Nobrainer’s Think Tank

Here’s a question for ya, why don’t the latest batch of anti-drug ads fit my television screen? If you haven’t seen them, let me explain. The anti-drug commercials, like all the rest of them, suck. But more specifically, these seem to have been filmed in a widescreen format. But for some reason, when they are adjusted for regular broadcast, the cut of the left and right edges instead of putting the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. The result is grainy video due to the extra zoom and a bunch of text that you can’t read.

I don’t so much have a problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, but do we really have to spend billions of dollars making shitty commercials?

As you’ve noticed (unless you’re adblocking Google ads), I’ve been adding more, bigger ads to both this site and the Sporting Gnomes.

Basically, I can always use more cash to pay for my hobbies. Since whoring myself out to 500 fat chicks for 100 dollars each — or 50 really fat chicks for 1000 dollars each — isn’t an option and since I don’t need $50,000, I figured GoogleAds were the best way to go.

Really I’m just trying to break even. That means I need to earn about $8/month. So far I’m above $5 for the month of September. I have more than doubled the $2.23 I earned in August. And as proof that I am not getting rich off this, I have now earned $13.01 since October 2005. (March, April, and May were a little lean as they only generated $0.03.)

If you find the ads to be overwhelmingly bothersome, let me know. I’ll let those of you who complain cut me the cash to keep everything operating smoothly at the mediocre level you’ve come to expect.

And all this goes to prove that if I were smart I’d just move everything to a good, free site (not blogger) and pump an extra $96 a year into my IRA. Of course if I were smart I’d also quit drinking, lose 15 pounds, and put extra effort into my job. But that just wouldn’t be any fun.

Pay attention to the incredible shrinking Katie Couric:

If she isn’t a reason to throw a bag of hammers through your TV screen, I don’t know who or what is.

And here’s some not-news news about controlling kangaroo populations:

“Realistically, to deal with wild animals it has to be oral,” said Fletcher, who is collaborating with Newcastle University scientists on the research.

Government ecologist Don Fletcher said Wednesday the oral contraceptive method promised to be more efficient than existing technology for curbing roo numbers around Canberra such as vasectomies for males and injections for females because the fleet-footed marsupials would not need to be captured.

I’m pretty sure that natural selection developed a problem to this solution in the form of natural predators. Then I’m pretty sure that man became pretty efficient as an unnatural predator. You see, we invented these things called “guns” which impart very high velocity to small, but aerodynamic and dense masses. These high-energy, high momentum masses are not easily stopped by mammal flesh, thus causing damage and cessation of being. And dead animals don’t breed.

But apparently they want to develop contraceptives and the male kangaroos just don’t want nothin’ to do with condoms, which makes them like male humans in many ways. Apparently the kangaroos didn’t understand the condoms or how to put them on correctly. So when the researchers tried to interject and apply them when the moment was right, they effectively killed the mood and often earned swift kicks to the groin for their efforts. What a shitty job.

Experience: Those new mac commercials.

Discuss: Those commercials and macs with my mac-loving girlfriend.

Contemplate: Those new mac commercials. “Mac” seems rat-like and weasely to me. I don’t like rat-like, weasely people. I therefore do not like Mac.

Reinforce: Other writers agree:

My problem with these ads begins with the casting. As the Mac character, Justin Long (who was in the forgettable movie Dodgeball and the forgettabler TV show Ed) is just the sort of unshaven, hoodie-wearing, hands-in-pockets hipster we’ve always imagined when picturing a Mac enthusiast. He’s perfect. Too perfect. It’s like Apple is parodying its own image while also cementing it. If the idea was to reach out to new types of consumers (the kind who aren’t already evangelizing for Macs), they ought to have used a different type of actor.

Seth Stevenson, the writer of the above linked article in Slate, pretty much summarized my feelings on the commercials, going even beyond the unfortunate casting decision.

The commercials are simply too dishonest. “Everything just kind of works with a mac.” Or:

PC – “Yeah I had to restart there. You know how it is.”
Mac – “Actually I don’t.”

Perhaps I should take the first quote more literally, restating it just a bit: “everything works with a mac, only kind of.” I know the first quote is not true. I know the the second one is untrue. I also know that people who complain about the complexity of setting up a desktop PC (all those cords and cables!) generally suck at life.

(My 9th grade Spanish teacher would have people who claimed to be so helpless repeat after him: “I am too stupid to live”: unconventional but effective.)

Because I went to public school, and because my public school was cheap, I grew up using macs a lot. I always heard the same promises about their robustness, speed, superiority, and inability to crash. The IT guys were adamant. The IT guys were also full of shit. That’s a great part of the reason why I still loathe using Macs to this day. That’s a great part of the reason why these commercials fail to reach me.

I don’t get it. What’s the deal? What am I doing wrong that makes me convinced that the technologically advanced body wash is not nearly as good as old-fashioned bar soap?

I’m going through my 2nd trial of such a product. The first was years ago. The commercials had their “see how much lather you get from just a small amount” message. I figured it could be a small money saving route to try. So I bought in — I even picked up one of those stupid little fluffy things. It was not nearly as advertised. A small amount was enough for about my arm. The bottle and frilly thing were gone in a few weeks, much to my delight.

The conclusion at the time was that bar soap lasted longer, was cheaper, and lathered better.

For some stupid reason, I decided that by the year 2006 the bugs would have been worked out and things would be better. No. Nope. No way. No chance in hell. I’m just a gullible idiot.

As far as I can tell, they just put shampoo in a different bottle. Ever not had soap and had to use only shampoo in a pinch? Well I have. It’s exactly like using body wash. Except now instead of dealing with it from desperation, I’m paying extra to be pissed off.

Now I fucking hate myself — and those marketing fuckwads.

In the debates over technology for energy, the final yardstick is usually the actual cost to produce a unit of electricity. The inherent assumption is that the consumer will choose the electricity that costs the least. If that idea were applied to food, alcohol, clothing, or even water, the assumption is proven horribly incorrect. Why is it people are convinced to over-pay for Starbucks, or Pepsi, or Aquafina — and do so happily — but we assume that the same cannot be true in the electricity markets?

To mind, there are two issues that need to be addressed. Many of us are not exactly subjected to open markets, from which we can choose from whom we purchase our electricity. Secondly, electricity doesn’t carry a brand very well.

Let’s creatively solve both problems simultaneously. Concerned parties may argue that removal of price caps will lead to increased prices across the board, thus hurting everyone and regressively hurting the poor. Or they’ll argue that consumers will merely switch to the cheapest option (presumably dirty coal) which would be an environmental nightmare. This of course is the crux of our energy debate: cost vs. cleanliness.

Being as there is a Virginia Energy Choice website, I propose that we use that website while also building a system that involves… uhhh, damn. what’s the word… uh, CHOICE. (Pro-choice right? My electricity my choice! whoops, no place for sarcasm here.) Instead of offering merely a price to compare, however, create a small table breaking down the how the electricity is generated, and other basic information such as pollutant output. For example:

Once the consumer is able to make the right choice, it’s up to the marketers to create brands and make the consumer make the right choice. For example, right now I can opt to purchase wind power at a net price increase of about 50%. At least two problems remain: I found this information on my own and not because someone marketed it to me, and I’m not convinced that I should pay a 50% markup, even though I pay huge markups all over the place otherwise. I lied, there’s one problem: marketing — or a lack thereof.

Part of the marketing is branding. The non-minimum paying consumer wants, nay needs to be able to show off his or her choice. This may be done by simply putting a sign in the window, or a bumper sticker on the car. Let the consumer declare “I BUY BIG GREEN ENERGY.”

What’s more, the marketers need to make being green more than being environmentally aware. Make us want to do it because it’s cool. Don’t tell us it’s cool; show us it’s cool. Make guys think they will get laid.

Have a commercial with the Super Bowl winning quarterback surrounded by scantily clad women read:

I buy my electricity from Big Green. It’s a little more expensive, but it’s worth it for the future. Plus chicks dig it.

Can we at least agree that guys will do it if they believe it leads to sex?

Obviously I’m being a bit facetious, but I truly believe that we can be convinced to pay higher energy prices. What’s keeping us from it?