Inflation a true story
As told by the duck tales.
A-F’n-Men!
I give you the greatest observations in the last 40 years.
True fan or waste of time?
A Quote for today.
MoMajic just sent me this quote. I think he maybe trying to tell us something.
“The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance.” Cicero - 55 BC
Marketing Failure
This ad showed up on BlinkinBlogs.com this morning via GoogleAdsense. Take a quick gander at it. I cannot properly express my feelings about the ad thus I will merely point out what is wrong with it, and that someone should be fired for it.
- The Lady in the Before picture appears to be of a darker complexion, perhaps of African Decent, whereas the lady in the second picture is of lighter complexion, most like European decent. Are we to believe that the product in question not only assists with weight loss but also removes pigment?
- The Lady in the first tab weighs much more than 12 lbs more than the lady in the second image.
- The breasts of the two women do not match at all.
- One could conclude that these are not in fact the same person - if it is then this company has borderline miracle drugs on their hands.
What does this tell us about marketing? Well at least in this instance this company just didn’t care. They didn’t care about perception. They didn’t care about the intellect level of their audience. They certainly didn’t care about a potential law suit.
I have said several times in the past that it is my opinion that marketing is ruining the human race, this particular ad sort of sums up my argument. Not only did they not have the honesty it takes to use the same person in the ad(maybe they didn’t have a real test subject?!?!) but they also didn’t care to even match the two in any visual way whatsoever. I have seen some ads where the people used aren’t the same person, but at least they somewhat resembled each other. In this instance it is so badly done that I can only conclude they did it on purpose. For shame.
Starfleet spamalot
Jean Claude Van Douchebag
The interview I am copying can be found here. It is like the dude just never got it.
He spoke to Sarah Ball:
What are you doing in Thailand?
I’ve been in the cutting room all night, working on a new film I’m directing called “Full Love.”
How ‘ s it coming?
Good. You go through that certain depression because the actors are all leaving, but they’re there now with me in the cutting room.
Why did you want to make a film that comments on your own life?
I made this just to show some of the internal side of J.C.V.D., in a way. He’s a guy, a normal guy from Belgium with dreams, and I did well in that type of path. At the age of 47, to take chances and go back to Europe and be talking to some studios there, I’m showing them that I believe I’m good quality.
There ‘ s a monologue in the film about being a washed-up action star. Did you improvise that?
I like structure—like driving: go past the school on the street, stay on the right side, no hitting the car, go in right, you’ll see a big church, stop and take a left, and you’ll have it. By doing this I’m giving a structure of life, a path of light, and showing what happens between me and me, which is something very beautiful.
Beautiful? Why?
I really opened myself up in “JCVD.” I peeled back the skin of the fruit, cut the pulp and then took that very hard seed. In this film I cut that hard seed, and inside that seed was a kind of liquid cream substance of the man I am, or the woman you are.
OK —
It was like being naked—I would love to be naked in front of you.
Well, I —
Not being naked being naked. I say such things in Hong Kong and they thought I was being a crazy Frenchman. Being naked of protection.
So you ‘ ve no regrets at all?
Believe me—I’ve done very good stuff and very crazy stuff, and I don’t regret the crazy stuff. So are you in New York?
Yes, I am.
And are you 27, or 32?
I ‘ m 22.
Oh, f–––. That is very young. Will you come to the premiere?
I don ‘ t know. When is it?
I don’t know. You will wear all black, a black dress and high heels?
Uh —
You can come find me, I will be the one with the very broad shoulders, dark hair and a simple suit. We can have some champagne, you and me.
TMQ with TMI
Tuesdays on ESPN.com, Gregg Easterbrook writes the “Tuesday Morning Quarterback” column, which is often tedious, rambling, and so undiluted as to be almost insurmountable. Nonetheless, his sports insight can be entertaining, but what I find interesting is that includes just as much non-sports commentary that is often smarter. An example from his latest:
Why Are Taxpayers Paying Lavish Bonuses to Retain the People Who Screwed Up AIG?
American International Group, the insurance giant that has swallowed $152 billion in federal subsidies in just a few months, “plans to pay $503 million in deferred compensation to some of its top employees, saying it must tap the funds to keep valuable workers from exiting the troubled insurance giant,” Carol Leonnig of The Washington Post reported a few days ago. I suspect all the gold being shoveled to AIG is a colossal blunder by the George W. Bush administration. Money to reinforce Fannie Mae or to buy stock in banks may or may not be a wise decision, but at least there is accountability regarding where the funds end up. The money being shoveled to AIG is simply vanishing — AIG isn’t even telling the Treasury Department what the money is for. When the General Services Administration buys pencils, many layers of auditors check the deal. Isn’t it a tad naive to think $152 billion can be entrusted to a firm with a demonstrated track record of financial mismanagement and that money is not going to be looted? The Treasury Department’s handling of AIG appears to be spectacular irresponsibility with public money.
The people who work here give away your money to the Wall Street rich. But they ask tough questions! Such as, “How much do you want?”
Now, about the $503 million in tax-subsidized bonuses to prevent “top employees” from “exiting the troubled insurance giant.” The top employees of AIG are the ones who drove the company into the ground by making crazy deals, taking on bad debt or promising to insure bad debt when they knew AIG lacked adequate collateral. Those “top employees” at AIG are either cheats or incompetents — we want them to leave! They haven’t demonstrated any financial expertise. Yet the same AIG top managers who did a terrible, terrible job are set to receive huge bonuses: an example of the problem that corporate bonuses are awarded regardless of performance.
Management-suite types often rationalize huge bonuses by threatening to jump to another job. What job exactly would a top AIG employee jump to? The financial services industry is contracting; lots of well-qualified people with strong résumés are out on the street; no financial firm in its right mind would hire a failed manager from AIG over the fully qualified financial managers looking for work. AIG top employees have no career options right now; it is inconceivable any other financial firms are offering them lavish raises to hire them away. So “retention bonuses” aren’t necessary. But either the Treasury Department is too dim-witted to realize this or it doesn’t care and is merely trying to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the rich by allowing tax-subsidized bonuses that the giveaway team at Treasury knows perfectly well are not merited.
Side note: You might think, “How could the fancy-degree top people at Treasury possibly be that completely, utterly stupid?” But Treasury officials have a self-interest in maintaining the assumption that financial managers should receive gigantic bonuses regardless of performance. Almost everyone at the top of Treasury came from the firms being bailed out, plans to return to such firms and wants to pocket gigantic bonuses regardless of performance. So not only is the Treasury Department acting irresponsibly with tax money but its top executives have a personal stake in irresponsible action.
Sure he’s just telling us what we are all thinking, but in a sports column? He is also very hard on NFL coaches, which is always music to my ears. For what its worth, extra-heavy mayo is straight-up diabolical.
You Need Cash?
I’ve come to a conclusion - any company that is ready to give you “CASH!” for anything is a scam on one level or another. I’ve given this some (probably too much) deep thought - in this day and age, why is “CASH!” such a motivating factor? Whether it be wedding rings you have laying around the house or the actual house itself, who gives a rat’s ass if it is actual paper bills or a check? Unless you are paranoid about receiving a check from the company, which probably means you shouldn’t be dealing with that company in the first place. Next time you find yourself curious about a commercial that features “CASH!” as primary motivation, think of this exchange:
“Hey, you want $100 for your car?”
“Hell no - it has at least that much gas in it.”
“How about if I offer you…CASH!?” while waving around 50 two-dollar bills.
“Please die now.”
I guess this goes at least as far back as the glory days of the pawn shop. The dusty, poorly-lit establishments where desperate souls would sell anything valuable and/or of a questionable background - for “CASH!” I have only been in a pawn shop once, and the prices did not impress. Some of the old crap was cool - classic video games and old electronics. I also remember thinking that when individuals need “CASH!” to either get their husband out of jail or save their thumbs from Guido, guns and bowling balls are always the first in hock.
I’m thinking of trying that in less traditional situations. Ebay doesn’t offer a separate “Buy it now - in CASH!” option I can use as a seller. But when a company is truly desperate? I wonder how much “CASH!” they’ll take for General Motors?
O’Reilly vs. Stewart - uncut
OK, here’s the deal. He is trying so hard to be funny…I think. You be the judge. However, Papa Bear doesn’t say anything that really surprises you until the last 30 seconds. If he truly believes that object is what he thinks it is, then I am speechless.
