The Hilarity Of A Super PAC

I think I love Stephen Colbert. His effort to attempt to point out (through glorious parody and general amusement) just how ridiculous the rules for things like Super PACs are. And the rules would seem to be that there are no rules. Pretty much, you can say whatever you'd like and it doesn't seem that there are any consequences for anything.

moreless

It's NOT Offensive!

With so much asininity going on all over the place today, I decided to flip a coin. Then I flipped it again. Then I flipped it again. Then I flipped it yet again. Finally, I got bored flipping the coin and decided I needed to pick a topic. I went with one of my favorite occurrences, one I love to despise. I went with a company pulling an ad because A group complained about something that doesn't even exist to complain about.

The gutless, spineless, wussy-ass company in the spotlight this time is General Mills and the commercial for the product that shouldn't even be in question is for Yoplait yogurt. According to the Huffington Post, a group called NEDA (the National Eating Disorders Association) believes that the commercial "...could trigger dangerous behavior in those suffering from eating disorders." Wow. That's a pretty powerful commercial. Or not. Let's see what the commercial entails.

According to the article (well, and the commercial), what we have is a young woman who appears

to be of regular weight standing in front of an open refrigerator. In front of her is a massive raspberry cheese cake with a huge slice taken out of it. The woman does what a lot of people (not just women) do when they're looking at a delicious freaking dessert like raspberry cheesecake. She starts to figure out how she could eat some. She thinks first about how it would be all right because she had been "good" that day. (I'm assuming that is referring to her eating habits and not some sort of willfull disobedience of the law.) Then she ponders whether eating celery sticks along with the slice of cheesecake would balance it out. (I'm pretty sure that works.) Then she comes up with the idea of jogging in place while she eats a large slice. (I'm pretty sure that would work too.) Then she wants to jog in place AND eat the cheesecake AND eat the celery sticks. She's just full of ideas, that lady is.

That's when a co-worker or some other mystery woman comes up behind her and exclaims, "Oh! Raspberry cheesecake!" And she reaches into the refrigerator and grabs a container of Raspberry Cheesecake Yoplait yogurt (which is delicious, by the way). The would-be-jogging woman notices that the yogurt woman looks like she has lost weight. Cut to a picture of the product and then back to the woman who has decided upon the Yoplait yogurt for herself instead of the cheesecake and is sitting happily at a table eating her yogurt. The end. Do you feel like developing an eating disorder now? No? Huh. I guess that's because NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!!

HOW on earth is that supposed to trigger something in people with eating disorders?! Well, if you ask the president of the very annoying NEDA, a one Lynn Grefe, she will tell you "[For those with eating disorders], opening a refrigerator is like walking off a bridge. And to see this behavior in a commercial tells people with eating disorders, see, it's even on TV. It's ok and normal for my head to go through all these mental exercises." Oh, for Christ's sake.

Soooo....God, I don't even know where to begin. I guess the obvious. Does that apply to any depiction of an opening refrigerator on TV? Because if it does, half of the TV shows out there and half of the commercials out there are going to need to be cancelled. And don't forget about the movies! My GOD, the movies! And if this applies to food, of course it must apply to other things. For example, people who are violent. If they see violence being depicted somewhere, they must automatically think that it's OK. Same with drug users. Same with people who are knocked up. All just fine because, by using the NEDA logic (which I can't not recommend enough) if it's "even on TV" then "it's normal for my head to go through all of these mental exercises." Oh, there's something mental going on here, that's for sure. But I'm not so sure that it's exercises.

Why does this have to be about eating disorders? Why can't this be about eating healthy and being a reasonable weight? Isn't that what

Michelle Obama has been trying to drill into the soft, soft heads of the American public? We need to make better food choices? How is that commercial anything other than a woman trying to make a good food choice? She isn't saying that she wants to eat the entire cheesecake and then vomit it up in the company bathroom five minutes later! She isn't saying that she has starved herself for the past two months, eating nothing but dust and Chiclets because she feels fat. No, she's trying to figure out how she can justify eating something that probably isn't the best choice all the time. How is this commercial about anything other than selling yogurt and trying to make responsible eating decisions? I don't get it.

According to various sources on the Innerwebs, it is estimated that approximately 8,000,000 people have some sort of eating disorder in the United States. With a population of approximately 307,000,000, that amounts to about two and a half percent. But if those two and a half percent complain, by God, you had better do something about it, right? Wrong! There isn't any INTENT in this instance! There isn't even any SUBSTANCE in this instance! The VP of Corporate Communications for General Mills, a one Tom Forsythe, responded "We had no idea...The thought had never occurred to anyone, and no one raised the point. We aren't sure that everyone saw the ad that way, but if anyone did, that was not our intent and is cause for concern. We thought it best to take it down."


You thought best to take it down WHY? Because you're spineless? Of course that thought never occurred to anyone. Why would it?! It's a non-issue. No one raised the point because there wasn't a point to be raised! And while he's right that everyone did NOT see the ad that way, he's totally wrong when he says that "We thought best to take it down." NO! That's not best. That's not best AT ALL! ALL a company needs to do in this situation is simply say, "We're sorry you're 'offended'. That wasn't our intent. We don't see the commercial as 'offensive'. We're not taking it off the air because there is nothing wrong with it." That's it. For a long time I have said that the first company to actually take this sort of a stance on an issue like this will see a windfall of profits. I guarantee you that if that article was about how Yoplait was NOT pulling their ad because a bunch of tight asses thought it would do...something....(I'm still not clear on their actual complaint)...I guarantee you that people would take notice and would buy that product. I don't even eat yogurt that often, but if Yoplait had kept the ad on the air, I would have made sure than whenever I did eat yogurt that it was Yoplait. The non-offensive video is below. But be warned! You could develop some sort of eating disorder by watching a woman open a refrigerator and try to decide what to eat. Lord only knows what other conditions you could come down with after watching it and I won't be held responsible. It's your doing, really.

moreless

Jingle All The Way

I know that we live in an overly litigious society. And I know that it is completely out of hand. Both of these facts I am well aware of. So why am I so surprised when I see such a ridiculous result of the accumulation of those two things?

I wish I had the actual video/commercial to post here, but I can't find it online, so you're just going to have to rely on my stellar gift of colorful storytelling in order to understand what it was that I saw tonight. Once you understand that, you'll definitely understand why it was so ridiculous. The incident in question was a commercial for Degree antiperspirant or deodorant. One of those. Maybe both. It was definitely Degree, though. The premise of the commercial was simple. They had a bunchy of women (it's apparently a female under arm remedy) wear what was essentially a bracelet of jingle bells. (They used the term 'jingle bells'. Not me. Bells would have sufficed for me. We're not at the North Pole.) The idea was to get the women to realize how much they moved around all day long. Apparently, they would have had no idea of that were it not for the jingle bells making noise on their wrists.

Listen, I don't care if you're a man or a woman, but if you don't realize that you're moving all over the place all of the live long day, you are incredibly unaware of yourself. Might I suggest a class? Do you really need jingle bells on your wrists like you're some sort of wayward feline to point out that you have a busy day and are constantly moving? Personally, I don't. But the morons at Degree think that we do. And they think that some of the things that we do when we're going about our day are things like catching cabs, roller blading and folding laundry. (OK, she was fluffing a towel over a balcony, but I think that it was supposed to represent folding laundry.) The point here is that the whole commercial was ridiculous.

But here's the kicker: As they start to show their jingle bell wearer montage, a little footnote/caption thing pops up at the bottom of the screen. Guess what it said. Just guess. Here, I'll help you and give you some clues. People roller blading...getting in a cab...fluffing a towel...possibly doing some laundry...come on! You see the connection, right?! No? Do I have to spell it out for you? Fine. At the bottom of the screen it said (wait for it): Do not attempt.

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Are you freaking kidding me? Do not attempt...to fold a towel? I don't get it. Are the Degree people so afraid of being sued that they need to put that sort of a disclaimer on the advertising for their product, lest some crazy woman out there decide to get in a cab one day after seeing it on TV? Do not attempt?! Do not attempt every day actions? No one was on fire or anything. Do not attempt what?! To understand the commercial? Done! We are so freaking doomed. Doomed!

moreless

The Clothing Drive

Sorry for yesterday's post being super uber late. I haven't felt all that great in the last couple of days. (I don't like to say that I'm sick or getting sick because I don't like to be sick. I figure if I just avoid that terminology, everything will be fine. Try it yourself! Though you should probably be warned that it doesn't really work. Like, at all.)

So, I'm going to keep in line with the theme of Super Bowl commercials. (What? One day does not a theme make? You try feeling like I do and then saying that. Trust me. One day does a theme make!) Bud Light always seems to win when it comes to most amusing Super Bowl ads. And again, I'm not just referring to the ones that make it on the air. I have another favorite that came no where close to being aired and it is hilarious as well. It kind of has a similar theme to the Swear Jar commercial. (See?! Bud Light thought that one of something could make for a theme! I don't see why I can't.) If it worked for them, it's going to work for me. (I hope to be back in tiptop form shortly. I've been doing this every day for three years. I can't stop now! It might be some sort of Internet record!) Behold!

moreless

Effing Awesome

It's less than a week until the Super Bowl. And that means less than a week to some awesome commercials. Granted, they're not as good as they used to be. But there's usually at least one or two that will really stand out for years to come. And those that do stand out? Well, we can usually thank Bud Light for those. In fact, some of the best Super Bowl commercials (in my never to be humble opinion) are the ones that never aired. But, thanks to the accessibility of the Innerwebs and the YouTube, now they are available every day, all the time! How great is that? Pretty great, that is correct. And allow me to demonstrate just how pretty great it is with probably what is my all time favorite, never aired on TV, Bud Light ad. They call it, humbly enough, The Swear Jar. Enjoy it, you effers.

moreless

Racist Cupcakes? Really?

Today's story about a company caving into complaints about nothing (instead of standing their ground because they did nothing wrong) involves...*spins wheel*...Duncan Hines amid complaints that allege that their commercial for what appeas to be some sort of cupcake frosting is...*spins wheel*...racist.

Before I even get into the ridiculous incident which sparked these ridiculous cries of racism, I have to bring up the point that I always bring up when this happens (and it happens far too frequently). That point being do these people making these claims actually think that Duncan Hines and the makers of this commercial are racist? Do they actually think that Duncan Hines and the makers of this commercial decided this would be a good idea because it was racist? Do they actually think that the makers of this commercial and Duncan Hines thought that the best way to express their racist views was under the guise of trying to sell cupcake frosting? Really? Because if you do think that this commercial is racist and if you do think that any of these things that I just listed are true, then you need to wear a helmet at all times. And not just one of those skull cap helmets, either. I'm talking full noggin, full facial covering helmet. And possibly a suit of armor as well. You are a soft, soft individual. So soft.

Since Duncan Hines was cowardly and, instead of standing up to these morons shouting "Racist cupcake makers!", they have pulled their ad from YouTube. I wanted to include the ad first, have you watch it and then tell you what the problem is that some people wanted to have with it. (Naturally, there's no telling just how many people saw this as a problem. These days, it could have been one. Who knows?) But since the ad isn't there anymore, I'm just going to past the link to it here. So, do me a favor. Watch the video, but don't read anything in the article that accompanies it just yet. Just watch the video and then continue reading. Fair enough? (Come on. I rarely ask anything of you other than to just read my drivel on a daily basis and pass the link along to everyone you know and random strangers. You can do this for me just this once, right?

::: waiting ::: ::: waiting :::

You're back! Nice to see you again! OK, so now you've seen the video. Did you see how it was just oozing and dripping with racism? Did you see how all of those cupcakes were calling each other the N-word? Did you see how the black cupcakes had to sit at the back of the bus? Of course you didn't! Partly because there wasn't a bus, but mostly because there WAS NO RACISM!

I turned to the good folks over there at the New York Daily News to find out what the dealio was. Turns out, there are people out there that think that those cupcakes actually resemble (wait for it) people in blackface. ::: blink ::: ::: blink ::: Wait. I thought that they looked kind of like the claymation California Raisins dudes. Were those racist? They weren't, were they? Nah. I'm pretty sure they weren't. Almost positive. OK, soooo...what now?

Correct. Blackface. I was seriously confused. I still am. They really don't look like they're in blackface to me. Let's look again. Here's a cupcake from the commercial:

And here's "World's Greatest Entertainer" (as he was dubbed back in his heyday) Al Jolson in blackface:

Yeah, I still don't get it. I decided to check other sites to see if there could be any rational light shed on this and sadly, there was not. I did learn of a blog called Racialicious which delved into the subject lightly. And by 'delved' I mean that there were more comments than there were words in the article itself. And those people need my helmets! Holy canoli, I was stunned. Sadly, sadly stunned. The only legitimate point that someone over there made was that the title of this ad was "Hip Hop Cupcakes". There wasn't really any hip-hop involved in the thing, though. I guess if you mention hip-hop, it automatically means that you must be talking about black people? I wonder if there would have been all of this to-do about it if they had simply called it by a different name?

It's chocolate frosting or chocolate glaze or something chocolate on white cake cupcakes! If anything, wouldn't that be a harmony of black and white, coming together in harmony for the sake of all that is delicious? Why is it racist? That's right. It's NOT! Oh, but one person opined "Clearly there are no minorities in the board room where they work on advertising at Duncan Hines." Hmmm. Interesting assumption. And not surprising since you also assume that it's clearly a concerted work of shouting racism across the baked good airwaves. What if there ARE minorities in the board room where they work on advertising at Duncan Hines? Then what?? Is it still racist in your mind, oh-wee-little-commenter? What's your race? It's almost as if it would make you feel better if people actually were racist. It's such an odd thing to want, especially considering how against it you claim to be.

I cannot tell you how angry made-up racism accusations make me. Just because I am white, that doesn't make me a racist. I am tired of defending my non-racism. I am tired of mentioning that I have plenty of friends who are not white. I am tired of hearing the black vs. white argument, as I don't see that there is one within my circle of existence. Yes, I realize that it does exist out there, but how much of that is a continuation of the apparent desire to make SURE that it exists with asinine claims of blatant racism against entities such as the makers of freaking cupcake frosting?!

Screw you, Duncan Hines. You know it's not racist, so why didn't you just say so and let the commercial keep running up on YouTube? Why aren't you releasing statement that declares how angry and incensed you are at any accusation that your company ran a racist commercial? Why aren't you standing up for yourself for what you know is true? I've said it before (and unfortunately, I'm still waiting for it to happen), but I guarantee you that the first company to respond to accusations like this in the manner that I've suggested will be hailed as the retail messiah from sea to shining sea. If Duncan Hines had stood up to these accusations, I would have bought Duncan Hines products for the rest of whatever and I would have recommended them to everyone I know at any given opportunity. Now? Well, now I'm buying Betty Crocker. She hasn't proven herself to be a corporate wussy yet.

moreless

This Doesn't Satisfy

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's another video. I've had an insanely busy weekend and I am completely wiped out. I've never really been too tired to really whole heartedly mock something, but I think that today I just might be. But I think I have it in me to half-ass mock something. In fact, I'll give it a go right now with this very odd Halloween commercial from the fabulous folks over at Snickers.

Don't get me wrong. Snickers is a fabulous little treat. And I know that they're trying to convey the enthusiasm that some folks have for the Snickers in this commercial. I get that. But it's really hard for me to get past the creepy factor. It's so...well...odd. It's very odd. And I don't know that it makes me want to go out and buy Snickers. It definitely makes me want to stay away from whatever store that lady was shopping in, though. That's for sure.

moreless

Cars And Freedom - Together At Last

Look, I'm all good with all of the patriotism that is being displayed these days. I really am. But is this what we can look forward to in terms of automobile commercials? Because if it is, I don't know that I'm totally on board with it. George Washington driving a Dodge Challenger as he scares off hoardes of redcoats? Um, OK. I guess. It a slight "Dukes of Hazzard" feel to it. Maybe that's my issue. I'm not sure. What's next? The signing of the Declaration of Independence on the tailgate of a Dodge Ram? Why do I have the feeling that it will be?

moreless

Enter The Invisible Monkey

Who would have ever thought that those car commercials that we are bombarded with when they're having a "special event" would turn out to be rather amusing? Enter Dodge and enter PETA and you've got yourself a recipe for a wee bit o'hilarity ensuing. The hilarity ensues immediately after the annoyance over the emergence of PETA subsides, by the way.

See, Dodge made an ad that promoted their Dodge tent event. I don't know when the practice of erecting a tent became equated with a good deal on a shiny new vehicle, but it has been that way for quite some time now. They mention what a great deal you can get yourself on a brand new Dodge Charger, Dodge Journey or Dodge Grand Caravan. (What's a Journey? Is it named after the band? Shouldn't they have had Steve Perry in this commercial? I'm pretty sure he's not doing anything these days.) Not only that, they'll give you sixty days to see if you want to keep the vehicle. (There is, of course, no mention of the eight gazillion strings that are inevitably tied to such an offer. Things that I would imagine might include not having driven the car over 30 miles in those 2 months and never having turned on the air conditioning.)

That's when voice-over guy (the lovely and cancer-free Michael C. Hall) says that this whole thing could not get more amazing. He soon realizes that he is wrong when a little monkey wearing an Evil Knievel jumpsuit comes out and presses down on one of those ACME detonator things that Wile E. Coyote was always using to try and do in that sneaky roadrunner. The monkey pushes it down and a bunch of confetti blows out of somewhere. Voice-over guy deadpans, "I stand corrected." Not bad. Funny. I liked it. Maybe you will, too. Behold!

But who did not like it was PETA. PETA doesn't like anything having to do with cute animals being mistreated. I know. I know. All the monkey did was push the lever. But that is bad, according to PETA, because that little monkey had to be taught how to do that. (It's also bad because the little monkey is really a chimpanzee and there is, apparently, a difference. I don't know if it offended the chimp, but it really seemed to rile up PETA.) According to the website "Where's the Monkey?" in which Dodge tries to explain why they altered their commercial, they informed them "...about the poor conditions of working animal "actors." They told us how these animals are usually separated from their mothers at a young age and are usually discarded at seedy roadside attractions after they get too old to act." What sort of "seedy roadside attractions"? The only seedy roadside attractions around here are taco trucks and fruit vendors. None of them have monkeys. I'm not saying that what PETA is saying is false, I'm just saying I want more information of these primate abusing attractions that allegedly congregate roadside.

Dodge said that this made them sad and they took the spot off of the air. They also said that "Dodge is firmly committed to never using great apes in our advertisements again." While I suppose that is good, they don't mention anything about never using mediocre apes in their advertisements, so...fingers crossed!

But, wait! There's more! They took the ad off of the air and tweaked it just a little bit. They removed the chimp from the footage. Oh, don't get me wrong. They left the jumpsuit and the walking over to the blowy-uppy thing and the confetti that booms out from somewhere. That's still there. There just is no monkey. The monkey is invisible. Wait. Invisi....? Behold!

Most awesome! Very amusing! I'm glad that Dodge didn't completely ditch the ad. I'd like to see Dodge keep the invisible monkey in upcoming future ads. I'd also like to see PETA burn off of the face of the earth. I'm all for animals not being mistreated. And with everything that you can do digitally these days, there's probably no reason why Dodge can't just make a cyber-monkey instead of using a real one. But I'm never for PETA making an appearance. From what I can tell, they do one thing really well, and it's not caring for animals. It's their own attention whoring that they're so successful at.

moreless

Evolution Is OK

I don't get the whole "Creation vs. Evolution" debate to begin with. Seriously, why can't it be both? Why can't there be a supreme being who created everything and whose plan was for it to evolve? Why is that such a leap for people to make? I don't get it. Clearly, there is evolution involved. But look around you! The universe is just too darned orderly to be one big accident!

That's why I don't get this commercial. According to CBS News, a group which calls themselves the "True Republican PAC" (whatever that is) has put out an ad that attacks Alabama gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne. It attacks him for believing that "evolution...best explains the origins of life". Not only that, it also goes after him for saying "...even recently, said the Bible is only partially true."

So, when did it come to this? Are these issues that are such a big deal in Alabama that it is considered to be a good strategy to point them out? The announcer guy says these things with such disdain and disbelief in his voice, it's as if he was telling everyone that Bradley Byrne believed he had been abducted by aliens and spent the majority of his adult life cultivating crops on some alien planet in a galaxy far, far away.

It's weird. It's all just weird. I don't know who this Bradley Byrne guy is, but I hope he wins. He has got to be a better candidate for governor than whoever the jackass is that's running commercials denouncing him for believing in evolution. The ad is below. It's still weird.

moreless

He's Not Talking To You, Tiger

So, by now, you've seen or heard or read about the Tiger Woods ad for Nike that he did. It's filmed in black and white and he's just standing there, staring into the camera, a Nike swoosh visible on his sweater and on his hat, as a voice narrates a few sentences. The voice, we've learned, is that of his late father Earl Woods. I'm not sure how we knew that, but someone made sure that we knew. What we didn't know right away was where in the hell that voice footage came from.

And if you think that you're going to get a straight answer from anyone in Tiger's camp or from the Nike fellows, well, you're wrong. It took ABC News to figure out where the voice footage came from. (And yes, I'm as shocked as you are that they were able to uncover it before some blogger did.) According to them, the statements came from "Tiger: The Authorized DVD Collection," distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment. But it wasn't Earl Woods speaking to Tiger at all. No, the deal was that "In the original context, Earl was not talking to Woods, but about the golfer's mother Kultida." Soooo...what now?

When they made the ad, they cut off the first part of what Earl had said. Earl's full quote in the film is: "Authoritarian. Yea, Tida is very authoritative. She is very definitive. 'Yes' and 'No.' I am more prone to be inquisitive, to promote discussion. I want to find out what you're thinking was, I want to find out what your feelings are and did you learn anything?" Earl then adds, "So, we were two different types but we co-existed pretty well." Wait a minute.

Let me get this straight. He wasn't talking to Tiger AT ALL? He was explaining the differences between his style and the style of his wife? So, they edited in the "Tiger" at the front and then made it so it was like he was talking TO Tiger? What the hell is that all about? Was Tiger aware of this? Of course he was.

He was asked about the commercial during his little Q&A session with reporters after his first round at The Masters. The woman who asked him about it asked why, since he has previously said that talking about his dad's death was a private issue, would he allow that to be the basis for a commercial. That seems like a reasonable question. What I didn't find so reasonable was his answer. "Well, I think it's very apropos. I think that's what my dad would say. It's amazing how, it, uh....how my dad can speak to me from different ways. Even when he's long gone. He's still, still helping me. And I think that any son who has lost a father, and who meant so much in their life, I think they would understand the spot.” Wait. What now?

You think that it's very apropos? You DO? First of all, you DO realize that he's NOT actually speaking TO you, right? You do realize that it was a commercial that you did for Nike, right? But all of that aside, he wasn't speaking those words to you when he DID speak them! No, he was speaking them to your mother! It wasn't ADVICE at all! He was just explaining the difference between her and him. He wasn't trying to teach YOU anything!

And I'm going to take umbrage (because I rarely get to do that these days) and I'm also going to get a little testy with his pity comment at the end of his response. Oh, so anyone (excuse me, any SON) who has lost a father wouldn't HAVE to question what the spot means, is that it? So, if you are questioned on the spot, then it's just be insensitive jerks who don't know what it means to have their father die? I don't think that's it at all. Now, granted, I was not my father's son, but it doesn't change the fact that he's dead. And I've gotta tell you, if someone came to me and said that they wanted to take some stuff that my dad said and use it completely out of context so that I could make a few bucks when people see an ad and run out to buy golf shirts, I don't think I'm going to go for that. I think that, out of respect to my father, I'm not going to essentially dig him up in an effort to rebuild my tarnished image. I don't think I'm going to do that AT ALL.

Are you kidding me? There are plenty of cards out there that people like to play, but I think that the one that I hate the most is the dead relative card. Just because you know someone who died, that doesn't mean that I'm going to feel sorry for you. It happens. Get over it. And the other thing that I hate is when people talk about someone that they've "lost". What is that supposed to mean, exactly? I used to really enjoy it when people would come up to me and say something to the effect of, "I hear you lost your father." I enjoyed responding with, "I didn't lose him. I know exactly where he is." My dad would like that I give that answer. And I like that he would like it. What he wouldn't like would be me whoring out his voice so that I could make a buck or two. No, he'd have a couple things to say about that (and none of them are printable).

What a bunch of crap this commercial is. I guess that it has already run its course. From what I understand, it was aired a couple of times before or during The Masters and that was it. I don't expect it to be seen in the future, nor do I care if it is ever shown again. I'm just not real big on using your dead dad to sell shoes or shirts or whatever it is that he's pitching. I'm also not real big on using something that your dead dad said to your mom in order to try to make people forget that you are the nation's number one serial fornicator. How about you leave the dead folks out of it and you just start acting like a respectable human being instead?

moreless

Just Don't

Wow. That's almost all I have to say about this one. Just wow.

Apparently, Nike felt that it would be a good idea to roll out a new Tiger Woods commercial on the day before the Masters begins. Now, I don't proclaim to know anything about corporate advertising. But I think I do know what doesn't seem like a good idea and this commercial would be it.

Here's the gist of it (Well, actually, this isn't the gist. This is IT.): You see a black and white image of Tiger from the chest up just standing there and staring straight ahead at the camera. I don't know if the black and white imagery is to try and trick viewers into thinking that we have magically been transported back to a time before his multiple extra-marital dalliances with cocktail waitresses and porn stars were widely known or what, but it kind of bugs me.

All he does throughout the entire 30 seconds is stand there and stare. The camera slowly moves in closer to his face throughout the spot, but he's just standing there and staring. Meanwhile, we hear the voice of the dearly departed Earl Woods. Now, the only reason that I know that it's Earl Woods is because I read that it was over at The Huffington Post. Otherwise, I wouldn't have had a clue. Don't get me wrong, I follow sports. I know who Earl Woods was. But I don't know if I'm supposed to know that it's Earl's voice when I hear it. It just comes out of nowhere, so are we supposed to think that it's God? Please. That better not be it.

Anyway, this is what he says: "Tiger, I am more prone to be inquisitive, to promote discussion. I want to find out what your thinking was. I want to find out what your feelings are. And did you learn anything." Are you kidding me?

Are they just begging people to mock the heck out of that or what? He's "prone to be inquisitive"? Like what? "Which Perkins coffee shop did you pick that one up at?" That kind of inquisitive? Or the kind of inquisitive that asks, "Why are you constantly cheating on your beautiful Norwegian wife with all of these porn star skanks? I wonder which one it is.

He wants to find out what his thinking was? Really? Lemme help you out a little bit, Earl. His thinking was "I don't give a fat rat's ass about anything other than myself and my big ol' boner and therefore, I'm going to be having lots of kinky sex with that there cocktail waitress, Pops."

Do they really want to include the line "I want to find out what your feelings are"? I can't imagine that they do. But they did! See, that's where Earl and I differ. Earl wants to know about his feelings. I want to know the total number of bimbo whores he slept with.

Did he learn anything? I don't know. I don't think that he did. Are we supposed to think that he did? Maybe he learned that it's not a good idea to let your wife find text messages from one of your waitress mistresses on Thanksgiving. Maybe he learned to not try and drive his Escalade (unless he can avoid hitting various shrubbery and a fire hydrant) when his wife is chasing after him with a golf club at 2am. Maybe he learned those things. But I'm thinking that the only thing that he might have really learned is that it sucks to get caught.

I don't get the logic behind this commercial. I know that Nike is one of the only two sponsors that he has left (the other one being Electronic Arts, makers of various video games which are seemingly immune from most controversy), but I didn't think that they'd be using him in a commercial again so soon. Then again, I don't know why they'd stick with him at all. Granted, their slogan is "Just Do It", but I don't know that they want a spokesman who really goes with the literal (and the carnal) translation of it.

I guess that they couldn't do a commercial which would have incorporated all of his philandering ways into it, like instead of having gophers pop up across a golf course in all of the holes, have his bimbos pop up. Yeah, I think something like that is probably considered to be "in poor taste". Probably. Whatever. I think that channeling the voice of the dead father is a bit much. The commercial is below. Did you learn anything?

moreless