Here in time for Easter, grab this great comic book for free! It’s written by the same guy who gave us the comic book adaptation of George R. R. Martin’s The Hedge Knight. Ben Avery’s a pretty cool guy. By the way, you’ll want to be on the lookout for his future projects…

Want to grab your copy? Sign up at WOWIO.com to get it.

Popularity: 27% [?]

…is nice when it regards national deficits, cost of technology, and personal body weight.

Popularity: 27% [?]

You know, it’s gotten to where I don’t even want to go to a mall if they have a Vickie’s. They’ve gotten so brazen with their—let’s call a spade a spade, folks—pornographic window displays that Nicole and I have quietly boycotted them for nearly half a decade. I’m not the only one, either: I know of many men and women (mostly conservative Christians) who would like to shop there, but don’t want to support a store which seems more interested in selling immorality.

Now, finally, it looks like Victoria’s Secret is taking the hint:

“Victoria’s Secret… has become ‘too sexy’ for its own good, its top executive said.

‘We’ve so much gotten off our heritage… we use the word ’sexy’ a lot and really have forgotten the ultra feminine,’ said Sharen Turney, Victoria’s Secret’s chief executive.”

It seems the company lost quite a bit of money over the past year, and they’re finally returning to their roots: “The chain was started in San Francisco in 1977 by Roy Raymond, who said he was embarrassed trying to buy lingerie for his wife and hoped to provide a comfortable place for men to shop“ (emphasis mine). Married men don’t like being made to feel like they’re entering a strip club when they’re trying to buy something cute for their wives to wear in the bedroom. The store’s original owner understood that, and hopefully this latest news means the current owners now understand it, too.

The world at large seems to think that sex is for anything but a happy marriage. What originally made Victoria’s Secret unique was that they celebrated the marriage bed. When they gave up that truly unique angle and instead relied on cheap titillation, the attention waned and they started losing money. Good for them that they noticed before they went bankrupt.

Me? I just hope the changes are made before Nicole’s birthday. Or at least mine.

Popularity: 31% [?]

I just received a phone call—at my desk—from a number I didn’t recognize: 800-995-4532. I don’t usually receive calls at work, so I’ve gotten into the habit of Googling them before picking up. (Almost every single time I don’t follow this procedure, I wind up talking to a Disney comics fan who wants me to look at his portfolio.)

So I Googled the number, and it turns out it’s Payless ShoeSource wanting to tell me about a “buy one, get one free” sale they’re running. And yes, I know that’s not what they’re calling it, but I absolutely refuse to call this a “BOGO.” “Buy one, get one” means exactly that: you get the one item you bought. “Buy one, get one free,” on the other hand, means you get two items when you only paid for one. (Interesting tidbit: “shoplifting” can mean the same thing, but the stores don’t typically encourage such behavior. It’s true!)

Ahem. So why did Payless call me at work (at 2:30pm, when I’m not likely to drop everything and run out to buy two pairs of shoes)? A few weeks ago, I bought a pair of boots from Payless. Where I was asked for my phone number at the cash register. I’m too nice to flat-out refuse, so I gave ‘em the number at my desk.

Here’s what really irks me about all of this: when asked for my phone number, I was never told that I would receive phone calls regarding future sales. If anything, I was given the impression that my phone number was needed because I was paying with a debit card, or to track demographics (like when other stores will ask for your 3-digit area code). I was tricked into being barraged by advertisements, just because I don’t want to be a jerk to a store clerk who’s simply doing as she was trained. I was never asked permission for this use of my phone number, and never offered it. This use was forced upon me by somebody who cares nothing for me as a person, but merely for what he can get by using me.

You could say Payless raped my phone number.

Now I like the boots I bought. I was ready to make Payless my “the shoe store” for the foreseeable future. But as happy as I was, I feel like I’d be encouraging this sort of customer disservice if I continued to buy from them. Which sucks, because I don’t want to have to find another place to buy shoes.

“Real permission is different from presumed or legalistic permission. Just because you somehow get my email address doesn’t mean you have permission. Just because I don’t complain doesn’t mean you have permission. Just because it’s in the fine print of your privacy policy doesn’t mean it’s permission either.” — Seth Godin, Permission Marketing

I won’t forget this. Payless has lost any and all trust I had in them. They may never earn it back. And all because they refused to consider others as more important than themselves.

Popularity: 33% [?]

Okay, so just to give you a quick rundown of what’s been on my mind today:

McCain thinks the voters have no right to know a Presidential candidate’s approach to foreign policy; Cheney really did want to invade Iraq for the oil, after all—and was making plans to do so as early as six months before 9/11; and TSA officials are now confiscating baby food and divvying it up amongst themselves.

Is it any wonder why I’m happy that a guy like Ron Paul isn’t giving up?

Popularity: 31% [?]