Alright, the title is a bit of a misnomer, since to my knowledge there are no PSA wars, but I was thinking about the different anti-drug campaigns that are aimed at children and that's the title that leapt to mind.
Back when I was a kid, the big theme was Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No," which I also associate with the "This is Your Brain on Drugs" fried egg commercial and the "I learned it from watching you," kid. I have no idea whether they were all connected or not. Nowadays, it seems that the big theme is "_____ is my anti-drug." (Though this doesn't count the anti-smoking commercials which, even though I'm a non-smoker, make me want to go out and immediately inhale an entire carton of Marlboro Reds. Could they have found more smug and sanctimonious people to be in the commercial? And I love how the campaign is called "the truth" even though they play pretty fast and loose with the truth sometimes themselves. But I digress. I just really, really hate those commercials. If teen smoking quadruples over the next 10 years, I completely blame that ad campaign.)
Anyway, I don't think that any of the anti-drug commercials are all that effective. But they do fascinate me from a cultural point of view. Generally, I give the edge to the '80s drug commercials. Look what they contributed in terms of satire and parody. Hell, you can still crack up a room of 30-somethings by hysterically shouting, "You Dad! Okay? I learned it from watching you!" Whereas the newer Whatever-is-my-anti-drug seem way too touchy-feely. I guess you can make fun of them a little (Unprotected Sex is My Anti-drug; Crime Sprees Are My Anti-Drug), but it doesn't seem to have the same punch to it. Mostly, they seem to me like the kind of thing that advanced placement kids with lots of extracurricular activities identify with. (Being a Goody-Two-Shoes is My Anti-Drug.) No one is going to be looking these ones up to get a laugh 20 years from now. So that's a big fail in my book.
Howdy there. Today, we've got a new Uninformed NFL picks as well as the Daily Fluff. And if you're catching up on the week, there was our article about Launch Madness, updates to the Issues with Heroes and Issues with Top Chef, and a new Second Opinion. And don't forget about the Daily Fluff Archive.
The very fact that there is something as dumb as "coffee wars" going on right now makes me long for the comparative sanity of the Coke vs. Pepsi battles of the '80s. Apparently, this is how we're now supposed ot refer to Dunkin' Donuts making fun of Starbucks "Fritalian" ordering system and McDonalds erecting billboards that say, "Four bucks is dumb." (By the way, I love the "Fritalian" Dunkin' Donuts ads, despite the fact that their donuts are inferior Krispy Kreme. And the Starbucks ordering system makes me totally crazy. What the hell is a venti? And how is that grande is actually medium? Why can't we all just go back to things being small, medium, and large? I don't want to feel like I'm in an Italian bistro. I just want my coffee.)
Anyway, the article I saw about it decided to spin it as Starbucks, "taking the high road," because they're not firing back at McDonalds and Dunkin' Donuts. Granted, I have a huge anti-Starbucks bias, but what exactly are they going to say in response? Four bucks isn't too much for an espresso? Please. We all know that the markup on coffee is ri-friggin-diculous. That their ordering language isn't supremely retarded? The very fact that the phrase, "half-caff venti soy latte with a splash of vanilla," means something at their restaurant completely negates that claim. They're in luck though. Because I think us coffee anti-snobs are vastly outnumbered by the people who like to go to Starbucks and spend 12 minutes spewing out a series of nonsense words to get their special drink.
Sorry for the late entry--I had to go to traffic court this morning. It was every bit as much fun as a trip to the dentist.
Today, we have an update to our Issues with Top Chef, along with the new Daily Fluff. And if you haven't seen them yet, don't forget to check out the latest Fluff Five, the most recent Second Opinion, or our Issues with Heroes.
If you've ever taken homemade cookies into work (hey, some people do those kinds of things!), you'll notice that people are always a little suspicious of them. They give them a little test nibble, ready to bolt off to the bathroom and trash the thing. And if the cookies are good, they can hardly keep the surprise out of their voice. Personally, I blame the holiday potluck for this lack of trust.
Christmas is the one time of year when people will spontaneously bring in their homemade treats, and some people have some very odd ideas of the concept of a Christmas treat. So there you are, standing by the dessert table, where someone has placed their zucchini-carrot bread because, "it's so sweet, it's really a dessert." And you get cajoled into trying the thing because the cook is in your department and standing right next to you. So there you are, with a mouthful of dry death while she chatters on about it, and you think: "Yes, you really can taste the zucchini; no, I don't believe you when you say that your kids really love it; and yes, it does make a difference that you ran out of sugar and substituted Splenda instead."
People do some strange things in the name of the Christmas cookie too. Personally, my pet peeve is the chocolate chip cookies with M&Ms instead of chocolate chips. They're always really hard, and something strange happens to the M&Ms in the baking process so that the effect is like eating sawdust filled with little chocolate rocks. (Actually, my absolute biggest problem are cookies where you think it's full of chocolate chips and it turns out to be full of raisins. It's not really a mistake, but why are some people so happy to put raisins in everything? Anything that is good with a raisin in it would be much better with a chocolate chip.) Also, those chewy candied fruits--no one likes those things, and yet people keep adding them to their desserts. Anyway, what are your Christmas dessert travesties?
Good morning. Today we have a new Second Opinion (about the probability that sending penis pictures to his ex-wife means a woman's husband is lying to her about their relationship), as well as a new Fluff 5 (where Hulagan misses her dog), and a new Daily Fluff.
And, if you haven't seen them yet, there's always the latest update to our Issues with Heroes and our article about the overabudance of launches/pre-orders/midnight sales/etc.
I can't remember when--though I think it was sometime last week--but I was in line at the supermarket when I noticed that Jennifer Aniston is on the cover of Vogue (in a long dress, of course, as is the standard for articles about emotional upheaval and "personal strength") with some line about how what Angelina did was "uncool." I have a few thoughts on this:
1.) "Uncool"?? This is your penetrating insight? Granted, I'm not really on the Aniston side of this ancient love triangle, but I can say that if my husband left me for another woman, promptly knocked her up, and has proceeded to adopt more kids with her, have twins, and suck up the media spotlight as the global parent of the millennium with her . . . well, I would have stronger words about it than calling it "uncool."
2.) Actually, from a technical standpoint, I think that stealing Brad Pitt away from his wife and having his baby (multiple times) while living in a mansion in France may be the absolute definition of cool.
3.) Are we still on this tired story? (This is actually my main point.) It was annoying enough when the whole Brangelina thing was constantly all over the news. I actually saw an O'Reilly clip about it, for God's sake. But why do people assume that we all feel sorry for Jennifer Aniston? I don't know her. I don't particularly care that Brad Pitt left her. Heck, if I was a guy, I'd leave Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie in a heartbeat. (Besides the looks thing, Jennifer Aniston seems insanely high maintenance.) And yet, here she is, being the poor injured good girl all over the place and trying to convince us that she's really found love with John Mayer. That's such a downgrade that it's not even worthy of comment. I think that this may actually be the second Vogue interview she's done about being strong and getting over it and such. Sheesh, enough already, woman.
Ok, I know that this sounds insane, but last night, I dreamt that I got up and updated the blog. So that's why I sort of forgot about it this morning--in my subconcious, I had already done it.
Anyway, today we have an update to our Issues with Heroes (based on last night's new episode), as well as the Daily Fluff. And if you haven't seen it yet, you might want to check out the article on Launch Madness.
Up in DC (though this probably happens everywhere), there's a local magazine that likes to do endless reviews and lists of restaurants in the area. Every year, they have a special "Cheap Eats" issue, where they count down the best of the cheap local restaurants. Of course, these kinds of articles are always accompanied by some paean to good, inexpensive food, where the writer extolls the virtue of local mom and pop restaurants and ethnic eateries and goes on about how you don't have to spend a lot of money to eat well. None of which I disagree with. The problem is that their definition of a cheap meal (usually something like, "under $40 for a party of two,") is not the same as my definition of a cheap meal. I don't dispute that it's a good price for a good restaurant meal, but when I think about eating cheap, I'm thinking Taco Bell cheap. I'm thinking--compares well to Kraft macaroni and cheese at home cheap. I'm thinking under $12 dollars for a party of two cheap. Just-out-of-college-I-only-have-$9-and-I-need-$5-for-beer cheap. When you're that broke, the wonderful early bird special at the local tapas place may as well be an 8-course meal at Le Cirque.
Of course, there's always the total desperation go-to, the bowl of ramen noodles. But if you're trying to splurge with your last $4 (and you don't live in an area with awesome cheap groceries, taco carts, etc.), you know the secrets to making that $4 meal count. There's always the classic dollar menu meal, where if you're savvy you avoid the fries and get 2 hamburgers, nuggets, etc. And there's the ever-helpful Taco Bell menu. (I was so broke once in college that I went the entire Spring Break eating only bean burritos and crunchy tacos for dinner--I spent about $18 for the week and wanted to drink boiling bleach by the end of it.) But for my money, the best total desperation meal is the $1.50 hot dog and soda from Costco. The hot dog is huge, actually pretty tasty, and you can sit there and drink refill after refill of soda without anyone hassling you. (This is because no one at Costco wants to make eye contact. It's a sign of weakness and indicates that you're not willing to run someone down with your cart for the last 96-pack of Charmin.)
I always have a little bit of trouble adjusting on Monday mornings--it's like I'm in denial that the work week has to start again. Anyway, new for you today (aside from the Daily Fluff, of course) is an article about Launch Madness--the ridiculous hype of product premieres/launches/pre-orders/midnight sales/etc. that seems to have helped to hyper-accelerate consumer culture.
And if you missed it on Friday, you can always laugh at the misguidedness of my Uninformed NFL picks or check out Hulagan's College Football Picks.
|
RSS Feed
