Just start making out with your phone, already. You know you want to.

This....this is just...sad.

Here we have a lonely, pathetic jackass with a lot of questions and no humans willing to be seen with him to ask for information. So he must spend his days bleating these questions into his best friend. Since this is the year 2012, it's not surprising that his Best Friend is his I Phone.

"How do I play 'London Calling?'" (Quick tip: Just...don't.) "Show me a G chord. Tell these two girls that our band is playing in the garage (where else?) tonight. Wipe my nose and change my diaper." (Ok, I made up those last two, but would it come as any shock if those were actually his next lines?)

"I need a guitar." Hmmm...let's review what we've learned about this kid so far: He does not have a guitar. He does not know how to play a guitar. He is incapable of actually calling people to arrange meetings. He knows two girls willing to meet him in his garage, and he already has a band. Maybe the continuity got left on the cutting room floor. No, I Phone, this is NOT a request for the director's cut.

This advertisement isn't funny or informative, and it doesn't show us how the I Phone could make our lives worth living. What it DOES demonstrate is how the I Phone can spare us from ever talking to another carbon-based life form, ever again, by adopting a virtual voice that asks "how high" whenever we bleat "jump" and never, ever questions our bizarre helplessness when faced with any task, no matter how commonplace and mundane.

And it concludes with this stupid, helpless kid pathetically requesting that his phone refer to its owner as "Rock God." Because those girls sure aren't about to. Wouldn't it be great if the phone bleated back "sorry, but even I have limits, Loser?"

Considering that phones are being marketed as best (only?) friends and personal assistants these days, I think we all know what the logical next step in the owner-phone relationship is, don't we? No, I don't want to picture it in advance, either.

Sadly, Kindle continues to pimp it's dumbed-down version

Here's a better answer to the question "but what if you want to watch tv or download videos?:"

"I am not a drooling, pretty picture and television-addicted moron who needs to have 24/7 access to video. I don't need to be constantly distracted by pretty moving pictures and sound and cartoons and games. You see, I grew up reading, and I like to read, because it improves my vocabulary, stimulates my imagination, and broadens my horizons by giving me windows into new worlds and thoughts."

"So...if I want to watch tv or download videos? I guess I'll be doing that when I'm indoors, using the television in my living room or, on rare occasions, my laptop. Because unlike you, I actually know what the word 'need' means, and realize that it's not interchangeable with the word 'want.' I don't need to watch television or play little games on a screen while I'm in between cooling myself off in the pool. Because there is a time and a place for everything, a concept you seem to have lost track of."

"And my kids? They have old-fashioned Kindles too, and they love them, because I'm raising my kids with the same love of reading that has so enriched MY life. Just because they are one-third my age doesn't mean that they need to be distracted with the electronic equivalent of Jell-O. They LOVE to read, for the same reason I do. Oh, and they don't feel the 'need' to watch television or play brain-dead games any more than I do."

"Now, could you move your pathetic butt to where it isn't blocking the sun?"

(BTW: "Three Kindles- that's gotta be expensive?" Considering that it looks like this woman brought her kids to some tropical resort so that they could have a more glamorous place to stare at their little screens, this seems like a rather silly question. And what kind of weird idiots ARE these people anyway? I know I never want to meet kids who would prefer staring at an electronic box to jumping in and out of a pool or running along miles of beautiful sand. This family is seriously damaged.)

IAMS wants us to think that animals are jerks, just like humans!

Can I take a few minutes to let you know how much I hate the "brilliant, cute" idea of giving animals human voices and attitudes? And I see it all the fricking time- animals attracted to cars, cell phones- you name it, ad agencies insist on pretending that the smaller mammals among us share our sick obsession with gadgets. And don't even get me started on the "male animals are attracted to female humans" bit- ugh.

These particular ads for IAMS pet foods seem designed to make us hate our pets. See, they aren't grateful and loving and sweet and humble- they are egotistical, pompous a-holes who are as wrapped up in themselves as we are.

Ever wish you knew what your pet was thinking? Well, IAMS wants you to know- your pet is thinking how wonderful it is, and how lucky you are to have the privilege of being in the same vicinity with it. Personally, if I could "hear" my pet talk like this, I think I'd feel a lot differently about it. And not better.

When is IAMS and other ad agencies going to give up on the idea that the "lower" animals are just like us, which means that they are arrogant, materialistic, and self-centered dicks? It's not funny or cute, and it never has been.

Come and get me, Reputation.com!

Here's another "service" I wish I had come up with. As near as I can tell, it promises to seek out negative reviews on the internet and surgically remove them, leaving nothing but praise, rainbows, puppies and unicorns behind. Well, why not? Anyone who expects anything approaching accuracy on the web probably deserves what he gets.

This "service" removes "malicious reviews" like "I had a bad experience" and "slander" like "he's arrogant." Wow, I hope nobody tries to comment on the quality of this doctor's waiting room magazines- he'd probably find himself up on charges.

It's not mentioned explicitly, but I imagine that Reputation.com must promise to be constantly at war with sites like Angie's List, which are clearing houses for nitpicking, peevish, "the monkey I hired didn't jump quite high enough," potentially career-gutting reviews. (I can imagine the woman who's "favorite plumber" agreed to walk her Pekinese around the block until "her business has been taken care of" is quick to post nasty screeds against the electrician who refused to do that pile of dirty dishes on his own time.) Or that company which claims to provide instant background checks (Verified.com) on everyone you've ever met.

What is never explained is how this "service" goes about weeding out the truly malicious, FALSE posts and leaving the perfectly accurate- but negative- comments intact. Do we really think that the good people at Reputation.com respond to "malicious" posts by tracking down and interviewing the poster, then fact-checking with the subject of the post, to determine it's accuracy? Hardly. In fact, it's strongly implied that Reputation.com sees it's job as removing any mention of the customer that doesn't praise his ability to walk on water.

So "Reputation.com" is probably not the most accurate name for this "service," which seems dedicated to nothing short of removing anything that is not a glowing review from the internet. (Maybe "Whitewash.com" would be better?) And now that I've typed this, I'll sit back and see how successful the company is in removing this bad review from the web.

You can get blood from an Apple. Steve Jobs was great at it.

At the factories which produce these things in China, teen-aged girls work thirty-hour shifts. Several end their shifts early, however, by dying of exhaustion.

Some of the girls have lost the use of their hands through repetitive motion injuries and stress.

The windows on the third floor and above are wrapped in chicken wire to prevent the "employees" ("slaves" would be a more appropriate term) from committing suicide while at work (and costing their employers precious time and money finding replacements.)

The workers are paid pennies per hour (none of those nasty, job-destroying Unions.) Many are severely underweight, and have no access to regular medical care. Or education. Or decent shelter. Or hope.

All so we can act like helpless, technology-addled morons with our shiny toys, which of course MUST be updated every few months- as the little starving girls on the other side of the planet (out of sight, out of mind) put the newest version together with their own thin little fingers. (A caller to CSPAN's Washington Journal this morning told the audience that China was a "good friend" of the United States which "does us much more good than harm," because "when we buy an iPad, 90% of that money comes back here and only ten percent stays there." Warms the heart.)

Slavery hasn't been abolished. It's been exported. Like I just said- Out of Sight, Out of Mind. It's more important that I get directions to that trendy noodle place I just heard about, complete with pop-up reviews, while I watch the latest episode of Dexter on my I Phone than the company that provides this "necessity" treats it's slaves--err, "employees" like human beings. It's not like my $300 is making that suffering possible. Hey, I can't change the world. I'm only one person.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to head to the news stand and read the latest "Steve Jobs Was God" retrospective.

And when I say my prayers tonight, I'll send an extra blessing to the Job Creators, the Most Productive, who prove again and again that Capitalism is the source of all that is Good and Decent in the world. I think there's an App for that.

Unfunny Role Reversal by Vonage

The first time I saw this ad, I had the oddest feeling that something wasn't quite right with it. I didn't know why, but it left me feeling confused and a bit disoriented.*

So I watched it again to try to find what it was about this commercial which seemed off-kilter. It's not the appearance of the "dad" here- he looks appropriately scruffy, as if he just rolled out of bed a few moments ago and it's not one of the two days a week he shaves or combs his hair. It's not the "mom"- she's appropriately flat in her manner and speaks in the monotone usually reserved for harried women with two kids (one which has to be pampered, fed, and constantly catered to, and the other which wears diapers.)

At around the third viewing, I finally got it- in THIS ad, it's the GUY who seems genuinely taken with his offspring (even using that grating old "blessing" cliche.) He isn't distracted by the Big Game on the Big Screen, and he isn't juggling the kid and a phone conversation at the same time. He isn't bitching about the economic burden the "blessing" is putting on Mom and Dad. And he doesn't look as though the kid is in constant danger of being dropped or otherwise injured by Thoughtless, "What is this thing I'm carrying" doofus dad.

Now of course, dad is STILL the nitwit here- he seemed to miss the part where Mom pronounced judgement on the Phone-Cable "bundle" and instead quickly assumes that she's talking in dismissive, cruel, bloodless tones about their child. "My bundle? Isn't it OUR bundle?" Still, he seems to care and be genuinely concerned that Mom wants to "dump" the baby. In pretty much every other commercial featuring a Mom, a Dad, and a Baby, the guy would be blathering about expensive "bundles" while the woman wrapped her protective arms around the "blessing" and protested. But just the image of a loving dad is a step in the right direction, seems to me.

Now, if these two nitwits would stop referring to their baby as "the bundle," as if it's just another piece of freaking furniture, we'd really be getting somewhere.

*of course, the cause of my disorientation might be the simple fact that the baby's blanket, the towel on the mommy's shoulder, and the room's curtains all seem to be cut from the same cloth. Maybe the reason Dad doesn't put Baby down is because if he does, he may never be able to find him again.

"No, it's a death trap. Sign here, moron."

Ok, I get it- fifteen years ago, this jerk was a tow-headed dope who wanted a bike, but only if it was "fast." The guy at the bike shop told him "hey, it's ten speed," which may or may not have convinced him that the answer was "yes." Hard to say, considering that fifteen years ago there were plenty of 18-speed bikes out there. Maybe if the guy in the final scene looked closer to fifty than thirty, this part of the ad might have made a little more sense.

Then, ten years ago, a slightly older version of this twat we have absolutely no reason to care about wanted to buy a scooter (I guess he wasn't being beaten up regularly at school already.) He asks "is it fast?" This is a bit confusing- why would anyone interested in speed want to buy a scooter? Why not just buy a motorcycle? He also looks a little old to be taken in by a lightning bolt sticker- but then, this guy doesn't strike me as the sharpest tool in the shed...

The punchline is that now he's looking at a crappy German import and, knowing that a Jetta is about as close to the opposite of a sporty, fast vehicle one can get without going right over the edge and purchasing a SmartCar, he asks "is it safe?" Oh wait, it's not because his wallet won't let him buy a fast car- it's because he's managed to find someone to breed with, which now means he's Mature and Responsible, Yadda Yadda Yadda You Know The Rest Because God Knows You've Seen It A Million Times Already.

This doesn't make the question any more intelligent. How is the car salesman supposed to respond to "Is it safe?"

"Oh, you want a SAFE car? You are in the wrong place- these cars explode if you look at them wrong." Or how about

"Yeah, I get it. You got a girl to have sex with you, and now you have a kid. And you brought that kid in here in one of those stupid harness things. And now you are desperate to convince me that you are an awesome dad because you put safety first when choosing an automobile, PLUS you carry the thing around in one of those stupid harness things. You're a dad. I GET IT." Or maybe

"I'm sorry, I didn't catch your question. I was too busy sniggering at that stupid harness thing." Or just

"What's with that angry look on your kid's face? I mean, did you go and tell him you are his dad, or something?"