Thanks to Karl Cohen for sending this my way.  Karl asks the question "Isn't this too absurd to influence kids to be super skinny?"  My response is, never under-estimate just how absurd very serious people can be when the very existence of humanity hangs in the balance.

A group by the name SumOfUs, which claims to be fighting for people over corporate profits, has launched an online petition calling for Disney to "Stop using your children's characters to promote dangerous body images." They are upset over Disney's collaboration with Barneys New York on a set of super skinny, super modelesque proportioned versions of Minnie Mouse, Daisy Duck and other classic Disney characters, all aimed at young women, to be used in upcoming Christmas displays.

Guest Post by Karl Cohen

When the Art Institute of California in San Francisco laid-off a few people this summer it wasn’t mentioned by the media, but it should have been part of a major news story.  Those job terminations were part of some 800 layoffs ordered by Education Management Corporation (EDMC on the NY Stock Exchange), a corporation in Pittsburgh, PA that is presently being sued by the US government for about $11 billion.  Our government believes EDMC obtained that sum from them through an allegedly fraudulent scheme.  (Under the False Claims Act, if the suit is successful, the amount could triple.)  EDMC stock was selling around $30 a share late last year, but since the suit was filed the stock’s value has fallen to around $3.

And who is EDMC?  The leadership does not come from the academic community.  About 70% of the corporation is owned by three major Wall Street investment firms: Goldman-Sachs, Providence Equity Partners and Leeds Equity Partners.  Goldman-Sachs owns about 40% of the stock.  Several top executives of those three firms are on EDMC’s board along with Todd S. Nelson and John R. McKernan Jr.

Has Everyone Gone Mad? Image courtesy of AARP.org

I just hung up on Morgan Freeman.  He called right in the middle of dinner and at our house, dinner is family time.  Friday evening I hung up on Martin Sheen.  I’m sure many other A-List celebrities have been calling of late, but I’ve hung up before they could introduce themselves and implore me to vote one way or another. The campaign phone calls have been relentless, like ants in the pantry in the middle of summer! I am not a tremendously “political” person but I cannot remember a more vicious and completely demoralizing election since I was old enough to vote. Who’s in charge of this pop stand?  I demand to see the manager!

Disney chairman Rich Ross’ first year at the helm has been a busy one.  There’s a telling article by Michael Bodey in today’s online edition of The Australian that caught my attention.  There are a couple comments Ross made during his recent trip to Australia that are of particular interest. One involves what he did say and one involves what he didn’t say.

Screenshot from EA's new Medal of Honor.

With today’s release of EA’s controversial new version of Medal of Honor, set in Afghanistan, you may be wondering what all the fuss is about, who’s upset at what and why did this story get so much traction in the months leading up the product launch. 

At a casual glance, you might think “guns, violence and mayhem in video games” are once again being used as easy media fodder. Been there, done that, if you don’t like it don’t buy it. Get a life.  But let’s not let ourselves off so easily.  The root of the issue seems to be EA’s decision to allow gamers to play as the Taliban, rather than the usual non-descript “insurgents” or “terrorists.”  With the US and key allies firmly entrenched in a long and vicious war in Afghanistan, with the daily list of casualties getting longer, not shorter, how could EA not spark controversy with such a game? One would think a giant like EA would be neither flippant nor careless in the face of such potential commotion and one assumes that they are no stranger to controversy or moral arguments on all sides of game-related issues.