We Should Be So Lucky

First- I am in no way attempting to excuse the rude, disgusting behavior of the idiots in this ad. To me, libraries are still sacred places. The idea of people eating freaking candy bars while flipping through old books, leaving sticky fingerprints on books lovingly donated with the best of intentions or on PC keyboards- I mean, come on, some of us are still trying to have a Society here.

But you know what? I've spent enough time in libraries recently to know that if the worst that today's current generation of slobs could come up with is snapping Kit Kats and grunting "mmm" every few seconds, we non-pathetic library lovers would be quite appreciative. But it's not- not even close. Instead, over the past year I've witnessed

1) Full-throated conversations carried on at a volume better suited for subway stations

2) thoughtless jackasses listening to music on their I Pods. In the library. Again- more appropriate for subway stations

3) Any number of knuckle-dragging, clueless choads listening to rap music, speeches, and pretty much everything else on library PCs (I've asked librarians- "if you MUST provide internet access, why can't you at LEAST deactivate the volume?" They always look at me like I've got a second head growing out of my neck.)

So please, Anti-Social, Rude Pricks Who Insist on Putting Yourselves on Display at my Local Library- take a hint from this commercial and confine your stunning lack of common sense and dignity to breaking candy bars and letting us know that you like the taste. Because behavior that would have been almost scandalous a couple of decades ago would be almost a breath of fresh air these days.

But please- stay off the computers, and don't open any rare books. We can ignore the stupid, satisfied sighs- and in real life, Kit Kats really don't make that much noise when you break them.

Current Status: Clueless

Amanda is quite certain that everything that happens to her, anywhere, at any time, is worth posting to her Facebook account. And apparently she's become very good at finding Facebook "friends" willing to act as total enablers to her obsession with spending her life in the public eye- every. single. moment of it.

And now she's found a phone that fits her life (as if the words "life" and "Amanda" really go together. ) Here's a phone/camera/best friend in the whole wide world which allows her to post every stupid, pointless, vapid "activity" instantly on Facebook. I especially enjoy the way she provides her own soundtrack, which fits exactly with what I would expect to be echoing through that rather empty chamber she calls her brain case- "la de da da da...." If there is a woman out there with ditzy cartoon noises echoing between her ears, it has to be this dullard.

"La di da di da" is the perfect theme of a woman who has a real purpose in life- to buy stuff, and to show people what she bought, and to use what she bought to annoy the hell out of the rest of us. Personally, I think that letting Amanda buy this stupid little toy is like giving an arsonist a pile of oily rags, or handing an alcoholic the keys to the wine cellar. Because in my humble opinion, this weirdo needs help, not even more "connectivity."

And I think the Best Buy Employee would agree with me here- she also needs to be taught the concept of Personal Space. Hey, Amanda- the undereducated part-timer who happened to be roaming the floor when you decided to wander in and enhance your collection of electronic junk probably isn't really all that interested in getting "tagged" wearing her ugly blue work shirt by a total stranger with too much money to spare. She's not your "friend," and she's not an f--ing prop to be displayed on your homepage, ok?

Innocent Bystander at the Disaster Date?

I've gone off on online dating sites before, but I think Zoosk deserves it's own post, because the company seems to be specializing in creating relationships for what is a surprisingly large population of extremely good-looking yet oddly available extroverted sluts. Unlike eHarmony, Zoosk seems determined to sell itself as a site featuring only very hot, very sexually available young people who, inexplicably, can't seem to find dates on their own.

Oh, and it seems that Zoosks' clientele must be at least as stupid and vapid as it is attractive. Exhibit A is today's featured ad, which features a woman explaining to her friend how a little tryst at the office went bad. I guess.

Here's how the "office romance" worked- the woman in question could barely wait for the door of the copy room to close before crawling all over the object of her- umm, affection? Except for the fact that the instigator is a woman, this would make for a rather comical situation- in a 1970s sitcom. In the age of sexual harassment lawsuits, all this seems incredibly crass and retro and out of place.

When the two "lovers" emerge from the copy room, the woman looks like she's rather hastily dressed herself, and the guy has inky palm prints on his ass. Again- imagine the sexes being reversed here. Now try to imagine this ad running in the United States, in the year 2011. Not Likely.

Remembering this "comical" (actually "unprofessional," "inappropriate," "insulting," "degrading" all come to mind before the word "comical," but I'm trying to figure out what the makers of this mess were going for) scene, Our Heroine tells her friend "I think I'll just stick to Zoosk...." And now this all gets very confusing. From what we see, the Office Romance seems to have gone quite well- not only did she hit it off with her fellow coworker, but they did it in the office, on the company's dime. If it was a little bit awkward, that was only because of a stunning lack of foresight and common sense on the part of the frisky couple. There's no indication that she didn't have a really good time, or that she doesn't like the guy she apparently just banged on the Xerox machine. She doesn't look embarrassed (seriously, how could she, after all but announcing to the entire Sales Department that "me and this guy are about to have sex in here, people!?") Yet, remembering the reaction of her fellow employees, she decides that she is no longer interested in Jack from Accounting, and would have better luck hooking up with some anonymous creep posting at a dating website?

Or maybe she and Jack got canned five seconds after she walked out of the copy room with her blouse hanging out, and pissed-off Jack blamed her for the scandal which cost him his job?

Or maybe, in recalling this sordid little episode, she forgets to mention the six weeks of sensitivity training the office is requiring her to go through if she doesn't want to be hitting the unemployment line?

Or maybe, just after the climax, she noticed that ewwww Jack from Accounting has a small amount of gray hair, and is therefore Nowhere Near As Attractive as she thought he was?

I don't get what's going on here at all. If this woman likes Jack from Accounting, why can't they date (and by "date," I mean go out to eat, take in a movie, and have sex like normal people- in a bed, in private?) This woman actually acts like she's the victim of somebody else's bad decision- "I let down my hair, locked myself in the copy room with this guy, and we molested each other for about three minutes. Boy, THAT was sure a disaster- I'd better stick to Zoosk from now on!" What am I missing here?

A Simple "No" would have been more respectful, jerk

This Television Dad has decided that he'd rather have his son think he's just a selfish, smarmy prick than have him think he's stupid and easily manipulated, like all the other TV dads.

Son wants to drive the car- hey, why not? Nice, empty highway, perfect driving conditions, and (apparently) several hundred miles ahead of them with no stops planned. Jackass Dad responds with a "deal"- Son can drive as soon as it's time to stop to fill up.

The joke is that this car consumes No Gasoline Whatsoever- it's a perpetual motion machine, capable of traveling endlessly on no fuel. So the sun crosses the sky and sets, the highway continues to unwind in front of this sad pair as they whiz by one gas station after another, and Son sits helplessly waiting for his turn. Perhaps the scene where Father and Son stop for a snack, or to use the restrooms, and Son is informed that technically they didn't stop to fill up and therefore it's not "his turn" yet, was cut. Or perhaps Father and Son are as amazing as the car, and don't need any breaks of any kind, ever, either.

So it's dark by the end of the commercial- and the optimal time for Son to practice his driving has passed (unless Dad thinks it's best for Son to take over the wheel when he's drowsy from hours of travel, and gets to deal with approaching headlights and limited visibility while Dad takes a nap in the passenger seat- very smart, dad.) I guess we are supposed to just assume that wherever Dad and Son are going, they will get there without having to stop for fuel.

And Dad knew this all along- check out the knowing glance this piece of human excrement gives his exasperated son near the end of the ad.

Message Received- Dad's an Asshole.

So what else is new in TV land?

And after Fourth Meal, let's all drive our SUVs in circles for an hour or so

In Ghana and Chad, the average adult consumes about 1600 calories per day- roughly 67% of the number recommended for healthy weight maintenance. In the United States, the average adult consumes 3500 calories a day- about 140% of the number recommended.

Quick Quiz: In which country is a particularly vile provider of gross excess promoting the idea of adding a "Fourth Meal" to the daily diet? Hint: It's the same country currently being sold on the idea of making an "XXL Beef Burrito" (880 calories) part of that "Fourth Meal."

In 1970, the United States ranked #28 in average daily calorie consumption. Today it ranks #1. No, it's not entirely Taco Bell's fault- Taco Bell is not the only company pushing very hard to convince us that Oil, Flour, Beef, and Corn Syrup make up the latest version of the Food Pyramid. McDonalds with their sugared french fries and SuperSizing, 7-11 with their Extreme Gulps, and KFC with their (gag, I still can't believe this) Double Down "sandwiches" have to take part of the blame.

However, at the moment it's Taco Bell which is really hitting the "Big is Better" theme. Commercials featuring Europeans staring in amazement at massive packages of carbohydrates and greasy meat and wondering "what are we supposed to do with this?" (My suggestion- chop it up and serve it to about twenty people. People you don't like.) Loud-mouthed pitchmen explaining the importance of stocking up on 20-gallon jars of mayonnaise. And now this loathsome "fourth meal" ad campaign, which makes "Punch Dub Days" look positively charming by comparison.

Where's our social conscience, anyway? While a huge percentage of the planet wakes up every morning wondering where First Meal is going to come from, and accepting the idea that First Meal is probably Last Meal for the day, the fattest, sweatiest, most gluttonous nation on Earth is going to embrace the concept of a FOURTH meal-- why? Because there is something intrinsically evil about not being stuffed to the gills with fatty poison 24/7?? Because feeling hungry because your distended stomach is sending false signals to your brain and not responding by instantly shoveling garbage down your pie-hole is Un-American? Because YOU CAN??

How's this for a better idea- every time you skip "Fourth Meal," you drop the $5 you were going to spend shortening your life by consuming this mess into a piggy bank. At the end of each month, take out that money, deposit it, and write a check to Oxfam. Your clothes will fit better, you won't sweat as much, your heart won't scream for mercy when you walk up a short flight of stairs, and you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you are helping someone, somewhere get to First Meal because you "sacrificed" Fourth Meal. You may even live to play with your grandchildren.

Just a thought.

So much Depressing, in such a little Package!

As I watched this ad, I just assumed that it would end in a punchline that did not involve this woman being pregnant. Because, being naive, I just figured that while cell phone commercials have been celebrating coldness, and cruelty, and just plain banal obnoxiousness for years now, there had to be SOME limit to the depths the people who write these things are willing to reach.

I was wrong. The punchline I assumed could NOT come, came. This woman is actually informing her husband that she's pregnant- over the phone. It's almost comical that she demonstrates a concern for his schedule- "got a minute?" (Because I guess that's all it's going to take, five seconds after she informs him that what they've been "working on" for so long, that life-altering event they've been hoping for, has finally come to pass, he can get back to doing whatever he was doing) and their privacy ("are you alone?") before telling him- OVER THE PHONE- that she's pregnant.

Good. Freaking. Lord. I swear, this "sharing" crap has pushed us right over the edge and into the abyss. "Can you pick up some milk?" Sure, share that. "I'm at the airport, can you pick me up, please?" Sure, share that. "We are going to have a baby?" Yes, share that- FACE TO FACE, YOU DISGUSTING, TECHNOLOGY-ADDICTED SOULLESS LOSERS!!!!

I will say this in praise of the people who put this mess together- it usually takes a lot more than thirty seconds to unleash such a large amount of Oh Come On This Doesn't Ever Happen In Real Life bile into the Already Overflowing With Noxious Crap TV Universe. This little parcel of hate is at least delivered efficiently. Thanks for that, Verizon!

Now you can go back to destroying civilization, one little nugget of hate at a time.

So the reason I'm poor is- I don't have a dog??

60

This is becoming a pretty common theme in commercials for investment bankers, "structured settlement" companies, etc: Dogs have money, or dogs worry about money, or dogs have terrific ideas on how to GET money. In this particular ad, Dog is deeply concerned because his Master has money issues (despite living in what looks to be a fairly substantial home in a nice suburban neighborhood.) Master's money issues are so bad, in fact, that Dog's dish is empty. Master can't live on his structured settlement, and Dog is going to die, I guess. I mean, that's the message I get.

Turns out however that Dog has other plans- it involves getting Master to sell his structured settlement for a lump sum. Because Master's crappy money management skills will be solved by killing the golden goose and getting a percentage of the cash all at once, right now. I can see where Dog is coming from- I mean, if Master is getting a million dollars spread out over 25 years, Dog will be long dead before the last check arrives, even if Master does manage to buy Dog food now and then. But if Master can get, say, $250,000 right now, Dog may just live high on the hog for the seven or eight years of life he has left. And once Dog is dead, what does he care if Master regrets surrendering the better part of the settlement and being forced to fend for himself (you know, like 99 percent of us do NOW?)

I don't have a dog- I feed a stray cat which, after three years, will still not let me pet it or bring it into my house (she lets the guy next door pet her though- I'm really close to cutting her off.) I can tell you that this cat has never offered me financial advice. Maybe she saves it for that other guy. Or maybe it's only dogs who know how to handle money. That's certainly the way it looks on tv.

But hey, Master- trust me, your Dog is looking out for himself here, all the way. Because unless you are really desperate, selling out an annuity for a settlement is about as bright as taking a Rapid Refund. Still, I'd like to at least sit down and discuss my investment options with a dog- they sure do seem to think about money a lot.