Where’s Ron?

I just reviewed the results of CNN/Time polls of Republican presidential candidate preferences.  The polls were conducted within the past week (20-25 October) in the first four primary states (IA, NH, SC, & FL).  One fact leaped out at me. 

[You can see the poll results at http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/10/26/topstate1.pdf.] 

In three of the four polls, candidate Ron Paul finished third behind Romney and Cain.  In other words, he finished ahead of Gingrich and Perry in three of four states, and ahead of the remainder of the field in all four states.  Let’s say that again.  Ron Paul outpaced Rick Perry in three of four, and outpaced Michelle Bachmann every time.

Gov. Perry finished no higher than fourth, and Rep. Bachmann no higher than sixth, in any of these early primary states.  And yet every day on all major news outlets we are presented with photos, quotes, and stories centering on candidates Perry and Bachmann.  Rep. Paul, who finished ahead of them in the polls, is nowhere to be found.  If he is mentioned at all, it is as an afterthought.  Why?  Where is the media interest in Rep. Paul?

Could it be that the media are focusing on certain candidates for the wrong reasons?  Could it be that they are attempting to drive (or divert) the agenda?  Could it be that they are focusing on certain candidates because they provide better photo ops?  Could it be that they are focusing on certain candidates because they provide more drama for the media to report?

What you see in the media is what the media chooses to present.  Do not make the mistake of assuming that those who select and frame the news are doing their jobs properly, or with noble motives.  Those in the media are marginalizing Ron Paul for a reason. 

Whether it’s because he’s not as attractive, because they dislike what he has to say, or because he’s less dramatic, it is certain that those in the media are downplaying, dismissing, in some cases blatantly ignoring, serious presidential candidate Ron Paul.

I admire Ron Paul’s libertarian ideals.  He is not my first choice in this election, though.  So why does this bother me?  Because I have the sinking suspicion that we, the American people, are being played.  Because the media are not so much reporting the news as creating it.  Because I sense that the American public is being manipulated for ulterior motives.  Because if an arrogant media can ice out one candidate in favor of another by redirecting our attention, they have wrongly injected themselves into the democratic process, and they have assumed a degree of political influence far beyond what is proper in a free nation.

I have no problem with media presenting opinions (properly identified), writing editorials, or endorsing whomever they please.  Those are proper, traditional, constitutional things for them to do.  When they seek to undermine one candidate by pretending irrelevance, however, they are practicing a subtle form of deception that threatens our democratic electoral process.  Whether their motives are subversive, political, or economic, that is dishonest, undemocratic, and wrong.

Gryphem

Children are Smarter than You Think

You should know that I have always believed in the innate ability of children to learn and the limited value of statistical assessment in education.  I also have long affirmed the inherent value and importance of intution and imagination for our human psyche as well as for the learning process.

Now, with that understood, Gryphem presents an excerpt from an article about how young children learn, from philosopher/psychologist Alison Gopnik, entitled “Babies are smarter than you think.”  The entire article can be found at www.cnn.com/2011/10/23/opinion/gopnik-ted-children-learning/index.html?hpt=hp_c2.

"When parents or... policy-makers hear about how much babies learn, they often conclude that what we need to do is teach them more. Parents spend literally millions of dollars on ‘educational’ toys, videos and programs, that they hope will somehow give their children an edge.

"Parents and policy-makers pressure teachers to make preschools more and more academic, with more reading drills and less time for play and pretend. But the science suggests this is also wrong. Very young children learn best from their everyday experiences of people and things, and from being able to playfully explore the world in a safe setting with people who love and care for them. Those settings can't be mass manufactured or provided on the cheap, and the learning they lead to can't be simply measured on standardized tests.

"The science of early childhood is constantly surprising -- who would guess that 2-year-olds can use statistics to test hypotheses? But actually the policy implications fit what most preschool teachers know intuitively: Children thrive when they are loved, and they learn when they explore.

Thank you, Dr. Gopnik.  I couldn’t have said it any better myself.

Sometimes the the best thing a parent or teacher can do for children is to stand aside and allow them to learn naturally through exploration and play.

We do not need to drive the children to learn, because they themselves instinctively seek to learn.  They are just learning in a less formal, more natural way.  Wouldn’t it create a revolution in the world of education if we could tap into that natural curiosity and desire to explore that is already present within our children?

This article presents evidence which I think might support less homework, fewer organized sports, less television, and limited standardized testing at school.  It also might encourage us to enjoy unstructured free play and embrace summer vacation with gusto and without guilt. 

After reading this article, I am more convinced than ever the we adults should give up our compulsion to direct the kids’ behavior long enough to get down on the floor and play with them…  maybe even let them direct us for a little while.

As we care for and educate our children, we might consider relying more on their natural desire and ability to learn, and on our own natural instincts.  Let’s place less emphasis on the educational fad or program of the moment, and greater emphasis on and the relationships we build with our children.

The children have resources that we adults do not often recognize.  If you allow yourself to get involved with the children, you will learn wonderful things and discover amazing places together.  The children will let you into their world, to share their sense of wonder and their fresh, vivid perspective, if you let them.  Each child will love being able to imitate and role play with an important person in his or her life (which is a big part of how they learn), and all will build a stronger relationship based on lots of caring and fun.

Believe in them, and their innate intelligence, imagination, and drive to learn.  Believe in yourself, and your ability to do the right thing for them.  Love them, guide them, listen to them, explore with them.  Everyone will be wiser and richer for the experience.

Gryphem

Some Advice for the “Occupy Wall Street” Boys

Have you seen any pictures from Greece in the news recently?  Do you agree that the protesters are absurd for rioting, clashing with the police because of “austerity measures”?  They are throwing a public tantrum at the same time the rest of Europe is trying to bail their country out of the mess they got into. 

Immature.  Ungrateful.  Clueless.  Just a few of the words that come to mind to describe overgrown adolescents who do not realize that their government is doing what is necessary to fix a bad situation.  The protesters do not realize that their nation has become dependent upon the goodwill of the rest of the ‘Euro’ nations to prevent a far worse economic collapse.  But in their ignorance, they take to the streets.   Instead of helping, instead of simply staying out of the way and letting those in power fix the problem, they incite violence.  They have made a bad situation worse because they are either too ignorant to understand, or too immature to deal with reality.

It reminds me of another group of people who misbehave in public, a lot closer to home.  You know how foolish you look to the rest of us, “Occupy Wall Street” protesters?

Immature, ungrateful, and clueless still apply.  You took a legitimate grievance and turned it into an opportunity to party in the park and spout off at the mouth about things you don’t understand.

Did you hear me?  The root cause of your “movement” is legitimate!  But you’ve buggered it.  You are a crowd of clowns, and I don't mean the funny ones. 

Your smug hypocrisy and incoherent proclamations are beginning to irritate the rest of us.   You know, those of us who were actually invested in the system, who were betrayed by corporate greed and political treachery? 

Oh, I’m sorry.  A few of you are not party animals – you are subversives with a secret agenda.  You Communists and Anarchists realize, I hope, that when your true motives become as apparent to everyone as they are to some of us with experience in this sort of thing, that all sides are going to turn on you.  You realize that, don’t you?  Even your party boy pawns in this silly “Occupy” thing – they don’t want to live in a world where they aren’t free to party, Communists.  Although they might talk smack about the police today, they will realize they don’t want to live in a world where their pretty little alternative selves are not protected from mean people like you, Anarchists.  They’ll come around quickly enough, when the time comes.

So I guess I’m not talking to you hard core Communists and Anarchists.  You will either fade away silently (my preference) or be found out for what you are, eventually.  No, I am talking to the hippie wannabes.

Party boys:  You had a good time at public expense, and got away with it.  Okay.  Party’s over.   Grow up.  Quit pretending you’re some sort of hero.  We all know you’re pretending because you haven’t done anything in your life to prove you’re a man.  You thought this might be a good way to fake it, didn’t you?  No dice.  

I just can't get past the hypocrisy in this one.
You took money from the bank, but now you
refuse to pay it back, and you still insist
that you are somehow morally superior
to the "greedy capitalists"?

You cannot expect anyone to respect you if you insist on being hedonistic, hypocritical, and self-righteous at the same time.  It’s bizarre and ludicrous.  No one’s buying it. 

Neither are they believing your outrageous statements.  99% of America is poor?  Wake up and smell the Starbucks, Moon Doggie.  The establishment is “shaking in their boots”?  I hope you don’t really believe that. Get a grip on reality.  Your elders and more responsible peers are not shaking in their boots – they’re shaking their heads in disappointment as they avert their eyes in embarrassment for you.  Much like I expect your fathers have been doing for some time.

As I said earlier, the problems you cite as your raison d’être (look it up) are indeed real.  But you have only distracted the public with your immature antics.  You haven’t solved a thing.  It’s time to get the heck out of the way and let the big people clean up the mess.

The fact is, you don’t even understand the real problem.  Capitalism is not the problem.  Capitalism is the economic system that created the prosperity you take for granted.  Greed and corruption are the problem.  Government giving money to businesses is not capitalism, it is corruption.  If you really want to make a difference, maybe you should quit biting the hand that has fed you all these years and start thinking about fighting corruption.

I love the honest, hard-working people of Greece.  I am upset by the protesters in Greece who are behaving badly even as foreigners step in to salvage their economy. 

I love the honest, hard-working people of America.  I find validity in grievances against corporations that put profits above people and country.  I am disgusted by morons who scream for the end of capitalism and pee on the street and think they are solving the problem.

This message has been brought to you by Americans who are mature enough to want to solve problems instead of using them as an excuse to throw bottles, camp out in the park, smoke dope, scream “Mine!” and demonize America. 

“Occupy” people, I don’t hate you.  I am embarrassed for you.  I was young and stupid once too, and I want to end the humiliation you have created for yourselves.  So I am telling you all this as an act of compassion.  Whether you believe me or not, you don’t have a clue... and 99% of us know it.  You are embarrassing yourselves.   Go home.

Gryphem

- - - - - - - - - -

For those who want to read more, I recommend these three articles as good examples of how intelligent people have responded to the “Occupy” movement.

• From the New York Daily News of September 28th, an article which includes the statement, “This bunch ought to get down on their knees in thanks that America's capitalist Founding Fathers saw fit to protect the privileges of the dumb and obnoxious along with everyone else.” http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-09-28/news/30236515_1_pepper-spray-nypd-parade-route
• From a site called “The Next Great Generation,” an article called “Occupy Wall Street – Gen Y Against It,” a very balanced critique, from a generational perspective that includes some revealing statistics.   http://www.thenextgreatgeneration.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-gen-y-against-it/
• From Fox News of October 3rd, a surprisingly candid look by Dan Gainor at the disconnect between the “whinefest” that is the movement and the issues that underlie it.  The article includes the assessment, “The crux of the problem with Occupy Wall Street (is that) It doesn’t distinguish between real problems Americans have and lots of things that reflect poor choices.” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/03/occupy-wall-street-not-just-another-liberal-protest/?cmpid=cmty_email_Gigya_Occupy_Wall_Street_--_More_Than_Just_Another_Loony_Protest_Movement_From_the_Left

Junk Mail Management 101

The goal of today’s Gryphem feature is to help you make good decisions about purchases and contributions in response to advertisements and requests received via mail.  This will be about people who want your money, whether they try to get it via business transactions, charitable contributions, or scams.

This post concerns only ads and solicitations received by mail, but some of the lessons learned here will apply to other forms of solicitation.  My junk mail in box provides more than enough fodder for this grist mill. 

This post is NOT an indictment of business or charity, or of the advertising industry.  Gryphem supports honest small businesses.  These examples are a warning about how unscrupulous people sometimes may try to mislead you.

These are advertising and solicitation tactics that I have observed over the past week.  So read on, and take note of these manipulative or deceptive lines and practices.  Never again allow yourself to be used, abused, tricked, or manipulated by swindlers and con men. 

“Hurry!  Limited time offer.”  / “Order today!” / “This price won’t last."
This is an attempt to create a sense of urgency.  Selling School, term one. Sorry, rookie, I will not buy into your false drama.  I’ll decide whether I want your product or not, in my own time.  In the unlikely event that your product really isn’t there when I decide I want it, then I will deal with the fallout.  If you push me for a decision, the default decision will be “No.”

“Good news!  You qualify for (fill in the blank).”

So you’re going to give me permission to buy something from you?  I have always dreamed of giving you my business, and now I can!  How did I get this honor?  Now I’m going to give you the exclusive opportunity to butt out.

“Zero Percent Interest!” / “90 days same as cash!”

• I guarantee that they have raised the price in advance, or added fees, or found some other way to get from you the money you might seem to be saving by avoiding interest charges.
• In fact, any time a business advertises financing along with or instead of their primary product, you would be well advised to be suspicious ofthe financial arrangements, or the product, or both.  Businesses are not in the game of financing for fun.  They are financing to make more profit. 
• Here’s a way to get 0% interest every time, legitimately and with certainty.  Pay cash.  If you can’t afford to pay cash, start saving and wait until you can pay cash before you purchase.

“The original service date of your vehicle may have been over 38 months ago.”

• Really?  Did you go to a special school to figure that out?  The car is 6 years old.  This is called “Stating The Obvious.”
• And more than that, the best you can say is “may have been”?  Your mother may have been a hockey player.  Making statements that appear to be facts but that are couched in conditional terms is a sign of someone trying to pretend like they know what they’re talking about when they’re really just taking a shot in the dark.

“What?  You don’t have a (fill in the blank) yet?”

• Well, no.  Should I?  Apparently it is surprising to someone that I don’t have a (fill in the blank) yet.  Maybe I should have a (fill in the blank).  Maybe it is surprising because everyone else has a (fill in the blank).  Maybe I am stupid for not having a (fill in the blank).  Maybe because everyone else has a (fill in the blank) and I don’t, I am weird.  Maybe if I don’t have a (fill in the blank), I am not cool.
• Spare me the false surprise and the middle school drama.  You got something for me?  Tell me about it.  Don’t play to my adolescent fears of rejection – especially when the peer pressure you imply is not even real.

***Legitimate Businesses and Questionable Advertising Practices***

Sometimes a legitimate business or charity gives in to the temptation to use manipulative techniques.  Even if the business or charity that is using these techniques is otherwise reputable, do not reward them for using unethical methods to generate business.  If you do, you may be contributing to the erosion of their reputability by reinforcing their unethical behaviors.

“Enjoy the benefits of quality (fill in the blank) fuel.” 

Okay, I know at least one person who will argue with me ‘til the sun goes down, but I’m going to state the obvious thing that 98% of us know.  All gasoline is the same.  Unless some local guy is watering the tanks, it doesn’t matter if I buy your gas, or your competitor’s gas.  It’s all gas, so spare me the “quality” talk.  Bottom line: Don't let anyone convince you one product is better than another only because of the brand name that is attached to it.

 [The first words I see:] “Informacion en español al voltear la pagina.”

I have nothing against Spanish.  I even speak some.  But I do not choose to do business in that language unless I am in Spain, or Mexico, or somewhere else where the official language is Spanish.  Even though the rest of the page may be in English, no lo creo.  (For you monolingual people, that last part is Spanish for “I don’t think so.”)

“We have a need for cars of your make and model.” 

• Wrong!  What they have is enough spare time to think up ways to get you to come to their showroom, so they can persuade you to buy a new car. 
• If this ploy works as planned, then not only will they get you there, they will get you there primed and ready to deal.  If you’re lucky, you might end up with a much nicer car along with your bigger car payment.  If you’re not, you might lose your shirt.
• The principle is the same with, “We have a client interested in your home.”

“Enter for a chance to win…”

Here's a good idea.  You enter my personal sweepstakes by giving me the product, price, and service that I want, and you might win my business.  That's how it's supposed to work.  If you want to hawk 'chances,' you should consider joining the carnival.

“You may have already won!” 

No, I haven’t. 

*** Contests ***

Contests are a ruse.  They are to get you focused on a positive effect that will not happen so that you will be more open to doing business with them.  If you want to do business with them, fine.  But you will not win the contest.  Not ever.  So don’t even think about it.

[Large check enclosed]  

The con men who do this are using a fake check to tempt you to open the envelope.  The check may look real, but it’s actually only good as a discount when you purchase their product (probably at an inflated price to offset the value of the fake check).

“Come in and take one of our cars for a test drive and we’ll give you a $500 gift certificate to (fill in the blank)!”

• Remember the proverb: “If it seems too good to be true, then it probably is.”  They are probably lying.  Perhaps not technically, but by implication. 

• Of course, to stay out of trouble they have to make it possible to claim the 'reward.'  So they make it so difficult to claim that no one will bother.  In this real example, the 'reward' was not an outright 'prize' but a reimbursement opportunity.  The customer had to first buy products at the designated store with her own money.  Then, to claim the $500, she had to collect her receipts over a prolonged period of time, fill out forms, submit the claim paperwork for a reimbursement review which might find fault or disallow some receipts.  Then she had to wait for the gift card to be approved and issued, which might take several months.  Rule of thumb:  If the ‘reward’ involves reimbursement, it will not be worth the trouble.  If it is an up-front prize, then you must be sure you know all the conditions and requirements, and then decide whether it’s worth it to you to jump through all those hoops.
• I did once get a very nice vacation by attending a time share presentation.  But I had read the fine print about ticket fees and restrictions, and planned accordingly.  I knew it wouldn’t be free, but it was more affordable than I could’ve made the trip myself, so I claimed the offer and used it.  They were not happy with me.

*** Too Much Junk Mail? ***

Take a look at this, which might help you get it under control:

www.catalogchoice.org

[With grave concern] “I’m worried because I haven’t heard from you.  Did you get the (fill in the blank) I sent you?” 

• Nonsense!  No one is worried that you received anything, except that they hope the ‘gift’ will motivate you to make a donation. 
• They know you got it.  What they’re really saying is, “We sent you a gift, so send us some money, cheapskate.”
• You are under no obligation to pay for anything you receive in the mail, unsolicited.  If they sent it to you without your approval, you don’t have to pay for it.  You don’t have to send it back.  You don’t even have to tell them you got it.  If you want, you can send a donation.  If you don’t want to send a donation, that’s fine, too.  After all, you didn’t ask them to send you anything.

[Real stamps?] 

• Why would someone seeking donations use actual stamps on the enclosed return envelopes?   Why?  The USPS has a system by which they can pay only when a return envelope is mailed.   By putting a stamp on every return envelope, they are literally throwing away money. 
• I guess they’re trying to make me think their organization is so small and friendly that they don’t bother with that big corporate stuff.
• Or maybe they’re trying to shame me into giving.  Sorry, dudes.  I wasn’t the one who chose to throw away money by putting stamps on envelopes that will never be returned. 
• Hey everyone, did you know that the new peel-and-stick stamps are not like the old ones?  In the past, if you wanted to remove and reuse a stamp, you had to steam it off.  That's a lot of work for a stamp.  But the new ones can be removed and reused fairly easily.  Thanks, for the 44 cents, guys.

[Money inside?] 

This one’s similar to the last one, but even stoopider.  (‘Stoopid’ is like ‘stupid’ except even more idioticker.  Get it?)  Did you really just mail me a nickel?  Or even more stoopider, a dollar bill?  Or worse yet, a check for $2.48 FROM your charity TO me?  Why, if you need funds, would you do that?  I guess the idea is to get my attention.  Well, you did.  Thanks for the nickel.  Or the dollar.  Not sure yet what I’m gonna do with that check for $2.48.

“These beautiful labels are yours, without obligation…” 

That’s all I need to know.  Thanks.  Toss the rest of the contents without reading.

*** Gifts Received ***

You are under no legal obligation to pay for anything you receive unsolicited in the mail.  If you didn’t ask for it, and they decided to send it anyway, it is yours.  People who send you stuff you didn’t ask for are trying to (1) get your attention, and (2) make you feel obligated so you will pay for the product or make a donation.  If you like the stuff, or the organization, send them something.  If you don’t want to, then don’t send them anything.  And don’t worry about it.  They gambled.  Not your problem.

[Billing for Charity?]

One charity which supports a very worthy cause sends me a bill twice a year.  I never made a pledge; they somehow just decided that this was to be my “fair share.”  Guess what, guys?  I really do hope they find a cure for that disease, but if you want financial support from me, you can ask me politely.  I don't respond to bullying, however subtle.  You wanna send me a BILL?  From your CHARITY?  Good luck with that.  Now leave.

“Ten acres of the rain forest are being destroyed every minute!” 

• Oh, my.  How long can we keep creating urgency over the same situation?  I am an environmentalist, and it kills me that people are destroying the Amazon Rain Forest.  However (and I offer this in the spirit of constructive involvement) this “every minute” tactic you use makes me feel like there’s no point in trying.  By the time I read your letter, another ten acres.  By the time I write you a check, another 30 acres gone.  By the time the mailman comes tomorrow, another 10,000 acres gone – that’s a square of land four miles on each side.  I feel like it’s already too late.
• Seriously, though, the real reason I will toss your rain forest solicitation is that you (or your predecessors) burned your bridges along with the rain forest decades ago.  I remember when I was an elementary school student that the rain forest was going to be gone by the time I was an adult.  Twenty years later, I used then-current research to teach students that the rain forest would not exist more than a few more years.  That was twenty years ago, and there’s still enough left for you to warn me about how fast it’s vanishing.  Something isn’t adding up.
• Another thing – It seems the pace of the destruction is always accelerating…  How is that possible?  You can’t have it both ways.  Was someone grossly exaggerating then?  Is someone twisting the facts now?  WAS it vanishing?  IS it vanishing?  I’m not sure what to believe.   
• Out of love for the environment, and in response to your call for action, I gave money to save the rain forest decades ago.  Apparently, the rain forest is still vanishing.  Apparently my donation was not effective.  So why would I try that again?
• This is a perfect illustration of the proverb: "You cannot make an arguement stronger by overstating it." 

*** Statement about Charitable Giving ***

In this post, I have written mostly about people who want to sell you something, but a couple (including the two immediately preceding) were in response to requests for charitable support.  I do not care whether you ever buy anything in response to a mail advertisement, but I do hope that you will support worthwhile charities. 

Good citizens should contribute to worthy charities as they are able.  That does not mean tossing money to everyone who asks for it.  If our charitable giving is to be effective, we need to be observant and discerning, as well as generous.  I hope these examples will help you avoid being manipulated by unethical people who want to siphon dollars away from legitimate charities into their own pockets.  I hope this post will help you identify ethical charities that are worthy of your support.

[Impersonating a Government Entity] 

• Did you ever receive an official-looking manila envelope with eagle or star emblems, impressive official-sounding names, and a program-like phrase or slogan?  Well, look carefully... not at what is being implied, but at what is actually being stated.  Authoritative-sounding phrases such as “public announcement” or “official notification” may seem impressive at first, but actually mean nothing.  Even slogans or mottos commonly used by government entities, phrases like “e pluribus unum” or “protect and serve,” may appear only to create the false impression of government authority or official status.
• These bits of counterfeit correspondence are repugnant to honest, patriotic people.  Not only are they attempting to deceive, they are undermining the prestige of the government.  (No jokes, please.)
• Anyone who will pretend to be a government official to get your attention or your money will not hesitate to deceive you in other ways.  Never trust anyone who is not honest about who they are.  If they have to assume a false identity to get you to notice or patronize them, then they are as incompetent as they are dishonest.

[Car Title Loans / Payday Loans]
I could write an entire post on how dishonest these places are.  They are usurers and thieves who have found a way to keep stealing and stay out of jail.  And the worst part is, they steal from the poorest among us.  Do Not Patronize these places, EVER.  Enough Said.

“ONLY…” 

• I believe this may be the most meaningless word in the English language, when used in the context of advertising.  Disregard it completely.  That used car costs “only”$40,000.  This sale will last for “only” 85 days.  That warehouse is “only” a short 90-mile drive from the city.  You can make a difference for “only” a few dollars a day. 
• On second thought, I am beginning to suspect that this word is worse than meaningless.  I think maybe it actually means the OPPOSITE of its literal meaning.  Yes.  Let’s redefine the word “only,” when used in advertising, as “the number that follows is much larger than you might expect,” or possibly, “let’s pretend that what follows is a good thing.

“Up to 90% off!” 

Let me translate that for you, Grasshopper.  The little words “up to” negate all that follows.  If they say “everything” is “up to" 90% off, then there must be at least one item that is 90% off.  That can be one single memo pad (which was sold yesterday, by the way) marked down from 50 cents to a nickel.  Other items in the store might be 80% off, or 20% off, or still at full price, because “up to” means “this much or less.”  Get it?  When you see the words “up to,” disregard the entire advertisement immediately.

The final thought for today is summed up in an old Latin saying:  “Caveat Emptor”.  What it means is, “Let the buyer (or philanthropist) beware.”

Gryphem

Want more on this topic?  See this blog post:

http://myadhdme.blogspot.com/2010/10/hurry-limited-time-offer-act-now.html.

It’s probably funnier than Gryphem, anyway…  Admitted in the interest of full and honest disclosure.