I *think* the title of the video game was Modern Warfare... some kind of warfare, anyway.
The commercial - had nothing to do with it. The actor who had played Mr. Pitt a few times on Seinfeld is sitting in a chair, looking really old, saying disapprovingly, "Everyone's doing it. Boys are doing it, girls are doing it. Girls are doing it with each other...." and on and on and on.
Each time with an emphasis on the phrase "doing it" which normally means, having sex.
On this occasion, apparently, it was "playing Modern Warfare."
Kind of a stupid commercial, and I don't see how any teens seeing it are going to be moved to try out the game, unless they have the kinds of brains that think, "well, maybe because he says they're "doing it" in the commercial, it means it's possible to have sex in the game," and I doubt if they'd think that...
Just a dumb commercial on so many levels.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Police say Packer player accused of sexual assault (News article)
In the age of the internet, news is instantaneous. So every news media tries to get scoops over every other type of media. And when they can't get a scoop, they manufacture one.
Reporting has gone out the window, and gossip-mongering has taken its place.
Here's an article published yesterday at CBSsports.com
Police say Packer player accused of sexual assault
If you don't have the name of the player who is accused, why even mention the story at all? Wait until you have all the facts, and then report them!
Just one more example of irresponsbile journalism.
Reporting has gone out the window, and gossip-mongering has taken its place.
Here's an article published yesterday at CBSsports.com
Police say Packer player accused of sexual assault
LAKE DELTON, Wis. -- Authorities in a south-central Wisconsin community say a Green Bay Packers player is being investigated for an alleged sexual assault of two women early Saturday.
Lake Delton police have not released the player's name. They say he was released after being interviewed at a condo where he and six other players were staying and where the women allege the assault happened.
Police Chief Tom Dorner says he will take the case to the district attorney Monday or Tuesday to consider charges.
Packers spokesman Jeff Blumb said in a statement that team officials "are aware of the reported incident and still are gathering facts."
Police cleared all the players except the one accused. They said the cleared players are backup quarterback Matt Flynn, safety Khalil Jones, guard Josh Sitton, fullback Korey Hall, and linebackers Brad Jones and Clay Matthews
If you don't have the name of the player who is accused, why even mention the story at all? Wait until you have all the facts, and then report them!
Just one more example of irresponsbile journalism.
Joe's Crab Shack (Commercial)
It's a brief commercial - 30 seconds, which I see during Law and Order, and have just seen it now, at 9.15 am on a Sunday on Channel TNT.
Three women - one black, one white, one Latino, each provacatively saying, "I'm doing....__________"
Then an old bald out of shape buy is shown saying "I"m doing all three." the clear implication being he's "doing" all three women.
Then the camera pulls back and of course what they're "doing" is eating the food at Joe's Crab Shack.
So yet another commercial using sexual innuendo to try to sell something.
It's nothing new, of course. And it's so pervasive that I suppose most adults who see it are immured to it by now. But teens? Just reinforces the stereotypes.
I was banned from Hannity.com yesterday. That's actually nothing new, they've banned me about six times now. And they never say why. That's what annoys me, and that's why I always create a new screen name and return.
So, a couple of days ago, somebody upset with Helen Thomas (a White House correspondent who is extremely old, who recently made deragatory remarks against Israel) called her a bitch, saying she had her uterus pulled over her head, etc. =
I pointed out - as I have pointed out on many occasions there, that I found this offensive. Disparage what she said all you like, but why attack her as a woman? Both LIberals and Republicans post on these message boards, and whenever they attack a male whom they don't like, they don't call them bastards, or refer to them dismissively because they are men. But with female polictians and reporters, happens all the time..... when they're not - like every adolescent on a sports board, saying, "I'd still "do" her."
I decided to take the bull by the horns this time and post in the Talk to the Moderator section about this. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of not posting a link to the specific post I was talking about, but I daresay it would have made no difference.
My post title was, "Racism Not Allowed, Sexism Okay?" Because of course you can't say the "n-word" on those boards, or say anything that the moderators might think is offensive to blacks. And there are certain names for Latinos and Hispanics that they are not allowed to use, although the mods do allow debate on the Illegals question (because most of htem are all for clamping down on it. As am I, come to that.)
Point being, I said that there was a double standard. Male politicians were not insulted in the same way female politiicans were.
The moderator came back with this comment. I paraphrase: "These are discussion boards and sometimes things are said that other people find offensive. Those who are easily offended should perhaps find a knitting forum."
In other words, a dismissive slap at me for being a woman. Ah, go sit with your knitting.
Then another moderator chimed in. A woman. Said, and again I paraphrase, "If you want equality [that is word for word] you can't be offended in stuff like this. After all women are more vicious about this than men. [And that's true enough.]
But that wasn't the point. Sure, in the wide world, men and women excoriate women politicians on a regular basis.
But this was the Hannity.com discussion forums, where civility was supposed to prevail (not that it always does).
Unfortunately, I have a bad habit of responding to these things immediately, instead of waiting a couple of hours. And invariably, after a couple of hours I've thought of exactly what I should say to make my case. But it's too late then.
In any event, I pointed out immediately that I didn't appreciate the dismissive knitting joke, and I stated that if it was okay to give offense to people and they wouldn't be able to go whining to the moderators to get me kicked off, that it would just be mano a mano between us, that was fine.
The moderator took offense at that for "attacking the members" and banned me. Hey, I was a member too!
In any event, after a week or so I'll re-sign on.
But of course this is systemic in the western world. Oh, don't misunderstand me. As a woman I have a 1,000% better life in the US than any woman in an Eastern country.
And I'm not one of those who thinks women should be allowed into all male clubs, such as that golf club debacle of a few years ago. Frankly, I thought the time the President of NOW spent on that particular cause could have been better spent fighting against the pervasive sexualization of TV commercials.
But what I find interesting is that the contempt of women is all-pervasive as well. Rush Limbaugh, with whom I agree on several counts, is still a male chauvanist pig, famous for saying, "The feminist movement was created to allow ugly women access to the mainstream of society." [Because, of course, Limbaugh himself is no prize, physically. But he sure does marry a lot of gorgeous women. Well, for that matter, and this is a post for a different time, a lot of beautiful women marry "ugly" men..... who are rich.]
As the one moderator at Hannity.com said, "Women are more vicious then men when it comes to insulting other women." Oh - I actually know that quite well. And that's got to change as well.
Why do they do it? I think it's a hold-over from our history. Up until the 1980s - that's about 6000 years of human history - women had no status except if they were married or had a male friend. They couldnt hold jobs, they couldn't own property, etc. If they didn't have a man, they were worthless.
So human nature. (Not female nature). You don't have power over your own life with a husband that you marry - not because you love him but because you have to go get out of your home, etc., is to look at all other women as the enemy, trying to steal your security from you.
You'd have thought this need to look at women in that fashion would have stopped in the 1980s and afterward, when women can stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves, but other forces are still at work to drive them down and persuade them that it's still only the approbation of a male that matters, and now in our more violent society women aren't only even verbally insulting women but they're actually attacking and killing them, too!
Well, the explanation is that we have de-evolved instead of evolved, and I blame mass media for much of that, as you will read in subsequent entries in this blog.
Three women - one black, one white, one Latino, each provacatively saying, "I'm doing....__________"
Then an old bald out of shape buy is shown saying "I"m doing all three." the clear implication being he's "doing" all three women.
Then the camera pulls back and of course what they're "doing" is eating the food at Joe's Crab Shack.
So yet another commercial using sexual innuendo to try to sell something.
It's nothing new, of course. And it's so pervasive that I suppose most adults who see it are immured to it by now. But teens? Just reinforces the stereotypes.
I was banned from Hannity.com yesterday. That's actually nothing new, they've banned me about six times now. And they never say why. That's what annoys me, and that's why I always create a new screen name and return.
So, a couple of days ago, somebody upset with Helen Thomas (a White House correspondent who is extremely old, who recently made deragatory remarks against Israel) called her a bitch, saying she had her uterus pulled over her head, etc. =
I pointed out - as I have pointed out on many occasions there, that I found this offensive. Disparage what she said all you like, but why attack her as a woman? Both LIberals and Republicans post on these message boards, and whenever they attack a male whom they don't like, they don't call them bastards, or refer to them dismissively because they are men. But with female polictians and reporters, happens all the time..... when they're not - like every adolescent on a sports board, saying, "I'd still "do" her."
I decided to take the bull by the horns this time and post in the Talk to the Moderator section about this. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of not posting a link to the specific post I was talking about, but I daresay it would have made no difference.
My post title was, "Racism Not Allowed, Sexism Okay?" Because of course you can't say the "n-word" on those boards, or say anything that the moderators might think is offensive to blacks. And there are certain names for Latinos and Hispanics that they are not allowed to use, although the mods do allow debate on the Illegals question (because most of htem are all for clamping down on it. As am I, come to that.)
Point being, I said that there was a double standard. Male politicians were not insulted in the same way female politiicans were.
The moderator came back with this comment. I paraphrase: "These are discussion boards and sometimes things are said that other people find offensive. Those who are easily offended should perhaps find a knitting forum."
In other words, a dismissive slap at me for being a woman. Ah, go sit with your knitting.
Then another moderator chimed in. A woman. Said, and again I paraphrase, "If you want equality [that is word for word] you can't be offended in stuff like this. After all women are more vicious about this than men. [And that's true enough.]
But that wasn't the point. Sure, in the wide world, men and women excoriate women politicians on a regular basis.
But this was the Hannity.com discussion forums, where civility was supposed to prevail (not that it always does).
Unfortunately, I have a bad habit of responding to these things immediately, instead of waiting a couple of hours. And invariably, after a couple of hours I've thought of exactly what I should say to make my case. But it's too late then.
In any event, I pointed out immediately that I didn't appreciate the dismissive knitting joke, and I stated that if it was okay to give offense to people and they wouldn't be able to go whining to the moderators to get me kicked off, that it would just be mano a mano between us, that was fine.
The moderator took offense at that for "attacking the members" and banned me. Hey, I was a member too!
In any event, after a week or so I'll re-sign on.
But of course this is systemic in the western world. Oh, don't misunderstand me. As a woman I have a 1,000% better life in the US than any woman in an Eastern country.
And I'm not one of those who thinks women should be allowed into all male clubs, such as that golf club debacle of a few years ago. Frankly, I thought the time the President of NOW spent on that particular cause could have been better spent fighting against the pervasive sexualization of TV commercials.
But what I find interesting is that the contempt of women is all-pervasive as well. Rush Limbaugh, with whom I agree on several counts, is still a male chauvanist pig, famous for saying, "The feminist movement was created to allow ugly women access to the mainstream of society." [Because, of course, Limbaugh himself is no prize, physically. But he sure does marry a lot of gorgeous women. Well, for that matter, and this is a post for a different time, a lot of beautiful women marry "ugly" men..... who are rich.]
As the one moderator at Hannity.com said, "Women are more vicious then men when it comes to insulting other women." Oh - I actually know that quite well. And that's got to change as well.
Why do they do it? I think it's a hold-over from our history. Up until the 1980s - that's about 6000 years of human history - women had no status except if they were married or had a male friend. They couldnt hold jobs, they couldn't own property, etc. If they didn't have a man, they were worthless.
So human nature. (Not female nature). You don't have power over your own life with a husband that you marry - not because you love him but because you have to go get out of your home, etc., is to look at all other women as the enemy, trying to steal your security from you.
You'd have thought this need to look at women in that fashion would have stopped in the 1980s and afterward, when women can stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves, but other forces are still at work to drive them down and persuade them that it's still only the approbation of a male that matters, and now in our more violent society women aren't only even verbally insulting women but they're actually attacking and killing them, too!
Well, the explanation is that we have de-evolved instead of evolved, and I blame mass media for much of that, as you will read in subsequent entries in this blog.
Friday, June 4, 2010
What Will Red Stickers Actually Accomplish?
>>>The red badge of inexperience is part of Kyleigh's Law, which was passed nearly unanimously by the state legislature and signed by then-Gov. Jon Corzine last year. The law is named for a Morris County teenager killed three years ago when the car she was riding in crashed. A new driver was at the wheel.
And exactly how does a red sticker on one's license plate (on a car probably driven by the whole family, not just the kid) stop some over-confident, testosterone fueled teenage boy from drinking, driving drunk and killing himself, or herself, and anyone else in the car?
Such a badge does nothing!
Here's the article:
Red Decal Has N.J. Teens Seeing Red
A New Jersey law requiring young drivers to stick a red decal on their license plates expectedly upset teenagers.
But the ire has crossed generations. Parents, too, are protesting the overhaul of the state's rules for young drivers.
Debbie Minnick, a mother in Hamilton Township, recently took her 16-year-old to the Motor Vehicle Commission for a learner's permit. The clerk told her she needed to buy red decals for her daughter.
Ms. Minnick's response: "When hell freezes over, I'll buy those stickers," she said.
One month after the new law went into effect, many New Jersey parents are refusing to abide. As of May 1, small red decals must adorn the license plates of cars driven by new drivers under 21.
New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Commission says 250,000 drivers are subject to the law. As of last week, it had sold just over 105,000 sets of the decals.
The red badge of inexperience is part of Kyleigh's Law, which was passed nearly unanimously by the state legislature and signed by then-Gov. Jon Corzine last year. The law is named for a Morris County teenager killed three years ago when the car she was riding in crashed. A new driver was at the wheel.
Gregory Gottlieb, a junior at Atlantic City High School, isn't putting the decals on his car. His parents are supporting his decision, he said.
"It's scary, especially for parents who disagree with it," Mr. Gottlieb said. He co-founded a Facebook group opposing that law that now has more than 30,000 members.
"If any group of drivers should be identifiable, it should be convicted sex offenders, not their prey," Mr. Gottlieb wrote last year in an op-ed in his local paper, the Press of Atlantic City.
Most of the law's provisions—restrictions on teenage driving at night, how many people can be in the car, a ban on hands-free cellphones—aren't as controversial.
The decal—the first of its kind in the nation—is meant to give police a way to enforce restrictions on young drivers.
Backers argue that if police can't tell who is or isn't subject to special rules like limits on the number of passengers in the car, they can't enforce those limits. Teens caught without the decals face a $100 fine.
Ms. Minnick said she's willing to pay the $100 fine if her daughter, Amber, is caught. Amber said many students at Hamilton West High School, where she's a sophomore, ignored the messages from police officers when the law went into effect reminding them to get decals.
"Why don't we just put a bull's-eye on our car?" the younger Ms. Minnick said. "I'm not putting that on my car. I don't feel safe."
That response has prompted some state lawmakers to introduce legislation to repeal the decal requirement. Some just want to get rid of the decals. Another seeks to require young drivers to register the cars they'll be driving with the Motor Vehicle Commission, so police can check the license-plate number of someone they suspect to be violating restrictions on young drivers before they pull that person over.
Backers of the decal rule say they're surprised by the angry responses.
"I'm confused because our teenagers today are the most visible group of teens ever," said Pamela Fischer, the director of the New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety and chairwoman of the study group that proposed the decals. She pointed to teenagers using social networking services like Twitter and Facebook to broadcast their activities.
"Any nasty person could sit in any mall or any parking lot and see teenagers," she said.
Joseph Irace, the president of the Oceanport Borough Council, said he and his wife argued about whether their 16-year-old daughter—who still has her learner's permit and can't drive without an adult in the car—should display the red decals. Eventually, they decided she should.
"Our concern is you can't pick and choose which laws you follow," Mr. Irace said.
But once Mr. Irace's daughter starts driving alone, the family plans to reconsider their decision.
Like most modern activists, New Jersey teens have taken to Facebook to organize their opposition. There are groups in which thousands of teenagers pledge not to follow the law. There are groups of parents against the decals. And there's a page with 1,200 supporters that proposes a new game: stealing the decals from license plates. Mr. Gottlieb said that's not something he supports, but said he has seen his friends do it.
And exactly how does a red sticker on one's license plate (on a car probably driven by the whole family, not just the kid) stop some over-confident, testosterone fueled teenage boy from drinking, driving drunk and killing himself, or herself, and anyone else in the car?
Such a badge does nothing!
Here's the article:
Red Decal Has N.J. Teens Seeing Red
A New Jersey law requiring young drivers to stick a red decal on their license plates expectedly upset teenagers.
But the ire has crossed generations. Parents, too, are protesting the overhaul of the state's rules for young drivers.
Debbie Minnick, a mother in Hamilton Township, recently took her 16-year-old to the Motor Vehicle Commission for a learner's permit. The clerk told her she needed to buy red decals for her daughter.
Ms. Minnick's response: "When hell freezes over, I'll buy those stickers," she said.
One month after the new law went into effect, many New Jersey parents are refusing to abide. As of May 1, small red decals must adorn the license plates of cars driven by new drivers under 21.
New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Commission says 250,000 drivers are subject to the law. As of last week, it had sold just over 105,000 sets of the decals.
The red badge of inexperience is part of Kyleigh's Law, which was passed nearly unanimously by the state legislature and signed by then-Gov. Jon Corzine last year. The law is named for a Morris County teenager killed three years ago when the car she was riding in crashed. A new driver was at the wheel.
Gregory Gottlieb, a junior at Atlantic City High School, isn't putting the decals on his car. His parents are supporting his decision, he said.
"It's scary, especially for parents who disagree with it," Mr. Gottlieb said. He co-founded a Facebook group opposing that law that now has more than 30,000 members.
"If any group of drivers should be identifiable, it should be convicted sex offenders, not their prey," Mr. Gottlieb wrote last year in an op-ed in his local paper, the Press of Atlantic City.
Most of the law's provisions—restrictions on teenage driving at night, how many people can be in the car, a ban on hands-free cellphones—aren't as controversial.
The decal—the first of its kind in the nation—is meant to give police a way to enforce restrictions on young drivers.
Backers argue that if police can't tell who is or isn't subject to special rules like limits on the number of passengers in the car, they can't enforce those limits. Teens caught without the decals face a $100 fine.
Ms. Minnick said she's willing to pay the $100 fine if her daughter, Amber, is caught. Amber said many students at Hamilton West High School, where she's a sophomore, ignored the messages from police officers when the law went into effect reminding them to get decals.
"Why don't we just put a bull's-eye on our car?" the younger Ms. Minnick said. "I'm not putting that on my car. I don't feel safe."
That response has prompted some state lawmakers to introduce legislation to repeal the decal requirement. Some just want to get rid of the decals. Another seeks to require young drivers to register the cars they'll be driving with the Motor Vehicle Commission, so police can check the license-plate number of someone they suspect to be violating restrictions on young drivers before they pull that person over.
Backers of the decal rule say they're surprised by the angry responses.
"I'm confused because our teenagers today are the most visible group of teens ever," said Pamela Fischer, the director of the New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety and chairwoman of the study group that proposed the decals. She pointed to teenagers using social networking services like Twitter and Facebook to broadcast their activities.
"Any nasty person could sit in any mall or any parking lot and see teenagers," she said.
Joseph Irace, the president of the Oceanport Borough Council, said he and his wife argued about whether their 16-year-old daughter—who still has her learner's permit and can't drive without an adult in the car—should display the red decals. Eventually, they decided she should.
"Our concern is you can't pick and choose which laws you follow," Mr. Irace said.
But once Mr. Irace's daughter starts driving alone, the family plans to reconsider their decision.
Like most modern activists, New Jersey teens have taken to Facebook to organize their opposition. There are groups in which thousands of teenagers pledge not to follow the law. There are groups of parents against the decals. And there's a page with 1,200 supporters that proposes a new game: stealing the decals from license plates. Mr. Gottlieb said that's not something he supports, but said he has seen his friends do it.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
If you lied, don't say you mispoke
Every time - every time - a politician lies about having an affair or about falsifying his service record or what have you, he or she never says, "I lied," he or she always says, "I mispoke."
Everyone knows they were lying, but because they use the euphemism, they're allowed to get away with it.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who "mispeaks" about their service record, their cheating ways, or their sexual orientation should be kicked out of office and never allowed to hold another post. (I'm not saying gays should be kicked out of office. I'm saying gays who claim to be straight, and who put down other gays, deserve to be kicked out summarily.)
Kirk apologizes for misstating military record
What is this "I have to understate it" stuff?
The man flat out lied, and he refuses to admit it. In addition, he "played down the significance of the incorrect information about his own record, and criticized Giannoulias for raising the issue. He accused Giannoulias, the Illinois treasurer, of denigrating his military service."
Sounds like there was a lot to denigrate.
If this man ever wins another election, it will be a tragedy.
Everyone knows they were lying, but because they use the euphemism, they're allowed to get away with it.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who "mispeaks" about their service record, their cheating ways, or their sexual orientation should be kicked out of office and never allowed to hold another post. (I'm not saying gays should be kicked out of office. I'm saying gays who claim to be straight, and who put down other gays, deserve to be kicked out summarily.)
Kirk apologizes for misstating military record
CHICAGO – Senate candidate Mark Kirk apologized Thursday for making inaccurate statements about his service in the Navy Reserves, while acknowledging more discrepancies.
"I apologize to everyone for these errors," the Illinois Republican said. "They were my responsibility entirely and I will fix them."
The five-time U.S. representative, who is competing with Democrat Alexi Giannoulias for the Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama, also acknowledged new incidents where public statements didn't match reality about his service.
Kirk said a letter sent by his congressional district office last year described him as a veteran of Operation Desert Storm, the first Persian Gulf war, but he did not participate in that operation.
Kirk later flew over Iraq for intelligence reconnaissance missions in 2000. He said Thursday he does not recall coming under enemy fire on those flights and added it was sometimes hard to tell whether his plane was being targeted.
But C-SPAN video shows Kirk on the House floor saying he was fired upon.
"The last time I was in Iraq I was in uniform flying at 20,000 feet, and the Iraqi air defense network was shooting at us," Kirk said in the undated video, which was posted online by the Giannoulias campaign.
Kirk also said last year that he once saw anti-aircraft flack when flying an intelligence mission over Kosovo and thought he might be killed.
The Kirk campaign did not respond Thursday night to requests for clarification on those incidents.
The furor over Kirk's military record took off last week when he acknowledged that, contrary to his many statements over the years, he hadn't won the Navy's award for intelligence officer of the year.
Amid media inquiries to the Navy, Kirk corrected his resume to show he actually received a different award, one that went to his unit instead of him personally.
Kirk also has said that when he's on active duty, he commands the Pentagon war room, which is an exaggeration of his intelligence duties there. And until 2005 he sometimes said he served "in" Operation Iraqi Freedom, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, although his duties at the time were entirely stateside.
Politicians' military records are under particularly intense scrutiny after the recent revelation that a Senate candidate in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, had sometimes told audiences he served in the Vietnam War. Actually, he was in the Marine Reserves and never left the United States.
Kirk initially played down the significance of the incorrect information about his own record, and criticized Giannoulias for raising the issue. He accused Giannoulias, the Illinois treasurer, of denigrating his military service.
But as more errors come to light, Kirk is changing his tone. His campaign released his military fitness reports Thursday so the public can see what his commanding officers have said about his performance.
In them, he is portrayed in glowing terms for his work as an intelligence officer, including for stints in Italy and Turkey.
In one report, Kirk is praised for his "unmatched managerial and planning skills," while another recognizes his "phenomenal performance." Another says he's "head and shoulders above any other intelligence officer" the reviewer had ever met.
"I think going forward I have to be humble about my military record," Kirk said earlier Thursday. "I have to understate it and I have to own up to any errors that I created. I do not want to create the impression of adding to the record."
What is this "I have to understate it" stuff?
The man flat out lied, and he refuses to admit it. In addition, he "played down the significance of the incorrect information about his own record, and criticized Giannoulias for raising the issue. He accused Giannoulias, the Illinois treasurer, of denigrating his military service."
Sounds like there was a lot to denigrate.
If this man ever wins another election, it will be a tragedy.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Klondike Bar (commercial)
I've seen this commercial a few times in the last couple of weeks.
Some wimpy white guy, who looks like he's in his 40s, is in a gym and waves over a big fat white guy in a brown leotard, and presses against him. Then with his eyes he sends an indication, and another big fat white guy in a brown leotard presses against him, so he's sandwiched. The advertising line: What wouldn't you do for a Klondike bar?
Apparently the message of this commercial is its perfectly all right to make a total idiot of yourself if it gives you something nice in return.
As for subliminal messages... obviously the white guy in the middle should be sandwiched by two black guys if he's supposed to be an accurate imitation of a Klondike bar (vanilla icecream sandwiched between two choclate cookies). As it is, there are two white guys in brown leotards, which doesn't make any sense.
Secondly of course is the fact that none of these people is physically attractive, presumably because Klondike didn't want to be accused of making a homoerotic commercial. And I must say they succeeded in that. It's not homoerotic, it's not even erotic, it's just.... stupid.
(I just went to YouTube to see if this commercial was on offer there, and its not. But a lot of Klondike bar commercials are there, and they all have the same theme, people doing stupid or humiliating things to be rewarded with a Klondike bar. Just sad.)
Some wimpy white guy, who looks like he's in his 40s, is in a gym and waves over a big fat white guy in a brown leotard, and presses against him. Then with his eyes he sends an indication, and another big fat white guy in a brown leotard presses against him, so he's sandwiched. The advertising line: What wouldn't you do for a Klondike bar?
Apparently the message of this commercial is its perfectly all right to make a total idiot of yourself if it gives you something nice in return.
As for subliminal messages... obviously the white guy in the middle should be sandwiched by two black guys if he's supposed to be an accurate imitation of a Klondike bar (vanilla icecream sandwiched between two choclate cookies). As it is, there are two white guys in brown leotards, which doesn't make any sense.
Secondly of course is the fact that none of these people is physically attractive, presumably because Klondike didn't want to be accused of making a homoerotic commercial. And I must say they succeeded in that. It's not homoerotic, it's not even erotic, it's just.... stupid.
(I just went to YouTube to see if this commercial was on offer there, and its not. But a lot of Klondike bar commercials are there, and they all have the same theme, people doing stupid or humiliating things to be rewarded with a Klondike bar. Just sad.)
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Harry Potter Dangerous? Probably Not. Twilight?
Here's a very disturbing news article.....
(I doubt if kids who read Harry Potter books actually believe magic can work - and they learn the values of friendship and loyalty. Kids who watch such crap as Twilight, where a girl wants to become a vampire so she can be with her boyfriend always...not so much so.)
Wear Wolf
PACKS of teenagers are going to school as WEREWOLVES in the latest craze to hit America.
The kids wear yellow contact lenses and fangs - and even have fake furry tails attached to their jeans.
Bemused headteacher Bill Hill said: "They walk down the hallways swishing their tails. It's a bit different from the school gangs of my youth - but they don't seem troublesome."
Wolfman ... Del Toro
The cult is thought to have been sparked off by movies like Twilight and The Wolfman, starring Benicio Del Toro.
Education chiefs in Texas report that teen "wolf packs" - each usually made up of around 20 pupils - now exist in scores of schools across the state.
Deikitsen "Lupus" Manley, 15, who claims to be pack leader at Brandeis High School in San Antonio, said: "Human wolves have been around a lot longer than characters in Twilight.
It gives us a sense of belonging. You gain friends and you belong and indulge your wild side." Another "wolf" named Argus said: "We're not to be feared."
Deikitsen's mum Pam said: "As soon as he walks in the door, he is supposed to take out the fangs, and lose the lenses and tail. They're good kids. It takes courage to stand up and be who you want to be."
But the movement was hit by controversy recently after a follower calling herself Wolfie Blackheart cut off a dog's head and posted pictures on the net of her boiling it.
The 23-year-old told cops it was dead when she found it, adding: "I would never kill a canine. I am a canine." [Then why boil its head, you sicko?]
(I doubt if kids who read Harry Potter books actually believe magic can work - and they learn the values of friendship and loyalty. Kids who watch such crap as Twilight, where a girl wants to become a vampire so she can be with her boyfriend always...not so much so.)
Wear Wolf
PACKS of teenagers are going to school as WEREWOLVES in the latest craze to hit America.
The kids wear yellow contact lenses and fangs - and even have fake furry tails attached to their jeans.
Bemused headteacher Bill Hill said: "They walk down the hallways swishing their tails. It's a bit different from the school gangs of my youth - but they don't seem troublesome."
Wolfman ... Del Toro
The cult is thought to have been sparked off by movies like Twilight and The Wolfman, starring Benicio Del Toro.
Education chiefs in Texas report that teen "wolf packs" - each usually made up of around 20 pupils - now exist in scores of schools across the state.
Deikitsen "Lupus" Manley, 15, who claims to be pack leader at Brandeis High School in San Antonio, said: "Human wolves have been around a lot longer than characters in Twilight.
It gives us a sense of belonging. You gain friends and you belong and indulge your wild side." Another "wolf" named Argus said: "We're not to be feared."
Deikitsen's mum Pam said: "As soon as he walks in the door, he is supposed to take out the fangs, and lose the lenses and tail. They're good kids. It takes courage to stand up and be who you want to be."
But the movement was hit by controversy recently after a follower calling herself Wolfie Blackheart cut off a dog's head and posted pictures on the net of her boiling it.
The 23-year-old told cops it was dead when she found it, adding: "I would never kill a canine. I am a canine." [Then why boil its head, you sicko?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
