AT&T Ramps up the Hate

Come now- in real life, the woman in this ad is clearly miserable in her loveless sham of a marriage, and is looking for a reason- ANY reason- to bail. When her husband sticks his head into the greenhouse (could this be their personal arboretum? If so, is this woman really complaining about her husband wasting money?) to announce that he's just signed the family up for some great AT&T offer, she looks as if she's totally reached the end of the rope with this guy and his insane spending habits.

"I should have married John Clark" she mutters, loudly enough for her husband to hear. Instead of doing the sensible thing- telling her to go ahead and call a lawyer, get a divorce, and start preparing to spend the rest of her life making John Clark the most miserable man on the planet- her husband replies that the service is free, provided when he signed the family up for unlimited messaging (which the family obviously needs- you certainly never want the kids to stop messaging, ever.)

At this point, if I were this woman (and I thank my merciful God that I am not) I would have asked the question I think is kind of obvious- "well, Steve, how much does UNLIMITED MESSAGING cost?" Or how about starting with "don't you think we could have talked about this before you went out and signed us up- maybe I we don't WANT our kids glued to their fucking phones 24/7? Are we an actual functioning family, or what?" Instead, Wife is stunned to discover that Steve has, perhaps, avoided being a Complete and Utter Screw-Up, For Once.

I'm pretty used to cell phone commercials dripping with hate and contempt for human beings and society at large, but AT&T takes it to a new level here. As usual, there's nobody to sympathize with- idiot Husband made a rather important decision concerning the family's cell phone usage without consulting Wife. Wife made a bitter, nasty, and cruel comment in return before knowing all the facts. And all we, the viewers, are left with is the hope that these guys stay married forever, because really, this is damage that ought to be contained, and I think they deserve each other.

I THINK so. I'm not QUITE sure anyone deserves this woman. If I were John Clark, I'd change my name and cell phone number.

Dodge's next vehicle should just be called the "Attitude"

Anyone else sick of the same smug, self-satisfied authoritative voice giving us yet another twenty second version of "what the hell is wrong with you why don't you own one of these things already, you must be a clueless retard" while showing us a vehicle that Dammit As Long As Gasoline is Hovering at Just Under Four Bucks a Gallon we don't want?

Anyone else remember how cars didn't come with voice-operated GPS, seat warmers, OnStar, Hands-Free Cellphone service, Satellite Radio, and a thousand other things that needed tinkering with while we are just trying to get from Point A to Point B?

Anyone else thinking what I'm thinking every time I see this stupid little nub of an ad- that if you DON'T have someone riding Shotgun in your Dodge Whatever, you are going to be spending a LOT of time and energy doing things that don't involve keeping your eyes on the freaking road?

And getting back to my original point- anyone else sick of having Dodge all but say out loud that if you don't already have one of these things sitting in the driveway of your suburban paradise, you must be already dead, or just too f--ing stupid to take the hint embedded in Every. Single. One. of Dodge's "These vehicles are so awesome we really don't understand why we even have to advertise them, except that the American consumer is pretty damned clueless" spots.

Here's a tip, Dodge: Kill the attitude. Your cars and trucks aren't so very hot, and a lot of us simply don't need all those stupid extras, and sure as hell don't want to pay for them. And while you're at it, kill the spokesman, too, ok? Because the confident, bored monotone just isn't working.

Don't worry, Mom. I'm sure you'll find other ways to damage this child.

This pathetic excuse for a mother is clearly mortified because her little daughter wants to wear hoodies and cargo shorts, gets dirty, and keeps building parking garages with blocks. I think it's pretty safe to imagine that Mommy's Little Clone is SUPPOSED to want to wear frilly dresses (pink, of course) while serving tea to her teddy bears and Mrs Beasley doll. Later, she'd be allowed to graduate to Barbies, but the pink dresses stay.

Because it's all about appearances, and apparently this wretched, sadly fertile lump of mucus thinks there is something truly scandalous that her female child isn't Happily Living the Stereotype. Oooooh, she gets DIRTY!! She wears non-pink clothes, including hoodies and shorts!! She builds something that doesn't look like a stove or a Dream Kitchen! The horror! Where will it all end?

Well, maybe it will end with the development of a fully-functioning, female adult. One that understands that in the 21st century, women can do ANY GOD DAMNNED THING THEY WANT- wear clothes which are not pink dresses, become engineers and architects, GET DIRTY, whatever. That is, they can if they aren't molded into square pegs by weird, smothering, hovering helicopter mommies who are so twisted that they actually fantasize that their children's favorite clothes will be ruined so they can be replaced by more "acceptable" items.

Just one question- where the hell did this little girl develop a taste for clothing which is so offensive to mommy in the first place? Think there is more than a little hostility between Mommy and Daddy out there? Think the in-laws are slightly more open-minded (though really, who wouldn't be) when they pick out clothes to give to their favorite granddaughter? I mean, clearly there is a back story here.

Meanwhile, the story that is right out there, in our face, is that this woman has got some serious issues, and needs help. I'd start by having that metal rod someone jammed up her ass surgically removed. Then I'd tell her to stop taking all her social cues from Phyllis Schlafly. Because wishing your kid would ruin her clothes so you could go back to dressing her up like your perfect little poppet? Yuck.

Oh yeah, I want a house full of these things

Ugh, looks like the Village of the Damned is missing one of it's prized residents.

This hideous little girl has wandered away from her oblivious, free sample-hogging mommy in order to harass the Probably Already Wishes He Were Dead I Mean After All He Looks Like He's In This Late Twenties and He's a Stockboy store employee.* For some reason, this guy feels compelled to defend the veracity of Fiber One's claim to be High Fiber to this Adorable Little Moppet, even to the point of engaging in a "Yes It Is/No It's Not" battle of "wills."

Fortunately, our favorite weird Middle Eastern Guy with the Colonial British Accent comes to the rescue by essentially taking her side and explaining how Stockboy MUST be telling the truth because his pants are not on fire, proving that he's not "Pathological." At this point I really want to hurt the person who taught this kid the word "Pathological." That person deserves it, because she's probably the same individual who taught this kid that it was ok to call people who are just trying to make an honest living that they are liars. Never mind talking to strangers, which I thought was an obvious no-no in this day and age.

The mercifully short mess ends with the nasty little tike skipping off with a box of Fiber One to toss into Mommy's cart. We may assume that Mommy lets her kid pick out her own cereal, especially if she's sold, which she certainly seems to be (after all, she's so engrossed in stuffing her face with free samples, she didn't even notice that her kid went off to do research on the product's ingredients.) And again, we are left wondering why this particular ad would convince anyone to eat stuff which looks like, and probably is, just a pile of nuts, twigs and pencil shavings.

*When I was in my late-20s and recently married, I worked in the dairy department at a Wegman's Grocery Store in upstate New York. Because it was a job I could get, and the hours were flexible enough to allow me to substitute teach during the day. I can remember being bothered by annoying, know-it-all customers who thought that I had nothing but time on my hands, but none of them were little kids. Most of them were Seniors coming in to do their daily shopping for a cup of yogurt and stick of butter, who needed to know RIGHT THEN AND THERE if I was holding out on the Milk With The Slightly Better Expiration Date, or if there was REALLY no Rice Pudding left in the back, and I was just too lazy to check. I don't want a house full of THOSE people, either.

With "Friends" like these...

A few years ago, when I didn't know what Facebook was, I heard two students in the hallway comparing the number of friends each had. One said he had 250 friends. The other said he had 290, and had added fifteen in the last few days. I was impressed, and I stopped to ask if they had been to camp recently, or some community activity, or a family reunion, to find themselves blessed with so many friends.

They explained to me that they were referring go their Facebook "Friends," and in fact had never met roughly 90 percent of them. In other words, they were referring to photographs which represented numbers, which in turn indicated nothing more intimate than the willingness of a lot of people to add their names to lists kept by strangers, as long as the "favor" could be reciprocated. These "friends" did not actually know them or ever even talk to them. They certainly could not be called upon for a ride to the airport, or a shoulder to cry on. They were "friends" in a sense which seemed quite alien and sad to me.

Now, there's another way to "value your friends." If you refer them to your cable service, they represent one hundred dollars each. That's how much money you can get for each friend who signs up for DirectTV, as long as they are "friendly" enough to reference your name and membership number when they do so. The next time you look at someone you think is your friend, just imagine them as a big, ugly one hundred dollar bill. But only ten of them- there is a limit to this offer, after all. just like there is a limit to friendship- right?

Well, I suppose this was inevitable. First, friends are just names and faces willing to use you to pad their Facebook total. Now, they represent money. Because after all, how much do you REALLY value Facebook Friend #346, compared to a hundred bucks?

As far as I'm concerned, "valuing" your friends by seeing them as representing an opportunity to make money is no less cynical and crass as using them to make your list of Facebook "Friends" artificially larger.

Remember Society? Wasn't that fun, while it lasted?

The person who wrote this crud clearly hates dogs.

Another pet peeve (no pun intended) of mine: Personification in advertising. I really hate it because I love animals. So when advertisers make animals act as stunningly stupid as the dumbest, most witless human beings, it really ticks me off, because I know better.

Dogs and cats do disgusting things that we don't need to get into here. I get that. But if I thought for one minute that dogs would ever react to the smell of "Beggin Strips" like this, I would instantly lose all respect for dogs, everywhere. Sniffing each other's butts- I get it. Eating grass- I get it. Marking territory- hey, it's genetically programmed in. I get it. Going insane over the smell of a snack and repeating the name of that snack over and over again in your mind? That level of insulting idiocy is reserved for human beings, sorry.

There's also the little message here that when a dog jumps on you, it's not showing love or loyalty. In fact, it's not thinking of you at all. Nope- it's just thinking of BACON BACON BACON BACON BACON!!!! Because the smell of BACON compels dogs to lose control, abandon their territory, and race to the source as quickly as their four legs can carry them. How, exactly, dogs naturally know what bacon is, let alone naturally crave it*, I don't pretend to understand.

What I do know is, according to this commercial, if you open up a bag of Beggin Strips, you'll have every freaking dog in the Free World rushing to your door to get at it. And this is a good thing?

*I've often wondered this about cats and fish, too. Do cats really crave fish? Is that just instinctive, because it seems to me that the only way domesticated house cats would ever consume fish is if it were served to them by a human. Do they really like fish more than other meat, or is it a Mice and Cheese-style myth? Do I just have too much time on my hands, or what?

And if you try to spin off that Pigeon, someone's going to get hurt, AFLAC

Remember when the AFLAC duck was kind of a cute concept? It was back in 2000- that's right, during the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION- that the duck made it's first appearance, trying to remind a guy sitting on a park bench what the name of that company that provides him and his coworkers supplemental insurance was called. It was mildly amusing and maybe even a little bit clever- "AFLAC" sounds sort of like a duck's quack. Decent idea. Well done, AFLAC.

Thirty commercials later (seriously- according to Wikipedia, there have been more than thirty separate commercials featuring the duck) it's not a decent idea anymore. It's not at all cute. It's--- hmm, what's that phrase I'm trying to think of? The one that applies to the Geico lizard and those god-awful, Also Amusing for a Commercial or Two But Please Stop Now Cavemen? Oh yeah- PLAYED.

But even "played" doesn't really describe my reaction to this latest AFLAC commercial. I mean, "played" can be used to describe Ray Ray Johnson ("you can call me Ray, or you can call me....") back in the 70s (or was it the 80s?) "Played" also fits when discussing Punch Dub Days, "Here We Go" Bud Lite Commercials, and those stunningly unfunny fake "press conferences" featuring the choads who shout questions about beer to long-retired NFL coaches. It's a real understatement to describe the continued presence of a computer-generated duck quacking "AFLAC" when put in that context, isn't it? (And don't get me started on the break-dancing. Just don't.)

We are on the verge of another season of NFL football, which means the insurance commercials will be coming at us in larger quantities than usual. Is it too much to ask, AFLAC, that you dump the duck and come up with a new concept sometime before the Patriots win the Superbowl in February? It would be much appreciated.

Because this duck thing....seriously. Enough, already.

Oh, and Bud Lite? Enough with the "press conferences," too. Never clever. Not even once.