a few of us left who have not become entirely desensitized to violent images. We're the ones who cringe and cover our eyes when ads for backyard wrestling videos suddenly assault us through our TV screens. We're the tender souls who have given up on HBO's Oz since the gore has overtaken the dialogue-driven drama. We're the non-hardened folks who don't need to be reminded of the gravity of the World Trade Center attacks by viewing some sensationalized, nightmarish, network television footage.

We're the ones who are pleased to know that PETA will not be airing its horrific anti-fur ad in the states anytime soon. Unfortunately, many of our British brethren won't be so lucky.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals may want to think about their hypocritically unethical treatment of humans. In the group's unsettling ad which could hit London movie theaters if they get their way, a woman in a fur coat is filmed as a man savagely beats her with a baseball bat. After taking the coat from her, the man "walks off leaving the woman unconscious and with blood coming from a wound on her head," according to a 3/8 Sky.com report.

Needless to say, PETA intends for the ad to shock viewers into the realization that animals killed on fur farms experience the same sort of violent treatment. The fur-fighters hope to run the ad in Leicester Square cinemas which are frequented by tourists. Campaign coordinator, Sean Gifford believes that tourists are "the worst culprits for wearing fur coats in the capital." As featured in the article, Gifford hopes "the censors do the right thing and allow us to show it."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: PETA's insistence on the use of shock-value, faulty claims and press-baiting theatrics demeans the validity of animal rights, patronizes the cause's sympathizers and even serves to repel those who may have otherwise agreed with their stance on some issues. I am constantly startled by the fact that this organization, supposedly inspired by love for living creatures, can so readily mistreat mankind. Who remembers PETA's "Got Prostate Cancer?" ad (without his permission, it featured the milk-mustache-enhanced mug of prostate cancer victim, Rudy Giuliani and claimed that milk drinking contributes to prostate cancer)*.

I'm just waiting for some addle-minded activist to misconstrue the PETA theater spot as a directive to perpetrate an actual attack on some fur-wearer. And let's not even consider how feminist organizations or help groups for battered women might respond to the ad.

The ironic thing is that it's groups like PETA that demand the presence of overseers on movie sets when animals are being filmed. I wonder if the ad features a disclaimer assuring that no humans were harmed in its making. Something tells me that was never much of a concern for the selective animal protectors at PETA.

*See the Lowbrow Lowdown coverage of Peta's "Got Prostate Cancer?" ad.

Second Hand Coax
-- OR --
Child-Proof Promos
I grew up in a sheltered environment: Catholic school, church every Sunday, blacked-out movie channels, family dinners featuring all four food groups, the whole nine yards. Still, despite their valiant efforts, the 'rents were inevitably unable to stifle my rebellious streak. Rather than go into the details, let's just say that I'm not the li'l angel they raised me to be.

The fact is, adults can only do so much to save the children.

Reality doesn't seem to factor into some folks' reasoning, however. Take the Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids. It seems as though until cigarettes are completely banned, they'll continue to perpetuate the notion that tobacco companies are strictly interested in luring the wee-ones to take up smoking. To these anti-smoking organizations, the adult market may as well not exist.

Consider the 3/7 statement released by the Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids. In response to a study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the group contends that by boosting their in-store marketing presence, tobacco firms are directly targeting kids. As a result of tight advertising restrictions, cigarette pushers are pumping more and more marketing dollars towards convenience store displays, signage and promotions. It just so happens that "prior research" indicates that 75% of teens visit convenience stores at least once a week. Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids Translation: big tobacco is after your kid.

On a related note, the U.S. Justice Department is now seeking to restrict tobacco marketers even further by, among other things, pushing for a ban on store-placement fees paid to retailers by cigarette makers (see the 3/11 Wall Street Journal article, U.S. to Seek Tough Restrictions On Cigarette Marketing, Sales by John R. Wilke). These "slotting" fees play an enormous role in how cigarettes are displayed and promoted, especially in convenience stores.*

In addition, the heroic cigarette slayers at Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids believe that promos such as buy one/get one and multi-pack discounts "make cigarettes more affordable for kids." By that logic, discounts and buy one/get one deals would prompt kids to buy adult diapers and prune juice, too.

Hey, I hate to see kids smoking. But I also hate to see kids eating junk food, guzzling sugary sodas and watching excessive amounts of TV. All of these things contribute to a problem of epidemic proportions that, according to a recently released Rand study, has been found to cost Americans more in health care than smoking or drinking: obesity. (Check out the press release). Still, you don't see too many organizations lobbying for legislation to remove junk food from convenience stores (easily grabbed from low-lying check-out displays by any stroller-bound two-year-old).

Don't get me wrong. Regulation of candy bars and other convenience-store counter goodies is not the way to rid our country of its rampant fatness. The onus is on the individual when it comes to ravaging one's body with excessive amounts of junk food; the same goes for tobacco products. You've got to wonder: once all cigarette sales are deemed illegal, what will stop the anti-tobaccy lobbyists from going after candy, soda and fast food corporations?

What it comes down to is that full-grown adults willingly purchase tobacco products and regularly frequent convenience stores. Kids may be tomorrow's adults, but does that necessitate that today's adults must sacrifice access to or discounts on legitimate products simply because kids might be tempted by them? I just don't understand why some people insist that the desires and needs of adults must always be superseded by what's in the best interest of children. If it were up to these jerks, people like me would have to child-proof our thoughts.

Come to think of it, if in-store promotions are as influential as Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids believes them to be, maybe we ought to start putting text books behind the convenience store counters.

*See the Lowbrow Lowdown coverage of in-store cigarette placement payments.

Lotus Deposition
-- OR --
Mark of the East
Trademarks are tricky. Qualifying for a trademark seems to have a catch-22 quality to it. Before you've even applied for one, you've got to have proof that, in the past, you've used the word or phrase in the capacity for which you plan to trademark it. But if you've used the word or phrase in some other context, that could be a disadvantage. At least, that's what I gathered while applying for a Lowbrow Lowdown trademark a couple of years back.

And when you want a trademark that's similar to one that already exists, you could be in for a major legal battle, especially if your opponent is an international, Fortune 500 corporation. That's just what nonprofit foundation, Yoga Inside is up against.

You guessed it: Intel, owners of the "Intel Inside" mark, have requested that the "U.S. Patent and Trademark office deny a trademark on 'Yoga Inside'," according to the March 7 Wall Street Journal Digits column. They contend that because the "Intel Inside" trademark is so widely recognized, "the public will reasonably understand applicant's 'Yoga Inside' mark as referring to [Intel]." As noted in the article, Intel often counteracts any applications for trademarks on phrases satisfying the "something inside" template.

Smiling as they squash the little guy, Intel has offered to pay for the cost of a Yoga Inside name change, as noted in the Journal report.

As featured on its website, Yoga Inside, an organization that supports yoga instruction in "schools, treatment centers, children's shelters, pregnant teen programs, juvenile detention facilities, prisons, inner city communities and a variety of other settings," has made its mission to "Encourage Freedom Within" using the 5,000 year-old practices of yoga and meditation. The site also states that "The organization is built around a vision of freedom on the Inside." According to the article, Yoga Inside's executive director, Mark Stephens, believes that his organization is "a household name in the yoga community." A recent award prompted the group to file for a trademark to thwart copycat attempts.

As far as I can tell, Yoga Inside has established itself in its field of operation, which has nothing to do with anything related to computers or the technology business. You'd think that would make them deserving of a trademark. Even though it's standard procedure, the Intel action seems pretty silly.

One positive outcome of this name game is that Intel has been invited by Stephens to sponsor the yoga foundation. Still, I can't help but think that if the Yoga Inside juvenile delinquents were to skip their Eastern philosophy schooling all together and spend that time training for jobs at Intel, the outcome would be even more positive.