Monday, December 31, 2012

HDTV/BluRay New Years Resolution Ad (Proposed)

Why not have a big box retailer make a New Years Resolution-themed ad for the newest television models? There is higher resolution available on newer HDTVs now, so it might make a fun play on words for an after Christmas sale. The ad could say: "Make a New Years Resolution to get the best resolution HDTV for your home this year!" Then they could go through all the models they have available, and show the great end-of-year savings they're offering. It might just help bring people in for the newer higher resolution TVs.

Fashionably Late

For all of my life, I have heard people use the expression "fashionably late". It would seem that lateness is always in fashion. But almost nothing else ever is in fashion for very long, so why is it that fashion designers have left the issue of punctuality out of their fashion lines? Shouldn't the fashionability of lateness fluctuate just like hem-lines and the waist-height of pants? Then it could become associated with different styles of clothing.

I think a fashion designer who makes strict, military-style business attire could really make a name for themselves if they added strict punctuality to their line, making being on time the hot new fashion trend. (Frankly, I'm surprised Helmut Lang didn't do it.) And then, with everyone always on time everywhere, our productivity would skyrocket, immediately fixing the economy! And then the designer's clothes would become mandatory at all businesses, immediately making them uncool to everyone. And then, as a result, another hot new fashion designer would design a line of extreme casual wear to rebel against the strict ideals and punctuality of the fascist formal fashion line, and as part of this rebellion, it would become fashionable to be late again. Until, of course, this slacker mentality sunk the economy into another nosedive, and then lateness would become unfashionable again.

So I wonder when I will start to hear people saying someone is "unfashionably late"?

Jaguar Machines Ad

Jaguar has a new TV commercial where over a video collage of pictures of machines (like TV sets, automated mechanical assembly lines, MRI images, etc.), an announcer drones on about different types of machines: some that help, some that want to be human, etc. Oh, but then he gets to the Jaguar! You see, it's way better than every other machine because "'s as alive as we are!"

So, does this mean that it works really well as long as we're feeling well? If we're really sick will it barely start, and then stall out left and right? And when we die, will the car die as well? Because it's an expensive car, and it would be a shame if it stopped working if a man died, and his wife wanted to drive it to be close to his memory. So it would be like he died twice! Those unfeeling guys at Jaguar, always trying to hurt the feelings of people mourning the loss of a close family member! Plus, since it's so expensive, she'd probably still get stuck paying it off forever even though it doesn't run anymore!

Why not instead say that it has the fierce spark of life of the Jaguar it's named for? But then I guess their competitors would hire hunters to make the jaguar extinct and ruin their slogan. (Those fiends!)

Here's the alive auto ad (It's alive!):

Neve Campbell's Unusual Baby Name

I can't believe it! Yet another celebrity has named their baby an unusual baby name! What a scandal this is! Why can't celebrities just use normal names like everybody else? How dare they think they can just name babies whatever they want without asking entertainment reporters if it's okay with them first? Talk about inconsiderate! Have they no sense of propriety anymore? Well, I never!

The above paragraph is how journalists seem to cover silly stories like celebrity baby naming. But as silly as this seems, it is high profile, and as such, I was thinking of something...

Hey, the Republican Party seems to be running out of issues to complain about to gain a foothold with traditional American conservatives and such, so why not use something like this? I mean, gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted, and nobody cares about critical issues like flag burning anymore (more's the pity!), so what are they going to do now? They're losing on most of their traditional issues nowadays, so they definitely need a new one. And you might ask yourself: how does one go about making a silly trivial entertainment puff piece into a wedge issue? Well, it might be accomplished by saying something like this:

Oh, my God: Yet another Hollywood liberal is using another unusual name for her child: "Caspian" (!). Well, this is obviously another Hollywood liberal trying to insult America with her baby name! I mean, Caspian is the name of a foreign body of water bordering on Iran and Russia, making this an obvious attempt to align her child with America's enemies and flip the bird at Uncle Sam! She's using her baby name as a subtle way to propagate anti-American propaganda to her fans, forcing them subliminally and against their wills to despise America just as much as she obviously does! Oh, for shame! We must band together as a nation to stop this overtly aggressive threat to our liberties as represented by these weird Hollywood baby names!

Maybe something like this could really reinvigorate the Republican base, don't you think?

Here's the cute, conniving celebrity baby name conspiracy:

Stage Fright Glasses

I remember reading that Mitch Hedberg, one of my favorite comedians, had stage fright while performing, and that's why he used to wear sunglasses a lot on stage, as well as not facing the audience sometimes. Well, if he still had to turn away from the audience, then maybe the glasses didn't work well enough. That's why there's a new breakthrough in performance glasses technology: Stage Fright Glasses! Here's how they work:

Like many cool sunglasses, Stage Fright glasses are mirror sunglasses with a one-way mirror lens. But what's revolutionary about Stage Fright Glasses is that the mirror side of the lens is on the inside of the glasses, facing your eyes! That way, the wearer cannot see what is in front of them! And, as a special bonus, installing the lenses in this manner permits the audience to see the performer's eyes, so they don't lose the element of personal connection that's so critical for audience identification! So they really have two great features in just one pair of glasses! (Now how much would you pay?) And this way, both the performer and the audience have the best possible experience!

That's "Stage Fright Glasses": Order yours today!

Of course, the only problem with the Stage Fright Glasses is that with the mirrored lenses facing in towards the eyes, it can look to the wearer as though a giant pair of eyes is staring directly at them, potentially making them even more nervous than the audience would. And in that case, perhaps a newer technology will be required: glasses that have video cameras on the inside of the lenses, and video screens on the outside. Then the inside of the lens can be opaque, and the performer's eyes can still be seen by the audience. But it might be a little dark in there for a camera, so the glasses might need little lights to light the wearer's eyes, causing the glasses to feel like they are giving the wearer the "third degree", and making them even more nervous than ever. So then, even newer technology will have to be used, where the glasses are just black on the inside, and the outside of the lenses are screens that play prerecorded video of the performer's eyes. That way the wearer really can't see anything, but the audience can still see their eyes. Well, sort of, anyway.

Of course, the only problem with these is that the wearer can't see anything at all, and might fall off the stage. So wear them at your own risk! And give us a break already: after all, we didn't say we could solve all your problems!

Wrangler Brett Favre Ad

Wrangler jeans have been using Brett Favre in their ads for a while now, but Dale Earnhadt, Jr. talks about how they are so comfortable, have plenty of space inside so they won't squeeze your privates to death, etc. But you know, I believe they are wasting a great opportunity for a memorable ad campaign here! Since they are using Brett Favre, why not use anecdotes about him we all know to help us remember what it is about these jeans we should know, and why we might want to buy them? Here's what I mean:

Why not have Brett Favre (instead of Dale Earnhardt, Jr.) say the jeans have lots of room, so they won't make you uncomfortable by crushing your junk? And then they could have Favre lying on a bed naked, like he was in that infamous photo he sent that Jets cheerleader, and he could say: "I didn't always wear Wrangler. In the past, my jeans were so uncomfortable, I used to have to text people naked, and I must have taken a picture of myself like that by mistake and I guess I accidentally sent it to someone, creating lots of embarrassment for me and everyone else all around. But now that I've found Wrangler, that will never happen again! I sure wish I had worn Wranglers sooner, and I'll bet everyone else does too!" And then Dale Earnhardt, Jr. could say: "Damn straight!"

Here is an example of a Brett Favre/Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Wrangler ad:

Aroma Shock Therapy

We all know about aromatherapy, and how it can help soothe people's nerves. But what if their nerves got a little too soothed and they fall into a stupor? Well, fear not, that's why there is the miracle treatment: aroma shock therapy. Here's how it works: whereas pleasant scents can help calm one's nerves, awful stenches can fray the nerves, and this leads to a therapeutic shock to the system. It's the olfactory version of shock treatment.

So, with this therapeutic goal of a stimulating jolt to the senses in mind, what kinds of scents are used? Well, therapists have studied this and have found the strongest, most pungent scents to be the most effective. There's ammonia, sulfur, feces, putrefaction, etc. Any strong, acrid aroma will do, shocking the system back to life. It's really just a boutique version of smelling salts turned into oils and scented candles for the hoity-toity crowd.

Here are some customized mixes of therapeutic aromas for the specialized market of do-it-yourself scent self-medicators (made by your friends at the Old Olfactory Factory):

Morning by the Paper Mill
Over by the Oil Refinery
Dusk at the Dump
Sunset over the Sewage Treatment Plant
Afternoon at the Abattoir

And here is the new collection from the most fashionable haute couture aroma shock therapy designers at The Putrefaction Faction:

Intestinal Intrigue
Odor Eater's Banquet
Toilet Treat
Diaper Delight
Burning Hair Barrage
Drenched Doggie
Festering Fish
The Gift of Garbage
Smelly Stench Surprise

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Obama Gives More Welfare Dollars to the Most Unproductive Americans

Yes, President Obama has given even more of our hard-earned tax dollars to the most unproductive of us all: Members of Congress. They all get a raise. Oh, and Biden gets one too, I guess because his gaffe-a-thons keep the critical eyes of journalists off the president and his policies. (I really do think that's why he picked Biden for vice president; just like why Bush 41 picked Dan Quayle, I guess.)

But I have to wonder, is the raise for Congress intended as a payoff for an upcoming fiscal cliff deal and raising the debt ceiling, or is it a bonus for artificially inflating the president's approval rating with their permanent impasse on necessary legislation compromises? (Just kidding! No accusations here. But still, it's the only reason I can think of for why they might get a pay raise in Congress.)

Here's the sickening story:

Actually, you know what? I think I know why President Obama has really given Congress a raise: After watching every Wall Street bank, insurance company, etc. that needed a taxpayer-funded bailout give huge bonuses to all their top executives for running their companies into the ground, and then watching all of his failed green energy companies do the same thing all over again with taxpayer money, and then not doing anything about it as it happened again and again, time after time, I guess the president just gave up and said: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" (Except that he didn't try to beat them, or even try to stop them.)

Senate Prayer

In a CNN show on the fiscal cliff this morning, the show jumped to a live shot of the Senate opening a session, and they showed an opening prayer.

Hey! What happened to the separation of church and state? The government is constantly telling everyone that they can't have public prayers anywhere, not even at graduations, due to the separation of church and state; but then there they are, our own Senate, having a public prayer for themselves on live TV! What a bunch of hypocrites! Unless...

Hey, I'll bet I know what's going on here! It's not that there's a constitutionality issue with regular Americans having a group prayer, it's just that the Senate wants to have God's complete and undivided attention all to themselves. And so by banning others from being allowed to pray, they are making sure that God will only hear their prayer! But if I can see through this ruse as a mere mortal, then surely God sees through this too. And maybe that's why their approval rating is so low (although it's more likely the awful job they're doing).

EZ Covers

Yes, it's EZ Covers, the miracle solution to your chair seat problems! (If you have any...) The revolutionary design works for any chair! Now how much would you pay?

Yes, it's EZ covers, essentially a little seat cover with an elastic thingy that works like a fitted sheet. And since they already show us how it works in the ad, rather than spend so much time trying to explain it all, why not just tell us what it is in a memorable slogan: "EZ Covers: The Fitted Sheet for Your Seat!"

Or would that give away too many trade secrets (that they give away anyway in the commercial)?

Here is this silly spot for the must-have chair covers that are not sold in stores (because nobody would buy them):

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Happy Honda Days Ends Soon

The local Honda dealerships have been running their holiday ads, and the most recent one says to hurry up and buy a car from them soon, because "Happy Honda Days ends soon!" But the first thing this made me wonder was, what comes next after Happy Honda Days? Sad Honda Days? Angry Honda Days? Regretful Honda Days? Resentful Honda Days?

I'm not trying to give Honda a hard time, but when someone says that Happy Honda Days ends soon, then it's the natural question that pops into one's head. Don't you think so?

Might I suggest the less make-fun-of-able: "Happy Honda Days deals are ending soon!"

Here's an example of this ad campaign:

Obama's Roundabout Gun Control Policy?

President Obama has said recently that he will use all of the powers open to him and his office of President of the United States to pass meaningful gun control. Oh, but this will not be so easy to do through usual channels, where many members of Congress are under the thumb of the gun lobby. So what to do? Well, President Obama is a sneaky politician, used to using Chicago "hardball" politics, so here's what I think he might do:

Unable to get meaningful gun control in Congress, President Obama could dissolve Congress and declare himself dictator. Then, in a public address to the nation, he could turn America communist, and publicly burn the US Constitution. Then gun nuts, conservatives and militia types would stage an armed revolt, bearing all their arms for the cause, only to be quickly put down by the military. Then President Obama would reveal that he had only burned a gift shop version of the US Constitution, and he could say the whole thing was just a big joke. (He could do it on April Fool's Day.)

Oh, but then the liberal media could spin this story into saying that gun owners always want to kill everyone and that they have always wanted to overthrow the government, etc., and that we must take all their guns away. Then President Obama would reinstate the US Constitution, but with the Second Amendment removed with Liquid Paper. And that way, he could ban guns, and make the whole thing look like someone else's fault. (And based on how he is eating the Republicans' lunch on this fiscal cliff deal, I'd say he could get away with this too.)

(This is just a joke, by the way. I doubt President Obama is going to try to take everyone's guns. But if gun owners act irresponsible and crazy, like by buying out every gun and bullet in sight after every spree shooting, he might start to think he ought to.)

Spiriva Elephant Ads: The Blowback?

Spiriva is still making ads showing elephants crushing old people with COPD by sitting on them. At first I thought this was a proxy war by Democrats to besmirch Republicans by showing the Republican mascot (an elephant) crushing and oppressing old people. Oh, but now I see the true nefarious plan!

This is PeTA who is behind this ad! They're showing ads which depict elephants as mean-spirited animals who like to sit on defenseless people, and this will rile our notoriously reactionary populace up against them! And then we will see vigilantes hunting down captive elephants and attacking them in revenge for what the elephants (allegedly) do to COPD sufferers in the Spiriva ads.

Oh, but this is exactly what PeTA wants to see happen! Because only then can they provide numerous simultaneous reports of elephant abuse! Animals rights groups just had to pay a huge settlement to Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus ($9.3 Million), and they didn't even save any elephants (!). But if PeTA can pull this off through their obvious bait & switch Spiriva ads, they can demonstrate how elephants are threatened by the populace at large, and how even the circus elephants might become targets, with people assuming they are hired out by the circus to sit on old people. And then they could get all the captive elephants free from their day jobs: Hooray!

Oh, but then we'd have record elephant unemployment in America, and elephants would have no choice but to work for the Republican Party as mascots. And once they get used to working for Republicans, they might be deployed to go sit on high-profile Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (!!). So I hope you all see now the unintended consequences of the policies of groups like these!

(I hope you all realize this is only a silly joke.)

Here's the Spiriva spot:

And here's the ASPCA settlement story:

Ready to go extinct?

Neil deGrasse Tyson was on NPR today, talking about the universe and Earth and stuff. And somewhere in his monologue about how Earth is made up of about equal proportions of what everything else in the universe is (Yes, they have gone out and secretly tested everything in the universe, compiled all the materials and the percentages thereof, and then tested the whole entire Earth, and that's how they know!), he went off on this little tangent about dinosaurs, where he said: "68 Million years ago, when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth*, ready to go extinct..." And that's right about where I had to call foul.

Really? The dinosaurs were ready to go extinct? Are you sure? How do you know? Have paleontologists found fossilized dinosaur diaries saying stuff like: "I can't go on. Everything seems so futile. All I ever do is wander around, attacking and murdering, and then eating other dinosaurs. My conscience can't handle this immorality any longer! Surely there must be more to existence than this? Goodbye cruel world..." Or maybe there are dinosaur libraries full of morbid, nihilistic dinosaur philosophical texts on microfiche, written in the years immediately preceding the mass extinction, leading us to an understanding of their desperation approaching this jurassic fin de siecle? Or is there newly unearthed evidence of massive dinosaur apocalypse parties, along with lots of dinosaur church services where they were all repenting? Because if not, then how do we know that the dinosaurs weren't taken completely by surprise, kicking and screaming, and fighting for their every last breath?

Yeah, it's stuff like this that makes me wonder why anyone trusts scientists at all. They exaggerate what they really know on a heroic scale, they make giant monsters with their atomic experiments (just check any 1950s "science fiction" movie for proof of this: they say it's fiction, but it's all true!), and now they're probably cloning dinosaurs like in that documentary I saw about a Jurassic theme park. And we trust these guys? How do we know they're not making their cloned dinosaurs drink Dr. Jekyll's Mr. Hyde formula, turning them into super sadistic dinomaniacs? And Neil deGrasse Tyson is obviously saying dinosaurs wanted to go extinct so that he can use that as a way to ameliorate our panicked concerns when we find out about their evil military dinosaur weapons program, like scientists did in that movie Alien! (They always want to turn everything into a weapon: Oh, the humanity!)

Oh, but maybe I'm being unfair to deGrasse Tyson here. Perhaps the good doctor isn't trying to clone dinosaurs for genetic military applications, so much as he's trying to save the world from another threat. Yes, you see, if people got the impression that the dinosaurs were all killed, and that's why we're here now, then animal rights activists will surely protest all of humanity, claiming we all have the blood of innocent dinosaurs on our hands, and that we're all dancing on the graves of millions of murdered dinosaurs. Then the only way we will be able to redeem ourselves would be to clone dinosaurs and feed ourselves to them as penance. And that's probably why he said the dinosaurs were "ready to go extinct": to save humanity. (Unless he only did that to trick us into thinking he wants to save humanity, so he can then destroy us all later with his current dinosaur weapons project, and we won't suspect until it's too late! Well, don't say I didn't try to warn you when it happens...)

* (BTW: If they were ready to go extinct, maybe this is why dinosaurs "roamed the Earth", rather than intentionally traveling to specific places with a sense of purpose? Perhaps they roamed as in meandered randomly, without any feelings of meaning or joy in their lives.)

Breast-O Change-O

How about a new chain of cosmetic surgery outlets specializing in breast-enhancement surgery? The business could be called "Breast-O Change-O", and they could have an animated neon sign that shows a magician with a magic wand turning a girl with a flat chest into one with big boobs. And, naturally, their slogan would be: "Gives you a magic chest!" (And their ads could scream: "The wizards at Breast-O Change-O will give you a 'magic chest', guaranteed!")

Romantic Comedies Threatening Jobs?

My sister was watching a movie on her laptop today, and when I asked her what she was watching, she said: "Crossing Delancey: It's a movie about a woman meeting someone nice through a matchmaker. But there's a real jerk guy in it, so of course she likes the jerk. But by the end she realizes her mistake and marries the nice guy." Well, this is often the type of thing that happens in a romantic comedy, right? And if this message resonates with people, they might marry nice people instead of jerks, which could threaten a key career demographic in this already sagging economy: divorce lawyers.

Well, recognizing this threat from Hollywood on this fine upstanding pillar of our society, I felt I simply had to help. And remembering how other groups protest, picket, boycott, etc., other movies, like religious Christians did with The Last Temptation of Christ, and like animal rights people do with movies using trained animals, it dawned on me that perhaps the divorce lawyers lobby could protest rom-coms that send this dangerous message of not marrying abusive, manipulative jerks that threatens their livelihood. And then perhaps they could lobby Congress, claiming these films will harm the economy. But they needn't push for an outright ban, either: after all, movies employ lots of people too; what they ought to do is insist that Hollywood merely tack an unhappy ending onto every romantic comedy's previously happy ending showing the married couple a few years down the road fighting and getting divorced, proving that no matter who you marry, it will all go wrong someday. Then, naturally, they would have to tack on a public service announcement for the divorce lawyers association, showing how helpful they can be in such a situation.

In fact, maybe the divorce lawyers association could start their own movie studio, producing rom-coms of their own! (After all, they earn a lot of money as divorce lawyers. And what else should one do with obscene amounts of money than use it to make even more money? Plus, they could force popular actors and directors make movies for them as part of their fee when these stars get divorced.) And in these romantic comedies, everyone marries the wrong person, becomes completely miserable, pines away for someone nicer they rejected but should have married, leading to a new version of the rom-com happy ending: a divorce that makes everyone feel liberated and alive again! And then after the credits roll, we see a new wedding scene of the currently happy couple, and as it fades to black at the very end, we hear horror movie-style music filled with a dark foreboding...

Friday, December 28, 2012

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter Meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer (New Movie?)

Hey, how about a buddy vampire slayer movie? And Lincoln is really hot right now, especially since the word got out that he was also a vampire hunter! (I'm surprised Spielberg didn't put at least one scene of Lincoln hunting vampires in his movie Lincoln, you know, just for the sake of realism. Because after all, hunting vampires is believable enough, but getting critically important stuff done in Congress? That's obviously just whimsical fantasy.) And who better to join our greatest president in his hunt for vampires than the greatest vampire slayer of them all: Buffy? And Giles could be appointed Secretary of Vampire Hunting. Who wouldn't want to see that movie? (Besides, Lincoln movies never have enough hot chicks in them, so Sarah Michelle Gellar would be very welcome in a movie about Abraham Lincoln for a change! And naturally, it wouldn't be Buffy without Alyson Hannigan! {It could launch her new career path of historical movies.})

GMC Trucks "Nutcracker" Ad

I just saw again what I suppose is a Christmas-themed commercial for a GMC pickup truck that shows the truck driving over rough snowy terrain and crashing down from a big bump, after which the announcer says it's a "nutcracker". Um, does that mean it has crappy shock absorbers, extremely unforgiving or minimalist suspension, etc.? Because that's what it seems like they are suggesting.

What if I don't want my nuts to be cracked while driving a pickup truck? Do they make one that is more comfortable, or should I shop elsewhere for a pickup truck? I mean, surely even the toughest of pickup truck driving tough guys would still prefer not to drive a pickup truck that makes the driver feel like they're being kicked in the nuts, right? I'd think that kind of thing could lead to distracted driving that's even worse than texting!

But if having a nutcracker of a ride is really supposed to be a desirable feature of a pickup truck, the guy should have said: "It's a nutcracker: sweet!" (Because after all, the music they are using in the ad is the "Nutcracker Suite". Or wouldn't tough truck guys have recognized or understood the "Nutcracker Suite" reference? And if not, doesn't that beg the question: why use the music at all, and why reference it by calling the truck a "nutcracker"? {And another thing: Shouldn't they play a heavy metal version of the Nutcracker Suite for a tough pickup truck commercial?})

Here's the nutcracking spot:

Mayan Temple Damaged by End of World Partiers

An ABC News story today claims that revelers celebrating the "end of the world" have irreparably damaged an important Mayan temple in Tikal in Guatemala. Truly this is a tragic loss to all of humanity, as it is whenever any ancient monuments are damaged or destroyed. But to be fair to the drunken revelers who damaged the historic site, they did think it was going to be the end of the world, so they figured it wouldn't make any difference if they damaged something that wasn't going to exist any longer than a few more hours. And when you think about it, isn't it really the Maya's own fault for making everyone think the world was going to end? I mean, it's upsetting for something like this to happen to the Maya's site, but maybe next time, if they want people not to damage their stuff like this, they ought to stop doing the doomsday predictions, or at the very least, say some other ancient culture predicted it so everyone will go damage that culture's ancient temples instead. If they really could see the future, they would have known that.

Here is the sad story (which, despite my joking about it here, really is a drag, because it can't be fixed):

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Tommy Bahama's Dark Side?

Hey, Tommy Bahama makes cool clothes, but they seem like they are for regular cool guys. But how about a Tommy Bahama brand especially for dangerous types? That's why there's the new Tommy Bermuda Triangle: It's the dark side of Tommy Bahama! (And for the wildest of dangerous pants, get Tommy Bermuda Triangle's "Bermuda Triangle Shorts"!)

Here are some prospective advertising slogans for Tommy Bermuda Triangle:

Tommy Bermuda Traingle Clothes: Get Lost in Them!

Tommy Bermuda Triangle's "Bermuda Triangle Shorts": It's Dangerous in There!

Rogaine "Hairy Potter" (Joke) Ad

My brother-in-law just got some huge collector's box of all the Harry Potter movies and collector things, so naturally we've been talking about Harry Potter stuff. And it occurred to me that calling him "Hairy Potter" might make a fun ad for Rogaine. So Harry Potter could say he used to be a "Baldie-mort" like Voldemort until he used Rogaine and became "Hairy Potter"! And it was Baldie-mort Voldemort's jealousy about Hairy Potter's new hair that caused him to attack Harry, leaving the lightning bolt on his forehead. For it wasn't a death curse, but a curse on Harry's new hair that Voldemort attacked Harry with. But Rogaine is so powerful, not even Voldemort's baldness spells can work against its hair-growing power! (And this would help to explain why it is that Lord Voldemort is always so mean to everyone: he's mad because he's bald, and he wants to punish everyone else for having nice hair.)

And then if this ad sells lots more Rogaine, then it will be time to get Cousin It to endorse Rogaine too! After all, how else do you suppose Cousin It was able to grow all that hair?

"Psycho" Therapy

Yes, now there is Psycho Therapy: psychological therapy designed around the movie Psycho! This uses scenes and characters and plot elements from the movie Psycho in an attempt to help patients overcome their psychological problems. Here's how it works:

As many of us know, Freud considered that most people's psychological problems were centered on parental issues, many of them stemming from mother issues. Well, in Psycho Therapy, patients receive a therapist who dresses and acts like Norman Bates's mother; and after a little while of that kind of oppressive, obsessive relationship, patients will realize how trivial their mother troubles are compared to Norman Bates's, and they'll just get over it and cure themselves. That way, patients can finally "bury the hatchet", so to speak, with their mother. (Of course, if they bury the hatchet in their mother, the hospital will deny any and all responsibility, or even ever having met or treated them. But that doesn't happen that often.)

And for other troubles like addictions and compulsive behavior, Psycho Therapy simply seeks to convince the patient that if they don't stop their destructive behavior, they will get murdered just like in the shower scene from the movie Psycho. So each and every time the patient tries to sneak off to smoke a cigarette, or whatever their bad habit is, someone dressed as Norman Bates dressed-up as his mother arrives with a huge kitchen knife in hand and chases them around, pretending to try to kill them. And after this horrifying threat-therapy, patients generally defeat the unwanted habits. So the threatment is very effective.

Of course, advanced expert treatment like Psycho Therapy is expensive. It generally runs around $40,000.00, and patients must pay by hiding the money in a folded-up newspaper.

That's Psycho Therapy: Try it today!

Noah Reviews "Life of Pi"

Yes, the biblical Noah (of the ark fame) has seen the movie Life of Pi, and he's not very impressed with it. He said of the film: "You think that's impressive? Let me see him try it with two tigers, male and female, and with two of every other kind of animal on Earth, and let's see him keep them from attacking and eating each other: that's what I had to do!"

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

The Matrix and the Failure of the Mayan Apocalypse

I recently noticed an article claiming we might all be living in a computer simulation, like in the movie The Matrix, and they're going to do a study on it, based upon what a computer might do under certain circumstances. (I wonder who is paying for it? Our tax dollars at work, I'm guessing? This is probably why we're so broke.)

Um, first of all, if we're in a computer simulation, what makes these science nerds think that simulation is running the same kind of binary code and programming as we use?* (And if it isn't, then wouldn't the results be wrong?) Isn't that arrogant? It's like saying you understand God and how He thinks. Don't you think? I mean, maybe they're right, but just because their test fails, it doesn't necessarily mean we're not in a computer simulation, because maybe they don't know what to test for to check. (I can't believe I'm actually arguing in favor of being in a computer simulation. Although really it's not that, so much as I'm arguing that scientists so often don't know how to accurately design their studies to reliably test for what they think they're looking for, because so often they are so close to the problem, they can't step back and see the bigger picture due to "tunnel vision".)

Also, if we're really in a computer simulation, does the Mayan Apocalypse not happening indicate the program is flawed, or was that whole prophecy intentionally programmed into it just to mess with us? And maybe by having it not happen, we were supposed to be tricked into thinking we're not in a computer simulation? Or maybe we were supposed to spaz all out and destroy the world through a self-fulfilling prophecy (so that we would end all of our "existences", and as such we wouldn't be around any longer to progress far enough scientifically to accurately discover that we are all, in fact, living in a computer simulation), but we're too fat and lazy to actually do it anymore, and the program never accounted for McDonald's's cheap and delicious, fattening hamburgers? (McDonald's became self-aware!)

And wouldn't it be the ultimate insult to jocks who hate computer nerds to find out we're all in a computer simulation? Or would that simply indicate that jocks are computer nerds in the next level up of existence? (And if that's true, then how do the nerds compensate there?)

I hope you weren't stoned when you read this. (I mean, that's assuming you bothered to entertain all my fragmented thoughts.) But isn't it amusing that nobody ever seems to have bothered to ask these questions before? (Or were they suppressed so as to keep people from thinking too much about it so everyone would continue to believe what they were told?)

* (There is a theory among physicists that our universe may be only one among many, and that the laws that govern our universe may be unique to this universe, and may not apply anywhere else. This is not theologians saying this: it's scientists. So, with this in mind {I understand it's only a theory, but so is much of what we accept as scientific truth, really}, how can we even begin to comprehend, never mind test for, anything that occurs outside of our own universe, with its clearly defined, although not completely understood {by us, anyway}, set of rules? But scientists are smart and stuff, so I'm sure they'll figure it all out! And if they don't, then surely they will make it so difficult to understand through obtuse scientific gobbledygook and complex mathematics that most of us will never even know the difference enough to challenge them on their findings anyway. That way we won't be able to ask them any embarrassing questions and show them up.)

The Texas Ping-Pong Massacre

A few days ago, in the wake of the numerous recent spree shootings, a representative from Texas (Texas State Rep. Kyle Kacal. Surprisingly, he is a Republican. Go figure.) claimed that ping-pong is more dangerous than guns. This exposed a dangerous and deadly fact of life in Texas society they have tried to play down: ping-pong deaths in Texas are the highest in the nation. And that being the case, I think we really need to raise awareness about this deadly problem, you know, out of a sense of responsibility. We can be the generation that forever ends the scourge of ping-pong related deaths once and for all! And as we all know, there is no better way to raise awareness about a problem in society than to make a horror movie about it, to scare people into doing something about it. After all, ever since the film The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, chain saw massacres dropped off to their lowest level in decades. And once people stopped taking the threat seriously enough and Texas saw an uptick in chain saw massacres again, concerned filmmakers produced a remake of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

So to save the innocent young lives lost to ping-pong every year in Texas, I propose making a movie to raise awareness of the issue: The Texas Ping-Pong Massacre. In this movie, a group of unwary teenagers get lost in backwoods Texas and stumble upon a local rural gymnasium with an apparent flurry of activity inside. Hoping to ask directions from the locals, our doomed heroes enter the gymnasium only to find that it is being used for (Gasp!) ping-pong (!!!). And once through that door, it is too late for them to extricate themselves: the inbred locals viciously assail them with deadly ping-pong! Ball after cruel ball is served at them, bouncing off of them one-by-one with the taunting hollow sound that torments them body and soul! Needless to say, none of them survive, proving once and for all that ping-pong is deadlier than guns, at least in Texas. (If only one of them had been armed with a ping-pong paddle and some ping-pong balls of their own, maybe they would have had a fighting chance and they might have escaped with their lives, for only a good guy with a ping-pong paddle can stop a bad guy using ping-pong as a weapon.)

Judi Dentures?

Ever since the classic annoying ad campaign from my childhood where Olympic skier Suzy Chaffee became "Suzy Chapstick", I have enjoyed thinking up other possibilities for celebrity product advertising endorsements incorporating silly name changes. And now that Dame Judi Dench is getting older, how about having her become Judi Dentures for Polident? She could say that as an actress, having a beautiful smile is a must! And that's why she uses Polident to get her dentures their absolute cleanest and whitest! And then she could say that as a Briton, the local dentistry was so appallingly bad, she decided to remove all her teeth and replace them with dentures as the only way to get a beautiful smile in England. (Just kidding! She probably has all her own teeth and they look fine. It's just a lazy joke we like to make in America to get revenge on England for inflicting Piers Morgan on us.) And Polident has made her dentures so consistently beautiful and hassle-free, she has decided to change her name to Judi Dentures to help spread the word about how great Polident is! (And after that campaign runs for a while, making everyone want to get dentures and use Polident, they can get a celebrity named Polly to become Polly Dent for the next campaign!)

Here's an article about Suzy Chaffee, including the ad I remember from when I was a little kid:

The Politics of "The Time Machine"

I just saw the great classic 1960 sic-fi film The Time Machine again today, and it struck me for the first time what right wing political propaganda the movie espouses. Looking at its futuristic scenario, this can be seen as an allegorical indictment of social programs and their eventual impact upon society. Here's what I mean:

In The Time Machine, Rod Taylor creates a time machine (the eponymous time machine of the film's title), and in it he takes an enormous leap forward in time, traveling ahead to approximately the year 800,000. And upon arriving there, he finds a bunch of willfully ignorant, lazy hippies who just sit around all day and accomplish nothing, motivated not the least bit to build, learn, invent, etc. So then, how do they survive? Well, all their food and clothes are provided for them by the unseen Morlocks, who can be seen as a stand-in for the government. And as we can see, having the government provide everything for them makes them all lazy, rudderless good-for-nothings, incapable of taking care of themselves anymore. Except that we see they are good for one thing: food for the Morlocks! (Yum!)

(A-Ha! This is obviously the end game of all social program provisions: the government is lulling us into a false sense of security while slowly removing our ability for self-preservation so we can't escape and they can eat us! I knew it!)

So, seen from a certain perspective, this movie bashes big government and indicates that a populace that permits the government to provide too much support ends up losing the drive to accomplish, any sense of personal responsibility, and the ability and desire to take care of oneself. In fact, once you see how it can be viewed in this way, it's really hard not to think it was intentional. After all, this was during the most dangerous period of the Cold War, and there is a big nuclear war scene which destroys modern society in the movie. And then to depict future society as a commune where the blindly ignorant populace is wholly victimized and literally bred for the slaughter by those who provide for them; it certainly appears to be a condemnation of communism/socialism, doesn't it?

The thing is, I'm not sure the filmmakers meant to communicate this particular reading of the story. Maybe they did, and maybe they just wanted to make an exciting adventure that preaches nuclear arms control and shows its hero saving a bunch of good-looking youths.*  I really only thought about it like this in joking with my sister about how the movie was "obviously made by the Tea Party to warn of President Morlock Obama's evil plan to cannibalize us all." (I like joking about bogus political conspiracies, if you haven't noticed.)

And notice also that the hero of the movie destroys the Morlocks' social programs of feeding and clothing the Eloi, forcing the Eloi to take responsibility for their own future, and forcing them all into wage-slavery! (We don't get to see his free-market capitalist exploitation of this easily manipulated workforce, but I'm sure they were going to show us in the sequel: The Time Machine, Part 2: Exploit the Future.) In fact, the only reason he went to the future to begin with was to find a non-unionized labor pool to exploit in futuristic sweatshop assembly lines to manufacture his products, and then he takes them back in his time machine to sell at below cost, undermining the 1899 union product and breaking the back of the unions so he can solely monopolize industry as the top of the financial food chain! You know it's true! This is the Republican threat of the future! (Why else do you think President Obama pulled the plug on NASA? It was to stop the Republicans' secret anti-union time machine project!)

This is The Time Machine:

* (It's difficult to show one unarmed guy saving a whole society when said society can already defend themselves, provide for themselves, think for themselves, etc.; so this part of the plot that can be viewed in a conservative political light may be entirely incidental and merely a lazy plot mechanism that permits the hero to save the day and appear heroic.)

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Gingerbread Men: Tasty Treat or Symbol of Patriarchal Oppression?

Tonight at my family Christmas shindig, I saw something disturbing. The children at this party were enjoying two holiday staples: gingerbread men and gingerbread houses. But where are the gingerbread women? Oh, I suppose their place is in the gingerbread kitchen, eh gingerbread industry? How come only the gingerbread men get any face time with holiday revelers? Or are they simply the realtors for the gingerbread houses? Well let me tell you something: women have equal rights in our society, and if gingerbread men are continuing the era of gender inequality and repression, then perhaps we won't even chew their legs, arms, and heads off anymore, you sexist pigs! How dare you attempt to indoctrinate our children with subtle sexist propaganda!

But maybe I'm being overly hasty and reactionary here. Perhaps these gingerbread men are not repressing the gingerbread women so much as they are sacrificing themselves to ensure their safety. After all, it's the gingerbread men who get gobbled up by children, masticated while yet alive, screaming their desperate silent screams of protest, all to distract kids from devouring the gingerbread women the gingerbread men so love and cherish.

But even so, isn't this just like inequality in the military or something? Are these gingerbread men suggesting that gingerbread women are not capable of fending for themselves? The nerve of these chauvinists, automatically assuming gingerbread women are inferior! Well, I never! And perhaps these gingerbread men even consider themselves superior in every aspect, including flavor, texture, deliciousness, simply based upon their gender? Talk about gender bias! Shame on these troglodytes!

This bigotry shall not stand! Sexism has no place in our cookie treats! From now on, in the interest of gender equality, I say we must have both gingerbread men and gingerbread women, or else we should ban them in favor of ginger snaps from now on, or at least until gingerbread views on gender equality evolve to a more equitable policy. As it stands now, these gingerbread men seem just as misogynist as the Taliban, leading me to wonder: is this the new threat to our democracy? Are gingerbread men trying to end women's suffrage and replace it with women's suffering? Well if that's the case, then there's only one thing to do with these chauvinist cookies: chew them up and spit them out!

NetFlix Streaming Outage

Yesterday, on Christmas Eve, an outage at one of's service centers led to a massive failure of the NetFlix streaming service, forcing millions of families to actually visit with one another. The online home video giant's Internet streaming service, the largest in the world, has provided awkward families who do not really like each other with the perfect excuse to avoid communicating while at the same time providing the illusion of socializing through collective movie watching, and many families across Americas have grown dependent upon the service to make family gatherings bearable. But the unexpected failure of this critical service at this festive time of year, when family gatherings are the most likely than at any other time of year aside from Thanksgiving, has sadly forced everyone into a corner, with their backs up against a wall, until tragically they were forced to do the unthinkable: actually visit with their families.

But tech experts say that while both NetFlix and Amazon should be very ashamed and equally blamed for this shocking situation, it's not really entirely the fault of streaming movies that the American family has become so isolated from one another, forcing them to act out a charade of pretend affectionate pantomime. After all, isn't it really cellular telephones and social media that have trained us all to ignore each other so thoroughly during in-person face time? But despite the uncomfortable awkwardness that comes from not knowing what to say, it could be worse; for thanks in part to the miracle of modern technology, there are options for how to approach communication with extended family members when unexpected disasters like movie streaming outages occur. And of course I am speaking of social media and texting through smartphones. (You can communicate with family through your smartphone, or you can completely ignore them altogether while engaging in communications with others, both real and imagined.)

Yes, sociologists and tech gurus recommend using text messaging and Facebook updates accessed via smartphones to communicate with family if for some reason movie streaming outages occur, video games break down, etc. Communication avenues can open up with surprising clarity when people treat their family members like they are far away, despite being in the same room with them. So the next time a NetFlix outage occurs at the worst possible time, don't panic. Simply use your smartphone to communicate, and everyone will be able to handle the situation. But whatever you do, don't try to talk directly face-to-face: it is considered rude and intrusive in today's modern culture, as evidenced by how everyone eating together in restaurants always just look at their smartphones the whole time; it's how people communicate nowadays.

Here's the streaming story:

Beyonce Gift Wrapping Ad?

As my family sat on the floor wrapping Christmas gifts at the last minute for the annual family shindig, my sister told her daughter, regarding a gift she just finished wrapping: "We should really put a ribbon on that." And then it occurred to me that the Beyonce song "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" could be used to great effect (with slightly modified lyrics) as an advertising jingle for a gift wrapping service from some big retailer, where they charge a nominal fee to wrap your gifts for you, like And here's how it would go:

"So they'll like it you should really put a ribbon on it!" (repeat)

And while this line is sung a few times in a row, as in the Beyonce song's chorus, the video could show beautifully wrapped gifts with big ribbons and bows on them, with delighted people receiving these gifts, smiling ear-to-ear in anticipation of opening them, and hugging those who give them the gifts. It would meld one of the most popular songs in recent years with a wonderfully warm scene, depicting the service in a positively glowing light. And isn't that what advertising is all about: making the product/service look good and desirable in a memorable fashion? (Too bad so many ads leave people wondering: what was that supposed to be an ad for again?)

Oil Company (Joke) Christmas Ad

Hey, we all know about how oil company ads are all about distracting us from pollution, greenhouse gasses, climate change, oil prices, etc., right? Well, then how about a Christmas-themed ad related to the melting Arctic ice-cap? Here's how it might play out:

A benign-seeming spokesman for the oil industry (or a specific oil company) could come out onto a Christmasy-looking set and say: "We're all concerned about climate change, and what it's doing to the North Pole. And with the melting Arctic ice, countries are looking for drilling rights and more oil exploration. And that's why we at (whatever company) are working with Santa Claus to move Santa's workshop to the South Pole, so all the good children of the world will continue to get the presents they want at this festive time of year.

"But wishes aren't just for children, and that's why Santa Claus has given his blessing to drill his former homeland for riches, so adults can share in the joys of Christmas too, with untold wealth from oil and natural gas and diamonds: it's Santa's gift to adults; and like most adult things worth having, we have to work for them. But despite dressing in red and looking like Karl Marx and giving free stuff away, Santa Claus is no commie: and that's why he's letting us strip-mine the North Pole. It's his gift to us, but we still have to earn it.

"(Whatever oil company): keeping Christmas safe for future generations while exploiting the natural resources we need to keep America strong." (And then a couple dressed as Santa and Mrs. Claus would walk out with a couple of suitcases each, greet the spokesman and heartily shake hands, as movers arrive on set to help move Santa's stuff.)

Norad Santa Tracker

Norad is tracking Santa Claus? A-Ha! This is part of the "War on Christmas", isn't it? Democrats have commanded the military to target Santa and destroy him for being non-inclusive, haven't they? I knew it!

Why else would Norad be tracking Santa Claus? (I mean, sure, they used to do it during Republican administrations too, but that was obviously just to protect him! Now he's in their sights and marked as a target! You know it's true!)

Well, anyone who doesn't get exactly what they wished for for Christmas, be it world peace, or the girl/guy of their dreams proposing to them, you'll know what happened: they killed Santa Claus! (Try to claim now that the "War on Christmas" isn't real!)

(Just kidding! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone! Santa will surely fulfill your every wish without fail! Unless...)

Monday, December 24, 2012

Orkin 'Twas the Night Before Christmas Ad (Proposed)

This classic Christmas Eve poem makes reference to a mouse, which makes me think of pest control. So here's my idea for an Orkin pest control ad based upon this classic poem:

'Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house,
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.
The experts from Orkin checked the whole house with care,
To make sure that pests would no longer be there.
And over the holidays, opening gifts,
The kids could play without mice giving them fits.
So when you are troubled by pest infestation,
Call the best pest control guys in the nation.
And when pests are gone, you will cry with delight,
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from your friends at Orkin.

(I doubt exterminators make holiday-themed ads, but if they wanted to make one for Christmas, I think this might be a good place to start.)

Zero Dark Thirty Torture Controversy

The great bin Laden raid movie Zero Dark Thirty has come under fire lately for its torture scenes. Apparently some people are upset because the movie appears to suggest that torture works in getting accurate, actionable intelligence in a timely manner. (Even the CIA has made public criticisms of this point.) But is this really true? I have seen the movie three times, and I can say that during the first viewing, it gave me that impression initially; but in the subsequent viewings, it became clear that the movie was showing mistreatment of detainees producing no useful information whatsoever, and useful, accurate intel was only procured through other means, especially kindness. (You could argue that the kindness appeared to work only in conjunction with an implied threat, but that is a different argument.) But it seems to me that this whole issue is completely missing the point of what this movie is trying to do: document history, albeit in a condensed narrative for cinematic consumption.

Sure, this movie represents years of work by scores of people, and as such it had to be boiled down and reduced to a minimal account for cinematic purposes. But in essence, it attempts to depict, in a nutshell, as it were, the overall picture of the efforts to find and eliminate the world's most notorious terrorist leader and mastermind, and the overarching journey from start to finish. And it is based on true history, regardless of how reductive it must be to get it all down to a comprehensible narrative with relatable and recognizable characters running just under three hours. So, seeing as how it is a historical movie, trying to be accurate as much as possible, why is there this condemnation of the interrogation torture scenes? (And more to the point, why bash the filmmakers for including historical facts into a historical movie?) These scenes are shocking and distasteful, yes; but stuff like this occurred. Should they have edited history to remove the objectionable portions, and essentially lie by omission? And if they did that, would it really be historical anymore? Whether the "enhanced interrogation" stuff worked or not is pretty much irrelevant here: it happened, and it was a very high-profile policy debated by everyone, so they included it. But that doesn't mean they enjoyed including it.

Yes, America engaged in some unsavory behavior in a misguided attempt to fight terrorism, making America appear oppressive and lowering our moral position, and this policy likely led to even further terrorist recruitment. It was a mistake. But it happened. And we cannot make it un-happen. And scrubbing its existence from a historical movie about the hunt for Osama bin Laden would be inherently dishonest. And I will go even further than that to say that if we edit out the unacceptable bits of our past, removing and sanitizing our history, then how do we learn the errors of our ways and pass these lessons on to further generations? In our Constitution, we never remove anything: we repeal parts with other new parts, but we always leave everything we have passed as constitutional policy in the Constitution so that we can see our past mistakes, learn from them, and hopefully not repeat them. Papering over our sins does not remove them, it only seeks to hide them from view so we can deny them and act as if they never existed. And to do this is to learn nothing. Torture is ugly and inhuman, and this movie reminds us of this; it does not celebrate or condone it, and neither does it show it to be effective. This movie includes it because it happened, not because it works.

Are we really in such an age of political correctness that we cannot tell the truth anymore? Do people really want us to scrub out the unpleasant aspects of history in an attempt to propagate some utopian mirage of the past just to make everyone feel better? And if so, what historical movies will Hollywood make next? Will we see a Henry VIII biopic where he doesn't divorce and behead Ann Boleyn because it seems too misogynistic? Will Sir Thomas More escape imprisonment and execution because he seems like such a nice guy?* How about a JFK biography film where he doesn't get assassinated? After all, that's such a downer, and he was such a great American! Not all of our history is pretty (see Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States for confirmation of this {but take it with a tablespoon of salt when he starts editorializing about hypotheticals}), but it is our history, and we can only learn not to repeat it if we remember it.

Now, I believe Zero Dark Thirty is the best picture of the year, and as such, I think it deserves the Academy Award for Best Picture. But if it doesn't get it, I think it will most likely be due to the inclusion and depiction of the "enhanced interrogation" scenes, and the fact that some have the incorrect impression that the movie is saying torture works. And that would be a real shame, because the only way this film could have not included those scenes would have been to eschew the unsavory aspects of the "War on Terror"; and to do that would have been intellectually dishonest and historically inaccurate. And if they were going to do that, then why not just fictionalize the whole thing and call it Star Wars: The Hunt for Darth Vader?

* (Amusingly, movies about Sir Thomas More as a heroic martyr, like the multiple Oscar-winning A Man for All Seasons, completely eschew the fact that he used to love to burn Protestants at the stake for heresy, and that almost seems like condoning his torture and murder of many others just because he wouldn't bend to the king on the divorce issue. See what happens when you pick and choose what to remember about history? Murderers can become saints. {He is a saint. Even though he killed many people horribly due only to their religious views. Yuck!})

P.S.: Hey, look: Michael Moore agrees with me about the Zero Dark Thirty torture controversy! (This is from an entertainment news story from Jan 10, 2013):

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Men's Wearhouse Halloween Ad (Proposed)

We all know the expression: "the clothes make the man", right? Well, how about taking that statement literally for a Halloween ad for Men's Wearhouse, and show a suit of clothes in a Frankenstein movie-style creation scene, where Dr. Frankenstein is literally an "empty suit"? So the suit could bring its creation to life (who would be a fit male model-looking creature), and then the creature could get up from the gurney and get into the suit. Then the spectators of this creation scene, initially horrified and afraid of the creature, would now change their opinion once he got into the suit, and they could approach and admire the results, shaking hands with the creature in the suit, and with an attractive woman running her fingers through his hair. And this would drive the point home that the clothes a man wears makes people think about him differently. (It wouldn't necessarily even have to be for Halloween, as Frankenstein is so deeply ingrained in our culture. And it doesn't have to be for Men's Wearhouse either: they probably wouldn't use an ad like this anyway; but someone could, for nice and hip men's clothes.)

Lee Press-On Claws?

When werewolves and cat people and comic book heroes and villains like Beast and The Lizard break their claws fighting and stuff, what can they do? There must be some way to help them. And what about all the horror and fantasy people who like to get prosthetic orthodontic fangs and reptilian contact lenses: must they be limited to their faces? Surely they'll want to have real claws and stuff too, right?

Well, that's why there's Lee Press-On Claws: the monstrous version of Lee Press-On Nails! Simply stick 'em on, and you're ready to slash and mutilate your prey! Um, that is, er... I mean you'll look like the magisterial monster you truly are inside! I mean, um... Oh, you know what I mean! Get yours today and "make your mark"!

Southwest Airlines Garden Ad

I just saw a new TV commercial for Southwest Airlines where they show a bunch of Southwest employees helping people with a flower garden, and then the slogan is: "We do some of our best work on the ground." Um, is that just a roundabout way of saying they aren't very good at flying? And are they trying to distract us from thinking about that issue? That's kind of the impression it gave me.

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find this ad online, and when I look for it on YouTube, it seems like Google has injected their new screwed up search results logarithm that gives you stuff you weren't looking for, and that aren't at all related to the wording you typed in, like they have on the Google search engine these days. (You know, like the Bing ads that say: "Scroogled". And when Microsoft can feel confident enough to point fingers at another company about screwing people up, there might be something wrong.) I wish they would fix that. But I guess there are other search engines we can use, if they really want to drive us away... (Between inaccurate search results and the new breed of self-expanding Internet ads {the new version of the pop-up ad that's even more annoying}, surfing the web has become far more tedious than it's been for years.)

Saturday, December 22, 2012

VW Jetta Test Drive Ads

Volkswagen has been running variants of this ‘sign and drive’ ad campaign for a while now, and almost all of them seem to indicate the same problem: couples are taking the cars for romantic nights out, stranding the dealership employee in the back seat waiting for the car to be returned to the dealership. Well, I think I may have a solution to end this conundrum! All VW has to do is run a commercial stating their new policy that if any couple takes the car on a test drive that turns into a romantic evening out or an overnight, the dealership sales representative gets “prima nocta” rights over whichever one of the couple they choose, or maybe even both of them. I think once they make that clear, people will take a reasonable test drive, and then bring the car right back. (Because after all, it’s not fair to leave them out and make them watch, now is it? That’s just rude.)

Of course, if they put really attractive sales reps in the ads, maybe people will test drive the cars just to ravish them, so maybe they should just put unkempt, schlubby ones in, just to be on the safe side. Of course, that could be someone’s fetish, so maybe this is just a bad idea all around, come to think of it. Plus, maybe it could backfire and the only people who would apply to work selling Volkswagens would be perverts who want freaky three-ways with strangers. You never know: it is a German car, after all. (And Germany makes all that yucky twisted pornography, so it might just rub off on their cars.)

Here’s an example of this amorous automobile advertisement:

Christmas Episode of COPS?

Hey, if they ever want to make a special Christmas episode of the TV show COPS, I hope they will consider using the following song, to the tune of “Feliz Navidad”:

Police nabbed my dad,
Police nabbed my dad,
Police nabbed my dad, and they tasered him in the ass.”

Maybe they could get a bunch of kids to sing that part, and then a bunch of 30-something men in prison garb and handcuffs and Santa Claus hats (with police officers on either side tapping batons in their hands) could sing: “We want to wish you a Merry Christmas!”

And surely there must be footage of police catching some burglar dressed up as Santa Claus trying to break into someone’s house, and the cops chase him down the street and tackle him in his Santa Claus suit, right? Well, this would be the perfect time to show it!

Friday, December 21, 2012

Gas-X Rolling Stones Ad?

Well, not with the Rolling Stones, exactly: just using one of their songs: “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”, but with altered lyrics. This is kind of a joke, because I’m pretty sure the Rolling Stones would never agree to such a use of their song; but when I thought it up, it seemed pretty silly, so I figured I might as well put it up here anyway.

What would happen would be for a group of Stones fans to get together, but one of them doesn’t feel well, because she just ate tacos or Indian food, or something. So she holds her tummy, and her friends ask her how she is, and she answers, all singing along to the chorus of “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”, as follows:

“Are you alright?”
“No, in fact I’ve got gas.”
“You’ll be alright: Just take Gas-X, it stops gas, gas, gas!”

Then she takes it, feels all better, and they all sing the end of the song together:

“Just take Gas-X, it stops gas,
Just take Gas-X, it stops gas,
Just take Gas-X, it stops gas…”

Actually, the truth is, this ad would be hilarious if someone had gas pains, and then the Rolling Stones jumped into the room singing this, and handed the person some Gas-X, and then they all sang the end together. That would be a hoot. In fact, maybe Mick Jagger could sing all the verses about all the stomach-challenging food he’s been eating at greasy spoons and back-roads restaurants and at home (like, for example: “I wolfed down lots of chili dogs yesterday, I ate mounds of leftover beans from last week, ow, ow, hey!”) and then the band could sing the chorus with him as I have laid out above, giving him Gas-X, and singing its praises, and with Mick singing the last line of the chorus: “But it's alright: I just take Gas-X, it stops gas, gas, gas!”. (Probably not going to happen, though.)

This is “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”:

Republicans Refuse to Pass Boehner’s “Plan B”

In an attempt to get everyone to blame the president (for a change) for the failure to get a deal done on the fiscal cliff, Speaker Boehner proposed a bill he called: “Plan B”. This plan would have kept the Bush tax cuts for most Americans, and President Obama would have had to veto it, essentially putting his signature on an enormous tax increase for most of the country, falling right into the Republicans’ trap. (Mwa ha ha!)

Oh, but Speaker Boehner made a simple but very serious mistake here, stymieing his goals: he called the proposed bill “Plan B”. And Plan B is also the name of the “morning after pill”, which Republicans consider to be baby-murder. So they wouldn’t vote for it, thinking it to be some sneaky pro-choice bill. So, rather than trick Democrats into looking bad on taxes, they fell into a trap of their own making, and all because of their innate inflexibility on reproductive freedom. Or at least, that’s what I’m choosing to read into it.

Here’s the fiscal cliff diving story:

John Kerry for Secretary of State?

President Obama has reportedly selected Senator John Kerry as the successor to the Secretary of State position currently held by Hillary Clinton. Now, John Kerry is a good man and a great American, but is Secretary of State really the best job for his abilities? Remember that this is the guy whose confusing verbal-diarrhea manner of speech lost him the presidential election in 2004 against George W. Bush (!!). When you lose a war of words with that guy, it’s time to go back to English class.

Now I will readily admit that his DNC speech was much better and to-the-point, but that was pre-written. How would it have sounded had it been spontaneous? The Secretary of State is tasked with smoothing over relations with other countries; if Kerry talks and talks until he drives them crazy and then talks and talks some more, we might just make enemies, rather than friends. And think of his translators: they might all commit suicide one after the other! Oh, the humanity! (Of course I’m kidding, but I hope he’s a bit more pithy in this job.)

So here’s hoping he’s better at getting to the point nowadays: that’s all I’m saying. (And I’m not one to talk about that issue, and yet, even I recognize it’s a problem for him!) And best wishes for his success as Secretary of State. (No joke there! Thank you for your service, Sir.)

But see? Look what always happens whenever anyone listens to John Kerry speak for too long (They go crazy and have to be tasered, for their own good! But we can’t just go around doing that to foreign leaders and diplomats, now can we? {Or can we? Maybe it could be a new reality show to interest our youth in public service?}):

Did everyone notice how the president made the announcement that Kerry is his pick for Secretary of State, but that even though he was standing right there, Senator Kerry didn’t even get to say anything? This may be by design, so hopefully nobody will remember what he sounds like.

Kill Them With Kindness: The Video Game

After the recent spree shootings that have tragically cut short so many wonderful and promising lives, the government yet again is pointing the finger of blame at violent video games. Previous studies have shown no real negative effects of violent video games, and seem to indicate that most players find them more cathartic than pernicious, actually lowering violent crimes. But government must be seen to be doing something, so like the PMRC hearings and their repression of John Denver, they must find someone to blame. Never mind that the government sends our young men and women around the world to kill in country after country, and brings them home shattered with PTSD and not enough aid in coping: it’s the video games that are to blame! (I wonder if anyone ever gets PTSD playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare? There should be an easter egg for a PTSD counselor and group therapy session just in case. Or maybe just a new game: Call of Duty: PTSD Therapy. Maybe it could be a band aid for our military’s lacking psychological treatment accessibility in the real world.)

So, how about this for an idea, just to placate the government about video games? Guns are all to blame (according to them), so why not remove guns from video games completely, just to see what happens? But since everyone is so used to the first-person shooter game play, some games can still have that type of play, but with other things standing in for the guns. For example, there could be a game called Famine Relief, where hungry people are all around, clamoring for food, and you have to shoot Campbell’s Chunky soup into everyone’s mouth until they are all full. Also, there could be a firefighter video game where players save lives from burning buildings and shoot at fires with a fire hose. Or how about a game about watering a garden full of lots of dying rare plants in hard-to-reach places? You get the idea.

But the best thing I think video games could do would be to eliminate the first-person shooter game play, and instead make brutally violent games of death, but without guns or conventional weapons. One of them could be Death by Chocolate, where everyone kills using all kinds of chocolate as weapons: drown your adversaries in chocolate milk or syrup, force-feed them chocolate mousse, beat them over the head with giant blocks of chocolate, etc. Kids would never replicate this type of violence because they all love chocolate so much, they will always eat it, rather than use it as a weapon.

And the best idea I think I have for a game of this type would be called Kill Them With Kindness. In this game, you shower people with gifts until they are crushed to death, give poor people so much money that they get killed being robbed for it, literally smother people with hugs and kisses, open the door for others so they can get attacked by zombies, baby sit for someone’s kids so the parents can go get killed by a drunk driver, feed the hungry until they burst, compliment martial artists on their abilities until they have the confidence to go start fights which get them killed, etc. You get the picture. (Video games are so often about killing, so why not at least encourage good etiquette and charity into the game play?)

And after a while of playing games like this, surely if video games are indeed to blame for inspiring these heinous acts, pretty soon spree killers will snap and kill with chocolate, kindness, etc. And if not, then the knee-jerk finger-pointing is probably meaningless (again).

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Ping-Pong: Deadlier Than Guns?

A news story I read today says a Texas lawmaker claims ping-pong is deadlier than guns. Um, if that’s true, I think they’re doing it wrong. Are they playing ping-pong with live grenades down in the Lone Star State?

Now, admittedly I have never shot anyone with a gun, and as such, I have never killed anyone that way either. But I have also never killed anyone playing ping-pong. (The truth is, I have never killed anyone at all, and I’m happy to keep it like that.) And yet, somehow I still believe guns to be deadlier than ping-pong, at least potentially.

You see, I have seen hunters killing animals with guns, but never with ping-pong. (Although maybe one of those Chinese table tennis Olympians could kill an animal with ping-pong. But I doubt it. Maybe with the paddle, but certainly not with the ball. Unless they choked them with it by force-feeding it to them?) So I still think guns are deadlier. I believe more Americans may even die each year in hunting accidents than in ping-pong accidents, but I have no real statistical data to back that claim up (although I do not ever recall hearing the phrase uttered on the news: “Sadly they were killed in a tragic ping-pong accident.”). But maybe that Texas lawmaker is a really bad shot, but while he’s holding a gun, nobody has the nerve to tell him that, just in case he gets off one lucky shot, so maybe this is why he thinks guns are not deadly. And maybe he’s also so bad at ping-pong, people say stuff like: “Man, you’re killing me here!” That might explain this whole thing.

But aren’t there toy guns that shoot ping-pong balls? Maybe that’s what he means? Oh, but wait: that’s still a gun, so obviously it’s safer than regular ping-pong.

But this gives me an idea for a new horror movie: Ping-Pong! A masked killer (wearing a competitive table tennis outfit) stalks unsuspecting horny teenagers (and a stoner) and kills them all with ping-pong paddles, leaving a ping-pong ball in every victim’s mouth. And the back story is that as a child, his ping-pong instructor was having an affair with his mother, and his father came home, caught them, and beat them both to death with a ping-pong paddle, after which the kid was committed to a psychiatric ward, waiting for his chance to strike! (This movie will be especially terrifying in Texas, where ping-pong related deaths are among the highest in the nation! In fact, screw the previous title, how about: The Texas Ping-Pong Massacre? {Like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but about the even more dangerous and horrifying ping-pong.} In this movie, a few hapless teenagers get lost in backwoods Texas and stumble upon a gymnasium used by the inbred locals for ping-pong, and when they enter the building, they get pummeled with ping-pong balls until they slowly die, one by one! {It takes a long time to die that way, but it couldn’t be more horrifying!})

Here is this silly sports-related story:

What Happens to Banned Assault Rifles?

I’m not sure what will happen to all the assault rifles once they are banned, but my Washington insider source tells me the ATF is planning on running all of them into Mexico. In fact, this is reportedly the secret the Attorney General stonewalled Congress to keep: Phase 2 in Operation Fast & Furious! (Code Name: Fast & Furious 2: Too Fast, Too Furious, To Mexico.) It promises to be even faster and furiouser than the last time! (Because things will go wrong even faster, and everyone will become even furiouser.)

Asked why such a plan would be repeated, officials said they had done it before for no reason, so why not just do it again? After all, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Because, um, quitters never win, and winners never quit. Or something like that, I think.

That way, the Mexican drug cartels can just smuggle them all back into the country later.

Enjoy Your Last Day on Earth! (But not too much…)

That’s right: tomorrow is the Mayan Apocalypse, the end of the world, according to reactionaries, alarmists, kooks, the tin-foil hat crowd, etc. But hey: they might be right! So you might as well just go and enjoy yourself one last time, just in case!

But remember: revelry is great, but don’t overdo it, as we don’t know what time the end will come tomorrow. So you could get a really horrible hangover in the morning, and still have to wait until practically midnight for the end to come, ruining your last hours on Earth. And nobody wants that, right?

(Those Maya are extremely inconsiderate: the least they could have done was to put the end of the world on a Monday, and give us the whole weekend to party! Then, after a whole weekend of partying, we might all be ready and hoping for the end of the world. {Oh, my aching head!})

Rivendell Music

In watching The Hobbit, I noticed that in the Rivendell scene, we heard the same music as we heard in Rivendell in the Lord of the Rings movies. Now, that makes it easy for us to recognize it, and it’s certainly cheaper for the filmmakers, but what about for the elves who have to live there? Are they always playing that same music all the time in Rivendell? Is it like Muzak they can never escape, like they’re living in a giant shopping mall or elevator?

In the latter portions of the Lord of the Rings movies, the elves said they were leaving Rivendell for somewhere safer (I think that was it, or maybe it was just time for them to “move on”, because it was “a time for man”, or whatever.), but could that have been an excuse? Maybe they just couldn’t take hearing that same music playing on and on forever in an endless loop! (Maybe Sauron is behind it, trying to drive them out of Middle Earth?)

Adidas Robert Griffin III Football Fine Ad?

In a sports story today, the NFL has apparently fined Robert Griffin III $10,000 for wearing “unauthorized apparel” (in the form of an Adidas-branded clothing item) during a post-game interview. Then the story goes on to say: “Call us crazy, but we get the impression that this is brand awareness Adidas isn’t entirely unhappy with.” You think so?

Yes, this is an instance of the proverbial: “You can’t buy publicity like that!” Yes, apparently RG III would rather pay $10,000 to wear something by Adidas, rather than wear something by Nike. And this is a big embarrassment for the NFL and Nike. Of course it couldn’t happen if they weren’t trying to dictate everyone’s personal clothing choices. And this makes it look like people have to be forced into wearing Nike stuff: nice move, NFL. (I was unaware the NFL had the power to compel everyone to dress as they demand even after the games are over. This seems a bit repressive to me. Could they make them all wear dresses too? A dress code is one thing, but a mandatorily-branded dress code? Seems silly. Must they all also only eat Papa John's Pizza and drink Bud Light at home? And do special spies/enforcers see to it that they all obey?)

Part of the problem here is that I don’t believe the NFL has the right to enforce its brand tyranny during a post-game interview. Isn’t that after the game? And isn’t what RG III chooses to wear then his own free expression? And isn’t freedom of expression constitutionally protected? I think RG III might want to see a constitutional lawyer to find out. Under the current makeup of the Supreme Court, they might side with the NFL (because conservatives always seem to side with big business regardless of morality, legality, constitutionality, etc.), but if he presses this as an issue of freedom of expression outside of the playing of a football game, maybe he could win and liberate everyone to do as they please when it comes to clothing. And that might open up more sponsorship deals that could help football players earn a bit more advertising dollars just in case they get injured, or at the very least they could choose their own comfy clothes for after the tough game. (Or he could get benched for his efforts to challenge NFL policy: who knows? But the fans would be very upset if he didn’t play due to NFL marketing politics, I can tell you!)

And that brings me to this idea for an Adidas ad based upon this fine. They could show RG III wearing his NFL uniform with the Nike logo defaced, and have him narrate: “When I’m on the field, I have to wear what they tell me; but when the game’s over, I’ve got to wear my Adidas! I’d rather pay a $10,000 fine than wear any other brand!” And then they could show him looking snappy in some Adidas outfit, and then they could write his name, and have the ‘III’ look like the Adidas trademark triple stripe, and say: “RG III and Adidas: Made for each other.” (It could join the long line of strife-based loyalty ads, like the “I’d rather fight than switch” Tareyton cigarette ads from the 1960s and ‘70s.)

Here is the Adidas-aware Yahoo! Sports article:

And this is the old Tareyton ad campaign:

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Expanding Banner Ads

Hey, you know you love it, right? Banner ads that expand over what you’re trying to look at: they rule! And they are especially delightful if they take a while to do their thing, and they slow your experience down to a crawl. Great! It’s just like the old pop-up ads we all hate and block, only these aren’t in a separate window, so they’re totally different and totally awesome! (Right? No?)

I don’t know about you, but whenever an ad does this to me, I make a mental note to never buy anything from that company. It’s not quite as bad as being called at home, but it still sucks. And I get that they want to get their name out there, but surely there must be a way to do it without making everyone hate them, right? Because, you know, they’re paying a lot of money for the ability to make us hate them.

I think there’s an easy solution to this problem, but it would require an entire re-thinking of how Internet advertising operates. How it works now is that ads get revenue based upon clicks, and so being as annoying and intrusive as possible is how they expect to get those clicks. I have even clicked against my will due to the expanded windows jumping in my way out of nowhere, and they probably, sadly, got money for that, and most likely do a lot for the same reason: accidental contact or impatience on the part of the web-surfer. This is bullsh!t. All this does is make people hate brands, and they have to pay for the privilege to make prospective customers hate them: lame, and wrong.

Here’s how it ought to work: Websites should charge companies a flat rate based upon the sites popularity to put an ad on their site, which should be considered to be a branding opportunity, like having a brand name on a building or at a sports event. Then, they should build a link into their little ad that takes people to bigger ads or make interesting media advertising for that brand if they want to see it. That way, people would get the brainwashing from the brand ad, but not learn to hate them for their intrusiveness. As it is, I think it makes people hate them more than anything else. But in my solution, people would notice the brand name, and then only get the bigger ads if they were interested.

And what to send them to? Why, I think the real answer is to send interested parties to expanded advertising experiences like what BMW Films used to do. TV ads should be available to see on the Internet, but Internet advertising really should be its own thing, and it ought to be cool, like a gift or entertainment you can’t get anywhere else. But as it is, it makes me and all my friends hate the companies. And I’d say that’s likely the opposite of what they’re looking for as a marketing goal.