A twenty-year-old Oak Brook college student went missing after drinking at a Chicago nightclub Saturday night. Media reports say Katie O'Connell reportedly felt "tired" early Sunday morning and left her own birthday celebration at the club, got into a cab alone, and disappeared.
Stories like this aren't unique. This gal reappeared. More often, the case ends tragically.
Heads up people! Drinking doesn't have to make you dead.
Think ahead. In any group, for any kind of celebration, two rules apply: somebody stays sober and friends never abandon their friends.
No matter how much it pains you to leave when one of your buddies doesn't want to keep partying, deal with it. Put down your booze and go with them. Especially if they are "tired." Date rape drugs are designed to make you sleepy. Then you pass out. If the wrong person is with you when you lose consciousness, bad stuff happens. And that "wrong person" can be the hottest dude or chick you and your friends have ever seen.
Good looking predators stalk even the upscale nightclubs targeting the vulnerable of both sexes. The more you drink, and the less you pay attention when someone buys you a drink, the more likely you will become a victim. Drunks are easy to control.
One sober person in a group of drinking friends can save a life.
If you must take a cab after you've been drinking, particularly if you're alone, note the cab number and the driver's name and text or phone the information to your friends. Make sure the driver knows that's what you've done. If you must put someone who has had too much to drink in a cab by themselves, take the information yourself. Say to the driver, "We are looking out for our friend." If the person is going home to roommates or parents, call ahead. Make sure you know when your friend gets there.
Looks now like this girl was shacked up with a boyfriend or something similar. Good for her. Bad for those who love her. Daddy should take away her credit cards and send her to bed without dinner.
No doubt she will do it all over again next month...
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Advertising Tiger
CNN Money reports today that, while Tiger is all over TV, his commercials appear to be on hiatus.
No surprise, there. Also no surprise to me will be the reports we'll read in a few weeks when the furor about his alleged affairs dies down(presuming female servers, hostesses, first grade teachers, cab drivers, ToysRUs cashiers, subway token takers, nursing home residents, the female half of the White House gate crashers, and Nancy Pelosi don't all announce they had affairs with him).
Gosh, I hope not that ditzy gate crasher person. But she would figure, wouldn't she? Matt Drudge should begin investigating.
But in a few weeks when all of this is a fond memory, the ads will return. Slowly at first, perhaps in a few golf tournaments.
And he won't lose a single advertiser.
Why? Come on. You know the answer as well as I do!
The commercial endorsement decisions are undoubtedly all made by wealthy white males who know that their target audience is made up of other males with sizeable disposable incomes and every single one of them, at one time or another, has (a) fantasized about having an affair and (b) winced at the suggestion that Tiger may have "gotten caught" and possibly wounded in the line of duty.
Of course if Tiger's lovely wife decides to leave him, take the kids and nail him in the wallet on her way out the door in very public fashion . . .he might take a PR hit. But only briefly.
I can't predict what will happen to his golf game.
Then again, do we really care?
No surprise, there. Also no surprise to me will be the reports we'll read in a few weeks when the furor about his alleged affairs dies down(presuming female servers, hostesses, first grade teachers, cab drivers, ToysRUs cashiers, subway token takers, nursing home residents, the female half of the White House gate crashers, and Nancy Pelosi don't all announce they had affairs with him).
Gosh, I hope not that ditzy gate crasher person. But she would figure, wouldn't she? Matt Drudge should begin investigating.
But in a few weeks when all of this is a fond memory, the ads will return. Slowly at first, perhaps in a few golf tournaments.
And he won't lose a single advertiser.
Why? Come on. You know the answer as well as I do!
The commercial endorsement decisions are undoubtedly all made by wealthy white males who know that their target audience is made up of other males with sizeable disposable incomes and every single one of them, at one time or another, has (a) fantasized about having an affair and (b) winced at the suggestion that Tiger may have "gotten caught" and possibly wounded in the line of duty.
Of course if Tiger's lovely wife decides to leave him, take the kids and nail him in the wallet on her way out the door in very public fashion . . .he might take a PR hit. But only briefly.
I can't predict what will happen to his golf game.
Then again, do we really care?
Monday, December 7, 2009
Arrogance, Thy Name Is MWA
Just when I was considering rejoining Mystery Writers of America comes an action I will brand as one of the most arrogant from a truly arrogant organization. Following in the footsteps of Romance Writers of America which took the respected Harlequin Publishing off their "approved list," Publisher's Weekly reports MWA now has done the same thing. Reason being: Harlequin had the audacity to start a self-published imprint.
According to PW, "By de-listing Harlequin, MWA is barring all Harlequin authors from using their Harlequin books as a basis for active status membership. No Harlequin book will be eligible for Edgar Award consideration, although books published by Harlequin under contracts signed before December 2, 2009 may still be the basis for membership and will still be eligible for Edgar consideration."
Unfortunately, MWA and RWA seem to believe that they are protectors of the traditionally published novel and that, by their actions, they will defeat the self-publishing movement.
It's shameful to see two wrtiters' organizations that have done so much for their genres in the past, not to mention for aspiring authors, fall victim to fear of the self-published.
According to PW, "By de-listing Harlequin, MWA is barring all Harlequin authors from using their Harlequin books as a basis for active status membership. No Harlequin book will be eligible for Edgar Award consideration, although books published by Harlequin under contracts signed before December 2, 2009 may still be the basis for membership and will still be eligible for Edgar consideration."
Unfortunately, MWA and RWA seem to believe that they are protectors of the traditionally published novel and that, by their actions, they will defeat the self-publishing movement.
It's shameful to see two wrtiters' organizations that have done so much for their genres in the past, not to mention for aspiring authors, fall victim to fear of the self-published.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Fighting Movie Pirates
After my rant the other day about copyright infringement and movie piracy, my buddy Dave told me about a new system in use in some theatres to deter the use of video cameras to record movies from the big screen.
I noted yesterday that it is a significant problem for the movie industry...a 3.5 billion dollar problem, in fact, as estimated by the Motion Picture Association of America.
The new gadget emits a pattern of infrared light across the screen which cannot be seen by the human eye and doesn't affect the movie being shown. It's designed to interupt the infrared signal used by video cameras, in some cases obscuring the video recording and making it unusable for pirated distribution.
A couple of years ago, Warner Brothers reportedly tried a different tack: hiring a security company to shoot video of audiences in theatres during the first week of release of their films. Whether that did any good has not been reported.
The MPAA also filmed a number of Public Service Announcements like this one with actor Jack Black, aimed at young would-be movie pirates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA&feature=player_embedded
Call me crazy but I think the potential of being charged with a felony, either in state court or federally, would be enough to warn people off. Apparently not.
I noted yesterday that it is a significant problem for the movie industry...a 3.5 billion dollar problem, in fact, as estimated by the Motion Picture Association of America.
The new gadget emits a pattern of infrared light across the screen which cannot be seen by the human eye and doesn't affect the movie being shown. It's designed to interupt the infrared signal used by video cameras, in some cases obscuring the video recording and making it unusable for pirated distribution.
A couple of years ago, Warner Brothers reportedly tried a different tack: hiring a security company to shoot video of audiences in theatres during the first week of release of their films. Whether that did any good has not been reported.
The MPAA also filmed a number of Public Service Announcements like this one with actor Jack Black, aimed at young would-be movie pirates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA&feature=player_embedded
Call me crazy but I think the potential of being charged with a felony, either in state court or federally, would be enough to warn people off. Apparently not.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Video a Movie---Get 3 Years in Prison
Here's something to think about. According to the Sun-Times this morning, a 22-year-old Chicago woman could face three years in prison for taping part of the new Twilight movie in a Rosemont theatre.
The Sun-Times reports she was arrested, and jailed for two nights until she could appear in bond court, for the offense of Criminal Use of a Motion Picture Exhibition. It's a Class 4 felony in Illinois and also an Intellectual Property crime under federal law.
The woman in this case claims she didn't intend to video the movie but was shooting her sister's birthday celebration while trying out a new camera. The Sun-Times reports police found about three minutes of video on the camera, including trailer footage.
Maybe she didn't intend to do anything with what she shot other than show her friends. Maybe she didn't plan to put any of the Twilight film up online, say on YouTube for example. Maybe her intentions were, indeed, innocent.
Maybe.
But, according to the Library of Congress,in an article written to assess the reason for federal legislation, "This misuse of camcorders is a significant factor in the estimated $3.5 billion in annual losses the movie industry suffers because of hard-goods piracy."
The Library of Congress article continues, "Causing greater financial harm, these camcorded versions are posted on the Internet through certain peer-to-peer networks and made available for millions of users to download. According to studies by the Motion Picture Association of America (`MPAA'), camcorded versions of movies in theatrical release account for more than 90 percent of the first copies of motion pictures illegally distributed on the Internet."
My guess is the Chicago woman will be allowed to plea-bargain the charge down to a misdemeanor but the motion picture industry is taking a tough stance against this kind of crime. They may insist that prosecutors take the case to trial. The evidence will be the video she shot...how much of the movie and the trailer she captured.
If convicted, will she spend time in prison? Probably not. Will she have to pay a fine? Undoubtedly. In fact, if she's found guilty, I hope she has to pay until it hurts.
Bottom line: if you steal any copyrighted work, be it the manual I prepared for a college class I taught several years ago (I caught the university planning to use it for another class taught by someone else), a fiction novel, an entire textbook "because it's so expensive" to buy, or video of a first-run movie, it is no more ethical than stealing from a store.
It is theft. It's a crime. And there should be a significant and very public punishment.
The Sun-Times reports she was arrested, and jailed for two nights until she could appear in bond court, for the offense of Criminal Use of a Motion Picture Exhibition. It's a Class 4 felony in Illinois and also an Intellectual Property crime under federal law.
The woman in this case claims she didn't intend to video the movie but was shooting her sister's birthday celebration while trying out a new camera. The Sun-Times reports police found about three minutes of video on the camera, including trailer footage.
Maybe she didn't intend to do anything with what she shot other than show her friends. Maybe she didn't plan to put any of the Twilight film up online, say on YouTube for example. Maybe her intentions were, indeed, innocent.
Maybe.
But, according to the Library of Congress,in an article written to assess the reason for federal legislation, "This misuse of camcorders is a significant factor in the estimated $3.5 billion in annual losses the movie industry suffers because of hard-goods piracy."
The Library of Congress article continues, "Causing greater financial harm, these camcorded versions are posted on the Internet through certain peer-to-peer networks and made available for millions of users to download. According to studies by the Motion Picture Association of America (`MPAA'), camcorded versions of movies in theatrical release account for more than 90 percent of the first copies of motion pictures illegally distributed on the Internet."
My guess is the Chicago woman will be allowed to plea-bargain the charge down to a misdemeanor but the motion picture industry is taking a tough stance against this kind of crime. They may insist that prosecutors take the case to trial. The evidence will be the video she shot...how much of the movie and the trailer she captured.
If convicted, will she spend time in prison? Probably not. Will she have to pay a fine? Undoubtedly. In fact, if she's found guilty, I hope she has to pay until it hurts.
Bottom line: if you steal any copyrighted work, be it the manual I prepared for a college class I taught several years ago (I caught the university planning to use it for another class taught by someone else), a fiction novel, an entire textbook "because it's so expensive" to buy, or video of a first-run movie, it is no more ethical than stealing from a store.
It is theft. It's a crime. And there should be a significant and very public punishment.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Fear of the Self-Published Part Two
I'm using the word "fear" in the title of this two-blog series because of several encounters I've had with traditionally published authors since my first book, Deader by the Lake, was released five years ago.
I self-published "Deader" and sold, according to my publisher who pays me royalties, about three-thousand copies. Doing so lead to a deal with a traditional publisher for my second book, "Every Secret Crime."
A number of my friends who write mysteries suggested that self-publishing was not the way to go. One acquaintance took it further and interceded with two booksellers. Right in front of me, at a conference, she made sure they knew my book was self-published to eliminate any possibility they would handle it. And they did not. Another told me that "self-published writers steal our readers." A handful of reviewers and mystery magazine owners refused to even consider "Deader" for reviews because, as they told me, they would face backlash from traditional publishers and other authors for even mentioning a self-published work. I give kudos to Connie Fletcher, a contributor to Booklist, who not only published a review about "Deader" but wrote a fine feature piece about me. She was one of the few.
Prejudice against the self-published author is real. Writers' organizations refuse to grant full membership to the self-published. Many workshop organizers refuse to allow self-published authors to sit on panels, make presentations or even have their books sold on site. Of course these same groups have no problem taking a self-published author's money if they choose to join as an "associate" member or attend the conference... but not promote their work.
It's unfortunate that the same people who would scream about censorship and other sorts of prejudice, practice it themselves.
I acknowledge that many self-published books are not worth reading. But I strongly believe there are authors who, with some nurturing by their traditionally published peers, could become successful.
Why couldn't organizations like Mystery Writers of America or Sisters in Crime establish some guidelines that would allow self-published authors to receive full benefits? Workshop organizers could follow the same kind of rules in selecting speakers from among the self-published. Say, for example, the author sells x number of books in a given year, or if a panel of select reviewers/editors agrees there is merit to the work. How about establishing mentoring groups within the writers' organizations to reach out to the self-published to encourage rather than turn-away? How about holding sessions at conferences to target the self-published and give them a chance to shine...if their work can stand up to professional scrutiny first?
I can't tell you how frustrating it was to try and attend a movie pitch session in Hollywood, sponsored by Sisters in Crime a couple of years ago. For an organization that did not appear to distinguish between traditionally published and self-published in soliciting members, it was very quick to cross my name off the list for the session...and for several other events that year that might have lead to better sales for me. Some members of the group were obviously more equal than others. Not that any of the attendees came away with option checks in their pockets!
Prejudice is self-defeating. But, then again, the insecure always feel better when they have someone else to kick around.
I self-published "Deader" and sold, according to my publisher who pays me royalties, about three-thousand copies. Doing so lead to a deal with a traditional publisher for my second book, "Every Secret Crime."
A number of my friends who write mysteries suggested that self-publishing was not the way to go. One acquaintance took it further and interceded with two booksellers. Right in front of me, at a conference, she made sure they knew my book was self-published to eliminate any possibility they would handle it. And they did not. Another told me that "self-published writers steal our readers." A handful of reviewers and mystery magazine owners refused to even consider "Deader" for reviews because, as they told me, they would face backlash from traditional publishers and other authors for even mentioning a self-published work. I give kudos to Connie Fletcher, a contributor to Booklist, who not only published a review about "Deader" but wrote a fine feature piece about me. She was one of the few.
Prejudice against the self-published author is real. Writers' organizations refuse to grant full membership to the self-published. Many workshop organizers refuse to allow self-published authors to sit on panels, make presentations or even have their books sold on site. Of course these same groups have no problem taking a self-published author's money if they choose to join as an "associate" member or attend the conference... but not promote their work.
It's unfortunate that the same people who would scream about censorship and other sorts of prejudice, practice it themselves.
I acknowledge that many self-published books are not worth reading. But I strongly believe there are authors who, with some nurturing by their traditionally published peers, could become successful.
Why couldn't organizations like Mystery Writers of America or Sisters in Crime establish some guidelines that would allow self-published authors to receive full benefits? Workshop organizers could follow the same kind of rules in selecting speakers from among the self-published. Say, for example, the author sells x number of books in a given year, or if a panel of select reviewers/editors agrees there is merit to the work. How about establishing mentoring groups within the writers' organizations to reach out to the self-published to encourage rather than turn-away? How about holding sessions at conferences to target the self-published and give them a chance to shine...if their work can stand up to professional scrutiny first?
I can't tell you how frustrating it was to try and attend a movie pitch session in Hollywood, sponsored by Sisters in Crime a couple of years ago. For an organization that did not appear to distinguish between traditionally published and self-published in soliciting members, it was very quick to cross my name off the list for the session...and for several other events that year that might have lead to better sales for me. Some members of the group were obviously more equal than others. Not that any of the attendees came away with option checks in their pockets!
Prejudice is self-defeating. But, then again, the insecure always feel better when they have someone else to kick around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)