A couple weeks ago—on this very internet!—I opined that James Dobson, founder of old-timey-values group Focus On The Family, was using the tragedy in Newtown, CT, to further his old-timey agenda. A few days after Dobson's remarks, and a full week after Adam Lanza's murderous rampage, the National Rifle Association finally emerged from its bunker of silence to fire off a barrage of wild comments of its own in response to the massacre. I was interested to learn that the NRA actually agreed with my assessment of Dobson's crass behavior—here's the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, explaining that it's disrespectful to respond to a tragedy with self-promotion. (By the way, if you've ever wondered what it would be like to listen to Droopy Dog reciting the phonebook, a minute of this will give you a pretty good idea.)
"Out of respect for the families and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectably silent. Now, we must speak for the safety of our nation’s children."
He makes an important distinction: it's okay to use a tragedy to promote your screwy worldview, but only after a seven day waiting period.
By the way, after sitting through just a couple minutes of that half-hour speech I was already starting to feel the calcification of my blood in my veins, so I switched over to this transcript, which I was able to get through faster than you could field-strip a handgun. Anyway, Mr. LaPierre finally gets around to a discussion of gun control—or more accurately, he side-steps gun control and instead detours into the realm of fantasy:
"Now, I can imagine the headlines, the shocking headlines you’ll print
tomorrow. “More guns,” you’ll claim, “are the NRA’s answer to
everything.” Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no
place in society, much less in our schools."
Many people are indeed calling for a ban on the kinds of assault weapons used in mass killings of innocent civilians, but in the paranoid world of the NRA, a restriction on any gun is the same as ATF agents storming your compound with tanks and prying every last gun from your hands (which are presumably cold and dead, of course). Mr. LaPierre is incapable of recognizing differences between bans of different types of guns, though he has no trouble with the nuances of the guns themselves.
The media calls semi-automatic fire arms, machine guns. They claim these
civilian semi-automatic fire arms are used by the military. They tell
us that the .223 is one of the most powerful rifle calibers, when all of
these claims are factually untrue, they don’t know what they’re talking
about.
What idiots the media are! Things are much safer than the news would have you believe, because the weapons that are killing our children are not, in fact, of military caliber! So everything's okay, right? Well, no: LaPierre explains that our society is incredibly
dangerous—on account of all the psychopaths running around with assault
weapons that can be purchased with ease at Walmart—and declares that we
must immediately deploy armed guards everywhere to defend
against this uncontrolled menace.
The truth is, that our society is populated by an unknown number of
genuine monsters. People that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by
voices and driven by demons, that no sane person can ever possibly
comprehend them. They walk among us every single day, and does anybody
really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a
school he’s already identified at this very moment? . . . The only way—the only way to stop a monster from killing our kids
is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute
protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
I suppose this makes
some sense—if your worldview is dominated by a love of firepower, then
naturally your problem solving strategies will tend towards
weaponization. LaPierre is like Ralphie in A Christmas Story, who fantasizes about the day when a bunch of masked bandits will come climbing over the fence so he can shoot them all with his Red Rider BB Gun.
Only LaPierre is not ten years old.
Still, there may be something to that kind of reasoning. For instance, instead of
instituting leash laws that strip dogs of their freedom, municipalities could just encourage citizens to carry machetes to defend against all
the vicious roaming dogs. Everybody wins!
Monday, January 7, 2013
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Focus on the Families, Not the Old Testament
In the wake of the awful events of Friday, December 14, in Newtown, Connecticut, it's hard to feel anything but shock, anger and profound sadness. Nonetheless, no tragedy is so horrific
that at least one high-profile Bible-thumper will feel no shame in using the atrocity as an excuse to promote his old-timey agenda. Three days after the incomprehensible killings, Focus On The Family founder James Dobson shared some choice comments with the world:
In
Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain
rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led
to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe
storage of those remaining in public hands.
“I think we have turned
our back on the scripture and on God almighty and I think he has allowed
judgment to fall upon us. I think that's what's going on.”
When we are confronted
with something as horrifying, heartbreaking and senseless as the cold-blooded
murder of 26 people in an elementary school, we want to understand, to find
some meaning. While there's been a lot of talk about how it might have been prevented, I still can't begin to fathom why it happened.
But James Dobson has a pretty good hunch.
“I mean millions of
people have decided that God doesn't exist, or he's irrelevant to me and we
have killed 54 million babies and the institution of marriage is right on the verge
of a complete redefinition. Believe me, that is going to have consequences,
too.”
I'm no theologian, but I think Dobson is implying that, in addition to feeling ignored, God was angry about the termination of unborn children...so consequently He killed 20 children. Can that be right? Again, I don't watch enough Religion and Ethics Newsweekly to have any claim of expertise in this area, but I think it's fair to say that unless you have a raging hard-on for the vengeful early books of the Bible, such an explanation is completely loony.
Generally I try not to level the term "moron" at anybody other than myself, but when you ignore all the facts and instead attribute horrific monstrosities
exclusively to things on your pre-existing list of grievances, it does technically classify you as a moron. The world is having a
large-scale discussion about mental health issues and gun laws, and the moron
James Dobson stands up and says, “Duh, it’s because of abortion. And the Gays. Duh!!”
Now, about that abortion
explanation. Abortions are legally performed in Australia, too, and yet there have
been no mass shooting rampages Down Under since last century. Though I suppose
I shouldn’t jump to conclusions—maybe God really wants to confer judgment on
the Ozzies too, but his almighty hands are tied on account of the rapid-fire gun restrictions that were enacted there a while back, which Nicholas Kristof recently detailed:
The law did not
end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private
hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass
shootings.
In the 18 years
before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14
years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped
by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and
the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.
Given the effectiveness of that legislation, we'd better not enact anything similar here in the U.S. If God is no longer allowed to send a psychotic angel of death to murder our 1st graders with an assault rifle, how will we know when He's unhappy with the bearing of our national moral compass?
Dobson is at least half-right about one thing, though: “The institution of marriage is on the verge of complete
redefinition. Believe me, that is going to have consequences, too.”
It sure will! Much like the redefinition of
the right to vote had consequences, namely that voting is no longer the
exclusive right of white male property owners. (Dobson strikes me as the kind of
guy who would’ve opposed those changes, too.)
Of course, it’s not surprising that someone as rationally-challenged as Dobson would fail to realize that the goal of the Marriage Equality movement is not so
much a “complete redefinition" of marriage as it is an “addendum” to marriage,
to the effect of, “Also gays can too.”
I know it's because I'm an imbecile myself and thus I often have a hard time accepting reality, but I still find it shocking and utterly dismaying that people like The Moron James Dobson remain in such prominent and apparently influential positions in this country. Now, like TMJD, I'm not very good at suppressing my opinions, but even I can recognize that, no matter how strongly you feel, there are times in life when you just need to shut the fuck up. For future reference, Mr. Dobson, when parents of murdered school children are desperately trying to understand what has just happened to them—and your immediate urge is to proclaim that God is angry because people aren't religious enough anymore—that is one of those times.
Labels:
Focus On The Family,
gun control,
James Dobson,
Newtown
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Storm Clouds: Weather, Politics and Class II Narcotics
With all the media coverage of Hurricane Sandy, the presidential race was largely absent for almost a week. For those paying close attention, however, it wasn't gone entirely—here's what I gleaned of the electioneering efforts in the days since the storm took center stage. (I have 20/20 vision, so I'm pretty good at gleaning.)
With his campaign on hold, Mr. Obama appeared on TV to say some presidential things about the planned emergency effort.
Seeing as press briefings are a typical response to an impending natural disaster even when no election is on the horizon, and since at no point during this appearance did the president re-state that Osama bin Laden is dead, I'll refrain from viewing it as a staged campaign-proxy event.
That said, that sort of leadership display is still a boost for the president's image at this crucial time in the election season, so it's to be expected that his challenger, Mr. Romney, though not wanting to be seen tactlessly campaigning during a time of national distress, would still wish to curry favor with the electorate, as there are mere days remaining until said electorate sets out to electorize a president.
This he accomplished by turning one of his Ohio campaign stops into a canned food drive.
And then by delivering food & supplies to hurricane victims. All of which was accomplished with the utmost modesty, of course.
I should mention that having been figuratively "under the weather" since before the entire eastern seaboard found itself literally under the weather, I spent the days in and around the storm under a cloud of doctor-prescribed, codeine-infused cough syrup. My recall of recent events is consequently a little hazy, but in addition to the actual candidates, I seem to remember John McCain appearing on television and declaring Hurricane Sandy the result of Obama's "disastrous foreign policy."
There's a chance that that one was a hallucination. Or maybe my fevered brain perceived an exaggerated version of his statements. But I can't be that far off—these days John McCain seems to have nothing to do with his time other than to shamelessly and repeatedly parrot any GOP talking-point stuck in front of his nose.
McCain has been repeating that statement about Obama's supposed massive cover-up or gross incompetence ad nauseum for the last several weeks in his every public appearance, and by doing so, not only is he accelerating the shift of his legacy from respected war veteran to transparent partisan shill, he is also firmly placing himself in the company of maniacs like Donald "I'm not a racist but prove to me that this black president wasn't born in Africa" Trump:
On the other hand, maybe Trump is the one who suffers more for their association. McCain's recent statements, and his increasingly hard-right views in general, appear to be a bitter reflection of his own loss against candidate Obama. McCain seems like a once-noble man whose rationality has given way to resentment—who is now all too eager to serve as a cynical and zealous tool for a flip-flopping Mormon in hopes of exacting revenge on the guy who bested him several years ago when we last electorized a president. At least Trump—while hemay be is a maniac, and clearly possesses little in the way of rationality—most certainly never says anything he doesn't whole-heartedly believe.
I'm not entirely sure which is worse. Though I'm also not entirely sure that Donald Trump isn't a figment of my codeine-addled imagination. Some things are just too hard to glean.
With his campaign on hold, Mr. Obama appeared on TV to say some presidential things about the planned emergency effort.
Seeing as press briefings are a typical response to an impending natural disaster even when no election is on the horizon, and since at no point during this appearance did the president re-state that Osama bin Laden is dead, I'll refrain from viewing it as a staged campaign-proxy event.
That said, that sort of leadership display is still a boost for the president's image at this crucial time in the election season, so it's to be expected that his challenger, Mr. Romney, though not wanting to be seen tactlessly campaigning during a time of national distress, would still wish to curry favor with the electorate, as there are mere days remaining until said electorate sets out to electorize a president.
This he accomplished by turning one of his Ohio campaign stops into a canned food drive.
And then by delivering food & supplies to hurricane victims. All of which was accomplished with the utmost modesty, of course.
I should mention that having been figuratively "under the weather" since before the entire eastern seaboard found itself literally under the weather, I spent the days in and around the storm under a cloud of doctor-prescribed, codeine-infused cough syrup. My recall of recent events is consequently a little hazy, but in addition to the actual candidates, I seem to remember John McCain appearing on television and declaring Hurricane Sandy the result of Obama's "disastrous foreign policy."
There's a chance that that one was a hallucination. Or maybe my fevered brain perceived an exaggerated version of his statements. But I can't be that far off—these days John McCain seems to have nothing to do with his time other than to shamelessly and repeatedly parrot any GOP talking-point stuck in front of his nose.
McCain has been repeating that statement about Obama's supposed massive cover-up or gross incompetence ad nauseum for the last several weeks in his every public appearance, and by doing so, not only is he accelerating the shift of his legacy from respected war veteran to transparent partisan shill, he is also firmly placing himself in the company of maniacs like Donald "I'm not a racist but prove to me that this black president wasn't born in Africa" Trump:
On the other hand, maybe Trump is the one who suffers more for their association. McCain's recent statements, and his increasingly hard-right views in general, appear to be a bitter reflection of his own loss against candidate Obama. McCain seems like a once-noble man whose rationality has given way to resentment—who is now all too eager to serve as a cynical and zealous tool for a flip-flopping Mormon in hopes of exacting revenge on the guy who bested him several years ago when we last electorized a president. At least Trump—while he
I'm not entirely sure which is worse. Though I'm also not entirely sure that Donald Trump isn't a figment of my codeine-addled imagination. Some things are just too hard to glean.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
5 Hour Caffeine Beverage
If you're a human being who pays attention to human being things here in The America, in recent years you've witnessed and/or partaken in an exploding cultural obsession with increasing your personal energy. You may also know that increasing your personal energy is mainly achieved by guzzling canned beverages (with flavors like "Nasty" and "Battery Acid"), and today the market is flooded with more “energy drinks” than you can shake a can of Jolt Cola at.
But why the need for so much energy? I used to believe it was to make you a better snowboarder, but now it seems these drinks are mostly mixed with alcohol and consumed by single people who wish to stay up all night after work on Friday and fool themselves into believing that terrible club music is in fact part of a revelatory experience. Which goes something like this:
All told, there are a number of activities these drinks are drunk to enhance, and historically all of them were frivolous. But that's changing. The people at a company called "Living Essentials," makers of the energy drink "5 Hour Energy," are taking things further by trying to insinuate their product into the average person’s daily diet. Naming their company "Living Essentials" was apparently the first step towards that goal; the next was a blitz of TV ads.
Here, a generic, likeable dipstick attempts to convince viewers like you that 5 Hour Energy—essentially a vehicle for caffeine delivery—provides a longer-lasting boost of energy than does coffee, which is the reigning vehicle for caffeine-delivery. Even though it contains the same amount of caffeine. I guess we're supposed to assume that theirs is "better caffeine."

"Sleepy? Groggy? Dying for a nap? What do you do? Run for the coffee? ... But how long does that last—before you're back for more?"
That's the nice approach to win over coffee-drinkers: peer pressure from a non-threatening office colleague. But they've since moved to the harder stuff—their newer ads feature a stern cowboy-sheriff, who apparently holds jurisdiction over random job sites, where he mysteriously appears and intimidates people into throwing away their coffee.
In this one he talks over the protestations of two construction workers, saying things like, “How much coffee you fellows gonna need today—three, four cups? Doesn’t last long, does it?”
In another one—which can be viewed here, along with about 5 hours worth of other commercials for this stuff (it's the second ad on the page, as of this writing, anyway)—he shows up to bully a young office worker.

In this ad (which appears to be a prequel to the other one, wherein the young office dipstick first receives his energy-training from the master) the cowpoke bully is again in fine form:

"Another cup of coffee? How long's this one going to last—45 minutes? An hour?"
No, asshole, it’s going to last 5 hours, because it’s the same thing as the crap you're peddling.
Not only is 5 Hour Energy's magic power-boost NOT better than caffeine from coffee, it IS caffeine from coffee. This National Geographic multi-media presentation slide-show article-thing gives a fascinating glimpse—albeit a brief one, so's you don't have to do too much reading and junk—into the world of caffeine extraction. Though if your attention span is as short as mine you can click the "Fluffy Stuff" tab to skip directly to the part about separating the caffeine from the coffee beans—a process that evidently takes place in a sewage treatment plant.


Hours and hours of raw, unrefined, caffeine-slurry.
Now, I don't know how to extract it, but if you could separate out 5 Hour Energy's marketing bullshit from the ads I suspect it would also look something like that.
But why the need for so much energy? I used to believe it was to make you a better snowboarder, but now it seems these drinks are mostly mixed with alcohol and consumed by single people who wish to stay up all night after work on Friday and fool themselves into believing that terrible club music is in fact part of a revelatory experience. Which goes something like this:
All told, there are a number of activities these drinks are drunk to enhance, and historically all of them were frivolous. But that's changing. The people at a company called "Living Essentials," makers of the energy drink "5 Hour Energy," are taking things further by trying to insinuate their product into the average person’s daily diet. Naming their company "Living Essentials" was apparently the first step towards that goal; the next was a blitz of TV ads.
Here, a generic, likeable dipstick attempts to convince viewers like you that 5 Hour Energy—essentially a vehicle for caffeine delivery—provides a longer-lasting boost of energy than does coffee, which is the reigning vehicle for caffeine-delivery. Even though it contains the same amount of caffeine. I guess we're supposed to assume that theirs is "better caffeine."

That's the nice approach to win over coffee-drinkers: peer pressure from a non-threatening office colleague. But they've since moved to the harder stuff—their newer ads feature a stern cowboy-sheriff, who apparently holds jurisdiction over random job sites, where he mysteriously appears and intimidates people into throwing away their coffee.
In this one he talks over the protestations of two construction workers, saying things like, “How much coffee you fellows gonna need today—three, four cups? Doesn’t last long, does it?”
In another one—which can be viewed here, along with about 5 hours worth of other commercials for this stuff (it's the second ad on the page, as of this writing, anyway)—he shows up to bully a young office worker.

In this ad (which appears to be a prequel to the other one, wherein the young office dipstick first receives his energy-training from the master) the cowpoke bully is again in fine form:

No, asshole, it’s going to last 5 hours, because it’s the same thing as the crap you're peddling.
Not only is 5 Hour Energy's magic power-boost NOT better than caffeine from coffee, it IS caffeine from coffee. This National Geographic multi-media presentation slide-show article-thing gives a fascinating glimpse—albeit a brief one, so's you don't have to do too much reading and junk—into the world of caffeine extraction. Though if your attention span is as short as mine you can click the "Fluffy Stuff" tab to skip directly to the part about separating the caffeine from the coffee beans—a process that evidently takes place in a sewage treatment plant.


Now, I don't know how to extract it, but if you could separate out 5 Hour Energy's marketing bullshit from the ads I suspect it would also look something like that.
Labels:
5 hour energy,
advertising,
caffeine,
coffee,
energy drinks
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Infiniti, and Beyond Stupidity
Have you noticed that no matter where you are in the world, if you turn on your TV there are ads on it? These days it's mostly this ad for an automobile called the Infiniti JX Crossover.
In previous sessions of internetting, I've looked at other vehicles designed to keep bad drivers on the road, like the Mercedes E Class (E apparently standing for "Enabler"). Now Infiniti is throwing its hat into the ring—"hat" being a car with idiocy-cancelling technology, and "the ring" being the streets where the drivers of those hats are apparently trying their damnedest to run you over anyway.
The premise of this Infiniti ad is that when you buy a car you have a choice of "any old thing," or the one vehicle that can protect you from all of the unavoidable dangers that lurk in the big bad world around you, even if the world around you is a beautiful, affluent suburb with low crime and good schools. Because even there you are most likely going to drive like an idiot.
Like this guy, who still hasn't figured out that there's a hedge next to his driveway that obscures his view of the sidewalk.

And who hasn't realized that his car is so tall that it's impossible to see anything that's behind it.

And who spent $40,000 on a car but is too dumb to notice that it has a rear-view camera.

And who hasn't had the thought that maybe one of his 19 passengers could back him out of the driveway.

And who is still slow to step on the brake even after the car has indicated there's something back there.

Of all the people in that car, or SUV, or "crossover," or whatever they call a motor vehicle these days, this guy is probably the last one who should be driving. His reaction time in an emergency is as abysmal as Mrs. Lundegaard's was in Fargo.
At least once she realized there was a problem, she put some hustle into it.
There are plenty of reasons to be critical of this apparent clod, but on the other hand, he actually may have a good explanation for looking perplexed all the time. There are some weird things going on in that neighborhood. Take, for example, this little boy with the cartoonishly made-up doe-eyes:

—and the superhuman strength to push his plastic cart 30 feet in front of himself.

With mutant kids like that running loose, I'd be on edge all the time too.
Anyway, at least this Menace toSociety Maplewood, with his piss-poor driving skills, has some capacity for self-reflection:

Right after the near miss he shares a furtive, knowing glance with his wife, which could mean one of two things: either they are aware that they are complete morons and really ought to do something about it; or that the time is right for Cialis.
Whichever it is, at least there's a chance they'll relinquish the front seats, along with control of the vehicle—which, coincidentally, would please the manufacturer: in spite of all the features Infiniti has loaded into this car, it appears they'd still rather it wasn't driven it at all:

"Professional driver. Closed course. Do not attempt."
As in, do not even attempt so much as backing out of your driveway in this vehicle, because no matter how many cameras and safety features and automatic braking systems are put into it, if you're as stupid as this guy you're still going to find a way to run over the neighbors' kids.
Not that the mutant super-child with the eye-liner is in any real danger—he would just hoist the Infiniti over his head like little Clark Kent.

At least then the family inside the Infiniti would finally be safe.
In previous sessions of internetting, I've looked at other vehicles designed to keep bad drivers on the road, like the Mercedes E Class (E apparently standing for "Enabler"). Now Infiniti is throwing its hat into the ring—"hat" being a car with idiocy-cancelling technology, and "the ring" being the streets where the drivers of those hats are apparently trying their damnedest to run you over anyway.
The premise of this Infiniti ad is that when you buy a car you have a choice of "any old thing," or the one vehicle that can protect you from all of the unavoidable dangers that lurk in the big bad world around you, even if the world around you is a beautiful, affluent suburb with low crime and good schools. Because even there you are most likely going to drive like an idiot.
Like this guy, who still hasn't figured out that there's a hedge next to his driveway that obscures his view of the sidewalk.

Uhhh... where's the—why can't I—uhhh...
And who hasn't realized that his car is so tall that it's impossible to see anything that's behind it.

And who spent $40,000 on a car but is too dumb to notice that it has a rear-view camera.

And who hasn't had the thought that maybe one of his 19 passengers could back him out of the driveway.

And who is still slow to step on the brake even after the car has indicated there's something back there.

Uhhh, this one, right?
Of all the people in that car, or SUV, or "crossover," or whatever they call a motor vehicle these days, this guy is probably the last one who should be driving. His reaction time in an emergency is as abysmal as Mrs. Lundegaard's was in Fargo.
At least once she realized there was a problem, she put some hustle into it.
There are plenty of reasons to be critical of this apparent clod, but on the other hand, he actually may have a good explanation for looking perplexed all the time. There are some weird things going on in that neighborhood. Take, for example, this little boy with the cartoonishly made-up doe-eyes:

—and the superhuman strength to push his plastic cart 30 feet in front of himself.

With mutant kids like that running loose, I'd be on edge all the time too.
Anyway, at least this Menace to

Right after the near miss he shares a furtive, knowing glance with his wife, which could mean one of two things: either they are aware that they are complete morons and really ought to do something about it; or that the time is right for Cialis.
Whichever it is, at least there's a chance they'll relinquish the front seats, along with control of the vehicle—which, coincidentally, would please the manufacturer: in spite of all the features Infiniti has loaded into this car, it appears they'd still rather it wasn't driven it at all:

As in, do not even attempt so much as backing out of your driveway in this vehicle, because no matter how many cameras and safety features and automatic braking systems are put into it, if you're as stupid as this guy you're still going to find a way to run over the neighbors' kids.
Not that the mutant super-child with the eye-liner is in any real danger—he would just hoist the Infiniti over his head like little Clark Kent.

At least then the family inside the Infiniti would finally be safe.
Labels:
advertising,
cars,
Infiniti,
safety,
stupidity
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Hybrid and Electric Cars: Confusing "Less Bad" with "Fantastic"
An advertising trend has developed in recent years in which car companies fantasize that wild animals endorse their more or less fuel-efficient cars. Here’s one of them:
As you can see, the Hyundai Sonata has a lot of things going for it: Adorable animals! Salt-N-Pepa! Voice-over by “The Dude”! Or maybe it’s that Crazy Heart guy, but whatever! It’s great! And the animals themselves are excited about the car because not only is it “easy on the environment,” but it’s also “easy on the eyes.”
Sadly these critters may eventually find out that the electric power helping to propel hybrid cars does not, in fact, grow on trees. It comes from power plants that generally are not easy on the eyes or the environment.

Get up on this!
Actually that's not really true. It's the fully electric cars that are plugged into the factory-fueled power grid to recharge, while a hybrid's engine draws electricity from a battery pack that is recharged every time you drive the car. So maybe the forest animals have good reason to celebrate—as long as it's a hybrid and not an electric car roaring through their habitat.
Even so, it seems a little presumptuous to decide what kind of car the bears and prairie dogs approve of. I mean, maybe they'd be at least slightly concerned about the toxic chemicals leaking from the car's battery pack after it reaches the end of its life and ends up in a landfill? Ahh, but there's no way I'm going to out-hippie Jeff Bridges, so I'll just take his word for it here.
Meanwhile, in places like Kentucky—where Mountaintop Removal Mining extracts the fossil fuels that are used to make the electricity that powers the growing number of electric cars—the woodland creatures are too busy avoiding earth-scalping explosions and looking for uncontaminated drinking water to get excited about a car that finally gets good gas mileage. (Sure, it sounds benevolent, but it turns out Mountaintop Removal isn't all that good for the mountains.)
Anyway, there's no denying that hybrid cars are a step in the right direction. Electric cars, too, are surely an improvement over the gas-guzzlers that have yet to relinquish their grasp on our driving populace. Electric vehicles provide an opportunity, though not a guarantee, to greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels—making good on that opportunity still requires charging the car with electricity produced through alternative (aka "Bambi-approved") processes instead of the usual (aka "earth-raping", "Bambi's-mama-killing") methods. If you drive a fully electric car in the U.S. you will slightly reduce the amount of greasy oil money going to tyrants and oligarchs on the other side of the world, but in place of that you're contributing to the flaying of those purple mountain majesties here in your own back yard. (Unless you happen to be Ed Begley, Jr.)

Blight on Bald Mountain
Now before I get too far off track, it's worth noting that the furry, bumbling animals in the Hyundai ad can't rationalize all these complex environmental issues. But by that same token, they can’t rationalize anything to do with automobiles at all—which brings me to my real issue with the Hyundai ad: whether powered by gasoline, electricity, coal or fairy-farts, as far as the woodland creatures are concerned, a car is nothing but a death machine.
In fact I suspect the attention all the animals are paying to the Sonata cruising through the forest isn't so much excitement as it is vigilant dread. Unless being clumsy and falling off a tree stump is a sign of approval in the animal world.
The creatures in this Jeep Liberty ad, on the other hand, are positively joyous:
That SUV is lucky if it gets 20 miles per gallon, and the commercial makes no claims of environmental friendliness, so I'm not sure what those critters are so happy about. Though based on their supernatural singing abilities I must assume they're the ghosts of all the animals he's run down while joy-riding through the woods. So much for "Rock Me Gently."
As you can see, the Hyundai Sonata has a lot of things going for it: Adorable animals! Salt-N-Pepa! Voice-over by “The Dude”! Or maybe it’s that Crazy Heart guy, but whatever! It’s great! And the animals themselves are excited about the car because not only is it “easy on the environment,” but it’s also “easy on the eyes.”
Sadly these critters may eventually find out that the electric power helping to propel hybrid cars does not, in fact, grow on trees. It comes from power plants that generally are not easy on the eyes or the environment.

Get up on this!
Actually that's not really true. It's the fully electric cars that are plugged into the factory-fueled power grid to recharge, while a hybrid's engine draws electricity from a battery pack that is recharged every time you drive the car. So maybe the forest animals have good reason to celebrate—as long as it's a hybrid and not an electric car roaring through their habitat.
Even so, it seems a little presumptuous to decide what kind of car the bears and prairie dogs approve of. I mean, maybe they'd be at least slightly concerned about the toxic chemicals leaking from the car's battery pack after it reaches the end of its life and ends up in a landfill? Ahh, but there's no way I'm going to out-hippie Jeff Bridges, so I'll just take his word for it here.
Meanwhile, in places like Kentucky—where Mountaintop Removal Mining extracts the fossil fuels that are used to make the electricity that powers the growing number of electric cars—the woodland creatures are too busy avoiding earth-scalping explosions and looking for uncontaminated drinking water to get excited about a car that finally gets good gas mileage. (Sure, it sounds benevolent, but it turns out Mountaintop Removal isn't all that good for the mountains.)
Anyway, there's no denying that hybrid cars are a step in the right direction. Electric cars, too, are surely an improvement over the gas-guzzlers that have yet to relinquish their grasp on our driving populace. Electric vehicles provide an opportunity, though not a guarantee, to greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels—making good on that opportunity still requires charging the car with electricity produced through alternative (aka "Bambi-approved") processes instead of the usual (aka "earth-raping", "Bambi's-mama-killing") methods. If you drive a fully electric car in the U.S. you will slightly reduce the amount of greasy oil money going to tyrants and oligarchs on the other side of the world, but in place of that you're contributing to the flaying of those purple mountain majesties here in your own back yard. (Unless you happen to be Ed Begley, Jr.)

Now before I get too far off track, it's worth noting that the furry, bumbling animals in the Hyundai ad can't rationalize all these complex environmental issues. But by that same token, they can’t rationalize anything to do with automobiles at all—which brings me to my real issue with the Hyundai ad: whether powered by gasoline, electricity, coal or fairy-farts, as far as the woodland creatures are concerned, a car is nothing but a death machine.
In fact I suspect the attention all the animals are paying to the Sonata cruising through the forest isn't so much excitement as it is vigilant dread. Unless being clumsy and falling off a tree stump is a sign of approval in the animal world.
The creatures in this Jeep Liberty ad, on the other hand, are positively joyous:
That SUV is lucky if it gets 20 miles per gallon, and the commercial makes no claims of environmental friendliness, so I'm not sure what those critters are so happy about. Though based on their supernatural singing abilities I must assume they're the ghosts of all the animals he's run down while joy-riding through the woods. So much for "Rock Me Gently."
Labels:
advertising,
cars,
environment,
hybrid,
mining,
wildlife
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
The Ego Has Branded: Jon Bon Jovi's Philanthropic Awareness Campaign
Surviving your teenage years is hard enough. But if you grew up in the late 80s, your teenage years were really hard, because you were forced to listen to Bon Jovi's "Livin' On A Prayer" every day of your life.
I'm an adult now, ostensibly, and my teenage years are long behind me. And yet Jon Bon Jovi still makes my life miserable. I turn on my TV and I see him, not singing his songs, but singing his own praises in a commercial:
Pain doesn’t have much of a place in my life. I checked the schedule and it’s not on it. You never know when Advil’s needed. Well, most people only know one side of my life. They see me on stage and they think that that is who I am. There’s many layers to... everybody, everywhere. Singer-songwriter, philanthropist, father—life’s a juggling act. When I have to get through the pain, I know where to go.
Yes, life is a juggling act. Here he's juggling the tasks of reminding people of how successful and rich he is while also proclaiming himself to be a benevolent, regular guy.
And with only a 30 second commercial to accomplish all that—he really is too busy for pain. (But evidently not too busy for shameless self-promotion.) The previously unknown side of Jon Bon Jovi, it turns out, is comprised chiefly of philanthropy, which is something that other wealthy people with only average-sized egos don’t feel the need to publicize, in person, on television.
Though I must admit, I'm impressed that on top of all the other stuff Bon Jovi is also a father. This guy doesn’t need Advil, he needs a medal!
JBJ has already received a fair amount of publicity for his charitable works, including top ranking in a celebrity-charity survey detailed in this Forbes article. (Mind you, the ranking has nothing to do with raising or donating actual money—instead the survey's authors have used a complicated ubiquity-conversion algorithm to place a hypothetical dollar value on each star's popularity, and then ranked the celebrities according to the percentages of their popularity "spent" on publicizing their charitable causes.) And yet getting press is not enough for Mr. Jovi; he still feels the need to act as his own spokesperson to spread awareness of his do-gooder-ness.
While I can't claim to endure the hardship of being a philanthropist, there are pains in my life. Unfortunately ibuprofen can’t solve all of them. For one thing, it doesn’t make Jon Bon Jovi go away. Turning off my TV might be a cure for that, but that's not really an option—American Ninja Warrior isn’t going to watch itself.
I'm an adult now, ostensibly, and my teenage years are long behind me. And yet Jon Bon Jovi still makes my life miserable. I turn on my TV and I see him, not singing his songs, but singing his own praises in a commercial:
Pain doesn’t have much of a place in my life. I checked the schedule and it’s not on it. You never know when Advil’s needed. Well, most people only know one side of my life. They see me on stage and they think that that is who I am. There’s many layers to... everybody, everywhere. Singer-songwriter, philanthropist, father—life’s a juggling act. When I have to get through the pain, I know where to go.
Yes, life is a juggling act. Here he's juggling the tasks of reminding people of how successful and rich he is while also proclaiming himself to be a benevolent, regular guy.
And with only a 30 second commercial to accomplish all that—he really is too busy for pain. (But evidently not too busy for shameless self-promotion.) The previously unknown side of Jon Bon Jovi, it turns out, is comprised chiefly of philanthropy, which is something that other wealthy people with only average-sized egos don’t feel the need to publicize, in person, on television.
Though I must admit, I'm impressed that on top of all the other stuff Bon Jovi is also a father. This guy doesn’t need Advil, he needs a medal!
JBJ has already received a fair amount of publicity for his charitable works, including top ranking in a celebrity-charity survey detailed in this Forbes article. (Mind you, the ranking has nothing to do with raising or donating actual money—instead the survey's authors have used a complicated ubiquity-conversion algorithm to place a hypothetical dollar value on each star's popularity, and then ranked the celebrities according to the percentages of their popularity "spent" on publicizing their charitable causes.) And yet getting press is not enough for Mr. Jovi; he still feels the need to act as his own spokesperson to spread awareness of his do-gooder-ness.
While I can't claim to endure the hardship of being a philanthropist, there are pains in my life. Unfortunately ibuprofen can’t solve all of them. For one thing, it doesn’t make Jon Bon Jovi go away. Turning off my TV might be a cure for that, but that's not really an option—American Ninja Warrior isn’t going to watch itself.
Labels:
advertising,
advil,
bon jovi,
ego,
television
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




