Jun 2005
Mini-Review: Mr. & Mrs. Smith
06/29/2005 22:35 Filed in: Movies and Television
Don't try to take this movie too seriously. It's a comedy, although everything is played fairly straight. There are some rather entertaining scenes with the Smiths at a marriage counselor's office that would have been great in the trailer for establishing them as a married couple. Oh well. Pitt and Jolie have good chemistry on screen (Jennifer Aniston should have had a clue). Unfortunately the movie is a bit protracted at times, and even though we're not supposed to take it too seriously, the gunfight at the end has got to be one of the most unrealistic I've ever seen. How come only the Smiths are wearing bullet proof vests? You'd think that their enemies would be smart enough to wear them, too.
I suppose the movie contains some kind of metaphorical value in regard to marriage. Only after the Smiths have come clean with each other regarding their past and who they really are, do they find that their marriage is worth fighting for. That process is painful, bloody and explosive (all three on both literal and figurative accounts) for them. Honesty with themselves and each other redefines their relationship for the better. What I've just written makes the movie sound better than what it really is--I'm just telling you what might be the redeeming value of the story. Personally, I'm glad I only paid matinee prices, but for you I recommend waiting for a DVD rental if you bother at all.
|
Sprintual Warfare
06/27/2005 11:55 Filed in: Technology
It's situations like this that makes me wonder how some companies stay in business...
Okay, so about a month ago, I attempted to order a new phone to replace Kathy's phone because it was no longer holding a charge and the battery wasn't replaceable. SprintPCS is the service that we use. I've had the same number and account since 2000 which is pretty long for staying with a cell phone service. There's nothing in particular about Sprint that I really like. Their service is not outstanding in my opinion. In fact, after recent circumstances, they've sunk even lower in my mind.
Originally I stayed with Sprint because I didn't want to change my phone number. Kathy and I don't have a separate home phone. We don't need one. We just have our cell phones, and we're on a plan that allows us to share our minutes.
Only in the last year or so has it been possible to take your number with you. You would think that because a customer can now switch a whole lot easier to another company that cell phone providers would work harder to keep their customers. Evidently not.
Incident #1. So Kathy and I picked out a phone for her to replace her old one. According to the SprintPCS website and TWO representatives I talked to on the phone, the phone we picked out DID qualify for a $150 rebate. I guess I made the mistake of calling on a Saturday to place the actual order. The SprintPCS customer service rep I talked with told me that some of their computers were down, but she could renew my contract for two more years (requisite for the rebate) and then she would take down my order by hand and a salesperson would contact me within 24 hours.
I waited much longer than 24 hours, so I called SprintPCS on Monday to check on the order. The person with whom I spoke said that there was no order in their system at all. Great. So I placed the order again. A few days later when I downloaded recent Amex transactions into Quicken, I happened to notice that I had been charged TWICE for the phone. So I called Sprint and they removed one of the charges. The person I talked with said he didn't know why we had been charged twice. There was only one order for a phone in their system.
A few days later, UPS dropped off TWO phones--in separate boxes with separate purchase order numbers. I left one unopened and took it back to UPS. A less-scrupulous person could have made a nice little profit on eBay.
Incident #2. Within a couple of days of getting Kathy's new phone and setting it up, I sent in the rebate form. I followed their instructions to the letter. Yesterday, I decided to check the status of the rebate online by going to http://sprintrebates.com. I found a tidy little screen saying that they had received my rebate form, but the phone did not qualify for the rebate. I don't get angry easily. In fact, I consider myself to have a pretty high threshold, but I could feel my face turning red as I looked at the words on my eMac screen. I read them again. And again.
So I called Sprint. They gave me a separate number for the rebate division. I explained to the rebate rep my situation--that I had been told by two of their salespeople and I had read on the website that this particular phone qualified for a rebate. I suggested that we would not have even ordered this phone had it not come with a rebate. He never gave me an explanation. He just said that he was approving me for a rebate and that I should have it within 30 days. I hit the refresh button in the Safari web browser, and sure enough--I was now approved.
Incident #3. As I was trying to sort out the rebate issue yesterday, my monthly SprintPCS bill came in the mail. It was roughly five dollars over its normal fee. In spite of the extra flyer that came with the bill extolling the benefits of Sprint's new simplified bill, I could not understand where the extra five dollar charge came from. Plus, to complicate matters more, the bill included the transactions for the new cell phone including the double charges and the removed charge. This was in spite of the fact that I had handled the phone purchase on my American Express. For that reason, I felt like the phone purchase was none of the Sprint bill's concern.
Nevertheless, because I couldn't figure out where the extra $5 charge came from, I got to call Sprint yet again. I explained to the customer service rep the situation--that I couldn't figure out where the extra five dollar charge came from. He asked for a minute to look over my bill. When he came back, to my amazement, he informed me that he didn't know where it came from either. Neither one of us could figure out exactly what I was supposed to be paying an extra five dollars for. And he works there for the love of Margaret! In the end because I stumped him, he decided to give me a $5 credit on my bill.
Companywide Incompetence
Okay, in each of the above instances, the issues were resolved to my satisfaction, but my satisfaction level with Sprint is extremely low right now. I don't understand how a company can operate like that. I ran into incompetence at every level of service in simply trying to get a new phone.
Granted, the rebate offers are a bit of a racket. Most companies and stores that offer mail-in rebates on products are selling the items at or slightly below their cost. They make money from the fact that the average person, although intending to send the rebate in, either never gets around to it or procrastinates it until the offer is expired. But I can't possibly imagine that it's company policy at Sprint to reject all rebates and hope the customer doesn't call. I would think they could get into serious trouble for that.
No, I just think SprintPCS has major issues that it needs to resolve on both the employee level and the process level. Obviously, there are some folks who are simply asleep at the wheel, figuratively speaking, in the offices at Sprint.
And I haven't even mentioned yet that every time you call SprintPCS you have to first go through Claire (or is it Marcia? I don't remember), the automated answer-girl-bot in order to speak to a real person. "She" is supposed to understand basic words and commands and forward you to the right line or account information. However, I usually get from her the phrase, "I'm sorry. I didn't understand what said" or something to that effect. To which I usually say, "That's because you are a machine--you're not real." To which she says again, "I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you said." To which I start pressing the zero button and rambling about needing to speak to an actual human being to whom "she" finally transfers me.
I've heard that lots of customers aren't thrilled with Claire. In fact, at one point I heard Sprint was going to cut back on its use of her for that very reason. Well, she's still there. She just doesn't introduce herself to you by name anymore.
Remember those old Sprint commercials with the pin dropping demonstrating the sound clarity the company supposedly provided? What about a clarity of service? I don't hear that Sprint pin dropping anymore. All I hear is "I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you said."
Okay, so about a month ago, I attempted to order a new phone to replace Kathy's phone because it was no longer holding a charge and the battery wasn't replaceable. SprintPCS is the service that we use. I've had the same number and account since 2000 which is pretty long for staying with a cell phone service. There's nothing in particular about Sprint that I really like. Their service is not outstanding in my opinion. In fact, after recent circumstances, they've sunk even lower in my mind.
Originally I stayed with Sprint because I didn't want to change my phone number. Kathy and I don't have a separate home phone. We don't need one. We just have our cell phones, and we're on a plan that allows us to share our minutes.
Only in the last year or so has it been possible to take your number with you. You would think that because a customer can now switch a whole lot easier to another company that cell phone providers would work harder to keep their customers. Evidently not.
Incident #1. So Kathy and I picked out a phone for her to replace her old one. According to the SprintPCS website and TWO representatives I talked to on the phone, the phone we picked out DID qualify for a $150 rebate. I guess I made the mistake of calling on a Saturday to place the actual order. The SprintPCS customer service rep I talked with told me that some of their computers were down, but she could renew my contract for two more years (requisite for the rebate) and then she would take down my order by hand and a salesperson would contact me within 24 hours.
I waited much longer than 24 hours, so I called SprintPCS on Monday to check on the order. The person with whom I spoke said that there was no order in their system at all. Great. So I placed the order again. A few days later when I downloaded recent Amex transactions into Quicken, I happened to notice that I had been charged TWICE for the phone. So I called Sprint and they removed one of the charges. The person I talked with said he didn't know why we had been charged twice. There was only one order for a phone in their system.
A few days later, UPS dropped off TWO phones--in separate boxes with separate purchase order numbers. I left one unopened and took it back to UPS. A less-scrupulous person could have made a nice little profit on eBay.
Incident #2. Within a couple of days of getting Kathy's new phone and setting it up, I sent in the rebate form. I followed their instructions to the letter. Yesterday, I decided to check the status of the rebate online by going to http://sprintrebates.com. I found a tidy little screen saying that they had received my rebate form, but the phone did not qualify for the rebate. I don't get angry easily. In fact, I consider myself to have a pretty high threshold, but I could feel my face turning red as I looked at the words on my eMac screen. I read them again. And again.
So I called Sprint. They gave me a separate number for the rebate division. I explained to the rebate rep my situation--that I had been told by two of their salespeople and I had read on the website that this particular phone qualified for a rebate. I suggested that we would not have even ordered this phone had it not come with a rebate. He never gave me an explanation. He just said that he was approving me for a rebate and that I should have it within 30 days. I hit the refresh button in the Safari web browser, and sure enough--I was now approved.
Incident #3. As I was trying to sort out the rebate issue yesterday, my monthly SprintPCS bill came in the mail. It was roughly five dollars over its normal fee. In spite of the extra flyer that came with the bill extolling the benefits of Sprint's new simplified bill, I could not understand where the extra five dollar charge came from. Plus, to complicate matters more, the bill included the transactions for the new cell phone including the double charges and the removed charge. This was in spite of the fact that I had handled the phone purchase on my American Express. For that reason, I felt like the phone purchase was none of the Sprint bill's concern.
Nevertheless, because I couldn't figure out where the extra $5 charge came from, I got to call Sprint yet again. I explained to the customer service rep the situation--that I couldn't figure out where the extra five dollar charge came from. He asked for a minute to look over my bill. When he came back, to my amazement, he informed me that he didn't know where it came from either. Neither one of us could figure out exactly what I was supposed to be paying an extra five dollars for. And he works there for the love of Margaret! In the end because I stumped him, he decided to give me a $5 credit on my bill.
Companywide Incompetence
Okay, in each of the above instances, the issues were resolved to my satisfaction, but my satisfaction level with Sprint is extremely low right now. I don't understand how a company can operate like that. I ran into incompetence at every level of service in simply trying to get a new phone.
Granted, the rebate offers are a bit of a racket. Most companies and stores that offer mail-in rebates on products are selling the items at or slightly below their cost. They make money from the fact that the average person, although intending to send the rebate in, either never gets around to it or procrastinates it until the offer is expired. But I can't possibly imagine that it's company policy at Sprint to reject all rebates and hope the customer doesn't call. I would think they could get into serious trouble for that.
No, I just think SprintPCS has major issues that it needs to resolve on both the employee level and the process level. Obviously, there are some folks who are simply asleep at the wheel, figuratively speaking, in the offices at Sprint.
And I haven't even mentioned yet that every time you call SprintPCS you have to first go through Claire (or is it Marcia? I don't remember), the automated answer-girl-bot in order to speak to a real person. "She" is supposed to understand basic words and commands and forward you to the right line or account information. However, I usually get from her the phrase, "I'm sorry. I didn't understand what said" or something to that effect. To which I usually say, "That's because you are a machine--you're not real." To which she says again, "I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you said." To which I start pressing the zero button and rambling about needing to speak to an actual human being to whom "she" finally transfers me.
I've heard that lots of customers aren't thrilled with Claire. In fact, at one point I heard Sprint was going to cut back on its use of her for that very reason. Well, she's still there. She just doesn't introduce herself to you by name anymore.
Remember those old Sprint commercials with the pin dropping demonstrating the sound clarity the company supposedly provided? What about a clarity of service? I don't hear that Sprint pin dropping anymore. All I hear is "I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you said."
Batman Begins: Two Reviews for the Price of One
06/16/2005 00:04 Filed in: Movies and Television
In spite of the horrible George Clooney version in 1997, you should give Ol' Bats one more look.
This blog entry contains a guest review by Andrew Wells . I'll make a few comments toward the end.
WARNING: There are some spoilers below.
Andrew writes:
The Batman movie is to DC what Spiderman 2 is to Marvel...they not only got it right, they almost got it perfect.
Christian Bale is perfect. He is believable at all levels--Batman, playboy Bruce Wayne, and tortured Bruce Wayne. I thought they made a little too much of playboy Bruce Wayne--I never thought of the Bruce Wayne persona as an alcoholic and playboy, but it makes sense, given that Batman is constructing his persona. Michael Keaton was scary as Batman; Bale is downright menacing everytime he speaks.
Of the rest, Liam Neeson was the best, intense and mean as nails as Bruce's League of Shadows mentor--and also unexpectedly sympathetic. The last shot of him I thought very touching. The Jim Gordon character was good at first, but toward the end he was used as comic relief, and I didn't like that. The character playing Scarecrow was actually scarier without his mask (in a good way). And the Rachel character didn't take too much away from the movie, though you find it hard to believe she is the city D.A. by the end... I mean, she's so young.
Other good things:
• Special effects were happily kept to a fair minimum till the ending.
• The chase involving the Batmobile is impressive.
• The first shot of the League of Shadows mountaintop fortress is beautiful.
• "Can I show you my mask?"
• "Well, at least we'll have extras."
• Bruce Wayne's increasingly hilarious reasons for borrowing weaponry from Lucius Fox.
• "It's kind of technical."
• Bruce's first attempt at jumping buildings, and the way they stage Batman's first appearance.
• "We burned London to the ground."
• Scarecrow's exit.
• The surprising amount of psychology they put into the movie--we really get to see the "birth" of Batman (not just the putting on of the suit), and the implications it has and will have on who Bruce Wayne is, and the cost it will have for him and for his family, his family history (including the way Bruce's parents fit into the villian's plot), and for the city of Gotham.
• The surprise "cameo" at the end.
The bad, if any:
I didn't like the treatment of the Gordon charcter in the latter part of the movie. And I had trouble with the construction of the Bruce Wayne playboy persona. And most of all, as seems to be the standard much today, all the action was shot close up and jarringly edited. Oh, and with about all movies I see these days, they didn't use enough light in the projector and the sound mix was deafening...I actually had trouble hearing some of the dialogue which is unusual for me.
But it was great, great, great. Highly recommended. I'll probably get the DVD, to savor it better.
Rick adds:
In the comic books, Batman returned to his darker roots in the Denny O'Neil/Neil Adams stories of the late sixties and early seventies. This was partly in reaction to the high camp of the television series with Adam West. But then in the eighties, Batman was taken to a rougher, grittier level with the Frank Miller version seen primarily in The Dark Knight Returns and then in Batman: Year One. Frank Miller's Batman was the inspiration behind Tim Burton's 1989 Batman with Michael Keaton, and that version continued in Batman Returns (although I did not care much for the latter--but I know, Andrew, that it is your favorite of last decade's series).
However, I feel that Batman Begins most fully realizes the essence of the Frank Miller Batman. Here Batman is rough, tough and a bit scary to both the bad guys and the good guys. Although scriptwriter David Goyer insists that his inspiration for Batman Begins came from stories other than Miller's Year One, this movie could not have been made without Year One having been written first. If you don't believe me, pick it up and look for the similarities.
At first I was a bit wary of having a whole movie dedicated to Batman's beginnings. The thing I usually don't enjoy in a super-hero movie is the origin story. To me the process of getting there isn't as exciting as what they can do now that they are there. But Batman Begins created a solid back-story to the character. If you've ever wondered how he trained, why he chose the symbol of a bat, where the Batcave came from and the technologies behind the costume and the Batmobile, this movie answers these kinds of questions. Not only does it answer them, it puts them in the context of a compelling story.
And don't think of this as a prequel to the previous four movies. The franchise is completely restarting. When Kathy and I saw it, she kept trying to fit it into what we knew from the other Batman movies. Forget what you learned about Batman in the previous movies. Everything is now new again.
A few nitpicks:
• I know Katie Holmes is the hottest new actress in Hollywood right now, but I felt she was the weakest cast selection. In real life Holmes is 27 years old. She looks 20. I had trouble seeing her as Gotham's district attorney which she promotes to by the end of the movie.
• The plot by Ra's Al Ghul to poison the city is highly convoluted. They poison the city's water supply. Then they are supposed to fire this microwave contraption which will evaporate the water and spread the poison into the air. Well, there are too many steps involved in all that and too much that can go wrong. Why not just fly a crop duster over Gotham and poison everyone that way? See...if I were a criminal mastermind, I would get the job done. I would be practical in my methodology, and I would never EVER explain my whole plan in detail to the one person who might be able to stop me.
• What was the deal with Batman being able to summon a swarm of bats? I've never seen that before. It felt like a parody of Aquaman summoning sea life.
• The movie is hard to hear on two different levels. Most of the movies I see these days are at the theater in Shelbyville, Kentucky, which to me has the best sound system in the area--I think just because it's the newest theater. Well, by the end of Batman Begins my ears were ringing. This movie is just plain LOUD. And there were a number of times that I just couldn't understand the dialogue either because of background noise or because it was just unintelligible.
Other than that, the movie is excellent. Although there were some aspects I liked in the previous four Batman movies, Batman Begins is by far better than any of them. Forget how disappointed you were with Loony Clooney's version of Batman. Make sure you see this movie.
So far, the summer's entertainment is shaping up quite nicely...
WARNING: There are some spoilers below.
Andrew writes:
The Batman movie is to DC what Spiderman 2 is to Marvel...they not only got it right, they almost got it perfect.
Christian Bale is perfect. He is believable at all levels--Batman, playboy Bruce Wayne, and tortured Bruce Wayne. I thought they made a little too much of playboy Bruce Wayne--I never thought of the Bruce Wayne persona as an alcoholic and playboy, but it makes sense, given that Batman is constructing his persona. Michael Keaton was scary as Batman; Bale is downright menacing everytime he speaks.
Of the rest, Liam Neeson was the best, intense and mean as nails as Bruce's League of Shadows mentor--and also unexpectedly sympathetic. The last shot of him I thought very touching. The Jim Gordon character was good at first, but toward the end he was used as comic relief, and I didn't like that. The character playing Scarecrow was actually scarier without his mask (in a good way). And the Rachel character didn't take too much away from the movie, though you find it hard to believe she is the city D.A. by the end... I mean, she's so young.
Other good things:
• Special effects were happily kept to a fair minimum till the ending.
• The chase involving the Batmobile is impressive.
• The first shot of the League of Shadows mountaintop fortress is beautiful.
• "Can I show you my mask?"
• "Well, at least we'll have extras."
• Bruce Wayne's increasingly hilarious reasons for borrowing weaponry from Lucius Fox.
• "It's kind of technical."
• Bruce's first attempt at jumping buildings, and the way they stage Batman's first appearance.
• "We burned London to the ground."
• Scarecrow's exit.
• The surprising amount of psychology they put into the movie--we really get to see the "birth" of Batman (not just the putting on of the suit), and the implications it has and will have on who Bruce Wayne is, and the cost it will have for him and for his family, his family history (including the way Bruce's parents fit into the villian's plot), and for the city of Gotham.
• The surprise "cameo" at the end.
The bad, if any:
I didn't like the treatment of the Gordon charcter in the latter part of the movie. And I had trouble with the construction of the Bruce Wayne playboy persona. And most of all, as seems to be the standard much today, all the action was shot close up and jarringly edited. Oh, and with about all movies I see these days, they didn't use enough light in the projector and the sound mix was deafening...I actually had trouble hearing some of the dialogue which is unusual for me.
But it was great, great, great. Highly recommended. I'll probably get the DVD, to savor it better.
Rick adds:
In the comic books, Batman returned to his darker roots in the Denny O'Neil/Neil Adams stories of the late sixties and early seventies. This was partly in reaction to the high camp of the television series with Adam West. But then in the eighties, Batman was taken to a rougher, grittier level with the Frank Miller version seen primarily in The Dark Knight Returns and then in Batman: Year One. Frank Miller's Batman was the inspiration behind Tim Burton's 1989 Batman with Michael Keaton, and that version continued in Batman Returns (although I did not care much for the latter--but I know, Andrew, that it is your favorite of last decade's series).
However, I feel that Batman Begins most fully realizes the essence of the Frank Miller Batman. Here Batman is rough, tough and a bit scary to both the bad guys and the good guys. Although scriptwriter David Goyer insists that his inspiration for Batman Begins came from stories other than Miller's Year One, this movie could not have been made without Year One having been written first. If you don't believe me, pick it up and look for the similarities.
At first I was a bit wary of having a whole movie dedicated to Batman's beginnings. The thing I usually don't enjoy in a super-hero movie is the origin story. To me the process of getting there isn't as exciting as what they can do now that they are there. But Batman Begins created a solid back-story to the character. If you've ever wondered how he trained, why he chose the symbol of a bat, where the Batcave came from and the technologies behind the costume and the Batmobile, this movie answers these kinds of questions. Not only does it answer them, it puts them in the context of a compelling story.
And don't think of this as a prequel to the previous four movies. The franchise is completely restarting. When Kathy and I saw it, she kept trying to fit it into what we knew from the other Batman movies. Forget what you learned about Batman in the previous movies. Everything is now new again.
A few nitpicks:
• I know Katie Holmes is the hottest new actress in Hollywood right now, but I felt she was the weakest cast selection. In real life Holmes is 27 years old. She looks 20. I had trouble seeing her as Gotham's district attorney which she promotes to by the end of the movie.
• The plot by Ra's Al Ghul to poison the city is highly convoluted. They poison the city's water supply. Then they are supposed to fire this microwave contraption which will evaporate the water and spread the poison into the air. Well, there are too many steps involved in all that and too much that can go wrong. Why not just fly a crop duster over Gotham and poison everyone that way? See...if I were a criminal mastermind, I would get the job done. I would be practical in my methodology, and I would never EVER explain my whole plan in detail to the one person who might be able to stop me.
• What was the deal with Batman being able to summon a swarm of bats? I've never seen that before. It felt like a parody of Aquaman summoning sea life.
• The movie is hard to hear on two different levels. Most of the movies I see these days are at the theater in Shelbyville, Kentucky, which to me has the best sound system in the area--I think just because it's the newest theater. Well, by the end of Batman Begins my ears were ringing. This movie is just plain LOUD. And there were a number of times that I just couldn't understand the dialogue either because of background noise or because it was just unintelligible.
Other than that, the movie is excellent. Although there were some aspects I liked in the previous four Batman movies, Batman Begins is by far better than any of them. Forget how disappointed you were with Loony Clooney's version of Batman. Make sure you see this movie.
So far, the summer's entertainment is shaping up quite nicely...
Adobe Software & the Politics of (Non)Discrimination
06/13/2005 23:45 Filed in: Faith & Reason
If your organization is a non-profit with 501(c)(3) status, good news--you qualify for discounts on your software. However, if you also have a religious affiliation, forget it...
You know, I really prefer that companies I do business with be apolitical. Just sell me a product. Isn't that enough? Can't companies just innovate, create new products and make a profit? Not anymore, evidently. We are truly in a brave new world.
The issue that I'm about to describe caught my attention today while reading a forum entry on the MacNN website. Evidently, if your organization is a non-profit school or service to the hungry or homeless, you can receive donations of Adobe software at deep discounts, UNLESS you also have some kind of religious affiliation. If so, you're out of luck. That includes every religious school, college, church, soup kitchen and homeless mission.
I've attached the whole document at the bottom of this blog entry for you to read in its entirety, in full context. But let me give you an excerpt that defines exactly what I'm talking about.
An organization is eligible for consideration if its primary mission is: K-12 education; developing K-12
curriculum; improving K-12 student performance; providing K-12 teacher training; and/or working
to prevent hunger or homelessness.
Eligible organizations must also meet the following criteria:
• Have 501(c)(3) or non-profit status; a Canadian Charitable Registration Number; or be a recognized
Indian Reservation.
• Provide a copy of their 501(c)(3) letter, letter from Revenue Canada, or other non-profit or tax-exempt
documentation.
• Provide a copy of their non-discrimination policy. Organizations must not advocate, support or
practice unlawful discrimination based on race, religion, age, national origin, language, sex, sexual
preference, or physical handicap. If you do not have a non-discrimination policy, please create one
using this language and have it signed by an executive of your organization.
• Must not have the nomination or election of candidates to political office as an explicit purpose.
• Must not exist solely as fundraising groups. Only agencies providing direct services in one of the
focus areas will qualify for this program.
• Must be located in North America. Organizations outside of the U.S. or Canada can apply using the
international application form which can be downloaded at www.giftsinkind.org/resources/software.asp .
Adobe does NOT support: individuals, religious organizations, churches, temples, seminaries, political
organizations or private foundations. Also, Adobe does not support any organizations having unlawful
discriminatory practices. Organizations with a secular designation (that is a separate 501(c)(3) status from
the religious organization) that provides services to people regardless of their religious beliefs and does
not propagate a belief in a specific faith are eligible for this program. Example: A food bank that is a
separate 501 (c)(3) organization from a church that provides food and meals to anyone who qualifies for
services, regardless of religious belief would qualify.)
So how do you qualify for a discount? Well, you must be a non-profit school and/or an organization working to prevent hunger or homelessness. But wait...there's more.
Make sure you take note of who is NOT supported: religious organizations, churches, temples, seminaries, political organizations or private foundations. And if you read the rest of the paragraph, these groups are assumed to have discriminatory practices. In fact, even if your non-profit organization does qualify as not having religious affiliation it must also include a copy of the non-discriminatory policy that uses the language found in the third bullet above.
Now, does Adobe have the right to decide who gets their discounts? Sure. I'm not even going to argue that. And there are some software companies that offer discounts to schools, but not to other non-profits. Fine. What gets me here is that Adobe goes out of its way in the wording of the eligibility application to exclude religious groups--any religious group. And, like many who take up such positions, they end up discriminating themselves--doing the very thing they are critical of. How hypocritical!
I don't know what the statistics are, but I would dare say that the majority of homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and clothing closets are run by religious organizations. And most of them minister to anyone in need. They don't stop to screen people based on race, religion, or sexual preference. How stupid to even suggest something like that!
How much Adobe software do you and I have on our computers? Photoshop? Photoshop Elements? InDesign or Illustrator? How many churches still do their newsletter in Adobe PageMaker (now discontinued)? Adobe's bias against organizations with religious affiliations might better come into play the next time we decide to upgrade our software. Adobe makes great products--the best in some categories. But they aren't the only game in town...
For more information on the IRS' tax-deductible 501(c)(3) status, go to http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/ .
To read the application for donating Adobe software in its entirety, go to http://www.giftsinkind.org/pdf/adobe_web.pdf or download this attached PDF file: adobe.pdf.
You know, I really prefer that companies I do business with be apolitical. Just sell me a product. Isn't that enough? Can't companies just innovate, create new products and make a profit? Not anymore, evidently. We are truly in a brave new world.
The issue that I'm about to describe caught my attention today while reading a forum entry on the MacNN website. Evidently, if your organization is a non-profit school or service to the hungry or homeless, you can receive donations of Adobe software at deep discounts, UNLESS you also have some kind of religious affiliation. If so, you're out of luck. That includes every religious school, college, church, soup kitchen and homeless mission.
I've attached the whole document at the bottom of this blog entry for you to read in its entirety, in full context. But let me give you an excerpt that defines exactly what I'm talking about.
An organization is eligible for consideration if its primary mission is: K-12 education; developing K-12
curriculum; improving K-12 student performance; providing K-12 teacher training; and/or working
to prevent hunger or homelessness.
Eligible organizations must also meet the following criteria:
• Have 501(c)(3) or non-profit status; a Canadian Charitable Registration Number; or be a recognized
Indian Reservation.
• Provide a copy of their 501(c)(3) letter, letter from Revenue Canada, or other non-profit or tax-exempt
documentation.
• Provide a copy of their non-discrimination policy. Organizations must not advocate, support or
practice unlawful discrimination based on race, religion, age, national origin, language, sex, sexual
preference, or physical handicap. If you do not have a non-discrimination policy, please create one
using this language and have it signed by an executive of your organization.
• Must not have the nomination or election of candidates to political office as an explicit purpose.
• Must not exist solely as fundraising groups. Only agencies providing direct services in one of the
focus areas will qualify for this program.
• Must be located in North America. Organizations outside of the U.S. or Canada can apply using the
international application form which can be downloaded at www.giftsinkind.org/resources/software.asp .
Adobe does NOT support: individuals, religious organizations, churches, temples, seminaries, political
organizations or private foundations. Also, Adobe does not support any organizations having unlawful
discriminatory practices. Organizations with a secular designation (that is a separate 501(c)(3) status from
the religious organization) that provides services to people regardless of their religious beliefs and does
not propagate a belief in a specific faith are eligible for this program. Example: A food bank that is a
separate 501 (c)(3) organization from a church that provides food and meals to anyone who qualifies for
services, regardless of religious belief would qualify.)
So how do you qualify for a discount? Well, you must be a non-profit school and/or an organization working to prevent hunger or homelessness. But wait...there's more.
Make sure you take note of who is NOT supported: religious organizations, churches, temples, seminaries, political organizations or private foundations. And if you read the rest of the paragraph, these groups are assumed to have discriminatory practices. In fact, even if your non-profit organization does qualify as not having religious affiliation it must also include a copy of the non-discriminatory policy that uses the language found in the third bullet above.
Now, does Adobe have the right to decide who gets their discounts? Sure. I'm not even going to argue that. And there are some software companies that offer discounts to schools, but not to other non-profits. Fine. What gets me here is that Adobe goes out of its way in the wording of the eligibility application to exclude religious groups--any religious group. And, like many who take up such positions, they end up discriminating themselves--doing the very thing they are critical of. How hypocritical!
I don't know what the statistics are, but I would dare say that the majority of homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and clothing closets are run by religious organizations. And most of them minister to anyone in need. They don't stop to screen people based on race, religion, or sexual preference. How stupid to even suggest something like that!
How much Adobe software do you and I have on our computers? Photoshop? Photoshop Elements? InDesign or Illustrator? How many churches still do their newsletter in Adobe PageMaker (now discontinued)? Adobe's bias against organizations with religious affiliations might better come into play the next time we decide to upgrade our software. Adobe makes great products--the best in some categories. But they aren't the only game in town...
For more information on the IRS' tax-deductible 501(c)(3) status, go to http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/ .
To read the application for donating Adobe software in its entirety, go to http://www.giftsinkind.org/pdf/adobe_web.pdf or download this attached PDF file: adobe.pdf.
Tarzan and Me
06/07/2005 22:35 Filed in: Culture Watch
When I first read that he would be appearing locally on his book tour, I remember saying to Kathy, "Hey, Ron Ely's going to be in town!"
"Who's Ron Ely?" she asked.
Who's Ron Ely? Who's Ron Ely? Come on! Doesn't everyone know who Ron Ely is?
For me meeting Ron Ely was like meeting a character out of mythology. He was a hero of my childhood, a legend, the kind of person you don't expect to meet unless you're on a top-secret mission adventure. However, for those of you who don't know, Ron Ely was a television and movie actor most known for his portrayal of Tarzan in the late sixties and early seventies. No, I'm not old enough to have seen him as Tarzan in its original run, but by the time I was old enough to know who Tarzan was, the television show was on in reruns in the afternoon after school. He was also the larger than life Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze in the 1975 movie of the same name (I have it on VHS). Ely was also the first replacement for Burt Parks on the Miss America pageant after Parks was unceremoniously canned around 1980 after twenty-five years of hosting the show.
Some characters you build up in your mind when you are a kid and then you are a bit disappointed to meet them in real life. Well, let me tell you that even in person, Ron Ely is a giant of a man. If you look in the picture above, notice that even though I am over six-feet-tall, he towers above me. He was still in great shape when I saw him even though he was in his sixties. According to the Internet Movie Database, Ron Ely did all of his own stunts in the Tarzan movies including the animal fights!
The amazing thing about the book signing was even though Ron was there to promote Night Shadows, there were throngs of people there with Tarzan and Doc Savage movie posters, comic books, and other memorabilia they wanted signed. Ely was very gracious to everyone. He seemed to understand what he meant to so many people like me who had seen him on television and the movie screen so many years ago. Granted, he was never an A-list action hero of the kind we're familiar with today. But when I was a kid, he was one of my heroes. I told him so on that day ten years ago when I met him at (the now-defunct) Hawley-Cooke. He smiled warmly and shook my hand. He said, "Thank-you." I think he really meant it.
But for me, at that moment, I was seven-years-old again. And Tarzan had just shaken my hand.