Adam & Eve .com Ad

These naughty people have been trying to tempt us with their lascivious wares for years now, but they must not sell very much. Otherwise they surely would have made a new ad by now! I mean, right? It’s the same old ad on for years! And it’s got a couple of problems, I think.

Okay, first things first. So this guy (who looks a lot like Matthew Fox) comes into the “store”, and he wants to buy some sex toys I guess. And he’s not buying sex toys so he can sit around by himself at home and look at them suggestively, is he? No: obviously this guy has a wife or a live-in girlfriend back at home, and she sent him out to get this stuff because she’s gotten to be too bored to continue having regular sex with him, but she’s too lazy or co-dependent to dump him. Well, or he’s rich. Or whatever. But anyway, so he’s got a significant other, and that’s pretty clear. But what happens when he asks for help? Well, the sales lady does some lame “cat” act and drags him into a changing booth to seduce him. And he goes with her! (Men are such whores.)

So there are a few problems with this, when you think about it. Obviously there is the problem with the fact that this guy is now probably going to get some STD from this young lady here and bring it home to his wife. But that’s not even that big of a deal for the business. You see, if girls who work there are always going to just sleep with the customers before they even buy anything, what kind of business model is that for a retail outlet? That proves right there that you don’t need to buy any of their sex toy stuff! So they’re going to kill their whole market right there! And then there’s the problem of what’s going to happen when the wives find out: they won’t let the guys shop there anymore, so they’ll have to buy stuff somewhere else (if they’re even ever allowed to get that type of stuff anymore).

But hey, maybe that’s why it’s an online store now. This ad is probably just old footage from what used to happen when it was an actual brick & mortar store, and that’s why they switched to just doing it all online.

Madonna and Angelina Jolie

Yes, it’s official now: the unintended consequences of their “humanitarian” adoptions is clear, and they’ve been officially proven. Want to see?:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110601/wl_africa_afp/nigeriacrimechildtrafficking_20110601143218

Yep, this celebrity adoption trend is creating a whole new black market baby business! I knew this would happen, but did anyone listen to me? No!

RA.com Ad

Here’s an ad that says volumes to me. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what it’s advertising. This is an ad for a website that gives (slanted, because it’s run by a drug company) information about Rheumatoid Arthritis, and since I don’t have that (yet), I can only go by what the visuals say to me personally. And that’s kinda funny.

So here’s what the ad shows: There’s a woman playing piano, and she starts looking frustrated. Then, the keys on the piano start breaking up and crushing underneath her fingers, and since she always hated being forced to learn the piano when she always dreamed of playing guitar, she keeps on playing it until all the keys are destroyed. So there you are: revenge at last! Or maybe it means something else?

Here’s what it suggests to me: Remember how the PeTA people were always out throwing/spraying red paint on everyone’s fur coats (unless they looked tough or dangerous) a few years ago? It was basically saying to everyone: “Fur is evil, even if it’s an heirloom!” But if fur is evil, then why not ivory? Isn’t that just as evil to hippies, since it comes from an animal? Well, what are piano keys made out of (especially old ones)? Yes, it’s ivory! So, when I saw that, I naturally thought this was the PeTA response to pianos everywhere: “You’re all evil, and your days are numbered!”

But then they had to go and ruin it with that RA.com thingy. But still, I think this is less about Rheumatoid Arthritis, and more of a subliminal call-to-action to animal-rights-activist hippies everywhere to attack pianos wherever you see them: for they are Satan’s spawn, and in need of a good come-uppance for murdering elephants! Who cares how long ago it was? Is there any statute of limitations on murder?

Here is a link to the ad, but you have to click on the video titled “PIANO” to see what I’m talking about:

http://www.ra.com/tv-commercial.aspx

Drug Testing for Reporters?

Yes, on Fox News today, I heard a young lady anchorperson introducing the next story about drug-testing requirements for welfare recipients by saying that indeed she had been drug-tested for her current job. Well, that got me thinking: could this be politically motivated? Just think about it, and it will all become crystal clear! (Unless you’re stoned, that is…)

So, how could drug testing be politically motivated? Ah-duh-y! She works for Fox News, and I think like 50% of their stories are about family-values stuff like the evils of drugs, promiscuity, premarital sex, abortions, “dirty dancing”, etc., right? (That’s all part of the fun of watching Fox News!) So then, they have to drug test her to be sure she’s not a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”: i.e.: a liberal spy. (If you knew the political ads in California, you’d have an extra level of meaning here!*) Sure, I guess you could be a liberal spy and not test positive for drugs, but you most certainly could not possibly be anything other than a liberal spy if you do test positive for drugs! Everyone knows that!

But this got me thinking: if Fox News uses drug testing as a way to identify potential enemies in their midst, would liberal-leaning networks do the same thing? They might, but obviously they’d have to do it in reverse: only people who tested positive for drugs could be trusted there, or else they might be Republican spies! It may not be the most reliable test, but it would probably be reliable most of the time. And that’s more than we can say for any of these networks!

* (Actually, I shouldn't cheat like this, but I'll clue you into what I mean even if you're not from California.) Here are a couple of links to the “Demon Sheep” ads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBlNVXMWe_w&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZxk_9GTHrs&feature=related

Drugs and Crime

I’ve just heard of another robbery story where some woman and her kids were saved by police in the nick of time from some guy trying to break in her bedroom door. The reporters said that the guy was arrested, and appeared to be on drugs. This addresses one of the most important issues of our day in a failing economy like the one we’re currently in, and so I thought I should give everyone a piece of serious advice when it comes to violent crime: if you’re going to do crimes, be on drugs.

Everyone knows drugs are super-fun to be on when you attack people, right? You just have to watch movies to know that. Take Death Wish, for example: the attackers that started the whole movie’s roller-coaster-ride of carnage were on drugs, right? Otherwise, why would they have been listed in the credits as: “Freak 1”, “Freak 2”, etc. (BTW, Jeff Goldblum’s whole career got started by his wonderfully soulful and gripping performance as “Freak 1”. So poignant; so convincing! You could almost believe his acting even if he was turning into a fly or something. But actually, I remember him as being listed as “Freak 3”. Is someone trying to up his freak status or something?)

So then, obviously, you should get drugs before you attack or rob anyone. It just makes it way more fun. Plus, you have an excuse for why you did it! (The drugs made me do it!) It’s just good business, and it’s just responsible behavior all-around.

Ask any lawyer or drug addict: it just makes sense to be on drugs when you perpetrate crimes. It’s more fun, and you get away with it. Seriously: you can’t lose! Besides, it’s cheating to spend ill-gotten gains on stuff like food. So, when you buy drugs, you’re renewing the cycle of crime, and that’s just good karma all around. Right? Right.

Disclaimer: This is a joke. Please don’t get drugs, commit crimes, get caught, and then blame me for suggesting it. (I’ll just deny it anyway.)

Stephen Colbert: Pac-Man

So last night, Stephen Colbert did another piece on his continued attempts to have a real political life through a political action committee (or a PAC). Now, I realized last night that I must be pretty thick, or else I give credit too easily. Why? Because I just realized that through his jokes and stuff (this may never have been the intent, but let’s just say it is anyway. And maybe it was all along! Hey, you never know.), Colbert has given the country its first real class on the rules and regulations of how political action committees operate. Has CNN ever done this? Has anyone else? Not that I’ve seen.

I guess it’s all online somewhere if you don’t mind being followed by government spybots afterwards. Oh, and if you speak Legalese. But in doing this silly attempt to run his own political campaign, and then getting slapped down again and again, Stephen Colbert, in his dogged self-determination to have his comedy bit, has actually exposed the inner-workings of the whole system! I think, honestly, by the time we get through finding out all this arcane information on how corrupt the whole system is, the election committee is going to wish they had allowed Colbert to have his joke candidacy.

It may not have started out this way intentionally, but in refusing to be beaten by the system, Colbert has revealed to us all how ridiculous the whole system is just by virtue of not giving up, and sharing it with all of us. I think they didn’t want to let him run a fake campaign because it might make them look silly. But now they look a lot worse than silly, and it’s their own fault! The more they deny him, the more we find out about how corrupt this whole system is. Keep it up guys! We’ll know all your dirty secrets soon, just because you don’t like comedy. And then maybe you’ll find out that it’s better to be laughed at than to be perceived as aiding and abetting political corruption.

No Fireworks on the Fourth!

Okay, this is maddeningly lame! First we’re not allowed to blow our hands off with M-80s, and now we’re not even allowed to go see fireworks on the Fourth of July! What the hell? Aren’t we allowed to have any fun anymore?

Not in California, apparently. That’s right: hippies have ruined our lives and spoiled everyone’s fun again, and this time it’s because they hate America for sure! (No more of this “Oh, we don’t hate America, this is for your own good” stuff; they can’t deny it this time!) Yes, now they say nobody is allowed to have fireworks displays on Independence Day anymore. Well, we all know why this is, right? Obviously it’s because we no longer have any independence to celebrate! Fireworks might remind us of this and make us mad, and so we’re not allowed to have fireworks anymore.

Now, I’m not talking about personal fireworks like firecrackers and Roman candles and stuff; no, the Patriot Act has surely deemed them terrorist weapons, so naturally we’re not allowed to have them anyway. And that’s fine. (We shouldn’t be allowed to have any fun. But can’t we at least see cool stuff?) No, this is different, because it’s about the big city fireworks spectaculars that attract all the tourists and keep everyone busy looking up so all of our local criminals can pick their pockets and stuff. So won’t this hurt the local economy? And then what will happen? Obviously, with the economy in tatters, people will ask the government for help, and they’ll have no choice but to foist communism on everybody; and without fireworks to remind us of our history, we’ll all fall for it! And there’s no escape!

So that’s their dirty plan! I knew it! (I’ve tried to warn you before, and now this article I just wrote proves I was right!)