Out of the 540 total Twitter (Twitter) accounts registered by Fortune 100 companies, 50 percent of the accounts had fewer than 500 followers and another 15 percent weren’t being used at all.

…the study found that half of the accounts did not score well on engagement metrics used by Twitalyzer, which looks at number of links, hashtags, retweets and references. Being engaged and active on Twitter usually translates to more followers because it gives an account more exposure and chances of being retweeted and seen by other users (assuming the information is valuable).

If Genentech can keep up a decent Twitter feed, there’s no reason most other Fortune 100 companies can’t do it, too. The biggest thing stopping most of these companies is probably their perception of Twitter.

So exactly what is the mandate of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation? Classic government bureaucracy.

This Saturday, you can help avenge some of Bernie Madoff’s victims by purchasing his personal stuff at a government auction. The auction, which will take place in New York, will sell roughly 200 items for an estimated minimum value of $500,000. Proceeds will go towards repaying Madoff victims. The Wall Street Journal has the details:

The government has been trying to sell Mr. Madoff’s homes and now will auction some personal effects. Proceeds from the sale of the roughly 200 items will go toward compensating victims.

On Saturday prospective buyers can bid live at the New York Sheraton Hotel & Towers, or bid online if they register at the auction house’s Web site by Thursday afternoon.

The article lists some of the Madoff items for sale, along with their estimated values:

A blue satin Mets baseball-team jacket with “Madoff” stitched on the back in orange: Up to $720.

Three Boogie boards with “Madoff” written on them in black marker: $80

White his-and-hers stationery with the names Bernard Madoff and Ruth Madoff printed on it, along with envelopes: $90+

1960 Hofstra University ring that belonged to Mr. Madoff, engraved with his initials: $300

18-karat yellow gold, black-faced vintage men’s Rolex, the Monoblocco: Up to $87,500

A pair of Victorian-era diamond earrings: Up to $21,400.

3 wooden duck decoys: Up to $80

More items:
5 designer fur coats
Christofle flatwear
Tiffany placecard holders
3 polo shirts monogrammed with the names of one of Madoff’s yachts (”Bull”)

The auction promises some unique buys. Where else could you buy three used boogie boards for $80?

British stroller manufacturer Maclaren has announced a recall of 1 million umbrella strollers. The hinges on the sides of the strollers can trap children’s fingers when parents are opening or closing the umbrella. The New York Daily News reports:

All Maclaren strollers sold since 1999 are included in the recall, according to a source briefed on the recall.

“Parents should stop using these strollers right away,” the source said.

Maclaren’s statement on the recall:

“Consistent with our unwavering commitment to child safety we are providing U.S. consumers notice of a voluntary recall of all Maclaren umbrella strollers sold in the U.S. In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, we are providing free of charge to all affected consumers and retailers a kit to cover the stroller’s hinge mechanism, which poses a fingertip amputation and laceration hazard to the child when the consumer is unfolding/opening the stroller. The affected models include Volo, Triumph, Quest Sport, Quest Mod, Techno XT, Techno XLR, Twin Triumph, Twin Techno and Easy Traveller.

Maclaren USA’s Umbrella Strollers meet all U.S. ASTM & JPMA compliance standards. These certifications guarantee our umbrella strollers meet the maximum safety standards available. The voluntary recall is to alert the operator when opening or closing the stroller of the possible risk of injury.

Safety is our first priority and through this voluntary effort we urge consumers to contact us immediately to obtain the kit which consists of hinge covers designed specifically to fit all Maclaren strollers.”

Twelve children with amputated fingertips? Sounds like it’s high time to fix that stroller.

The complaint alleges there was probable cause to believe Mr. Goffer and his conspirators engaged in insider trading in the acquisitions of Kronos Inc. and Hilton Hotels Corp.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Ouch. The Miami New Times has more on the casino that denied the man the winnings stated on the machine:

On Sunday, a gambler at the Seminole Hard Rock Casino in Tampa was playing a $4 slot machine when its bells started ringing and an enormous figure began flashing on its jackpot screen: $166,666,666.65. Bill Seebeck thought he was set for life.

“The Seminole Hard Rock Casino Tampa has made an offer to William Seebeck, and he has accepted, recognizing that the slot machine he was playing on Sunday malfunctioned, in what can be best described to the layman as a “computer glitch.” The maximum payout on the Ultimate Party Spin machine played by Seebeck is $99,000, although his bet of $1.50 at the time of the malfunction could have generated a maximum payout of only $2,500, with the right combination. Determination of a malfunction was made by representatives of the machine’s manufacturer and software provider, according to established gaming industry standards, with confirmation from an independent third-party laboratory analysis. The casino has opted to settle this matter for an undisclosed amount as a good faith gesture, and we look forward to welcoming Mr. Seebeck on future visits.”

Cory Doctorow posted this frightening bit after looking over a leaked copyright treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA):

Obama’s administration refused to disclose (the full text) due to “national security” concerns. It’s bad. It says:

* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

Find more specific details about the treaty here.

I wonder whether this would ever pass in its current form, given that Google and Yahoo own YouTube and Flickr, respectively. The problem appears to be precisely that governments are keeping this agreement secret. The talks were initially focused on stopping counterfeit merchandise, but have expanded to public policy. If you disagree with the direction talks are going (according to the leak), or want governments to stop negotiating this treaty in secret, the EFF has more on what to do.

After having time to reflect on Jim Cramer’s email to me (see below), I keep recalling the scene in the movie 300 where the God-King Xerxes tells Leonidas it would be a shame for his people to perish because of a simple misunderstanding. Like Cramer telling me to “take it [my post] down and apologize to me so we can move on,” Xerxes says Leonidas can simply bow down at his royal feet and all will be forgotten.

I do not project myself onto the great Spartan King Leonidas. Rather, I am witnessing a major movement unfolding where real journalists and activists have used the internet to finally battle against the entertainers and eyeball monopolists who have melted the brains and 401(k)s of America.

As we say on Wall Street, “The easy money has been made.” Media oligarchs have manipulated and omitted facts at will because the barrier to rebut their falsehoods was simply too high. But now sites like Zero Hedge, The Big Picture, Minyanville, Wall St. Cheat Sheet, and many others are posting the Truth … and people have been rejuvenated to demand honesty and transparency. Moreover, it’s an open-source effort as insiders and researchers happily share information with journalists for something more meaningful than money: Spartan glory.

Like Cramer’s debate with Jon Stewart, my questions and comments were met with silence. Not because Cramer is the Buddha. Because Cramer cannot dispute the facts (and I didn’t even pull out the smoking guns). There is obviously a new post in the works where a complete collection of Cramer’s nonsense will be compiled for the other side of the scale which holds “In Cramer We Trust.”

But for now, this chapter of the perpetual expose ends with Zero Hedge’s poetic penultimate climax:

“Damien Hoffman over at Wall Street Cheat Sheet seems to have gotten into the crosshairs of none other than book (and stock) promoter extraordinaire James Cramer. Subsequent to our post on TheStreet.com potentially being in regulatory hot water, Damien penned the following post:

Jim Cramer Says Sell, Sell, Sell His Company TheStreet.com

6) Jim Cramer’s true value has been proven in Barron’s and he was waterboarded while (not) debating Jon Stewart.

Looks like the circus may be leaving town …

The fearless leader of Mad Money and the possessor of the world’s spottiest stock recommendation track record apparently took offense to Damien’s ideas, and at the cost of taking some time away from promoting his book on CNBC and elsewhere, felt compelled to respond with the following email, titled with the ironic “Some decorum and some fairness” subject line:

Subject: Some decorum and some fairness From: “James Cramer” Date: Mon, October 26, 2009 5:30 am To:

While I understand your need to be “on the map,” and I understand the “public figure” exception to the libel laws, I do think that given your backgrounds and your histories, you are taking too much license with your Jim Cramer says Sell TheStreet.com . I believe that level of lack of responsibility is beneath you. So please take it down and apologize to me so we can move on. Fair? Think about it. Think about how much better you are than that? If you really need to sell subs just sell them, don’t trash me to do it. jjcramer

Indeed, one expects Mr. Cramer should know all about levels of responsibility and how far one must stoop to end up below them. In either case, a diplomatic Damien Hoffman retorts:

Jim,

First, as you can appreciate, good content still needs to be entertaining. No one knows that better than you.

Second, this is not personal. I have bought all your books, was a huge fan of your show for years, and my brother and I were guests in your first ever live audience. We even have a picture with you.

If you are interested in sending over a retort to our cited claims, please feel free and I will post it. There is no libel in the post. The excerpt says “According to Jim Cramer’s rules …” Your rules in your book/show are to sell a stock and ask questions later when execs and board members start bailing. The same for companies which delay their filings. Therefore, according to what you have taught us, this is the action we must take. Are you saying TSCM is an exception? If so, why?

Lastly, I think the biggest disappointment as a fan of yours for over 10 years was the way nothing has changed since after you went on The Daily Show and promised to us you would be more clear your show was entertainment and NOT investing advice (which would have been nice years ago). CNBC still runs “In Cramer We Trust” and other similar ads. I am sorry Jim, but many people I know (including family members) think of you as a guru based on the way CNBC presents you. They have lost a lot of money following even your “Top Pick of the Year” New York Stock Exchange and repeated “The Only Stock to Own” SHLD. I know others who lost money following Dykstra as his subscriber. It was your responsibility to prevent a conman from working at TheStreet with your full endorsement. And the psychics on The Street, well, I think that speaks volumes about whether you are running a financial media company or something completely different. Consequently, I don’t think censoring the truth is a respectable option regarding our post.

Further, if you look at the sales page for Kass’s newsletter, you have conveniently left out his HORRIBLE Jan 2008 “Buy the Financials” call and MANY of his other bad calls. If we are nitpicking what is “beneath” us, I’d put that at the top of the list before throwing stones at me. The same for claiming Ron Insana’s track record was associated with his newsletter performance BEFORE it even launched. We are both trained as lawyers and know there is a way to present anything, but it can still be a lie.

I am calling it as I see it. If you feel otherwise, I will print your opinion. I am not an asshole. I am part of a movement of people who are trying to put truth back into financial media.

FYI: None of our posts in The Scoop sell subs. That’s not our core business model.

Regards,

Damien

Editor-in-Chief Wall St. Cheat Sheet

We look forward to getting more clarity on not only TheStreet.com sorely missed 10-Q, but on the potential escalation of how far Mr. Cramer is willing to go to address perceived “lack of responsibility.” We are fairly confident that many of Jim Cramer’s “fans” would be willing to hold Mr. Cramer to the exact same degree of responsible conduct that the latter suddenly seems to deem appropriate. Maybe Mr. Hoffman should just stick to presenting Buy stock recommendations for major Wall Street firms, especially ahead of 90%+ price drops in their respective stocks.”

Damien Hoffman is the Editor-in-Chief of Wall St. Cheat Sheet.

Asheville, NY-based Fairbank Farms is recalling nearly 546,000 pounds of ground beef because of a suspected E. coli contamination. The recall affects Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The following supermarkets sold the beef, which may have had sell-by dates between September 19-28, according to the Associated Press:

-Trader Joe’s
-Shaw’s
-Giant Food Stores
-B.J.’s Wholesale
-ACME
-Ford Brothers
-Price Chopper

Good Morning America has more:

One person died and at least two people were sickened after eating ground beef in New Hampshire that was possibly contaminated with E. coli bacteria.

Ron Allen, CEO of Fairbank Farms, said in a statement on its Web site: “We’re assisting our customers in conducting this recall, and continue to urge consumers to check their freezers for ground beef products that are listed in the recall. Consumers who identify these products should return them to the point of purchase for a full refund.”

The ultimate precaution: Just throw away any ground beef in your freezer.

Disney is offering a DVD upgrade or moneyback guarantee to everyone who purchased a Baby Einstein DVD between June 5, 2004 and September 4, 2009 (the day the notice was put out).

The recall, if you want to call it that, came about after interest groups pressured the company to offer parents a refund. The premise: Time in front of a TV screen is bad for babies. An FTC complaint convinced Disney to rescind an earlier claim that Baby Einstein DVDs were educational.

Since September, interest groups have claimed a further victory in persuading the company to offer consumers a refund. Details of the Baby Einstein recall (from their website, via Slate):

To participate, you must have purchased a Baby Einstein DVD between June 5, 2004 and September 4, 2009.

or you may return it, and we will refund the current retail value of the DVD ($15.99).

Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, an interest group, describes their version of the recall (via Slate):

As a result of our 2006 Federal Trade Commission complaint, Disney stopped claiming that Baby Einstein videos were educational for infants, but the company made no move to compensate parents who purchased them.

The refund offer is a wonderful victory for families and anyone who cares about children. Recent research shows that screen time is not educational for babies. Now parents who purchased Baby Einstein DVDs, mistakenly believing the videos would make their babies smarter, can recoup their money.

How did the Baby Einstein people officially react? By lashing back, and claiming no guilt:

For the past several years, Baby Einstein has been under attack by propaganda groups taking extreme positions that try to dictate what parents should do, say and buy. Our philosophy has always been to focus on creating products that parents and babies love, and to not get sidetracked and pulled down into their street fight.

We strongly believe that, unlike Linn, our consumers find value in our product, and rather than continue to fight with her, we decided it to leave it up to those consumers. That is why we extended a refund policy that was already in place. Although she would like to claim otherwise, there is nothing extraordinary about a company’s willingness to stand behind its product. To the contrary, it is the strongest possible show of confidence in it.

Finally, what’s Susan Linn’s argument? Stop corporations from limiting kids’ imaginations:

Susan Linn, the nation’s leading advocate for protecting children from corporate marketers…argues that while play is crucial to human development and children are born with an innate capacity for make believe, the convergence of ubiquitous technology and unfettered commercialism actually prevents them from playing. In modern day America, nurturing creative play is not only countercultural—it threatens corporate profits.

In an age when toys come from TV shows, dress-up means wearing Disney costumes, and parents believe Baby Einstein is educational, Dr. Linn lays out the inextricable links between play, creativity, and health, showing us why we need to protect our children from corporations that aim to limit their imaginations.

In sum: If you want to heed the study claiming too much screen time inhibits babies’ language development–and perhaps limit corporate brainwashing in the process–Baby Einstein is offering you an alternative to its DVDs.