Not getting a lot of riding time

quad resized.jpgFor those that know me well, you know that I like to ride my ATV in my spare time. Unfortunately, it's becoming tougher to ride on Long Island, which is where I keep my ATV. I ride with a group of great guys, but lately, we've had to go out of New York State to ride. It is illegal to ride anywhere but on private property out there. So we've taken to making out-of-state trips when we want to ride. We've been to West Virginia, Maine and Pennsylvania on these riding trips and they've been great. However, we wish Long Island were a bit more ATV-friendly. Recently, a group called the Long Island Off Road Vehicle Association has been helping Suffolk County out with a proposal to set aside a parcel of land for ATV use. This is terrific and I urge you to support LIORV if you ride on Long Island.

PETA needs to go

Rick Bruner wrote a blog post recently entitled, "Uh, Let's Not Forget Domestic Terrorism". I agree. Let's not forget domestic terrorism. And when we refer to "domestic terrorism," one of the first groups that comes to mind, other than militia groups in Montana, is PETA. (No link. Why give them any more publicity than they've already received?) If information posted to The Center for Consumer Freedom is to be believed, then PETA has been supporting groups that commit acts of terrorism right here in the U.S. This begs the question...Why are they not classified as a terrorist organization?

Perhaps PETA should be classified as such. If the facts posted on this page are true, then it's obvious that high-ranking members of PETA clearly advocate violence as a means to achieving their goals.

To me, there are so many reasons to hate PETA. Their "win at all costs" approach has even alienated many of their supporters. They directly target children with their propaganda campaigns, calling on kids to make adult decisions about their diets. They prop up quasi-medical groups to make false claims, most recently about Dr. Atkins of the Atkins diet fame. They place ads comparing the slaughter of chickens to the slaughter of human beings during the Holocaust. I could go on and on...

All of this comes from a simple misunderstanding of the spirit behind U.S. animal cruelty laws. We don't have animal cruelty laws for the exclusive purpose of protecting animals. We have them because animal cruelty for its own sake is deviant behavior that is disrespectful of life. When that creepy guy in your neighborhood sticks an M-80 up a stray cat's butt and lights it, he gets hauled in on an animal cruelty charge not because the cat has a right to life, but because he acted on his disregard for life in general. In short, animals don't have rights per se, but killing them for the pleasure of killing them is wrong, so our society acts to curb such behavior.

So what should we do when confronted with the notion of a nonprofit corporation that funds groups that advocate violence against human beings (and only narrowly avoids advocating violence directly, itself)? We should put a stop to that violence and call for accountability for those supporting it.

I'd like to get the U.S. federal government to consider PETA a terrorist organization. But failing that, I'd like to get their tax-exempt status revoked. If you feel the same way, sign this petition over at ConsumerFreedom.com.

Help us coin a new buzzword

Jim Meskauskas and I were talking today about the need for a new buzzword. It needs to be a verb that we can use to describe the shift from broadcasting to narrowcasting. We threw a few possibilities around:

  • Nichify - Too tough to pronounce and throw around in casual conversation.
  • Narrowfy - Too awkward. And stupid-sounding.
  • Decentralize - Already a word. Doesn't describe what we're talking about adequately.

No doubt the perfect word will come to me while I'm in the shower some morning this week, but if you have any suggestions, chuck them into the comments field along with your name and e-mail address. We promise to credit you when we throw it around with reckless abandon.

Joe Trippi - A guy who understands e-mail

According to this Yahoo News story, Howard Dean's former campaign manager Joe Trippi gets what countless consumer e-mail marketers fail to understand: When an interested party opts into an e-mail relationship with an entity, that entity cannot resell those e-mail addresses without seriously violating trust.

According to the story, Trippi told a group of "online mavens" that if Dean drops out of the race for the Democratic nomination, the Dean campaign ought not to sell the over 600,000 e-mail addresses they've collected to the eventual nominee. Why? Because those people have a relationship with Howard Dean, not with the Democratic Party.

Why so many consumer marketers seem to have a problem understanding this basic tenet of e-mail marketing is beyond me. Actually, it's not beyond me - They're probably blinded by dollar signs.

In the end, my money's on the Dean campaign selling out their user base. Maybe it's the cynic in me, but consumer e-mail marketing firms do this all the time, and I bet the Dean campaign uses the existing practice as justification to turn over the e-mail addresses. Of course, if the Dean campaign took a stance against turning the addresses over, I could be pleasantly surprised. We'll see...