Dear Occupy Wall Street

Ohhhhhh, so that's what it's about? Show that to every conservative and 1-percenter on the radar...

The Internet has a way of aggrandizing things so that you think a lot more of them than they really are. Sometimes you have to see something for yourself to get a good idea of what the point is. I could go on an on with euphemisms to segue into what I want to say here, but Occupy Wall Street, upon my 2nd visit to your site, it's a miracle I didn't see your mission at first.

The American political/economic/social malady has never been a secret to me. One look at half of the political posts on this blog, and a reader knows that there is something seriously wrong with the direction our country is going in. Occupy Wall Street, you are a result of that, not because you are doing your job to a tee, but because you are giving something to talk about. That's not a bad thing, but it has the potential to be turned against you, because of how overarching your goal is.

To draw attention to the vast inequality, rampant injustices and ridiculous faults of our system is your goal, OWS. Being down at Zucotti Park gave me that perspective, but Middle America won't see it the same way. Violence, anger, misdirected and misinformed protests and general hoopla (have always wanted to use that word in a sentence) are what will draw their attention, and not the actual issues at hand. For two weeks, your movement was seen as a fringe movement. Add some high-profile appearances like Kanye West, Talib Kweli, and Russell Simmonds, and you've got the press' ears. Add some heated standoffs and violent shows from police to your pot of brew, and NOW you've got the rest of the world watching. Why is that? Why are you relegated into the realm of 'noise' until something bad happens? Is that what America is really about? Is your plight just background noise, destined to be talked about for a few more weeks until they 'deal' with you?

Look at even the way politicians have reacted to you. The right wings say your a bunch of dirty hippies, underachieving liberal arts students and homeless gathered over nothing, even though the Tea Party makes WAY less sense. The left wing, even though they lay in the same bed of lobbyist and corporate money, has latched on to you, hoping they can ride a populist, working class wave all the way to victory in 2012. At this point, you're nothing more than a prop, OWS. While you may be formless, leaderless and all-encompassing, you're going to have to soon adopt a serious stance so that you can't be boxed in. It's even ironic that your lack of parameters has resulted in parameters placed around you by the media and politicians.

OWS, I started out in support of you, became disillusioned with my first visit, got back some zeal in the second and am somewhat wishy-washy about you now. It's not because I don't agree with your goals, or that I've given up hope that some sort of rational discussion about our country's system can come together. It's because your own nature makes you impossible to follow. Idealistic, Utopian or what have you, it has to end somewhere, and you don't even know where that is. Yes, protests have been popping up in other locales, but to what end? Don't sit there and tell me about the 'revolution'. I've listened to more Gil Scott-Heron than you know, and the revolution damn sure won't be televised, much less tweeted, Facebooked, Tumblr'ed. But how do we draw the line between sensationalism and actual constructive movement?

OWS, that is your struggle: to find legitimacy without the controversy that litters most politics, to bring attention to something that should have been attended to years ago. Our society is one that emphasizes the frivolous and fleeting for the important. It's like you couldn't have been a better movement for a worse time, OWS. The country needs the discourse you bring. Though I'm not convinced most Americans will be able to see through the noise to the actual problems that plague their nation, I think enough will pay attention to that something gets done... Maybe not a 'revolution', but something. I suppose the same lack of clarity in goals that you began with has to bear on the lack of clarity in an end. We all have to start somewhere...

Dear Hallmark

The person who gives me this will need more than his fair share of 'Get Well' cards at the end of the day...

via NBC:

In the business of selling sentiments, there's a card for everything, from traditional occasions to unique needs: cards with sound, cards for holidays, cards for losing a tooth. But losing a job?

Yes, now there's a card for that too. Hallmark recently rolled out a new line of layoff greeting cards.

Stores have a specific section for job loss and recession humor, offering words of support and encouragement. With the unemployment rate at nine percent, the company says customers called-in the need.

One card reads "Don't think of it as losing your job. Think of it as a time out between stupid bosses."

So... On today's episode of 'Life Sucks, You Don't Have a Job, and Corporations are Trying to Squeeze You Dry" we have... a corporation trying to squeeze you dry because you don't have a job and your life sucks! Yes, yes. Hallmark, you have stooped to a new low of recessionary fun with your new 'Layoff Greeting Cards'.

Once a bastion of hope, happiness, and well wishes, you too have felt the sting of financial woes, and in true business fashion have switched your tune up faster than Pookie went back to the crackpipe. The undeniable warm and fuzzy feelings that usually accompany greeting cards seem to have gone by the wayside, it seems. What I don't understand, though, is why you felt that even in this time of economic despair, you felt the need to still try to turn a profit. Have you no shame?

Look around, Hallmark! The country is in its worst economic rut since the Depression. Our government is making as much leeway as a snail going uphill. The threat of nuclear holocaust grows greater every day. More reality television is being produced as we speak, while protesters at Wall Street get pepper-sprayed to no avail. The last thing the country and consumers need is a $3.99 pat on the back from you guys. All of the marketing 'genius' you put into this could have easily been invested in a much more constructive avenue.

Never mind the fact that you even thought that this was a good idea. Who was your target consumer in this decision? What insensitive schmuck would buy a card for their loved one's layoff? I can't begin to imagine the rage that would emanate from my eyes Cyclops-style if someone ever presented me with a greeting card of consolation for being laid off. In fact, I'd be more upset that they spent the $3.99 on your product, instead of just giving me a handshake and the classified ads.

Yes, Hallmark, the recession sucks. But we don't need you to tell us that. As I sift through every job board I know and e-mail every professional I've ever come in contact with, I can't help but wonder how the prospects on employment wit your company are. Given your pride in releasing this depressing news, I can only assume that business is booming in your hallways. Even so, if Obama has his way and the American consumer has his way (both iffy propositions in their own) I'm pretty sure you won't be offering this promotion for too much longer. HAPPY LAY-OFF!!!

Dear Comcast (re: NBC merger)

Net neutrality, anyone?

They say you shouldn't shoot the messenger. Well, what happens when the messenger and the ones sending the message are one in the same? What happens when the same people making the news become the same people delivering it? What happens when the media outlets and the content providers merge Saiyan-style to destroy every other entity not named Disney? That is my beef today, Comcast. Now, we're not going to get into how much I hate your cable service and it's ridiculous hidden charges or mysterious 'shut-offs'. Today's not that day. I will, however, delve into your recent acquisition of NBC, and how utterly destructive it is not only for me (the end user) and media as a whole.

Comcast, by taking over NBC, you've become the first cable company to own a major broadcast network. Let that sink in... You OWN NBC. That means, anything that NBC puts out as its own, you own. You're held solely responsible, liable and accountable for the NBC imprint and everything that comes under it. By that token, everything coming from NBC has to have your oh-so-shadowy stamp of approval on it, which is scary to say the least.

You guys will be able to control who, what, where and when NBC broadcasts instead of them having their own jurisdiction. No longer will NBC be its own entity in terms of the content it puts out. Everything that you do, they will have to do, which includes broadcasting news and shows that you approve, advertising what you approve and partnering with firms that you approve. NBC essentially won't have its own identity. It may as well just become the Comcast network and end the speculation.

The only reason you guys bought NBC is because you see the way that online movie and television watching has picked up, and you want a piece of that pie (not that you have your own pie factory, or anything). It's really sickening from a consumer's standpoint. It's like watching the Walmart take over your town by taking down every other store that sells everything Walmart doesn't sell. You're buying out the market because you realize you might not be able to compete soon.

Cable companies like yourself are trying to become the online content providers, not by providing content, but by buying the people that do. While that's pretty good business, what part of the ethical or competitive game is that? What happened to innovation and new firms being allowed to supersede corporate money and might? Maybe I'm a purist, but by cornering the market, it only shows how cornered you guys are: that you stretched yourself thin on traditional cable and are trying to buy your way out. NBC probably won't be the last purchase, especially if the FCC continues to let you walk all over them. But hey, who am I kidding? It's not like I watch the Office or 30 Rock on TV, anyway. Shout out to Hulu, Netflix and all those illegal sites that shall not be named...

Dear KFC

Fried chicken... Fly vixen

via The Washington Post:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- Yum Brands Inc. is targeting Africa and other emerging global markets for expansion for its venerable KFC chain that has become a dominant fast-food player in China but has struggled in the U.S. Louisville-based Yum said Wednesday that it expects to double the number of KFC restaurants in Africa to about 1,200 by 2014. Yum projects that KFC will grow into a nearly $2 billion brand in Africa within four years and will contribute more than $100 million in profit to Yum's international division, which excludes China - which has its own division.

"Africa has tremendous opportunity," Yum Chairman and CEO David C. Novak said during the company's investor-analyst conference in New York. "It's a great emerging continent, and we have a chance to really lead in that business."

KFC is already a leading brand in South Africa with more than 600 restaurants. The chain has a small presence in a few other African countries.

"We're using our South African base as an opportunity for us to ... enter other countries," Novak said.

The chain will expand with restaurant openings planned in such places as Nigeria, Ghana, Angola and Zambia. The company said it expects franchisees to invest about $500 million in Africa by 2014.

Ever think the Illuminati someone is listening in on your conversations and taking your ideas? Or better yet, ever think the jokes you make are a lot more close to truth than they appear? That's how I'm feeling right now in reference to the above news story, KFC. Now, it's been high time since I've written a letter, mainly because nothing has piqued my interest. Today though, KFC, you made for a finger-licking blog post.

The irony in your modus operandi is so thick that only your gravy could compete. It's no secret that your restaurant is failing on numerous fronts. From the assertion that your chicken is more processed than Sarah Palin's appeal, to the Double Down's artery-clogging chicken goodness (sarcasm), KFC, there's not much left to conquer in the United States, much less any losses you can take. My issue, or question, here is simple, though. Is this racist? KFC, the pervading stereotype for this century is that people of the black diaspora tend to enjoy chicken of the fried variety. Fried chicken is an American phenomenon that has yet to take hold worldwide, which was putting a major dent in your international pockets... At least in the developed Anglo-Saxon world. By that token, your move was damn predictable. In fact, I imagine the meeting to decide to pump more chicken into Africa as something like this:

Corporate Head 1: Seems like our shareholder value is dropping... Maybe we should cut back on the artificial flavors, coloring, and preservatives?

Corporate Head 2: Noooo! are you crazy??? Those chemicals make our chicken finger-licking good, and make it so we don't really have to cook or prepare the food! Why mess with a formula that works? Besides, I have a tip that might make us rich again!

Corporate Head 1: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Corporate Head 2: You know it, man!! Let's pump our cardiac arrest-good chicken into Africa! You know what they say about black... (looks at concerned African-American board member) Africa? Emerging markets always take hold of American fast food!

-END-

From the perspective of a young black male, this is Chappelle's Show-worthy comedy. The amount of possible insights into your reasoning could outnumber the stars, but at the end of the day, it's pretty obvious why there's a huge 'X' on your map of Africa. Rather than make better food or try different marketing worldwide, you guys are running to the Motherland with the hopes of making bank. It's business, I understand. Yet, at what point can we be real with the fact that stereotyping and racial stigmas affect our decisions? Does there have to be a huge sign that says 'Black People Enter', or have you guys already thought of that? Whatever the case, KFC, you can't run from what such expansion looks like, no matter how you try to sugarcoat it. No race is as compartmentalized as blacks, and it's only a matter of time before other racial minorities are in that same fold. Call it expansion, development, or what have you. It will never erase the stigma, much less keep you from making out like bandits in Africa. Then again, hasn't every other entity that's come to the continent? History lesson aside, I see you KFC. I see you...

Greetings From: London, UK

Maybe a river of chocolate is possible...

via The New York Times:

To some, he is a real-life Willy Wonka. To others, he is a Bond-style villain bent on taking over the world’s supply of chocolate. In a stroke, a hedge fund manager here named Anthony Ward has all but cornered the market in cocoa. By one estimate, he has bought enough to make more than five billion chocolate bars. Chocolate lovers here are crying into their Cadbury wrappers — and rival traders are crying foul, saying Mr. Ward is stockpiling cocoa in a bid to drive up already high prices so he can sell later at a big profit. His activities have helped drive cocoa prices on the London market to a 30-year high.

Mr. Ward, 50, is not some rabid chocoholic, former employees say. He simply has a head for cocoa. And, through his private investment firm, Armajaro, he now controls a cache equal to 7 percent of annual cocoa production worldwide, a big enough chunk to sway prices.

“Globally, he is unmatched in his knowledge of cocoa,” said Tim Spencer, a former Armajaro executive.

Armajaro maintains offices in West Africa, helping Mr. Ward keep tabs on major cocoa crops. “We even have our own weather stations — our very own that no one else has in some parts of the world,” Mr. Ward, soft-spoken and tan, said in a video interview this year with a financial news service. Now, traders here are buzzing that Mr. Ward has placed an audacious $1 billion bet in the London market for cocoa futures. This month, he bought 241,100 metric tons of beans, they say. His play has some people up in arms. While some see it as a simple bet that cocoa prices will rise on falling supply, others say Mr. Ward has created a shortage of cocoa simply to drive up the price himself.

Greetings from London, England, where a local entrepreneur has apparently rediscovered his love for the children's story, 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'. Anthony Ward has bought over $1 billion worth of cocoa beans from Africa, virtually turning the chocolate industry into his industry. On the London market, his purchase has raised the price of chocolates to a 30-year high. My question is, how much chocolate is he going to buy before he realizes one of two things?:

A) People like chocolate, but not enough to pay ridiculous prices for it. As people's wallets shrink, so do their appetites for luxury products and non-essential food items like (you guessed it) chocolate. He's probably not going to be able to sell it for another 10 years.

or

B) Candy producers have entire regions dedicated to cocoa production. In fact, England doesn't have so much as a foothold in the chocolate industry, as say Italy or France. His acquisition is meaningless unless he has a producer handcuffed already. Looks like he's just going to be sitting on chocolate...

Is this what the recession has brought people to? Making binge investments and trying to buy up the market in the hopes that one day they can sell it off? Obviously, we've yet to see what the investments will hold for the future, but there have got to be more lucrative industries out there. I suppose that's what happens when your country's infrastructure is failing and your government is fighting itself: you buy chocolate and hope for the best. On that note, I'm going to get back to my Everlasting Gobstopper. Word to Gene Wilder...

Dear Michael Jordan

"Now, I can own you on and off the court!"

via The Wall Street Journal:

Michael Jordan, arguably the greatest player in basketball history, has reached a deal to buy an NBA franchise. Mr. Jordan has agreed to buy a majority interest of the Charlotte Bobcats from Robert L.Johnson, the team's majority owner, according to a statement released by Mr. Johnson Saturday. The deal is subject to league approval. Terms of the deal weren't disclosed, but the sale price was beneath $300 million— "in the mid-to-high twos," said a person familiar with the matter. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Mr. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, paid $300 million for the expansion franchise in 2003, but the team has been losing money amid a rough economy and years of poor on-court performance. In the past two years, the team has attempted to save money by doing everything from shedding at least 40 front-office jobs to saving as much as $15,000 a night by hiring cheap halftime-entertainment acts. Neither Mr. Jordan nor Mr. Johnson were available for comment.

Michael, you are the greatest player to have lived, in my opinion. Numerous childhood memories of basketball were shaped by the man we know as Air Jordan. It would seem as if being a player of that caliber would afford you an unparalleled knowledge of basketball. Unfortunately for you, Mike, that hasn't been the case. For lack of a better word, your decisions while dealing with the Washington Wizards were stupid. Kwame Brown turned out to be nothing more than a punchline, and other than you playing, the Wizards went nowhere but home during your tenure as Director of Basketball Operations. With Charlotte, you were given a minuscule role, just pouring money in, rather than making decisions, which hasn't turned out too bad.

Enter 2010, and we hear that you're finally going to buy a controlling stake in the Charlotte Bobcats. *GASP* My heart jumped into my esophagus upon hearing that news, not because I was excited to see you in the front office, but because I know what happens when you and money get involved (1993 gambling controversy anyone??). Michael, the Charlotte Bobcats are on the rise. They just had their first All-Star nomination in Gerald Wallace, Stephen Jackson is still playing out of his mind, and they just made a trade to bring high-flyer Tyrus Thomas in. All signs are pointing forward for the franchise. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that the Bobcats are destined for doom with you at the helm, because Bob Johnson didn't do much himself. #imjustsayin that your track record has a few holes in it when you're not on the court. Michael, I wish you all the best of luck as the owner of the Bobcats. Just make sure that as the new owner, you at least get a stylist, because no owner should be coming out of the house looking like this...

For someone who revolutionized fashion, you'd think he wouldn't be shopping at TJ-Maxx...

Dear NYC Federal Reserve

Just because you deleted it, doesn't mean it disappeared...

via the New York Times:

Starting in November 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under Timothy Geithner began urging American International Group, the huge insurer that the government had bailed out, to limit disclosure on payments made to banks at the height of the financial crisis, e-mail messages obtained by DealBook show.

The e-mail exchange between the bailed-out insurance giant and its regulator portray a strange reversal of roles, with A.I.G. staff arguing for the disclosure of certain details on payments for credit-default swaps to major banks, only to be discouraged by officials at, or representing, the Federal Reserve.

In a draft of one regulatory filing, A.I.G. stated that it had paid banks — including Goldman Sachs Group, Merrill Lynch, Société Générale and Deutsche Bank — the full value of C.D.O.’s, or collateralized debt obligations, that they had bought from the company. In the response to that draft from the law firm Davis Polk and Wardwell, which represented the New York Fed, that crucial sentence was crossed out, and did not appear in the final version filed on Dec. 24, 2008.

This is what we're talking about when we say there's a lack of transparency in our government. Guys, the recession has been long and sad. While analysts are saying we'll be out before we know it, I've read enough econ books to know that whatever 'prosperity' they're talking about won't hit the common folk until a year or two after. That said, I thought it was a great move for Obama to start placing more strict regulation on the financial markets after the crash. But where will the lies end?? From dropping interest rates every week to bailing out big businesses while people were losing their homes, you, reserve have left the people out to dry. Now that we know how full of shit you are, it's funny that this story came out.

When people imagine big business and financial deception, they usually imagine a bunch of 'The Man'-looking white men in a fancy board room, making decisions and sending secretive e-mails. I had no clue that was REALLY the case. If you were to sit down and only skim through those e-mails, they would seem routine (I suppose that's the point). The language they used sounded like they weren't even dealing with money. I suppose that's what happens when you're rich and powerful. As long as the system is in order, it doesn't matter what happens to the little people. Fed, don't get it twisted. Withholding information is the same thing as lying, especially when the information would have made your actions that much more detrimental to the country. Now that AIG's been bailed out and STILL has nothing to show for it, it's just ironic that our economy still isn't bouncing back like you guys 'planned'...

Whack-a-Banker

I love seeing the recession bring out the humor in people, albeit in such creative ways. This video comes all the way from England, but I definitely think this game would make a killing over here in the states. I'd kill to see this game down on Wall Street, especially during the holidays, when everyone's banker becomes a mortal enemy. As credit card bills and debt pile up, sometimes you just want to beat the hell out of a banker. Here you can do it without getting a bid...

PS: PAUSE on the title, people..

Dear Nike

Who knew one release could tell so much about a company??

It's a funny thing about sneakers. Everyone loves to hate on them, and the fact that everyone is copping them, but no one ever takes into account who releases them. Nike, you released the first Air Jordan XI's in 1995. It was crazy because Michael Jordan himself got fined $5000 a game during the playoffs for wearing them. That fact only served to hype the sneakers up even more. The original Space Jam XI's were released in 2000, to even more hype, with sneaker collectors lining up for days to get their hands on a pretty nice colorway. Today, Twitter, the blogs and every mall in America were filled with 'sneakerheads' all looking for the same thing: another shot at those Space Jams. Therein lies the problem: another chance.

Nike, for the past decade, you've been giving people 'another chance' to get all of your more popular releases from the previous decade. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I relish the opportunity to get a sneaker that I was too young, or dumb to see the value in, or even afford. However, Nike, it is a HUGE problem when EVERY hot release you guys come out with is a retro. Think about it. What was the last sneaker you guys came out with, that people were lining up for, that WASN'T a retro?? I racked my brain for about 20 minutes trying to find one original sneaker from the past ten years. I couldn't find anything. Dunks and Uptowns are from the 80s, all the Jordans after XVI suck and Air Maxes stopped being hot after 2000. Even the Nike Basketball sneakers get rehashed. Penny's, KG's and other signature kicks are getting retroed too.

Here is some simple economics, Nike: rarity drives prices up. If you can't get something, that makes its value that much more for you. That said, I can understand why you guys keep retro-ing sneakers. You won't see a cent of the value of OG sneakers after retail (eBay and sneaker forums killed that profit), which is why you guys keep re-releasing them. Even so, you guys are tarnishing your legacy like that. 1/2 Cents and Sharkleys suck, as do the rest of your recent releases. Maybe you should focus more on R&D, and less on recapturing the magic of the past. Yeah, the Jams are a good sneaker, but how many times can you re-do a good thing before it gets (gasp) old???

Dear Loud Commercials

I've been tempted to do the same on many occasions...

via CNN:

In her crusade to eliminate the nuisance, Rep. Anna Eshoo wrote the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, or CALM, which mandates that TV commercials be no louder than the programs in which they appear.

Representatives unanimously passed the bill last month and sent it to the Senate for consideration.

The brief measure directs the Federal Communications Commission to develop regulations preventing ads from being "excessively noisy or strident" or "having modulation levels substantially higher than the accompanying program." The bill also addresses "average maximum loudness."

There are certain laws that just baffle most people, like it being illegal to have sex with socks on in Virginia. Then there are certain laws that make you wonder why they weren't there in the first place. This law's for you, commercials. I consider myself an avid television watcher, and even I can't get around the overwhelming knack for commercials to be twice as loud as the TV show I'm watching. Commercials, why is it even necessary to do that?? If someone is going to buy something, they're going to buy it. If they aren't going to buy it, they're not going to buy it. Do you really think bombarding people with your insane amount of decibels makes them want to buy your products any more?? If anything, I'd refrain from buying them. You guys are like that pushy-ass salesman who keeps putting his foot between the door even while I'm smashing his leg with the door. Nobody wants a Snuggie that badly that they would appreciate losing their hearing. Tonedeafness should only be left for church choirs, not during the evening news...