Mascots as we know them today have been in the same style and incarnation since the 1800's. They began to spring up on high school and college playing fields during that era. Often live animals were used as the official mascots of teams, and athletes were proudly wearing a patch with the mascot on their uniform. The maintenance and upkeep of live animals became costly and cumbersome, so they were largely eliminated. They evolved to resemble the puppet-like versions we see today. Mascots are now seen as artists and entertainers with traits that now make it an art form. They have come to be an embodiment of what the team is and may correlate to the location of the team, or some other overriding characteristic that makes the team unique. Effective mascots do not learn their stage presence from a classroom. Having the ability to become one with the character and reflect this through physical action is crucial to being a believable mascot.
The person must be able to put their individuality aside and really get into character. Mascots are especially popular with children. They need to act in a way that is child-friendly and not intimidating. The more personable a mascot is, the more approachable they will be. Plus they will be well-received by fans of all ages. The position of mascot wields a lot of power over crowds at games. They have the ability to either really involve the crowd in the game, or make a poor attempt and cause the crowd to turn on them. Throughout the history of mascots, symbology is a major component that keeps rising to the surface. Mascots are often tagged with names that indicate gender and/or certain attributes. For example, a mascot called Robbie the Rabbit would indicate a male rabbit that is fast on its feet. This does a lot to create an image in the mind of fans and anyone thinking about the particular team the mascot represents. Fans will also come to expect the mascot to react in consistent and specific ways to them on a continual basis. If a mascot has a habit of doing a certain dance, fans may be disappointed if the mascot decides not to do the famous dance on game day. It is a unique job and the rich history of mascots continues to unfold as time goes by. It is a position that requires creativity, consistency, individuality, and strong symbology. Mascots may not be worshiped like they were in ancient societies, but they are powerful images etched upon the minds of fans everywhere. Many times the team is synonymous with the mascot itself.
A guide for choosing a Johnson’s baby powder attorney, women and family members of women who believe they may have grounds to file an ovarian cancer claim or talcum powder lawsuit. As news of the latest talcum powder verdict hit mainstream news sources early in 2016, attorneys handling baby powder cancer lawsuits have experienced a surge in the number of talcum powder lawsuit inquiries they receive each day. The truth of the matter is that many women have likely developed cancer from using baby powder without an awareness of the risk in the first place. Dr. Daniel Cramer, an epidemiologist and Harvard Medical School instructor who has conducted groundbreaking talcum powder cancer research, has testified that approximately 10,000 develop ovarian cancer from talcum powder every year. This estimate is based on research Dr. Cramer has conducted in conjunction with other ovarian cancer experts over the past decade; Cramer is considered a leading expert on the topic. While research has been underway on the topic of cancer from Johnson’s baby powder for several decades, very few consumers were aware of the potential risk.
American consumers typically rely on the FDA to provide warnings on harmful drugs and medical products. Because talcum powder is technically a cosmetic product that is indicated for topical use only, federal regulators say the substance is beyond their scope. Numerous citizens’ petitions, submitted by cancer research and patient advocacy groups, have been denied or ignored by federal regulators, and no talcum powder cancer warning statement has ever been issued on a national scale. In the absence of a third party warning on the risk of ovarian cancer stemming from baby powder use by women, the main source of information on the safety of talcum powder is Johnson & Johnson. The international health products conglomerate has maintained for decades that baby powder is safe for daily use by women. Internal documents produced in the recent baby powder lawsuit show J&J officials have been aware of research linking talcum powder to cancer since at least the 1980s. Concerned that the cancer connection would hurt talcum powder sales, Johnson & Johnson apparently helped to fund a task force designed to protect the interests of talcum powder producers.