South Carolina election commercials

I now present to you some of the worst campaign commercials you will ever see. Get out your barf bag now.

Well, okay, maybe not the worst, but... dreadful, simply dreadful.

First up, Governor Haley shores up her lady-voter base that put her over the top in 2010, by addressing BULLYING.

Say what, you ask? Bullying? We can't drive on our shitty roads; we have kids dying in Protective Services; we are going flat-ass broke... and we suddenly have the Governor playing Big Mother and assuring us that she CARES! (Note: she cares about nice white middle class girls like the one in the commercial; obviously, those dead kids in foster care can suck it.)

This commercial would never be made about a male candidate. That's enough reason to hate it.

Further, do teenagers send suicide notes to the Governor? Seriously? (More on the ad here) And what exactly would a governor do, to stop bullying?

"Nikki Haley Makes a Difference"



I told you it was bad.

~*~

And now from Haley's Republican/Independent challenger on the Right, here is Tom Ervin, who is some kind of relation to Senator Sam Ervin of Watergate committee fame (son or grandson?).... but right now, it is interesting that he seems to be downplaying that connection. (notice their kinship isn't mentioned on either Wikipedia entry) On the Right, Sam Ervin was hated for helping bring down Richard Nixon, while on the Left, he was hated for being a Jim Crow politician. It was the great middle that loved Sam Ervin, who unexpectedly became a star during the televised Watergate proceedings, as he would periodically huff and puff, become amusingly annoyed and pointedly lecture the witnesses on the meaning of the Constitution. He was a huge hit, and I am surprised Ervin isn't reminding voters of his famous TV-star relative.

Maybe Tom Ervin figures its better to leave good ole dad/granddad out of the campaign, especially when you are running against a nonwhite woman, the first nonwhite and the first woman to be elected governor of SC.

Anyway, here is the ad, targeting older voters and veterans.

"That's Tom"



Is that the most sentimental, treacly thing you ever saw? Argh.

As we said on our radio show last week, the idea is that you can call some politician any time you need help, the way Haley famously promised: "If you have trouble voting with the new rules, just call me and I will make sure you can vote!" Politicians want the old-bubba network of making lots of personal friends by getting stuff done for them, as in those old, well-oiled Democratic machines of the North (and the Dixiecrat machines of the South). Notice the ad subtly trashes the VA, yet makes no overt criticism, much less suggest what should be done to make improvements. The overriding concept is that these faceless bureaucracies sure do suck, but a nice guy like Tom can make it alright.

These are the choices on the Right. This means we will probably end up with one of them. Watch em and weep.

BEST IDEA I've heard in a long time!

Double A mentioned this on our radio show today, and I am all for it.

We need to make the politicians wear suits advertising their commercial endorsements, just like the NASCAR drivers do. The more money contributed, the bigger the logo!

In the case of BigPharma, the logo should be that of the most popular, best-selling drug of any given company. For instance, Eli Lilly's biggest seller last year was CYMBALTA, so that word should be suitably emblazoned on the jackets of any and all politicians who took Eli Lilly's generous corporate donations. (This could well have a subliminal effect: Perhaps people will wonder if the politician-in-question is making them depressed?) I personally can't wait for conservative Senator Tom Coburn, who took $7000 from Purdue Pharma, to wear the giant word OXYCONTIN on his belly, as he addresses his constituents. Likewise, how funny would it be if Obama wore the logo ADDERALL XR at his next press conference? (Would he seem more or less authoritative?)

Here are some fashion-forward ideas I discovered, when I searched the web.

From Crooks and Liars:



Like I said, no cheating with PFIZER... it has to say VIAGRA, so everyone will recognize the product. (And frankly, this move might not sell the product as well as playing them sexee blues songs on TV commercials, but maybe Pfizer should start thinking about IMAGE?)

~*~



~*~

From Good.is:



~*~



~*~

Somebody named Captain Obvious contributed this to a political forum, the new Supreme Court robes:



~*~

And from Political Irony:

Political Animals

I was really disappointed in Political Animals on the USA network. I had been looking forward to it, and then... pfffft. Awful. Did someone fall asleep while writing the script or what? (How do you get hired to write that stuff, anyway? Maybe I should send them a resume; apparently, they are hiring entry-level screenwriters at USA.) Sigourney Weaver, usually very good at sarcasm and power-tripping games, was a tremendous letdown. She seems to have phoned in her lines. I could do as well, and so could you.

The story is a juicy one. It's all about an ambitious, take-no-prisoners, ex-president's wife named Elaine Barrish, who is now the Secretary of State.

Gee, wonder who that's about?

And maybe that was the problem. They didn't know whether to "evoke" Hillary (see above link, wherein Weaver equivocates on the subject matter) or just "recreate" a Hillaryesque character. Is she a good witch or a bad witch? They don't seem to be able to make up their minds, and the screenplay veers indecisively back and forth. As a result, they can't really take any meaningful stand. It therefore turns into just another soap opera, this one set in Washington, D.C.

At one point, Weaver/Hillary/Elaine delivered what I think was supposed to be a heartfelt monologue about her convictions, and it just rang false. This savvy, cutthroat politician who craves power, suddenly cares all about the little people? Well, maybe so--that is the very definition of "complex"--isn't it? But Weaver failed to deliver on this emotional complexity and seemed to be reciting hackneyed lines that had just been given to her five minutes previously. Awful. Avoid, avoid. Do not be taken in by the commercials, which are pretty good. (In fact, whoever made the bang-up commercials should be assigned the overhaul of the whole series, but I doubt that will happen.)

Besides Weaver phoning it in, they have Ciarán Hinds, an Irish actor, playing the character based on Bill Clinton (here named Bud Hammond). They couldn't find a SINGLE SOUTHERN ACTOR? Because Hinds' southern accent is one of the worst I have heard since Jane Fonda in Otto Preminger's feverish Hurry Sundown. Are they kidding with that? It was atrocious, insulting and utterly cringe-inducing. Where exactly in the south is he supposed to be from? (Answer: North Carolina) More like Nowhere-in-the-Real-South, USA.

And it's also notable they turned Bud into Elaine's EX husband. Why? So she could make sardonic little jokes about his legendary "other women" without any moral discomfort from the audience. And then Bud and Elaine can meet each other in a motel room, post-divorce (as Secret Service agents wink knowingly at each other and at us) and it really isn't considered wrong. Or something. The fact is, the Clintons are NOT divorced, and showing reality the way it really is, would have been far more honest (and less like hedging your bets).

Further, the "scandal" of one of Elaine's sons being a suicidal druggie (borrowing from the Kennedys now) would be regarded as a scandal for a good feminist reason: one explosive, nasty charge often leveled against ambitious women (across the political and occupational spectrum) is that they are lousy/absent mothers. THIS is why such a story might be covered up by Hillary's people, as well as the stigma surrounding addicts and addiction in general. And yet, neither of these reasons was seriously addressed by the show--that would get too (haha) POLITICAL, and soap opera is obviously where they are going with this.

Too bad. They missed a great opportunity. I will stay with the series, just to see what happens (I like soaps as much as the next person), but I hope Weaver is given the script a whole week in advance next time and/or stops reading cue cards. And please, better scripts? Please? Witty banter and snappy comebacks doesn't seem like a lot to ask from writers accustomed to making six figures.

Or maybe its always risky to try to dramatize politics. SOMEBODY might get offended and networks seek as many viewers as possible. Again, that's too bad. Offending people means you have made an impact and actually matter.

Nobody can be too offended by a soap opera.

Happy Friday the 13th!

So who caught the All-Star game, wherein country singer Luke Bryan was caught sneaking a peak at the lyrics of the Star Spangled Banner, helpfully written on his hand?

Let he who has never forgotten the dumb lyrics, cast the first stone.

It's at (approx) the 36-second mark:



I say, leave Luke alone!

~*~

I have just returned from North Carolina, where the Romney vs Obama ads were running fast and furious (you should pardon expression) every few minutes; sometimes back-to-back. This is in major contrast to South Carolina, which the Democrats have apparently already conceded to Romney. But here in the upstate, we also get two different TV-stations from NC, and I guess we will be seeing the Asheville-area based commercials all the way to the finish line. And it's still July! They haven't even had a convention yet!

We are going to be inundated with it, folks... so gird your loins.

Last week, I taped my radio show for the first time, and today, will be doing it for the second time. I confess, knowing you can mess up and have it corrected (as handy as white-out!) is GREAT. I do not have the case of nerves I used to have beforehand.

Please tune in tomorrow at 9am, and thanks so much for listening.

Thoughts on Fake Schooling

This lovely Wisteria patch is blooming beautifully--right outside the WFIS radio studios in Fountain Inn--home of the Daisy Deadhead radio show. (Podcast is up!)








There was a bright pink Packard parked in a yard on East North Street for about three weeks or so... I kept meaning to park and take a photograph of it, but the neighborhood gave me pause. Not for nothing do Catholics call the area around Bob Jones University "Ulster"--and I try to whiz through Ulster fast enough that nobody can take a shot at me. Even though I really wanted a photo of the pink Packard (something I'd never seen before), I knew the only places to park would be (eeep) church parking lots. And they'd likely ticket me for trespassing, if their security cameras got a good look at my dreaded lefty bumper stickers. Ulster plays for keeps!

So, I am sorry to say, I did NOT get a photo of the fabled pink Packard. I wonder what the sale price was?

For more news of Ulster, check out the new blog "BJU News"--which actually gives us the real news, not the okeydoke offered up by local BJU-subsidiary, the Greenville News.

And speaking of the Greenville News, Sunday's piece on tech colleges offering job training was SHAMEFUL in its lack of reporting and total acceptance of the status quo. It was one long commercial for technical colleges, as their recent piece on BJU's spring opera season was one long commercial for Bob Jones University. Do they even understand the difference between reporting and press releases? Do they have any clue what real newspapers write about? Have they ever seen the New York Times, or even the Spartanburg Herald?

Sometimes the Greenville News reads like a series of gushing travel pamphlets, advertising the upstate.

Here is my correction to the comical piece titled Tech schools offer path to jobs, lure for industries:

Once upon a time, companies trained their own employees. Really! But as they grew bigger and bigger (read: greedier and greedier), they didn't like paying people to learn, and decided to cut out this (pricey) introductory first step. So, they successfully dumped this expensive first step onto the tech colleges.

Greenville Tech has a Michelin building, for instance, paid for by Michelin to train the Michelin employees. This way, the EMPLOYEE must pay for their own training! Is that capitalist ingenuity or what? The tech college makes a profit and Michelin has a continuous stream of already-trained, job-ready applicants. You can get hired right out of school, just like Goldman Sachs hires kids right out of Harvard.

Unlike those mad Harvard skillz, however, working-class skills do not always transfer to other jobs. Michelin and BMW manufacture things their way, using their own patented materials and procedures, and have their own corporate culture. Experience in these companies may or may not transfer to another job. But that is not the concern of the tech schools. They've made THEIR profit, after all.

So, you have a continuous stream of working class people who must be constantly trained and re-trained. This sets up a revolving door of tech college attendance, as workers must PAY to receive job-training that may not even get them hired, especially in today's economy. It's a pretty good racket, and the Greenville News obviously wants to do their part in keeping that revolving door moving, and keeping those profits rolling in.

But a RACKET it is, and wouldn't it be nice if someone came out and said so?

Sitting here sorting laundry and watching LAW AND ORDER: CRIMINAL INTENT reruns, I am inundated with TV ads for countless cheapy tech schools that offer various vague degrees in "management" and so on. They invariably feature an almost-middle-aged woman of color who looks triumphant and borderline-weepy as she graduates, all while talking about making life better for her children. They know exactly who is unemployed right now, and they have geared these endless commercials for THE TECH COLLEGE RACKET, specifically to them.

Yes, I know someone must draw the blood, style hair, take care of the very old people, change oil in vehicles, prepare restaurant menus and all of that... and they need to be trained to do those jobs. Thus, I suppose these commercials should not make me as angry as they do... but they do. I resent the naked emotional manipulation of desperate unemployed people; the idea being communicated that this economic situation we are all in right now, can be instantly fixed, just by paying a fee to a fly-by-night school nobody ever heard of. All we need is MORE TRAINING.

All we need to do, say the commercials, is STAND UP AND TAKE CONTROL of our lives, at long last. Right?

Right?

Until the next economic crisis, that is. Who, I always wonder, will these people from the fly-by-night colleges be managing with their spanking-new phantom management degrees?

Are there any employees left to manage?

Volkswagen sucks

Volkswagen is using Ted Nugent's misogynist "Stranglehold" in a commercial. The major controversy online seems to be why the Motor City Madman (as he is known), would endorse a German car, which is some major Detroit heresy. Nobody cares about the woman-killing in the song.

This isn't the first time the song has been used in ads (the instrumental parts of the song are great), but it IS the first time the lyrics, "I got you in a stranglehold, babbehhhh!" have been included.

It makes me furious enough never to buy a VW for as long as I live, and yes, I AM poor and I WAS considering it, so your loss, Volkswagen!!!

Time for some pertinent questions to all the 'men's rights' folks (anti-feminists, mostly) I have currently been arguing with online:

When is the last time a woman's song about strangling a man was in a TV commercial? For a major world corporation?

Further, when did any woman even RECORD one?

Has a woman ever strangled a man in the history of the WORLD, who wasn't safely drugged or ASLEEP? (The song is obviously about the sheer delight of violent struggle; if she was asleep, he never would have written it, too boring.)

If a woman did indeed write and record such a song, would it be a big million-selling heavy-metal album? Would the woman who recorded it be accepted as a rich Republican donor in good standing (as Nugent is) and given a steady gig at the Washington Times (as Nugent is), or would she be considered a major loony-tune man-killer?

Totally laughable, isn't it?

There simply isn't any equivalent, and that is why I use the word PATRIARCHY: because we live in one.

~*~

Blogger is currently all screwed up and has been for about a month now. It will not allow me (and lots of other bloggers) to update the blog-links list. So if you think your blog belongs on it, and it's not, you are probably right.

Blogs I have tried to add to my illustrious list:

Cheap Signals (Hi Gretchen!)

Shuffle (Carolina's indie music scene)

The Good Men Project (sometimes I can post there, and sometimes I can't, for mysterious reasons)

ClarenceGrad72 (Hi Becky!)

Consider this a consolation prize for not being able to update my link list.

~*~

A little fun on the website titled your past life diagnosis. Here is mine:

I don't know how you feel about it, but you were male in your last earthly incarnation. You were born somewhere in the territory of modern USA South-West around the year 800. Your profession was that of a map maker, astrologer, astronomer.

Your brief psychological profile in your past life:

Timid, constrained, quiet person. You had creative talents, which waited until this life to be liberated. Sometimes your environment considered you strange.

The lesson that your last past life brought to your present incarnation:

Your main task is to make the world more beautiful. Physical and spiritual deserts are just waiting for your touch. Keep smiling!

Do you remember now?

Well, okay, that is a random computer program and relatively dopey... but... do you remember my Groundhog Day post here and how I described feeling unaccountably drawn to Chaco Canyon? That would be the place and time-frame described above, the time of the Anasazi, and now I am a bit spooked. (I love maps AND astrology.)

Probably just a coincidence, she muttered, reaching for her Tarot.

Tuesday linkage

Stuff you should be reading:


flyover or drivethrough country? a little about class and air travel: And how do you feel about that snotty term, "flyover country"?

Josh Horwitz on the Secret Market Segments of the Gun Manufacturers: Mike asks the pertinent question, if the gun lobby and gun manufacturers are going to such great lengths to conceal the exact numbers of sales, what are they up to?

Behold the most racist political ad of the year: You've been warned. It appears they managed to locate Charlie Chan's long-lost daughter, to do this awful commercial.

Merck pays a pittance for mass deaths: Question: Who killed more Americans —al Qaeda crashing airplanes into the World Trade Center, or Merck pushing Vioxx? Answer: Merck, by a factor of 18. Are you surprised?

Human Rights Campaign's New York Gala Dinner Protested By Queer Occupy Wall Street Group: On Saturday, a subset of Occupy Wall Street protesters calling themselves "Queer/LGBTIQA2Z Occupy Wall Street" protested the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) gala dinner at New York's Waldorf Astoria hotel because the organization was honoring Goldman Sachs.

Dennis Kucinich v. Marcy Kaptur: How GOP Redistricting Will Force Out a Top Progressive Congressmember: Two of the best in congress, which one would you choose? I have much empathy for my home state on this one.

Chris Hayes: Why Clint Eastwood’s commercial devastates Republicans: For the life of me, I can't figure out all the hoopla over the SuperBowl Clint Eastwood commercial. Hayes explains it.

Madonna, M.I.A., 'Bad Girls': The Dangers of Co-Opting Cool: As I stated yesterday, there were more tweets about M.I.A. flipping the audience the bird during the SuperBowl, than about the entire war in Afghanistan. I mean, you know, a star flipping the bird on live TV is big news. Everybody wants to know why she did it, and Joshua Ostroff explains why. (Although I did have to leave a post, correcting his iconography.) In addition, she may face a hefty a FCC fine.

Newt Gingrich's last comeback: (screams) Oh no, not another one.

I have always intended to link this great blog that you should visit every day: A PHOTO A DAY FROM PLANET EARTH. They're always outstanding!

And we end with another incisive observation from the Dalai Lama, courtesy of Mills River Progressive.

~*~

Sitting in an old Midwestern dining room with curtains flapping in the breeze. Where was it? Not my house. But it was dusk and the strong spring scent of lilacs flowed through the room. I remember peering out the window, but I don't remember the view. I do remember the song. :)

Warning: it's old and was obviously recorded right off the psychedelic teevee. This version (with embedding disabled) is more listenable than the one below, which ain't saying much.

My apologies for poor quality, but of COURSE it would have poor quality. :)

Blues Magoos - We Ain't Got Nothin Yet

News flash: People on TV live better than we do

At left: Audrey Meadows and Jackie Gleason as Alice and Ralph in THE HONEYMOONERS.




I was looking at Ralph and Alice Kramden's tiny, dingy apartment last night, flipping channels and feeling some 50s nostalgia. And then, jarringly, I landed on some shiny new sitcom, and the same supposedly middle-class people are living in $350,000 homes.

Wait, what? How could they afford THAT? Alice and Ralph barely scraped by, and they didn't even have a car. They talked about not having a car, too. They talked about money. They talked about affording things and not affording things. I suddenly realized that modern TV characters do not talk about whether they can afford things now, unless it is something obviously expensive, like tuition to particularly-pricey colleges or spiffy sports cars or extended vacations to Paris. I also realized something else: Ralph and Alice didn't have credit cards. After all, they still bought ice for their actual ice box.

They didn't have much. No nice clothes, no nice furniture. People loved them because they identified with them.

When did that change? When did regular, just-folks TV characters turn into imitation-rich-people? Even though the characters are given simple occupations, they are clearly living way beyond their means and above their pay-grade.

I first became aware of this back in the 90s, when some wit (possibly in the Village Voice) wrote an article about the then-wildly-popular show "Friends"--suggesting that their respective apartments would cost ____ (something outlandish) that unemployed actors and waitresses (the "Friends" occupations) could never possibly afford.

This TV Trope became known as Friends Rent Control, which was the official excuse for this luxurious apartment-dwelling:

Besides appealing to audience fantasy, this is usually done because large sets are easier to film in. If Monica or Chandler's apartment on Friends had been realistic, the entire apartment would be the size of an average living room, rather than the entire first floor of a house. Doing a scene with all six main characters would have been a total nightmare for the cast and crew. It's for this very reason that Angel changed its primary set from a cramped basement office in Season 1 to a spacious hotel in Season 2. In some cases, though, the reason is that the writers and producers have either forgotten or never known how normal people live; born into prosperity with parents able to afford the best universities and pampered by the entertainment industry, they actually have no clue of how the majority of people live.

Ah, we get to the heart of it.

Jackie Gleason came from Brooklyn, and actually grew up at 328 Chauncey Street, the address he used in THE HONEYMOONERS. His parents were both from Ireland. He WAS Ralph Kramden, except he didn't drive a bus (but you could certainly imagine him driving one). Jackie Gleason was poor and never even graduated from high school. He hadn't forgotten how it was to live with an ice box that used real ice.

There is a similar TV trope called Living in a Furniture Store, the title of which sums up how these TV-homes are designed and arranged.

Speaking of furniture stores, does all of this STUFF in TV shows (which we are to believe is owned by regular people like you and me), cause viewers to crave more STUFF? I think it does. I was just admiring some of the bed linens and coverings in an EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND rerun, and thinking idly of my tacky, ancient quilts and how I fall short. I see no reason to have new quilts when I love my old ones, but... well... they ARE old, and I am suddenly conscious of it.

In fact, these thoughts started me thinking about this post, and got me wondering how other people feel about this phenomenon.

What do you think when you see dental-hygienists and waiters and other low-income people living like kings on TV? Do you laugh at it, or does it annoy you?

Have you ever craved something you saw on a TV show? And let me clarify: I do NOT refer to commercials and advertising; it is the JOB of a TV commercial to make you crave something, but it is simply a symptom of viewing that makes you crave something you saw on EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND. (It is also a by-product of wanting to be like the characters, as when millions of women cut their hair like Jennifer Aniston back in the 90s.)

Your thoughts?

Dead Air Sells Out, BJU robs Greenville County (again), etc

At left: Famous cover of THE WHO SELL OUT, from whom I stole half of today's blog post title.



I have decided to enable Google ads on my blog, at long last, because I have run out of unemployment checks. CLICK THOSE ADS, people.

Seriously, I didn't want to. I initially took them off waaaay back in November 2009, due to all the "Is Barack Obama a Muslim?" and "Is Barack Obama the Antichrist?" ads (probably my own fault for naming a post that), which I found pernicious and possibly racist. Thus, in a purist political huff, I yanked the ads. Now I have put them back, since I promised myself if I got X amount of hits, it would be worth my while to do so. And in fact, I have received far more than X, but did not keep my promise to myself.

Why? Well, I still don't like the ads, that's why.

For example, the first ads that came up were for HRT, since one of my posts this month was about hot flashes. Even though I carefully state in the piece, that Hormone Replacement Therapy causes cancer, the ad-placement appears that I approve of HRT if you don't regularly read my blog and/or just skim. Annoying.

Then again, I look at the some of the atheist blogs, and they don't seem to care if they get the Billy Graham Association or Bible Study Guides on their Google ads. (Some of the ads are humongous, and they still don't care!) If they can bite the bullet, I guess I can too. On some level, they are probably thinking that 1) the juxtaposition of atheist content and Bible ads is amusing, and it is, and 2) their readers should be able to come to their own conclusions. And they should.

Supposedly, one can target ads. However, perusing the Google adsense FAQ (containing copious html code), lots of this stuff appears to be written in high-tech gibberish, inaccessible to mere mortals. (I barely figured out how to install my tag cloud, okay?) And I don't know how well the targeting actually works.

But in any event, you will now see ADS, when before, I could afford to be ideologically pure. Next time someone accuses me of disliking capitalism, I can point to all the ads here on DEAD AIR, and say WHAT ABOUT THOSE? Advertising is the American Way, after all.

~*~

Daisy Deadhead Show update: Today was our BEST SHOW YET! We featured the two run-off candidates for mayor of Simpsonville, Perry Eichor and Tammy Bagwell, as well as other call-ins. Check out the podcast to the right.

As promised, I trashed Bob Jones University, and someone called in to helpfully inform me that the BJU Art Gallery downtown was turned over to the county due to staggering debt, and now WE are supporting it. [Note: There is a "satellite" gallery downtown in the old Coca Cola building, while the main gallery is on the BJU campus.]

Well, that's certainly interesting, isn't it?

Entering the address of the BJU art museum into the tax records for Greenville County, I see that 420 College Street, Greenville, SC is deeded to: GREENVILLE COUNTY MUSEUM COMMISSION. Oh yeah? So, Bob Jones University no longer owns it, and they sold it to the county for (one assumes) a hefty profit. Was this sale voted on? Because you know, I don't remember voting on it. Who approved the sale and for how much?

Obviously, one of those sweet backroom deals that local BJU-Republicans are known for.

Market value of the property is listed as $1,394,060. Is that what the County paid for it? Where did this money come from, exactly? Who decided on the deal in the first place? How does this benefit the county?

Stinks, really stinks.

Further, my caller recently visited the Greenville County Auditor's office (Scott Case, BJU again), where there are two brand new fancy plasma TVs for people to watch while waiting in interminable lines. And can you all guess what channel these TVs are tuned to? No, not the Food Network!

Fox News.

When my intrepid caller asked a county employee WHY Fox News? The employee said that was the decision of SCOTT CASE and all interested parties would have to take it up with him.

So, we have TVs paid for by the county (that is to say, US) presumably intended for the entire county population to watch, but they are permanently set on FOX NEWS. Does the county government endorse Fox News officially? Because I think that amounts to political partisanship in neutral government territory.

But then, neutrality is not something they major in, over at BJU. Using the government to their advantage and getting local government to foot their bills and dig them out of art-gallery debt? They have obviously figured out how to do that, as has Governor Haley. And here's the punch line: all while calling themselves fiscal conservatives. As long as they use the magic talisman of *fiscal conservatism* -- they can pretty much run through as much of our collective money as they can get their greedy little hands on.

No wonder the BJU gang all voted for Haley; they have the same morality, or lack of it.

Random complaining

I don't like:

...people who live in apartments and insist upon owning gigantic dogs that can't be exercised on a damn patio, so they bark all day long from boredom.

...southerners who claim various pot-luck offerings are vegetarian, but when pressed, admit said vegetable was fried in bacon grease.

...people who say the radiation in Japan is waaaay over there, so don't you worry yourself over it. The earth doesn't turn and the air never blows and water all stays in one place, so there's no way radiation can spread... oh, wait.

...de-clawing kitties. DON'T DO THAT. And I have the torn-up couches to prove that I don't believe in it. But I can also attest that torn-up couches are a small price to pay for well-mannered, happy felines.

...the way Farmville is always trying to separate you from your credit card, to purchase much-ballyhooed "Farm Cash"--with which you can buy cartoon lakes and donkeys and other dopey shit you don't need... hey, it's just like REAL LIFE!

...And finally...(((drum roll))

Male "enhancement" ads, like the endless infomercial I am listening to right now, wherein a dynamite sex-supplement promises to make you BIGGER and BETTER. It's probably just L-Arginine, an amino acid that can be taken by itself in large doses; up to 3 grams safely. (Works on women too! :D ) And it's lots cheaper than these TV-boosted supplements, which likely include Yohimbe, something that can adversely affect men with hypertension. (The difference between simple L-Arginine and these hotshot supplements can be as much as 100 bucks, so buyer beware.) I also hate the Viagra commercials for using the legendary and fabulous song "Spoonful" in the ads. The not-so-subtle racism of using a well-known black blues song directed at suburban white men with nice cars (not to mention the comprehensive medical insurance that covers these pricey Rx drugs; some insurers don't) seems a little obvious: If you take Viagra/Cialis/etc, you will be as sexy as black men, seems to be the significance of the blues-man message. And then there is the additional subtlety of the title and concept: you only need a spoonful of Viagra.

But even without music, all the winky-winky stuff in the ads (any moment can turn into a Cialis moment!) is offensive and junior high school. Yes, we all know how we get horny just by hammering nails (think about the Freudian implications of that for a second) and hanging out with the mister, as he does his manly household tasks. And then, a knowing look is exchanged, pecks on the mouth, and they leave the room together, arm in arm. We all know that our sexual experiences are EXACTLY like that, now don't we? (((rolls eyes)))

I do appreciate that the women in the ads are the same age as the men. In fact, these ads might be the only place on TV that this is true! Mostly, hot new actresses are paired with older, non-hotties. (Think about LAW AND ORDER and the age disparities.. gray hair and such are standard, but the women are all young.) This is true in movies as well. What can we surmise from this?: That BigPharma is aware they should try to be realistic in these ads--no Lolitas anywhere. And besides, maybe that is intimidating to older men? Or do they (as I suspect) just find the idea silly? (All they want is some familiar intimacy with the wife, not the babysitter.)

The CARS in the ads, and the fact that Viagra now sponsors NASCAR, well, that shouldn't be surprising. PERFORMANCE is a big word in all advertising related to men: Stereos, cell phones, cars, musical instruments, razor blades, athletic shoes, all promise various wonderful levels of PERFORMANCE, a word you rarely hear in commercials for women's products.

Now, I wonder why that is.

Quote of the week

[The television commercial] is not merely therapy. It is instant therapy. Indeed, it puts forward a psychological theory of unique axioms: The commercial asks us to believe that all modern problems are solvable, that they are solvable fast, and that they are solvable fast through the interventions of technology, techniques and chemistry. This is, of course, a preposterous theory about the roots of discontent, and would appear so to anyone hearing or reading it. But the commercial disdains exposition, for that takes time and invites argument. It is a very bad commercial indeed that engages the viewer in wondering about the validity of the point being made. That is why most commercials use the literary device of the pseudo-parable as a means of doing their work. Such "parables" as The Ring Around the Collar, The Lost Travelers Checks, and The Phone Call from the Son Far Away not only have irrefutable emotional power but, like Biblical parables, are unambiguously didactic. The television commercial is about products only in the sense that the story of Jonah is about the anatomy of whales, which is to say, it isn't. Which is to say further, it is about how one ought to live one's life. Moreover, commercials have the advantage of vivid visual symbols through which we may easily learn the lessons being taught. Among these lessons are that short and simple messages are preferable to long and complex ones; that drama is to be preferred over exposition; that being sold solutions is better than being confronted with questions about problems. Such beliefs would naturally have implications for our orientation to political discourse; that is to say, we may begin to accept as normal certain assumptions about the political domain that either derive from or are amplified by the television commercial. For example, a person who has seen one million television commercials might well believe that all political problems have fast solutions through simple measures--or ought to. Or that complex language is not to be trusted, and that all problems lend themselves to theatrical expression. Or that argument is in bad taste, and leads only to an intolerable uncertainty. Such a person may also come to believe that it is not necessary to draw any line between politics and other forms of social life. Just as a television commercial will use an athlete, an actor, a musician, a novelist, a scientist or a countess to speak for the virtues of a product in no way within their domain of expertise, television also frees politicians from the limited field of their own expertise. Political figures may show up anywhere, at any time, doing anything, without being thought odd, presumptuous or in any way out of place. Which is to say, they have become assimilated into the general television culture as celebrities.

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death, 1986

Passages Malibu: Detox as Vacation, maybe

I've been terribly curious about that obnoxious, loud-mouthed guy in the TV commercials who claims he can CURE alcoholism, but only in Malibu. Hm. He can cure you in Malibu, but not in Detroit or Chattanooga? Now, why is that? Is Malibu crucial to his special, newfangled cure in some intrinsic way?

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it is. He can charge you Malibu prices. A dry-out session at Passages will cost you $67,550 a month.

((((coughs)))) You say WHAT?!?!

I repeat, $67,550 a month. And that was the 2008 rate, before the economy tanked.

I started thinking it was a pricey hang-out for rich pill-poppers, when I took note of the placement of the TV commercials. Many of these are conspicuously broadcast during politically-oriented TV programming, such as the Sunday morning talk shows. (Are politicians all on drugs? Are political-junkies more likely to have this problem, or has marketing research shown that viewers of these shows have more money than the majority?) There he is, blustery Chris Prentiss, whom Hyman Roth might have categorized as headstrong, talking loud, saying stupid things. He doesn't believe in the disease concept of addiction, and he won't be so rude as to call you a drunk or a junkie, which are mean, unkind words.

From the Passages website (and click over and have a look at that spread of his):

Our treatment program is not like any other in the world for many reasons. We are not 12-step based, we won’t place you in groups all day that preach the disease concept of addiction, and place degrading labels on you like addict or alcoholic. You’re better than that, and along with being free from addiction; you deserve to be free of the labels as well. For most of you that will be refreshing to hear, for others, maybe not, perhaps you still want to wear the label of addict and alcoholic even after you’re sober, such as they do in the 12-step programs, if this is the case, then we may not be right for you. If you are ready to lose the identity of addict or alcoholic, achieve lasting sobriety, and live a life of health and happiness, then we are right for you.

Uh huh. Just change those nasty, judgmental labels, and you will feel better right from the get-go!

Just like Mel Gibson, who I am sure feels so much better right now, she giggled in mean-spiritedness. Those damn LABELS are the problem!

Let me interrupt here, with my 28 years of sobriety, admittedly dotted with some spotty pill-popping and pot-smoking. I think I qualify to argue with this guy, since I think he is dangerously WRONG. But of course, he is financially RIGHT, isn't he? And I truly don't believe he CARES if he is wrong, dangerously or otherwise, but now I am getting ahead of the story.

If you are an addict, then you are. Period. You can call yourself polka-dotted or you can call yourself a Martian, or you can call yourself not-an-addict, and that does not make these statements real or true, and further, in your heart of hearts, you know it. NOT taking the dreaded LABEL does not mean you are not regarded by EVERYONE ELSE as an alcoholic or addict. Lots of alcoholics/addicts, perhaps even the MAJORITY, never claim the label of "alcoholic", but just ask anyone around them: their families, their employers, their friends. Is so-and-so an alcoholic? And they will tell you, straight up. This is the psychology of the intervention: other people correlate the facts and there is a laundry-list of your offenses, directly related to alcoholism and drug-use. No wiggle room given, when they throw you out of the commune and say, point blank, IT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE DRUNK ALL THE TIME. YOU STOLE FROM ME. YOU DISRUPTED MY BIRTHDAY PARTY, etc etc etc. It's hard to listen, but as the offenses pile up, you are forced to hear them. They are true. Everyone else is not "wrong"--while you are the only one in the right; this is not logical. Facts are facts.

Fact: Your life is out of your control, or you wouldn't be in this predicament in the first place. Why are you so concerned about LABELS at a time like this? You cannot keep on passing out and waking up in places like South Dakota or New York City (true stories of mine). Aren't you worried about dying or getting killed? Isn't your LIFE more important than whether you wear some damn LABEL? If it isn't, maybe you don't deserve to have a life, and adios. Stop wasting everyone's time, money and resources. BYE! (Sorry, the hard-ass 12-step sponsor emerges from time to time, even if I haven't been to a meeting in 8 years or something.)

If you are in such dire straits that you are spending close to $70,000 to get clean, you are an addict. Is this really in dispute? Certainly, I never spent money like that, even in the depths of alcoholism. If I HAD, I hope I would have the presence of mind to admit that I was indeed extremely desperate... and I hope everyone understands that DESPERATION is what we are discussing here. People do not spend that kind of money unless they are 1) rich people who want to get their relatives/employers/whoever off their backs in the short run and figure this might do it, or 2) desperate junkies who have tried everything else.

But this makes me very glad I was a poor addict, rather than a rich one (see post here, near the end, for my observations on that phenomenon). In the end, I was homeless, and homelessness makes for a unique sort of desperation, not the desperation of the rich movie-star or business executive... but desperation that concentrates the mind in a certain way that cuts out all the self-aggrandizing, egotistical bullshit. TIME TO DEAL.

I am grateful this happened to me, and I saw clearly. In Alcoholics Anonymous, this is known as a MOMENT OF CLARITY.

Perhaps the Passages people never get one of those. Do they?

I found a very informative article titled Addiction: Buying the Cure at Passages Malibu in LA Weekly, written by Mark Groubert. (There are 199 comments, also worth your time, if this subject interests you as much as it does me.)

The Groubert article is some fascinating reading:

Inside the cavernous main hall — there are two other buildings on the 10-acre facility — are yet more columns, a cascading staircase and a gaggle of pretty young guys and gals. These are the personal assistants. Each client at Passages gets his or her own personal assistant, which is kinda cool when you’ve been hammer-heading (combining Ecstasy and Viagra) for months and need a Himalayan goji-berry cocktail brought quickly to your bedside so you don’t miss the next installment of Intervention on your personal 46-inch plasma TV while waiting for your kick meds to kick in. The 29 comfortable beds here are currently filled with patients who pay $67,550 a month for them. Passages, owned and run by Chris Prentiss and his son Pax, is the most expensive, luxurious and controversial residential drug-treatment center in the world.

The Prentisses are the Holocaust deniers of the addiction-recovery industry. They deny the existence of addiction. They deny the existence of alcoholism. They deny that it is a disease, or that it is incurable.

...

“Doctors and scientists are still treating alcoholism as if it is the problem, when it has nothing at all to do with the problem,” Prentiss tells me. “They might as well be studying scratchism for people who have a chronic itch.” Prentiss insists that one of his major goals is to “see the word alcoholism eliminated from the English language.”

...

Prentiss immediately tells me the I Ching is “the greatest book ever written,” that “it tells the future with 100 percent accuracy.” He tells me he has written more books on the I Ching than any writer in the world. I wonder if that’s true, seeing as how I am currently surrounded by I Ching books written by an author named Wu Wei —titles like I Ching Wisdom and I Ching Life, I Ching Readings, The I Ching Workbook, The I Ching: The Book of Answers. Wu Wei, it turns out, is Prentiss’ pen name. It means “no name.” All his books are self-published under his own imprint, Power Press.

Ah, so Prentiss is a self-styled California GURU too. Why am I not surprised?

Prentiss now tells me how his system of workshops and therapy can actually cure addiction: “Our powerful treatment methods provide total recovery from addiction through intensive individualized therapy. Our fully customized treatment program first discovers and then heals the underlying causes of a person’s addiction using one-on-one therapy.”

Confused by Prentiss’ claims, I later call Dr. Drew Pinsky, [1] the noted addiction specialist. When I read Prentiss’ statement to Pinsky, he states emphatically, “There’s no evidence that aggressive therapeutic intervention early in the course of addiction does anything but make addicts want to get loaded more.”

Of all his offbeat claims, Prentiss’ “success rate” may be his most outlandish. In an industry where reputable facilities such as the Betty Ford Center and Hazelden wouldn’t dare claim even a 25 percent cure rate, Prentiss sticks to his guns. He looks me square in the eyes and says: “We have an 84.4 percent success rate since we opened our doors in 2001, the highest in the world.”

I really love that .4 that he adds to the high number, really makes it sound scientific.

Prentiss says his cure rate is based on the latest survey involving 700 of his graduates, with whom he keeps in contact through phone calls and alumni gatherings.

I ask him how he could statistically compare someone who left his rehab sober seven years ago with someone who graduates tomorrow having spent 30 days off drugs. In 12-step programs, the person with 30 days sober is considered to be in the infancy of his or her sobriety. Prentiss doesn’t see it that way. Once the car comes off the assembly line, it’s ready to drive.

“It’s easy,” he grins. “They’re both cured.”

Well, there you go.

That well-known "revolving door of detox" we've all heard of in AA? Just old wives tales. One visit to detox, 25 visits, all the same. You're CURED, baby! [2]

The stories of suffering individuals who have spent astronomical amounts of money on this half-baked bullshit [4] are very disturbing and make me wish these folks could file malpractice lawsuits.

Despite the pressure to stay another month, [Passages patient] Billy took part in the talking-stick ceremony after 60 days and some $100,000 of his parents’ money. One of the first things Billy did to celebrate was to smoke two eight balls of crack in a reunion with three other “cured” grads after renting a luxury hotel room on Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica. Combined, the four upscale crack heads had spent more than $300,000 on the Passages cure. The two eight balls, by contrast, cost around 500 bucks.

One fellow named Stuart spent around a quarter million on two stays at Passages, about six years ago. Interestingly, at that time, AA meetings were part of the process!

So what happened?

“When I was there, we did six or seven [A.A.] meetings a week. Two or three in-house and the rest out,” he says. “And they were mandatory. When Chris wrote his book [The Alcoholism and Addiction Cure],that ended. That’s when he decided A.A. was the villain, because he decided he could make a fortune if he just claimed he had found the cure for alcoholism.”

The business executive continues in an upbeat, almost appreciative tone: “Chris has a brilliant scheme that they have cooked up there. He has the perfect sales pitch.” His voice suddenly drops. “I know. I fell into it. It’s a beautiful sales pitch when someone is at the end of their rope.”

When I tell Stuart I couldn’t find any of the success stories Prentiss brags about, he tells me, “People come in there, they fail and nobody can call him on it. He’s got clients with confidentiality agreements to hide behind.”

Stuart believes the word CURE was the marketable innovation, and of course, AA does not believe in cures, so Passages and AA were then at odds. "Chris was having trouble filling the beds, and the minute he changed the message, they filled to the brim. He created a cash machine,” Stuart says.

Stuart is now an AA member, and feels he must expose the 84.4% fib.

“I scraped ex-clients out of seedy hotels, that’s why I have firsthand knowledge. I actually cleaned up the mess. The first thing they would say to me was, ‘Omigod, I relapsed,’ and the second thing was, ‘Please don’t tell anyone at Passages. Chris will be disappointed in me. I must be hopeless.’ They believed the 85 percent cure rate and felt like complete losers.”

I dearly wish this scam could be exposed further. I'd love to stop seeing the extremely pricey commercials for their extremely pricey "cure" every Sunday.

And if these advertisements were about a cure for cancer? Diabetes? Asthma? Eczema even?

Would they be allowed to claim cures on expensive network television?

Don't make me laugh.






~*~

Notes:


[1] In the article, Groubert notes that Dr Pinsky and the Prentisses squared off on Paula Zahn's TV show:

“I think [Prentiss] said it wasn’t a disease,” said Pinsky, somewhat amused. “I don’t know what you can cure other than diseases.”

HAHAHA! Good shot, Doctor!

[2] One of my personal pet peeves is when smokers claim they have quit 10 (or however many) times, so yes, they know how, and of course (wait for it!), they can quit any time they want to!

I always correct them. As an ex-smoker, I cannot restrain myself from pointing out the error: No, you TRIED to quit smoking 10 times, and you failed, or you wouldn't still be smoking.

To me, this is a simple delineation, but I guess it's too difficult for Chris and Pax to understand (or perhaps it's just not in their economic interests to get it).

[3] To be clear, Passages is just one of many elite, resort-type treatment centers for celebrities in the area that specialize in pampering. By contrast, at Betty Ford, even the rich and famous must take out the trash, but no such demeaning work will be required by these swanky resort outfits, which I gather is a major reason they exist.

I know how eye-rollingly humorous it is, when Alice Cooper or Robin Williams or someone comes out of rehab, all starry-eyed about how, wow, I took out my own trash for the first time since I was a kid! But that is part of the process for such people, taking them down off their high-horses and reminding them that they are fallible human beings like everyone else. This is crucial to recovery for a person accustomed to being idolized. Because if you are super-human, you can therefore take super-human amounts of chemicals and endure, right? This is thinking like a drug addict, and puncturing such depraved-thinking is necessary. Taking out the trash and washing dishes is a good place to start.

As we can see from the link, Lindsey Lohan getting perpetually waited-on did nothing for her sobriety.

[4] Hey boys and girls out there, don't forget: Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous are FREE. FREE FREE FREE. In the big cities, you can walk to meetings at nearly any time, within minutes. And some of them will have coffee and donuts, and they will be FREE too. (Since they understand addiction intimately, they ASSUME you are poor already, and they are usually right.) Recovery in AA will not cost you a red cent, unless you feel like donating. And donations is what the organization is built on.

Just a friendly reminder, in case you need one. :)

We won't give pause until the blood is flowing

Photo of the greatest writer and philosopher of the 20th century, JG Ballard, from The Northern Light.







I have been trying to articulate what I dislike about mass-market holidays. In particular, the mass market holiday that Christmas has become.

And I find myself going to my late guru to explain; may his soul rest in peace. I miss him like he was my own father. Maybe he was, in a way.

From V. Vale's quite invaluable J.G. Ballard: Conversations, some excerpts that say it far better than I can:

People use mental formulas that they've learned from TV. Even in ordinary conversation, if you're talking to the mechanic at the garage about whether you need new tires for your car, you and he probably talk in a way that his equivalent thirty years ago would never have done. You use--not catch phrases, but verbal formulas. Suddenly you realize you're hearing echoes of some public-information, accident-prevention commercial. It's uncanny.

[...] What's interesting [about Reality TV shows like Big Brother] is that almost nothing happens. There's a certain amount of bitching and gossip and sitting around the supper table talking in a sort of half-hearted way, but there's no drama. Nonetheless, the audiences are riveted. And they're riveted by very similar programs where TV producers put people on desert islands and see how they survive; a series called Survivor did just that. I think this reflects a tremendous hunger among people for "reality"--for ordinary reality. It's very difficult to find the "real," because the environment is totally manufactured.

Even one's own home is a kind of anthology of advertisers, manufacturers, motifs, and presentation techniques. There's nothing "natural" about one's home these days. The furnishings, the fabrics, the furniture, the appliances, the TV, and all the electronic equipment--we're living inside commercials. I think people realize this, and they're desperate for reality, which partly explains the surge in popularity of "adventure" holidays. People think that by living on some mountainside in a tent and being frozen to death by freezing rain, they're somehow discovering reality, but of course that's just another fiction dreamed up by a TV producer. And there's no escape.

Holidays like Halloween and Christmas are spectacles that people engage in, because they are on TV. Working retail, I consider a certain type of existential-shopping (wherein people don't really know what they are "looking" for) part of this Ballardian phenomenon.

There are so many fabulous quotes in this book, I will be blogging lots of them. For instance, about the disparity between rich and poor:

In England [this conversation was recorded in 2003], we're getting unprecedented disparities of wealth. The people who run our biggest corporations have begun to affect life in London primarily by buying up property, and the old middle class (doctors, civil servants, teachers, salaried professionals) can no longer afford to live in central London. Now there are whole areas of central London given over to the rich. I've often thought that in due course all these very rich financiers are going to leave very large sums of money to their children. Then you'll get a sort of New Leisure Class who never work, but have huge spending power--like the ancien regime in France. Supposedly, the same thing is happening in Manhattan: the middle class has been forced out...

V. Vale replies that the same thing is happening in San Francisco; New York and San Francisco are the two most expensive cities in the USA. I would add that it's even true in lil ole Greenville; the 'centers' of towns/cities are now priced out of range for the actual natives of those towns/cities. Most of the people moving into the new high-priced condos in downtown Greenville, for instance, come from someplace else, often from Europe or the coasts. The rich colonizing the cities and leaving the outlying suburbs to the poor and the rabble, is the exact reverse of what happened in the 60s, when the rich moved to the suburbs and left the inner-cities to rot. Now that they crave authenticity, they have moved back to cities in droves. However, they still aren't getting the authenticity they crave, since the only people who can afford to live in cities are rich, affluent people who are all just like them.

In the cities, a bizarre new class-based uniformity has taken hold, while in my suburban apartment building, every race and age and nationality and economic status is well-represented.

Authenticity has been priced out of the market.

Speaking of which, here is Ballard on the future of sex:

[The] time is going to come when no young woman will regard penetrative penis-and-vagina sex as real sex, because it isn't deviant enough to be considered "real sex." These days, magazines for teenagers sold openly on newsstands have headlines like, "Interested in S&M sex? Junior Cosmo explains all you need to know." And this is a magazine that's going to be bought and read by 14-year-olds. The period of conventional, penetrative, penis/vagina sex will be over by the time you're about 15, and then you'll move into the area of conceptualized sex, S&M, and whatever--and that's what will be regarded as real sex. To me, this seems like a daunting thought.

Ballard on the future of reading:

People don't use libraries as much as they used to. One thing I miss terribly--I don't know if the same thing applied in America, but over here in the Forties and Fifties when I first came to England, what I loved were the second-hand bookshops. Every small town had a second-hand bookshop, which was constantly being stocked up... when someone died, the family took their books to the second-hand bookshop and got sixpence each for them. There were a lot of unserious materials, popular novels and the like...but there were a lot of very serious books. You know, one serious collector in a lifetime could produce enough books to keep a second-hand bookstore open for a year.

I did most of my reading in second-hand bookshops. I remember when I was living in London somewhere I used a local one. Also, serendipity came into it [...] You made accidental discoveries all the time. And this sort of refreshed one. You were constantly being surprised, constantly making discoveries. All this is gone now, of course. There can't be more than a half a dozen used bookshops in the whole of West London, if any.

What we've got now is a new kind of literacy. We've got people who are expert at reading the labels on products, expert at reading instructional manuals that come with a new kind of vacuum cleaner, or a computer or what have you. They're expert at that kind of reading, but not at anything else. Not with a more traditional book.

I don't know if the internet has affected that. I have very high hopes for the internet, which I think could be the sort of--if we're entering a New Dark Age, the internet could help to keep the lights on!

I'll be revisiting these Conversations often, which Ballard would be pleased to know, I found by browsing bookstores in the serendipitous manner he has described so well.

I miss you, man.

~*~

Ballard would have understood this song/video, which is where we get today's blog-post title. Caution, may trigger, may offend, watch out, yada yada.

(Not for the faint of heart or the oversensitive. Really.)

Vicarious - Tool



Note: Well, damn, there is some argument over exactly the lyrics I was going to quote. I always heard:

We all feed on tragedy
It's the virtue of empire

Other listeners report: "It's the virtual vampire," and still others, "like blood to a vampire." (Does anyone know the official lyrics?)

I guess you can still understand the concept, though.

Put another way:

Ain't nobody here but us chickens

All photos from my Flickr page.









Will somebody please explain to me how a bunch of meat-eaters can judge Michael Vick? As "key figure" of an extensive dogfighting ring, he was convicted and properly served his time. And now, various self-righteous asses want to continue to punish him, as somehow WORSE than other NFL players... and if you follow the exploits of various sports figures, as I do, you know how hilarious that is.

If I see one more condemnatory TV announcer blathering on, then --cut to a KFC commercial-- (!!!) I'm gonna hurl. Yes, eat eat eat that meat, endless profit-driven commercials for Hardees, Burger King and McDonalds, all while calling Michael Vick a BAD MAN. It's some of the most illogical mass-insanity I have ever witnessed.

All I can manage to say is: how dare you.

And before you say anything: YES, IT IS THE SAME.

EXACTLY THE SAME.

Ohhhh nooooo, the carnivores say, we LIKE TO EAT BIRDS. So, it isn't the same thing as dogfighting. We have said so!

Actually, it might be worse. At least the dogs get a fighting chance. The birds are raised to die.

Ohhhhhh nooooo, the carnivores say, WE MUST EAT.

Yes, I am fully aware that we must eat, but I haven't eaten meat in well over a decade now. I am alive and well and typing. YOU DO NOT NEED TO EAT MEAT TO LIVE AND BE HEALTHY.

Ohhhhh noooo, the carnivores say, there is sadism and unsavory pleasure taken in dogfighting.

Really?

There is also unacknowledged SADISM in putting an animal in your mouth and ripping it to pieces, chewing it up (GROSS!) and going MMMMMMM (instead of retching) when this is not necessary to live and is only for the pleasure of your palate. How is your deliberate ripping, slicing and cooking of birds, God's creatures (not yours!), any different from sport? It's all about entertainment of one kind or another. How is the entertainment of your palate supposedly superior to the entertainment provided to Michael Vick and his friends? The only difference is that one form of sadism is culturally acceptable and one is not.

In some countries, eating dogs is acceptable, too. Is that objectionable to you? Why? (Because as Samuel L Jackson instructed us, a dog has a personality, and a personality will take you a long way.)

I wrote this at the outset of the Michael Vick extravaganza, and my opinion has not changed one iota. In fact, I am more pissed than ever as I watch a parade of carnivorous cluelessness on TV and in Blogdonia.

ESPN comments on Vick's current situation:

Michael Vick, who has been conditionally reinstated by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, is free to sign with a team but which situation is the best fit for the league's former highest paid player?

Coming off a two-year prison sentence, many teams aren't sure about what Vick has to offer. There are questions about his fitness and skill level and the public relations hit a team could take is certainly in every owner's thoughts. Will he be the type of quarterback to stay in the pocket and throw the ball down field? Is he still the run first, pass second guy? Is quarterback even the right position for him?

Take all these questions into account as you decide which teams are most likely to step up to the plate and give Vick the second chance he so desperately wants.

It's right that teams should worry about his fitness level, but when they start the moralistic horseshit, I reach for my gun.

Meanwhile, PETA is up to their usual assholery. When they aren't doing "cutting edge" stuff like parading naked gals in front of every available camera, they are engaging in constant media whoredom, barging into every network news-show that will put up with them. They are now calling Michael Vick a "psychopath"--if you can believe it. Let's see if they have the guts to call every CEO of a factory farm a "psychopath" also. Ha! I smell hypocritical NEWS WHORES at work, once again.

From HuffPo:

To clarify misleading stories regarding PETA and Michael Vick, PETA withdrew its offer to do a TV spot with Michael Vick last winter when a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report on Vick's dogfighting activities revealed that he enjoyed placing family pets in the ring with fighting pit bulls and that he laughed as dogs ripped each other apart. PETA believes that this revelation, along with other factors in the report, fit the established profile for anti-social personality disorder (APD), and we called on Vick to have a brain scan to help confirm this. People diagnosed with APD are commonly referred to as "psychopaths." They are usually male, prone to lying and manipulation, often take pleasure in cruelty, and cannot feel genuine remorse, which frequently leads to recidivism. PETA had previously been in talks with Vick's management, public relations, and legal teams about shooting a public service announcement to help combat dogfighting, upon Vick's release from prison. In December, after consulting with psychiatrists, PETA withdrew the offer for the TV spot, and in January, we called on NFL Commissioner Goodell to require that Vick undergo a brain scan and full psychological evaluation before any decisions were made about the future of his football career.

I've seen people laughing their asses off and shoving baked cows, pigs and birds into their mouths at the same time. Unbelievable, but true. Let's see PETA call the majority of Americans "psychopaths" and start the bullshit-pop psychology on THEM! Oh, wait... if they did that, they might not get asked back on Fox News for comedy relief!

Assholes. PETA and Michael Vick's dogfighting droogs all deserve each other. Lock em all up in a dogfighting pen and see who comes out first... as the infamous tagline for "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" asked: Who will survive, and what will be left of them?

PETA does more damage to vegetarianism and animal rights than any one organization in the world.

And BTW, if you like your meat? You refuse to give it up because the pleasure of your palate is more important than animals? THEN LEAVE MICHAEL VICK ALONE. The meat-eating culture that devalues animals CREATED HIM. If you want respect for animals, you must have respect for them all, not just the cute ones that obey you.

~*~

Okay, rant over. Now for some lightheartedness...

Ain't nobody here but us chickens - Louis Jordan and the Tympany 5 (1946)

High Fructose Corn Syrup ad targets African-Americans

Your humble narrator was drowning in domestic tasks yesterday, and began SEWING (!!!) ((((stop the presses)))) stuff that has been torn and buttonless since the beginning of time. While sewing, I sat in front of the TV watching THE REAL HOUSEWIVES OF ORANGE COUNTY. The new one, Lynne Curtin, looks fabulous. I wondered, MUST we play tennis and work out 24/7 to look like that?

I think so. ((sigh))

But interspersed with the usual gossip and catfights were commercials FOR high fructose corn syrup. By the time I saw the same commercial a dozen times, I was LIVID.



The Corn Refiners Association is assuring us that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is "fine in moderation"--and brings us this chirpy-cute commercial to drive the point home. Watching it over and over, I realized, the race of the participants and the ROLES they are playing, particularly enrages me, and I must say something about that. The OPEN RACIAL POLITICS of the commercial are fascinating, as well as infuriating.

Note that the African-American woman haughtily schools the woo-woo white woman (who reminds me of Mary Gross on the old Saturday Night Live; she used to specialize in the wide-eyed, clueless hippie routine). The white woman patronizingly blurts out to the black woman that the drink she is pouring has HFCS, and the black woman (subtly, but calmly superior) lets her know that it is JUST FINE. Then, nervous that she has been unnecessarily self-righteous with a black woman, she quickly adds, "I love that top!"

The background is very suburban American-mellow; these are two housewife-moms at a neighborhood party of some kind, with balloons everywhere and children scampering about cutely.

ARGH!

First, let's be clear that this commercial is directed at WOMEN, who buy most of the food for children and families. And most assuredly, it is directed at BLACK WOMEN, with a black woman reassuringly delivering the comforting nutritional information. This is at a time when African-Americans have the highest rates of diabetes in the USA. The American Diabetes Association has a whole page on this fact alone:

Compared to the general population, African Americans are disproportionately affected by diabetes: * 3.7 million or 14.7% of all African Americans aged 20 years or older have diabetes. * African Americans are 1.6 times more likely to have diabetes as non Hispanic whites.

And what contributes to diabetes? Guess. Consumer Reports analyzes the ad point-by point:

1) "It’s made from corn." True. High-fructose corn syrup is indeed made from corn. But you won’t get the same beneficial nutrients in it that you would from eating an ear of corn.

2) "Doesn’t have artificial ingredients." Partly true. The claim about artificial ingredients is a tricky one, since high-fructose corn syrup is processed using artificial agents. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated that if the final product has come in contact with synthetic agent glutaraldehyde, then it cannot be called “natural,” which they define as meaning no artificial or synthetic ingredients were added. But if the manufacturer uses the artificial agent in its production, and it does not come in contact with the corn starch, it can be considered a natural product. So its possible that some high-fructose corn syrups may be able to claim “no artificial ingredients,” according to the FDA, while others would not be permitted the phrase. It’s distinctions like these that lead Consumers Union to consider the “natural” label not meaningful.

3) "Like sugar, it’s fine in moderation." True. Most foods are fine in moderation. It’s too much or too little that causes problems. However, some would probably argue that with high-fructose corn syrup in so many products, to truly enjoy it in moderation you’d probably be better off leaving the “red juice” on the shelf.

This is pretty tame criticism, but does make the point that this ad is pure propaganda for the industry, using a comforting set of buzzwords. A commenter at Consumer Reports, tellingly named Open Your Eyes, puts it even better:

HFCS seems to be in everything we eat without enough research. Foods that did not have HFCS before have now either been forced to up their prices or to jump on the bandwagon to compete. Now consumers were oblivious to this extra sugar intake until recently and researchers are still finding new data on its effects. According to [another commenter] fructose is easily transformed to energy without the use of insulin. Simply put: everything we eat= HFCS, High Fructose consumption=low insulin production, Low insulin=Diabetes. The name says it all "High Fructose" --so more than normal, and that is a problem. Just because it comes from corn does not make it good for you either. Soap... made from animal fat+potassium, wouldn't eat it. Glue... made from animal parts, wouldn't eat it. Play dough.. sure its non-toxic and salty but it's simply not food.

Humans evolved eating naturally occurring food and HFCS doesn't grow on trees. HFCS came from a test tube in a lab. The body has a problem with artificial because for hundreds of thousands of years it got used to natural and it came from natural. This crash course of artificial isn't going to do very well.

Another woman commented that she attempted to buy soup today and couldn't find any that DID NOT contain HFCS.

Soup? Huh?

One reason that quack Dr Atkins made such major inroads with his goofy diet, was that he correctly pointed out how much sugar (usually in the largely-hidden and/or misunderstood form of HFCS) is in EVERYTHING. Most people were unaware, for example, that this insidious form of sugar is sneaked into non-sweet prepared foods like ketchup, soups and salad dressings. One could conscientiously read the packaging-labels, and still not fully realize one was eating pure sugar, unless you understood exactly what HFCS is.

Further confusing matters is the fact that back in the day, "fructose" (by itself) was considered a healthier alternative to sucrose (pure table sugar), since it came from fruit. Thus, for many years, consumers believed HCFS was some kind of improved-sweetener. And of course, it is not: it's a way for the corn industry to turn us all into junkies, and in the process, make themselves very rich.

Just as the tobacco companies turned out propaganda in the 60s, assuring us that nicotine was FINE, JUST FINE, these commercials are the nutritional equivalent of the SAME BULLSHIT. From Newswise Science News:

Researchers have found new evidence that soft drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) may contribute to the development of diabetes, particularly in children. In a laboratory study of commonly consumed carbonated beverages, the scientists found that drinks containing the syrup had high levels of reactive compounds that have been shown by others to have the potential to trigger cell and tissue damage that could cause the disease, which is at epidemic levels. They reported here today at the 234th national meeting of the American Chemical Society.

HFCS is a sweetener found in many foods and beverages, including non-diet soda pop, baked goods, and condiments. It is has become the sweetener of choice for many food manufacturers because it is considered more economical, sweeter and more easy to blend into beverages than table sugar. Some researchers have suggested that high-fructose corn syrup may contribute to an increased risk of diabetes as well as obesity, a claim which the food industry disputes. Until now, little laboratory evidence has been available on the topic.

In the current study, Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. He found ‘astonishingly high’ levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages. These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with “unbound” fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, says Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are “bound” and chemically stable, the researcher notes. Reactive carbonyls also are elevated in the blood of individuals with diabetes and linked to the complications of that disease. Based on the study data, Ho estimates that a single can of soda contains about five times the concentration of reactive carbonyls than the concentration found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes.

And, as we have established, WHO is developing diabetes at dangerously high rates right now? African Americans.

Is it any accident that an African-American woman was chosen to deliver the Corn Refiners Association hype in this commercial? I hardly think so.

Please be aware of this industry's LIES and open manipulation of consumers as you go about your shopping... and check the labels, if you don't already. You will discover that HFCS is in everything from soup to noodle mixes. They have money to burn... or at least enough to run some expensive, carefully-targeted advertisements to defend their wanton creation of more sugar-junkies.

With all that extra coin, they don't need yours.