Super Bowl Commercial Skewer-a-thon

tunabomber writes: "Those planning on tuning in to America's Patriotic Sports TV Event of the Year to catch the new commercials will no longer have to sit through all that football filler. PBS, of all networks, is airing a postgame show in which the subject of discussion is not the game, but the commercials. Super Commercials: A Mental Engineering Special is a beefed-up episode of the cultish Mental Engineering series where a panel of experts, including former Daily Show host Lizz Winstead and a Silicon Valley computer scientist, critique (read: eviscerate) Super Bowl commercials. There are also blurbs about this at The Kansas City Star and The St. Paul Star Tribune." One thing you'll be able to look forward to: fewer sock puppet commercials, more anti-terror commercials.

Comments

Fantastic

[goldid]

This is great. Advertising may be annoying, but only when it's poorly done. I look forward to seeing this and learning more about well done ads. Besides, since AdCritic went away it's hard to get as much fun out of the commercials.

Re:Fantastic

[kilgore_47]

One thing you'll be able to look forward to: fewer sock puppet commercials, more anti-terror commercials.

Those aren't anti-terrorist commercials! They're anti-drug/anti-personal-freedom commercials!

They're taxpayer-funded government propaganda designed to fool people into thinking that users of ilegal drugs are somehow supporting terrorism. In reality, the only actual drug/terror link would be in opium-related narcotics (ie heroin), but I don't expect the super bowl ads will mention that. I also don't imagine they'll mention that opium exports from Afghanistan have increased since the Taliban was ousted, namely because the Taliban had (at our request) banned farmers from growing opium. No, these ads will just say that drug users support terrorists.

Personally, I'm 100% certain that when I buy MY drugs, they're locally grown and I'm in no way supporting terrorism. And it makes me awfully bitter that my taxes are being spent on a pair of superbowl ads that do nothing but slander me and the millions of other innocent americans who happen to enjoy smoking pot.

There are real threats to this country right now. The government was able to arrest 734,498 Americans for smoking pot last year, but was somehow unable to catch one lunatic in a cave in the mountains. It's downright shamefull.

Re:Fantastic

[DEBEDb]

Those aren't anti-terrorist commercials! They're anti-drug/anti-personal-freedom commercials!


Sock puppet for president!!!

Re:Fantastic

[painkillr]

Do you mean NYC? That's astonishing. Con Ed would probably notice or the neighbors would (even tho most neighbors mind their own business). He must be making tremendous profits.

Re:Fantastic

[euclid manatee]

...opium exports from Afghanistan have increased since the Taliban was ousted, namely because the Taliban had (at our request) banned farmers from growing opium.

It wasn't as much a request, as it was a $48 million check from the U.S. Treasury.

mb

Re:Fantastic

[perlyking]

Welcome to the modern equivalent of these kind of misleading adverts.

Re:Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Carl Sagan smoked pot. His family is striving to legalize marijuana "in his name." Was he a loser?

Re:Fantastic

[ThePlumber2]

Damn right! It pisses me off that they use OUR money for this shit also.

Hey, look on the bright side, we just legally got our 1st industrial hemp plant planted in hawii!

Stuff changes, slowly, but it changes. Anti-terrorism sells......

Thanks,

Steve

Re:Fantastic

[Dr. Awktagon]

Those aren't anti-terrorist commercials! They're anti-drug/anti-personal-freedom commercials!

Amen to that. I was just going to post a little rant about what a ridiculous and strained connection there is between drugs and terrorism. But you did a fine job yourself.

I thought maybe the gov. would want to do a little generic patriotic spot, something that helps bolster the illusion that we are the best nation on earth, or maybe a call to voluntary service, etc., but no, they use terrorism to further their anti-freedom agenda. Hey, maybe they can find a link between abortion and terrorism next!

I guess if you don't like something these days, just call it terrorism.

Re:Fantastic

[Guppy06]

"In reality, the only actual drug/terror link would be in opium-related narcotics (ie heroin), but I don't expect the super bowl ads will mention that."

And how do you think FARC in Colombia make their money? Selling cookies at bake sales? They're only the most prominent example, but they aren't the only group of people making their money by growing drugs or "taxing" their export.

"Personally, I'm 100% certain that when I buy MY drugs, they're locally grown and I'm in no way supporting terrorism."

And we all know how reputable dealers are... assuming they're high enough in the supply chain to even know where it came from...

"And it makes me awfully bitter that my taxes are being spent on a pair of superbowl ads that do nothing but slander me and the millions of other innocent americans who happen to enjoy smoking pot."

And you're suposed to be some kind of "victim" in all this? What you "happened" to do was make a conscious decision to do something that's been illegal for the better part of a century. You really have no idea if what you smoke came from a hydroponics lab in someone's attic or from a Abu Sayef field. And when it comes right down to it, you really don't care. If you did, the ramifications of supporting the domestic drug trade would have stopped you long before now. But if the potential of joining those 3/4 million people you mention elsewhere in your post didn't give you pause, what will?

So quit your damned bitching and take your lumps. You made your choice, deal with it. Better yet, go distract yourself by smoking a joint instead. So long as MY tax dollars have to go towards funding methodone clinics, USCG interdictions, and training foreign police and military forces, they'll go towards these commercials as well.

"There are real threats to this country right now."

Ignore the old man behind the curtain!

Re:Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

But according to John stewart of the Daily show, it was a $26 Million dollar check to avoid famine, and the other 22 million was to get out of afghanistans contract with mirah carey......

And i ALWAYS believe John Stewart....

Re:Fantastic

[chihowa]

I shouldn't be responding to trolls, but I think I'll bite.

Unless you are also working some crappy job, you'd be amazed at the number of "productive" people that regularly smoke pot. Of course, this isn't something you'd know if your bias against it was really that strong. While I don't smoke pot, some of my co-workers do, and they are very productive (and in very good jobs). There are executives at my company that smoke pot (a few of the VPs that I'm certain of - all very educated and intelligent), and they do fantastic jobs.

Just because your experience with something is negative, that doesn't make it true for everybody else. I am a physicist, and I must say that some of my co-workers amaze me constantly with the stuff they produce when high.

Although nobody is likely to admit it when you approach them like the Spanish Inquisition, there's a chance that you work with people who regularly smoke pot and you don't even realize it.

Re:Fantastic

[kilgore_47]

And how do you think FARC in Colombia make their money? Selling cookies at bake sales? They're only the most prominent example, but they aren't the only group of people making their money by growing drugs or "taxing" their export.

Those aren't the terrorists the TV ad's are likely to address. In the minds of the American people, the word "terrorist" directly refers to certain Islanic extremists, who, in reality, make very little money off american drug users. Regardless, anyone who DOES make money off selling drugs in the U.S. wouldn't be able to make nearly as much if our government hadn't created incredibly high prices (by keeping drugs ilegal and seizing them at every turn).

You really have no idea if what you smoke came from a hydroponics lab in someone's attic or from a Abu Sayef field. And when it comes right down to it, you really don't care. If you did, the ramifications of supporting the domestic drug trade would have stopped you long before now.

You are very mistaken. The source matters very much. On the rare occasion that something comes in from out of state, everybody knows. It looks and tastes different! It's usually not as good. The "domestic drug trade" that I support isn't a bunch of TV-style gun-toting gangsters, they're freedom-loving peacefull Americans just like me who like to have a good time. THAT "domestic drug trade" is something very much worth supporting.

So long as MY tax dollars have to go towards funding methodone clinics, USCG interdictions, and training foreign police and military forces, they'll go towards these commercials as well.

Heroin addiction is a sad thing, but I'd rather pay for methodone clinics than the alternitive (in this country, thats round up the junkies, put them in jail awhile, dump them back on the street, lather, rinse, repeat).

As for USCG interdictions (I assume you're refering to coast guard anti drug actions?): again, this wouldn't be an issue if we relaxed our damn drug policies.

But I don't want to be paying for foriegn military training any more than you, though, so at least we can agree on that. Funding foreign militaries is what got us in this terrorism mess in the first place!

Re:Fantastic

[chihowa]

First I point out that the moderation has been shit on this thread. Once again if the moderator disagrees he mods you down.

I've noticed that more and more lately.

As for you, what do you define as regular? Once a week at parties? Once a day? Once a month? I am talking about people who smoke pot like other people smoke cigarettes. I am talking about the people who have long ago stopped smoking it casually.

As for regular, I'd say daily. Not more than twice daily, though. Maaaybe three times daily, but that's getting pretty heavy. One of the guys I work with is always high. Constantly. If that's what you were referring to, then I agree with you. He's got a problem. I think he would have a problem even if he didn't smoke pot, though. His pot smoking habit is the symptom and not the ailment. He chain smokes cigarettes and drinks coffee like mad, too. He can't relax and have a beer, he must get plastered.

I can see how people who have addictive personalities would tend to choose pot over other things, though. It's pleasant and not too terribly destructive (compare to alcohol or hard drugs). I think the pot smokers you describe (the bad ones) would be losers with or without pot.

I can tell you that my coworkers do smoke pot but they never smoke it during the day. As for you being a physicist. I have never met a physicist how wasn't a drunk or a heavy drug user. I think it has something to do with trying to grasp concepts that would blow the mind of the average person.

That's funny! I see where you get that. It's a goofy crowd, it really is!

Re:Fantastic

[Guppy06]

"Regardless, anyone who DOES make money off selling drugs in the U.S. wouldn't be able to make nearly as much if our government hadn't created incredibly high prices (by keeping drugs ilegal and seizing them at every turn)."

The same can be said of any illegal smuggling operation, be it diamonds, bootleg CDs, weapons, or even sneakers. Why should drugs have special treatment?

"You are very mistaken. The source matters very much. On the rare occasion that something comes in from out of state, everybody knows. It looks and tastes different! It's usually not as good. The "domestic drug trade" that I support isn't a bunch of TV-style gun-toting gangsters, they're freedom-loving peacefull Americans just like me who like to have a good time. THAT "domestic drug trade" is something very much worth supporting."

Mock me if you will for quoting from a government source, but as you pointed out they seize a lot of it and they are the most likely ones to know the most about this. From http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs/647/marijuan.htm:

Distribution

With multiple domestic and foreign sources of supply and an almost countless array of groups and independent dealers involved, no single group can be claimed to control marijuana distribution in the United States. However, Mexican drug trafficking organizations clearly dominate a greater portion of wholesale distribution than any other identifiable group. Most DEA Field Divisions identify marijuana from Mexico as the dominant type in their jurisdictions, and many report that Mexican organizations dominate wholesale distribution in their areas. All report that marijuana from Mexico is readily available. Because marijuana from Mexico is of substantially lower quality and less expensive than domestic marijuana, it is used frequently to "bulk up" domestic marijuana and increase profits--even in areas where it is not the preferred type.

DEA findings are consistent with information provided to NDIC by 412 state and local law enforcement agencies, almost 30 percent of which identify Mexican organizations as the dominant marijuana wholesale distributors in their area. Local independent dealers are the most frequently identified wholesale marijuana distributors after Mexican organizations. Law enforcement agencies note, however, that many independent dealers are Caucasians supplied by Mexican organizations. Agencies that note domination of the local market by Jamaican distributors report, too, that Mexican organizations are a primary source of supply. Agencies in the northern United States identify connections between local independent dealers and Canadian sources of supply; agencies elsewhere note that local dealers maintain connections with street gangs, OMGs, and Jamaican groups.

"As for USCG interdictions (I assume you're refering to coast guard anti drug actions?): again, this wouldn't be an issue if we relaxed our damn drug policies."

And it wouldn't be so expensive to stop the illegal diamond trade in the US if we just relaxed our import restrictions. But I'd rather fund efforts to stop this trade than to fund Liberian warlords. Again, what makes drugs so different?

Re:Fantastic

[Aexia]

My smoking pot doesn't harm anyone other than myself. That's the difference. Why should it be illegal? Smoking isn't illegal. Alcohol isn't illegal. If you banned either, you'd see the exact same thing that's currently happening with cocaine, heorin, pot, etc. No wait, we *already* saw what happened with banning alcohol. Why should these drugs be treated any different from tobacco and alcohol?

Re:Fantastic

[kilgore_47]

Why should drugs have special treatment?
Again, what makes drugs so different?

Because weapons smugglers are hurting society, and pot users aren't. People are in fact LESS likely to commit violent acts while under the influence of pot. They're more likely to sit around and not hurt anybody. Pot is good for society. If the millions of drunken wife beaters in this country could legally get pot instead of liquor, do you really think our domestic violence rates wouldn't plummett?

Pot only hurts people because it's ilegal. When harmless members of society are rounded up and put in jail because they happen to light up the wrong kind of cigarette, the kind that can't be easily taxed, it ruins lives. There are millions of kids growing up without fathers because of our moronic drug policy. The instant rebuttal to that is "they wouldn't have made very good fathers anyway, being degenerate drug users". Think about that for a second. Do you honestly belive that a happy pot smoking father worse than no father at all?

In regards to your government source:
The sugestion that domestic, high quality, pot could be mixed (or "cut", or "bulked up") with shitty mex weed is laughable. Anyone who's actually seen more than a few varieties knows that this kind of trickery would be quite obvious to the end-user (heh. end-user, getit?) and would not be taken kindly too. I know that in all my time as a cannabis connoisseur I've never seen somebody "bulk up" their quality product with mex. Maybe things are differnt elsewhere though, and I'm just lucky.

In any case, the mexican importers may be criminals under our current law, but they certainly aren't the international terrorists we're after. They're drug smugglers. If you can call any old criminal a terrorist, then you could start putting any old criminal on trial in military court and totally trample all over constitutional rights. Oh, wait. yeah. nevermind. ;-(

Re:Fantastic

[DEBEDb]

I might be willing to concede that musicians enhance our life but I would hardly consider them productive members of the community.


Honestly, sir, nobody fucking cares if you consider them productive or not.

Re:Fantastic

[DEBEDb]

Grow up an accept that there are things that are illegal under our current laws.


Grow up and accept that people have opinions about existing laws that are different from your own.


keep in mind that while you do you should go out of your way not to break the same laws


Why?

Re:Fantastic

[DuckDodgers]

Never mind that research has shown pot as a cause of cancer is less dangerous than tobacco, which is legal.

Never mind that research has shown pot as a cause of judgement and reaction impairment is much less powerful than alcohol, which is legal.

Never mind that research has shown pot to be less addictive than tobacco or alcohol, which are legal.

Never mind the fact that alcohol prohibition failed. Never mind the fact that tobacco prohibition hasn't even been tried. Somehow, a ban on pot will work!

Never mind that in some states, mandatory sentencing for drug users exceeds minimum sentences for violent crimes.

Never mind that pot was first declared illegal because it incited users to violence. I don't know any violent potheads. Does anyone else?

Who cares if its relative hemp is an industrial product being produced in dozens of countries?

The US government isn't quite the devil some people paint it to be, but neither is it a saint.

Can't you hear it now?

[alansz]

"Super Commercials: A Mental Engineering Special" is made possible by a grant from Doubleclick.

Wow

[DJ rCn]

I didn't think PBS would ever step into the realm of something like this. Television commercials and commercial sporting events have never really been the focus of PBS programming. But this could signal a change of direction maybe for PBS programming, especcially seeing its a post game show. As in right after the game. Not a program that will be aired in 3 months which is the usual PBS stuff, it's all researched and taped, it's never really live. This is an interestingf concept.

Re:Wow

[Com2Kid]

"Television commercials and commercial sporting events have never really been the focus of PBS programming."

Nor are they now. The psychology BEHIND those commericals on the other hand, and even more so educating the public as to exactly what they are being constantly exposed to fits very well within the goals and ideals of public television.

Also makes for one darn fine program too. If I may say so. :)

I love that show

[Com2Kid]

Man I love that show, hard as hell to catch though. One of the local PBS affiliates (there are three in my city, yaah! w00t w00t, one f which runs the Classical Arts Showcase for twelve hours a day, DAMNIT the Northwest rocks! :) :) ;) ) seems to run it sporadically, but in this case sporadically could very well mean "I just don't catch it all that often."

Darnit.

They don't have their video archive up yet (says coming soon. . . .) and I doubt that I'd find this series on most P2P file sharing programs. :)

The Computer Nerd that they have on there is a little bit too much New Agey for me though, he is one of those "The Internet Will Change All Of Mankind" types of people who uses WAAAY to many buzzwords and has in the past (at least on that show) went on about how such and such technology was going to vastly change us all but in the end said technology just flopped.

Oh well, still a kick ass show though. :) Even if they /do/ tend to over analyze things a bit, hehe (tis their job after all. :) :) :) )

Ad report cards at Slate

[migstradamus]

Slate magazine's Moneybox runs a regular series of "Ad report cards" that are fairly savvy. This one linked to above previews some Super Bowl ads.

Mig

Without Ad Critic..

[Evanrude]

I am glad to see someone is doing this. Since Ad Critic shut down, I have nowhere to view commercials anymore. Kudos to PBS.

Re:Without Ad Critic..

[doooras]

Since Ad Critic shut down, I have nowhere to view commercials anymore. Kudos to PBS.

Try your TV.

Re:Without Ad Critic..

[Evanrude]

You've obviously never experienced the magic that is : TiVo. Besides, I only want to see the good commercials.

Is there such a thing?

Re:Without Ad Critic..

[PsychoSpunk]

Oh the joys of TiVo. Last year, I set mine up to record the super bowl and in a reverse twist of usual watching habits, I fast forwarded through the game and only watched the commercials. That required some weird reprogramming of my mind, since something just didn't feel right.

Guess I'll have to figure out when the game is so I can do the same this year. (Yes, I really don't know when the game is.)

Not a bad idea.

[Bob_Robertson]

Disecting commercials is an interesting exercise. Too bad it's tax money being spent on giving the commercials yet *another* showing.

I think it's fascinating the cultural and social aspects of advertizing. Effective commercials have to hook into as much "common" thinking as possible in order to be profitable. Or, like the famous Mac "Metropolis" commercial, link into our cultural shared imagery.

I look forward to real "smart chips", that can be used to recognize commercials and turn the sound off, maybe turn down the contrast for the duration of the commercial. I really hate the way stations turn up the volume during the commercials as a form of forced attention grabbing.

But the extra volume is good for one thing, I can hear the commercials end so I know when to come back from the kitchen/bathroom.

Bob-

Re:Not a bad idea.

[bryan1945]

Very little tax money, really. That's why they have all those moneyraisers.

As for the smart chips, do you really think that the content producers will ever let that go through? I don't. Especially since that commercials are required to NOT be louder than regular programming (maybe not all, maybe just broadcast?), but still are on almost every channel- my SciFi channel being particularly bad at this.

Re:Not a bad idea.

[nick_burns]

But the extra volume is good for one thing, I can hear the commercials end so I know when to come back from the kitchen/bathroom.

Must be nice to have the power to come back from the bathroom by choice. "This next drop is gonna have to wait a few minutes 'cause I hear The Simpsons coming back on."

Re:Not a bad idea.

[euclid manatee]

Too bad it's tax money being spent on giving the commercials yet *another* showing.

About 10% of PBS/NPR funding comes from tax dollars. Let's not compare their paltry slice to the amount of corporate welfare that funds AOL-Time-Warner, NBC, CNN, et al, as you might poop your pants.

I really hate the way stations turn up the volume during the commercials as a form of forced attention grabbing.

Stations don't turn the volume up - the audio is compressed during production so the commmercials will play back louder. It's been done for years in pop music, which explains why your typical modern-rock station is completely unlistenable (from an audio standpoint).

mb

Re:Not a bad idea.

[Aqualung]

Actually, my Panasonic television set has exactly that feature... volume normalization. It's pretty nifty.

Apple

[zaphod123]

TV guide named the 1984 Apple superbowl commercial as the best commercial of all time.

I wonder if they have a different opinion on who Big Brother is now??

Comercial Post game

[rblancarte]

Cool - while ESPN, CNN/SI and Fox are breaking down the game, PBS will be breaking down who spent their 2.5 Million per 30 seconds the best. If the game is not at all interesting, this could be the best thing to tune to after the game.

Besides, sometimes things like herding cats just has to be panned.

RonB

Re:Comercial Post game

[bryan1945]

Actually, this year's winner is the Britney Spears/Pepsi add, which is running at (a record) $9 for 90 seconds, or a good 500K more per 30 seconds.

Wait, $100,000 per second!! There is something just so inherently wrong with that...

Re:Comercial Post game

[mpe]

Cool - while ESPN, CNN/SI and Fox are breaking down the game, PBS will be breaking down who spent their 2.5 Million per 30 seconds the best.

Or maybe even breaking down and commenting upon a different "game".

Re:Comercial Post game

[bryan1945]

Oh, bugger!

(insert much profanity here)

Thanks, you just made my morning! I just made up a couple of commercials in my head I could make for $9; totally made me smile in the many ways I could flaunt my (very limited) creative skills on a cheap budget! Made me think of some commercial where a big time client sees a major new ad that was made for $9 rather than $9Mil due to the same kinda of error- client expecting all kinds of FX, sound, transitions, and instead gets a homeless bum mumbling about aliens liking the product.

Pepsi's Britney Spears commercials.

[strredwolf]

Yahoo's been carrying Pepsi's prehype ads for their Superbowl commercials for some time... and I don't know if it's just GIF/JPG problems or...

But ever time I see Britney now, it just looks like she's become a Barbie doll.

Can someone *confirm* this? Damn thing looks disgusting on the web. If it's true, I think I *won't* be watching TV for the next six months...

Re:Pepsi's Britney Spears commercials.

[jackal!]

But ever time I see Britney now, it just looks like she's become a Barbie doll.

I think Mattel would have a fit if Barbie dressed as scantily as Britney.

Re:Pepsi's Britney Spears commercials.

[dracocat]

Pepsi won't be focusing on Pepsi this year, they are spending a good deal of ad time on Lipton Brisk.

Has Pepsi hit its peak, or is Pepsi just desperate for something new?

Also, Pepsi will NOT be the first commercial of the Superbowl. Slot 1A was lost by Pepsi in 1999. Now it belongs to Budweiser. I'm sure Pepsi is hitting themselves for not advertising two years ago. Thats OK though, Budweiser seems to do better ads than Pepsi anyway.

Re:Pepsi's Britney Spears commercials.

[daitengu]

I will watch the Pepsi commercial damnit! I will! but.. of course .. I will push the mute button on the TV like at least 100 million other guys :)

Re:Pepsi's Britney Spears commercials.

[volfreak]

Saw a story on it last night. She's dressed up as Marilyn Monroe, Barbie and one other character. Scary....

A testemant to our culture

[quantaman]

So have we reached the point where we publicly proclaim that we now enjoy being told what to do and what to think by people whom we know only want our money. Are we really that far gone and are our attention spans that short or is it merely that the greatest writers of our generation are writting little ditties and thirty second spots for Nike that are immessurably superior to story over the length of 22 minutes that exists.

Re:A testemant to our culture

[bryan1945]

It is a lot easier to be funny, thoughtful, or odd for 30 seconds than for 22 minutes. Considering that companies spends almost as much on these 30 second adds as a regular 22 minute sitcom, you tend to get a better, quick product. If "Friends" spent $2.5 million per 30 seconds for 22 minutes, ie., $110 million per episode, you would end up with a new MacBeth every week; or a new "Waterworld"- shit, just blew a whole in my own argument.

Well, I hope that made some sense!

Re:A testemant to our culture

[quantaman]

You did kind of hit on part of what I was trying to say (but failed miserably), as the post above you stated people have always been trying to sell us something and always will be.
"It is a lot easier to be funny, thoughtful, or odd for 30 seconds than for 22 minutes."
While this is true to a certain extent whuch of it also has to do with the public's almost non-existant attention span. I heard a documentery recently that stated that the thirty second commercial was in fact on the way out (so far no luck). That the trend is in fact moving towards 15s and 1 minute spots. The 1 min spots have to achieve the challenge of grabbing your attention and holding it they may in fact have some good writting. However the other trend, the 15 sec, is due to the fact that the public's attention span can no longer be held for the full thirty seconds.

Re:A testemant to our culture

[bryan1945]

15 second ads? I sneeze longer than that!

Thought exercise- imagine this trend continuing for an unspecified amount of time, though longish in span. What happens when ads are 3 seconds? 1/3 of a second? How does society change, and will it be possible for me to kill all of them slowly because they can't pay attention long enough! :p

Really, though, 'tis frightening.

Re:A testemant to our culture

[quantaman]

"What happens when ads are 3 seconds? 1/3 of a second? "
ever watch a sports broadcast? Often while the refs are debating a call or the game has stopped for a second and a short little mini-ad pops up (probably about 3-5 sec long)
"will it be possible for me to kill all of them slowly because they can't pay attention long enough!"
Phillip Morris;)

the NEW site

[Com2Kid]

Here is a link to the part of the site that actualy has some CONTENT on it (GASP!)

Here

Not the posters fault though, only a Google.com search turns up the real site, the one linked off of their intro page is even either old or just has not been updated with the latest content yet. :(

Oh yah, ASF files with required plugins ahoy. :(

(the site is also dying fast to, hehe.)

Re:the NEW site

[frankie]

ASF files with required plugins ahoy. :(

Oh my lord, that web site is evil. Every single page link is actually an applet trying to run WiMP. No HREFs, no ALT text, and certainly no NOSCRIPT. My Mozilla is completely out in the cold.

Please voice your complaints about this affront to web standards. Here's some addresses:

• www@pbs.org
• webmaster@mentalengineering.com
• crday@mentalengineering.com
• johnforde@mentalengineering.com
• producer@mentalengineering.com
• hostmaster@ISD.NET
• cswen@ARNAN.COM

Re:the NEW site

[kimihia]

http://www.w3.org/WAI/report

They can word it better than you can. :-)

sigh...

[nido]

Two 30-second spots ... suggest illegal drug sale profits may help fuel terrorism.

And in the ideal world the suggestion would be caried through to the only obvious conclusion: prohibition of illegal drugs should be ended, and funds wasted on fighting the "drug war" should be redirected towards [voluntary] treatment programs for addicts. These are "your" tax dollars at work people (3.2 million of them, for 60 seconds of propaganda). If you don't like it then it's time for you to start withdrawing support from the system. (that's conceptually, semantically, and financially)

The "war on drugs" does not have a clearly defined enemy. It's been going on for what, 30 years? And there's no end in sight. The "war on terror" also does not have a clearly defined enemy. Are you ready for perpetual war?

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The "war on terror" also does not have a clearly defined enemy."

It does, fucker.
My brother did not commit suicide, he was murdered.

Have a nice evening motherfucker.

Re:sigh...

[Malcontent]

"The "war on drugs" does not have a clearly defined enemy"

The war on drugs has the exact same enemy as the war on terrorism. That being you and your freedoms. These so called wars are very useful in scaring the public to give up hard won liberties not to mention all kinds of neat money laundering schemes to siphon taxpayers money.

"Are you ready for perpetual war?"

We have been in a state of perpetual war for ages now. Can you think of a 5 year period in the US history where we were not killing some people some place on the planet? I can't. Wether covert or overt, hot or cold, we have been in a state of continual war since vietnam. We need an enemy to make ourselves feel better and killing becomes addictive after a while. Like mass murderers who can not stay away from killing every few years we get the itch so bad we have to drop some bombs on somebody.

Re:sigh...

[fredistheking]

So is the United States a Terror Sponsoring Nation since it's laws create much of the market that "fuel terrorism"?

---

Re:sigh...

[bryan1945]

I'm with you, make them legal. As I posted above, it has many benefits:

Ensured qualtity=safer drugs for users
Tax 'em like cigarettes. More state revenue.
Put in place laws like DUI so abusers are punished.
Extra money to treatment for abusers.

The war on drugs is a feel-good kind of goal. We need to stop the desire on the user-end, not the supply end.

Re:sigh...

[smashin234]

Read the book 1984, in that the state is kept in a perpetual war in order to keep patriotism high. Same thing here.. this is nothing new, and neither is the fact that the Government is spending money on propaganda. I really look forward to seeing these commercials, because I am bored of blowing up Bin ladin in little mindless flash games. Rockets anyone?

Re:sigh...

[squaretorus]

Off-topic - so shoot me!

Yep - legalisation is the only way to do it. As soon as you take away the need for drugs to be bought on the street you take away the drive to get new users hooked. You take that away the markt stops growing, it actually shrinks as in holland, and all these kids dont get into crime to feed their habit.

If it fucks up thier brains so what! so does alcohol and guns, and we let them have those!

I'd be interested in the level of drug taking among /.ers - how about a poll - drug of choice.

never
occational spliff
daily hash head
coke monster
MDMA dance amfem dude
speed freak
fabulous furry freak brothers cocktail

I'll bet we're mostly pussies that dont do nothin!

Re:sigh...

[wickidpisa]

We need an enemy to make ourselves feel better and killing becomes addictive after a while.

Reminds me of one of my favorite PLIF comics :
Bet you thought the world was round, didn't you? Bet you believed there were 'Bad Guys' and 'Good Guys' and people out there like us. There are no people like us. There is nobody else. We are stranded in space, waging war on ghosts to feel less alone. Welcome to Planet America.

Re:sigh...

[meff]

Just like banning firearms in England lowered the number of crimes committed using one, right?

Drugs have almost nil related to crimes, and if they even were legal, the fights caused by drugs wouldn't happen because it probably wouldn't be distributed by shady drug-businessmen in the alleyway.

Re:sigh...

[mpe]

And in the ideal world the suggestion would be caried through to the only obvious conclusion: prohibition of illegal drugs should be ended, and funds wasted on fighting the "drug war" should be redirected towards [voluntary] treatment programs for addicts.

In an ideal world the lesson thet prohibition dosn't work would have been learned about 80 years ago. Not only does it not work, it can actually encourage more abusive drug use as users binge due to an unreliable supply of an unregulated product.

The "war on drugs" does not have a clearly defined enemy. It's been going on for what, 30 years? And there's no end in sight. The "war on terror" also does not have a clearly defined enemy.

Both of these actually need the word "some" inserting.

Are you ready for perpetual war?

No doubt politicans are fully ready. War is a good way to divert attention away from domestic issues. After all can't risk putting all those hard working people at Microsoft, Enron, Anderson, etc under the spotlight. Or even (more diectly related to terrorism) those people working for the INS, FBI, USAF, FAA or NORAD...

Re:sigh...

[mpe]

We have been in a state of perpetual war for ages now. Can you think of a 5 year period in the US history where we were not killing some people some place on the planet? I can't. Wether covert or overt, hot or cold, we have been in a state of continual war since vietnam.

The US government has been interfering with other people's government for over a century. The significence of Vietnam is more that it was a failure and the US people voiced their opinion of what was going on.
The US government fears the US people, since most of the US population has no quarral with the rest of the world (assuming they even know there is a rest of the world...) But does not want to change it's policy of trying to make the rest of the world "friendly" to US government (and often corporate interests, from the sugar companies in Hawaii to the oil companies of today) by any means available.
Probably the most suprising thing is that it took so long for something to happen on the US mainland.

Re:sigh...

[t_allardyce]

This is too true. If drugs were legal, their price would just drop to the ground - just like what happens when a major company crashes.. hmm does no-one else see the connection here? The governments ban drugs because _they_ are the main dealers, they created the ban to raise prices so they could profit, if they lift it - the price will drop - drugs will be worthless, and they will loose an awful lot of money.

In England, most people never owned firearms anyway, and most never wanted to. I would feel less safe knowing there was a gun in the house, and that anyone on the street could be carrying a weapon. If your drunk, angry, or just have no idea what your doing, then a gun is a pretty stupid thing to be holding. The ban didn't solve much because now anyone can get a firearm on the black market (and there, they don't give you a background check) :)

Re:sigh...

[Zerth]

Don't forget: Licking the fungus from behind Inoshiro^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCowboy Neal's ears.

Re:sigh...

[darien]

The rhythm is the bass, and the bass is the treble.

Re:sigh...

[rotor]

Yes, if you don't like it, then withdraw your support - and don't draw any support off of the system either. Move to another country if you live in the US currently. One where you agree with every policy they have (if you can find one) and pay your taxes there - if you can afford to.

Face it, despite some problems with certain policies, the US is still the best place to live as far as freedom and financial security and quality of life in general go. And if you really have a problem with some aspect of policy, vote and run for office.

Re:sigh...

[darien]

I can only offer my sincerest sympathies. Nobody deserves to lose a friend or relative to terrorism, particulaly not over something in which they are almost certainly not personally involved.

But the point is, the men who murdered ~3,000 people on 11/9/01 are dead already. So obviously they can't be the enemy in a war that started after the event. As a previous poster said, a war on Al-Qaeda would be an understandable response -- though a very difficult one to prosecute, because, unlike a country, Al-Qaeda can move around, disguise itself, distribute itself and take shelter within other countries and institutions.

But this enemy is even more nebulous than that. Bush wants to go after "thousands of dangerous killers [...] spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs - set to go off without warning." When he says "set to go off without warning," he's effectively admitting that we don't know who they are. And for the most part, we won't know until/unless they strike. Trouble is, the war is supposed to make sure they don't. It's a horrible problem.

Of course, Bush can hardly say "well, international terrorism is almost impossible to fight effectively, so we're just going to have to take September 11th on the chin and hope they don't do it again." But I'm sure even he would have to admit that the enemy he has chosen is, by its very nature, ill-defined.

Re:sigh...

[DrTentacle]

Just like banning firearms in England lowered the number of crimes committed using one, right?

Firearms were not banned in England. The majority of firearms were already not legal to possess, with exceptions made for sporting/hunting/pest control purposes, which required a licence. What happened was that small bore guns used for sports were added to the list of banned weapons. It has never been a "right" to own a firearm in the UK.

Re:sigh...

[gmarceau]

The "war on drugs" does not have a clearly defined enemy. It's been going on for what, 30 years? And there's no end in sight

Very Orwellian. Scary.

Re:sigh...

[Guppy06]

"And in the ideal world the suggestion would be caried through to the only obvious conclusion: prohibition of illegal drugs should be ended."

Illegal drug trade helps fuel terrorism. So does illegal diamond trade, illegal weapons trade... hell, even pirated CDs can help fuel groups. By your logic, all trade should be legallized. Think of the hapless importers that are being victimized just because the Nike's they're unloading just happen to be made by child labor?

Pawn stores lose money left and right when they unwittingly buy stolen goods. So should we legallize robbery?

Bartenders can get into all sorts of legal trouble if they let an obviously drunk patron drive off. Maybe we should legallize drunk driving as well.

After all, these are my tax dollars at work...

" and funds wasted on fighting the "drug war" should be redirected towards [voluntary] treatment programs for addicts"

So the money that's spent on trying to prevent a problem should instead be spent on cleaning up after the fact? WTF? Maybe we should yank those annoying "Truth" anti-smoking ads off TV and just put the money towards niccotine patches and cancer research while we're at it...

Better yet, let's abolish the EPA. Factories are going to pollute anyway, so why don't we put the money towards buying every man, womnan and child a respirator?

When all is said and done, if the pro-drug lobby really cared about the human aspects of the drug trade, they wouldn't touch the stuff to begin with. But they do because their own few moments of bliss are worth more than the life of some poor sap in Mexico or Colombia or Thailand who has to make this stuff at gun-point. If these people are going to be so selfish as to not be able to show even the most basic level of honest-to-God empathy or altruism, then at the very least I want them to be convicted felons so they no longer have the privilege to vote and have a say in directing the governments they leech off of.

"Are you ready for perpetual war?"

I don't care what John Lenon says, there are some things that are far more valuable than peace.

Re:sigh...

[LoseNotLooseGuy]

the price will drop - drugs will be worthless, and they will loose an awful lot of money.

Ignoring for the moment your questionable logic regarding government policy, it is not likely that the government would "let loose or release" money because the drugs lose value. It is more likely that the government would fail to possess that money. The word you were looking for is lose.

Congratulations! You have been participant #17 in my campaign to rid Slashdot of this error.

Re:sigh...

[anthony_dipierro]

Ensured qualtity=safer drugs for users

Have you ever watched "The Insider"? I used to believe that legalizing marijuana would lead to safer drugs, but to tell you the truth if I were a smoker I'd feel safer buying a joint from "Captain Reefer" than from RJ Reynolds.

Re:sigh...

[Banjonardo]

way, but way over a century, dude. In fact, you can say it about the Iroquois nations etc., which was way before this place was even called the U.S.

United Fruit, anyone?

Re:sigh...

[nido]

Obviously, marginally addictive drugs without severe side-affects can be tolerated. The rest give us a clearly defined state interest in removing them.


... but where do you draw the line? I don't consume any drugs of any sort - perscription or not - and I don't think you should either. Got a headache? Want to take an ibuprofen? Too bad, ibuprofen has some rather severe potential side effects, and since I'm the man in power, I've decided that it is illegal for you to consume said dangerous drug.

Anti-Terrorism Commercials

[Quebst]

Your tax dollars at work. Seriously, I laughed so hard when all those dot-coms of a few years ago blew half of their money on a single ad, only to go out of business a few months later. The thing is, the government doesn't have to answer about its spending, it just has to strain its citizens a little more. In this case, it is using the money of the people it is supposed to protect and using that money to tell us(if you're a US citizen) what you can and can't do. That million dollars could help save the lives of understaffed police officiers or firefighters without proper equipment, but that doesn't make the news.

Re:Anti-Terrorism Commercials

[mpe]

The thing is, the government doesn't have to answer about its spending, it just has to strain its citizens a little more. In this case, it is using the money of the people it is supposed to protect and using that money to tell us(if you're a US citizen) what you can and can't do. That million dollars could help save the lives of understaffed police officiers or firefighters without proper equipment,

Maybe because giving the illusion of "doing something" is easier than actually doing something useful. Governments are usually very reluctant to admit they did something wrong or omitted to do something they should have done... (The bigger the wrongdoing the harder they will try to draw attention away from it.)

Perhaps someone would know...

[__aawavt7683]

the main point, will this show cover ALL the super bowl commercials? or only a select few? I wanna see them all..

Also, will it be commercial free? ;-)

-DrkShadow

Re:World Ideologies as Explained by Reference to C

[Com2Kid]

You missed one.

Damn newbies, fucking shit. You FORGOT THE FRIGGIN PUNCH LINE.

Damnit.

Ah, mods excuse this, but I just cannot allow this otherwise great joke to go unfinished.

RatCity-ism (replace with the name of an old Stoner's BBS in your area, that was my local one): You have two /sheep/ but you keep them both for the sake of personal pleasure.

Ok ok, a lot funnier when done in ANSI.

On topic though, these basic concepts (you have many of something, big bad evil government takes part of that many away from you) was something that was being seen more and more often in the last past few years. I predict that an opposite trend is likely to show itself this year. (not exactly rocket science that prediction. :) :) )

Ah, Post 9-11 Capitalism. You have two cows that fulfill all of your milk needs but the advertisers insist that you buy two more so as to fulfill your patriotic duty. . . .

SockPuppets

[WatertonMan]

What's wrong with sock puppets and herding cats? Funny stuff if you ask me.

Re:Copyright?

[Com2Kid]

Notice is given on the commercial, it is also bordered and outlined and a text overlay showing the copyright owner on the commercial is displayed throughout its entirety.

The point is?

[josh crawley]

First, editors post saying that TV rots your brains. TV is like cocaine (yes, I have the issue of SCIAM in front of me).

Now, you flap your big slashdot jaw about how we stay and watch idiotic commercials during the Super Bowl?? Speak for yourself.

I've had to wean myself over the last 2 years AWAY from TV. Truthfully, I don't miss it at all. Once you stop immersing yourselves in junk media, you realise how far others have gone... "Did you hear about Movie X, or who won Survivor XXX". So much talk, writings, shows are about other shows, essentially junk. You can guarantee that EVERYBODY on (broadcast) TV has some sort of skewing on thier shows...

Normal network sitcoms (Full House type) are no brainer shows that promote 'good feelings' but are totally worthless in content (purpose is to drag in the dough through commercials). Next, you have documentaries on normal brodcasts (except PBS). Usually, some enviro-wacko bought a block of time to poision the minds of viewers in the attempt of acting like true information. Then you have news shows. The liberal slant is soo bad, I can't stand to watch them. The sad thing is, that they probably think they aren't THAT liberal. Then comes down to the PBS shows. These are exception, soft of. You watch the show, say about processor crafting. It seems to cover all sides of developers, but listen just a little bit after the show goes off. Brought to you by funding of Intel. I wonder what they omitted..... Perhaps AMD/Motorola/SGI???

Josh Crawley

Re:The point is?

[bryan1945]

Good points.

I haven't watched a sitcom in years. I watch some scifi and drama shows, but mostly as background with other tasks (like surfing /., he!)

A lot of my TV watching revolves around Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, and SciFi channel. Not so much for their series, but rather the specials like Walking with Dinos, Blue Planet, the occasional SciFi miniseries.

I actually read about the various pop media stuff off my portal page, which I've set up with a variety of news sources. I included media stuff so I can at least be conversant with co-workers and such. The best part is I can read an article in 30 seconds and be conversant with them after they watched the hour episode! They don't even know I've never watched some of these shows!

As for news, forget it. I occasionally watch FoxNews for O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes, but that's it. I gave up on TV and newspaper news almost 10 years ago.

Re:The point is?

[nomadic]

The best channel imo is the Discovery Science channel; unlike the regular Discovery channel, they run mainly one hour science shows; no cooking shows, fix-up-your-house shows, and best of all no infomercials (even in the middle of the night). If you're an insomniac there will usually be something cool on, like an episode of Connections.

Re:The point is?

[bryan1945]

Definently, my parents have digital cable, so they get the 300+ channel package, which includes Disc. Sci., Disc. Wings, etc, etc. Great stuff. Unfortunately, I don't :(

And did you think connections 2 was as good as the first? I thought it lacked the spark of the first one.

Re:The point is?

[mpe]

A lot of my TV watching revolves around Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, and SciFi channel. Not so much for their series, but rather the specials like Walking with Dinos, Blue Planet, the occasional SciFi miniseries.

You do realise that the two examples you give were actually made by the BBC? Also "Walking with Dinosaurs" attracted quite a degree of critisism since it presents fictional elements (in places complete fiction) as though it is facts. Similarly with the followup, "Walking with Beasts".

Re:The point is?

[bryan1945]

Well then, kudos to the BBC! Great stuff, even if the Dino special wasn't totally correct. I caught the gist of the storytelling theme as opposed to a text book "this is this, that is that", ie. no fun show.

Really, if you want to slag the BBC, just consider this- would you rather people think of dinos as portrayed in "Walking with Dinos" or as in Jurassic Park 1-3? (Yes, the real truth would be best, but try and be realistic about the viewing audience; it's amazing so many people watched Walking with Dinos in the first place).

Re:The point is?

[nomadic]

They seemed both kind of similar to me, but I agree that 2 maybe seemed slightly less exciting (though still very, very good).

Football and Advertisments

[statusbar]

and T.V. shows dedicated to advertisements.

Every once in a while I am happily reminded again of the reasons that I do not have a television set and why I do not watch any T.V.

--Jeff

corporate mind control

[Alien54]

advertising - corporate mind control. or at least a bad attempt at it.

I cannot wonder how many billions have gone down the drain in order to gain the market share that corporations want? How many billions has MS spent trying to convince folks they they are good?

The fact that MS has not fully succeeded demonstrates the actual effectiveness of such techniques against a group of people who can thing for themselves on occasion

except for the occasional marketing campaign for a favorite gameing system, etc.

Hmm

[Redking]

Are you ready for perpetual war?

Hmm...sounds like 1984. Yes, off-topic I know.

rk

Re:Hmm

[Malcontent]

Not really off topic I guess.

It really amazes me how much orwell got it right. America seems to have really embraced his ideas. A continuing war, shifting enemies, contant surveilance, non stop bombardment of propaganda, a safe and cuddly big brother and of course doublespeak.

When bush started up the brownshirts (I mean the USA Freedom Corps) I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
It's double plus good to spy on your neighbors during the war of infinite justice against the axis of evil so join the USA Freedom Corps today!.

If I didn't know better I would have sworn Orwell was the speech writer.

Re:Hmm

[mpe]

The war on terrorism is a completely different story. While the civil rights abuses of the USA government are alarming, the fact remains that unless stopped (killed) terrorists WILL KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE ON PURPOSE. Terrorists are evil, plain and simple. Terrorists should be hunted down and eradicated.

A "war against terrorism" is about a smeaningful as a "war against bombs". Terrorism is simply a method of persuing warfare.

And I am glad that the Americans have taken on the job of wiping out terrorists.

Except that it isn't wiping out terrorists it's a half hearted attempt to deal with terrorists the US dodn't like.

It would be nice if the american's would pause for a moment to consider why they are the most hated nation on the planet, but this is secondary compared to the importance of wiping out terrorist vermin.

One of the reasons for people not liking the US is the the US trains terrorists, supports states which user terrorism and has itself enguaged in a lot ot terrorism. Indeed the US has actually been found guilty. by the UN, of being a "terrorist state".
If the US government was serious about wiping out terrorism they'd have started with the CIA, then moved on to Israel. (Only the US and Israel opposed a UN resolution against, state sponsored, terrorism.)

Re:Hmm

[mpe]

A war against an abstract concept is a war without end because you can just keep moving the goal posts as you see fit. Every time someone does something you don't like you just add them to the list.

Which is a game more than one person/state can play. e.g. with Robert Mugabe redefining his political opponents and independent journalists as "terrorists"

While a war against Al Qaeda is not only right but just,

Al Qaeda appear to have a more clearly defined idea of "enemy". Also the people who carried out the attacks in September would probably argue that these were "right", "just" even "striking back".
In a conflict all sides bend the truth...

Re:Hmm

[skribe]

Al Qaeda appear to have a more clearly defined idea of "enemy". Also the people who carried out the attacks in September would probably argue that these were "right", "just" even "striking back".
In a conflict all sides bend the truth...

Oh without a doubt. But then again, much of the German population in both WW1&2 believed they were 'right' as well. This is why legislation based on jingoistic posturing is so dangerous.

Re:Hmm

[mpe]

The IMF and the World Bank, while supposedly independent entities, are seen to be as much an agent of the United States as their military forces are. The sanctioning and support of despots and dictators, who instead of using the money loaned by the IMF to better the lives of the general populace steal it leaving the impoverished nation to pay off the billion dollar loans,

Remember that quite a number of these "despots and dicators" (especially in central and south America) were put into place by the US in the first place.

But when the despot has been deposed, your children are dying because of a non-existent health system and you're under a constant threat of starving because taxes take most of what you earn to pay off the spiralling national debt (60% of GNP in the case of Pakistan I believe), who is your enemy? Who do you strike back at? Who do you hate? The most powerful and wealthiest nation on the planet.

The US being wealthy and powerful is less of an issue than the US government using that wealth and power to go toppling democratic governments and supporting (in many ways) "despots and dictators".
It's a lot easier for the US government to deal with an opressive regime which owes it's very existance to the US government, rather that a democratic government which cares somewhat about its people and economy and (most important) isn't going to offer any special deals to US based megacorps. Indeed they might insist on such things as controlling their own industrial base, imposing duties on exports, regulating working practices, etc.

Re:Hmm

[Washizu]

You have planted yourself firmly in the idea that Orwell's insight into society has similarities to our current situation. This helps you to ignore the real danger out there.

Re:Hmm

[SubtleNuance]

WILL KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE ON PURPOSE.
Goto Chiapas, Guatemala, Panama, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Philippines, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba,..,..., tell *them* that.

Ever hear of the School of Americas? Its your own little Terrorist Training Camp.

Have you ever read this gem? http://www.antioffline.com/uscuba.html

Wow, imagine that - a pre-fabricated excuse for aggression, America(TM) would *never* do anything like that...?

The ignorance and myopia caused by America Jingoism is amazing -- and scary.

America is a Rogue Nation Out of Control.

Re:Hmm

[RichardBurns]

I wonder if PBS are planning to do a mental engeneering program regarding the mainstream news programs instead of comercials.
There is far more mental engineering going on there.

Re:Hmm

[Hair]

Not exactly. Speaking of killing innocent people on purpose look how many innocent Afghani's had died as of Dec. 6th thanks to US bombing. And while that is a low estimate, and was tallied almost 2 months ago, it still supasses the number of innocents lost when the trade towers came down. Considering that the US government has ordered all news services to place a low priority on civilian deaths because they are "a normal part of war" (everything that happens in a war is generally a normal part of war, we might as well just stop reporting entirely) and even though civilian deaths haven't been the goal of our attacks, in the words of Tim Wise, "the end result has been a distinction without difference. Dead is dead, and when one's actions have entirely foreseeable consequences, it is little more than a precious and empty platitude to argue that those consequences were merely accidental."

Especially when the government specifically targets Al Jazeera's Kabul office so that they can't report on civilian deaths, you realise that the hate felt for the US is completely rational. If it weren't for an atrocious foreign policy we wouldn't have the terrorist problem (or at least it wouldn't be as big) in the first place. Remember, violence begets violence. Even if you wouldn't have joined Al Queda before, would you join it now that the US bombed your mud house with a 2000 lb. JDAM bomb (whose taxes pay for that?) and killed all of your family for reasons that you don't really even know? (See the cursor.org story.) I know I would.

Back to drugs. What if all drugs were legal? The answer can be found here. But then how would the CIA be able to fund its covert ops, and does Uncle Sam really want to give all that money spent on the WoD back to the American people? They couldn't, and Uncle Sam doesn't. The truth is that the WoD is a cash cow, and if drugs were legal then they would no longer have exorbitant black market prices (which puts people in the gutter, and supposedly funds terrorists, which I thought is what we are trying to avoid anyway).

The sad thing is that all this is just the tip of the hypothetical iceberg. The US government sucks. For the good of, well, everyone we need to reduce it to its Constitutional limitations while the people still have the power to do so without a war. Well, that or I'm out of here as soon as I'm 18.

Anti-terror commercials

[nurightshu]

Well, if they're going to follow the dot-commers' business plans for success, the next step after the multimillion-dollar Super Bowl ad is to buy comfy office chairs.

My suggestion? By stock in Aeron, folks...

As opposed to when?

[fireboy1919]

People have always been pushing some agenda - trying to sell something. It was the greek philosophers who first observed that the truth of the issue is not what matters in showing a point, so much as the persuasiveness of the speaker through logos, ethos, and pathos. Its an art that has been studied for thousands of years, and a good persuasion is something to be admired, no matter what the outcome - at least it can be for those of us who have to communicate with other humans (I think that covers pretty much everybody).

At the very least, we can laugh at how bad their persuasion is. I used to love watching the old "Shake 'N Bake" commercial where a child said, "My mom's making me Shake 'N Bake because she loves me." I could just imagine her finishing her thought, "and your mom doesn't because she doesn't make chicken with that." Or the "Mentos" commercials, where somebody does something sneaky, underhanded, or slightly illegal to someone else, who is understandably irritated, until they see the Mentos pop into the criminal's mouth. I keep waiting for them to push the envelope and show that anything's okay with Mentos by having someone stab someone else to death in front of a cop, and then pop a Mentos in their mouth to get the cop to let them off.

But I digress. Commercials are an art, worth of appreciation or ridicule, despite their purpose. They are, to some degree, a form of literature, meant to do all of the same things as other media.
Does this mean, as the author of the previous post suggests, that we have no appreciation for other forms of art?

Where can we watch the ads?

[jesser]

Adcritic is down, and it doesn't sound like the PBS show will actually re-air all of the commercials. Does anyone know where I might be able to watch the ads without sitting through hours of football?

Re:Where can we watch the ads?

[spaceyhackerlady]

Does anyone know where I might be able to watch the ads without sitting through hours of football?

You mean hours of ads, with the occasional snippet of football, don't you?

...laura, not absolutely certain of the very significance of the Super Bowl

The St. Paul Star Tribune

[glumchum]

"The St. Paul Star Tribune"

The Star Tribune is a Minneapolis newspaper - though it is available in St. Paul. Just thought you'd like to know.

Re:The St. Paul Star Tribune

[osu-neko]

Heh! I was about to mention that. The St. Paul paper is the Pioneer Press. For years the battle was between the "Minneapolis Star Tribune" vs. the "St. Paul Pioneer Press". Then the Star Tribune people decided it was bad marketting if they were trying to sell papers in St. Paul, and now they call themselves "Newspaper of the Twin Cities". Bah -- it's always going to be the Minneapolis Star Tribune until those of us who remember drop over dead. I have a hard enough time not calling the other paper the "Pioneer Press Dispatch"... (I'm probably dating myself when I say I remember when the Star, Tribune, Pioneer Press, and Dispatch were all different papers...)

In any case, there is not now nor was there a newpaper in the Twin Cities called "The St. Paul Star Tribune"...

kitchen/bathroom?

[chip_s_ahoy]

..."Too bad it's tax money being spent"...

Advertisers know that this is one television event that not only will have a large audience, but will have viewers looking forward to viewing commercials. The government knows this too.

and

..."I can hear the commercials end so I know when to come back from the kitchen/bathroom."...

This is a multi-use room? I thought that the dining/living room or den/playroom was as far as that went! ;)

Oh the irony

[xX_sticky_Xx]

So back in the 80's the CIA thought it would be a great idea to help finance their terrorist war against the government of Nicaragua by selling guns to the Iranians and opening up drug trafficking routes from South and Central America to the inner cities of the US. Then they help out the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan with sales of opium. The US government then declares a War on Drugs.

Back in the 90s, the KLA fought a dirty war against the Serbs with money made from drugs with the help of the CIA.

Now, in 2002, Americans have to pay over $3 million to watch ads linking drugs with terrorism. Well no shit...people have been saying that all along.

Check out a great short film that just won an award at the Sundance Film Festival called "Crack the CIA" produced by the Guerilla News Network. Quite revealing, featuring some footage from the Iran-Contra Congress hearings and a public confrontation between a former LAPD officer and the then Director of the CIA, John Deutch.

heh

[lightfoot jim]

Lizz Winstead and a Silicon Valley computer scientist, critique (read: eviscerate)

Lizz Winstead and a Silicon Valley computer scientist, critic (read: eviscerette)

Re:heh

[Quikah]

Are you morally opposed to the use of the word critique or something?

Re:heh

[lightfoot jim]

Lizz Winstead and a Silicon Valley computer scientist, critic (read: eviscerette)

Are you morally opposed to the use of the word critique or something?

No, yes, in the order your phrased your question. I guess the joke was too subtle. Hint: I replaced eviscerate with eviscerette not for reasons relating to gender but rather because the male equivalent is spelled the same as the transitive verb.

TV

[Jason_Knx]

I agree that once you don't watch TV anymore you don't really miss it.

It's somewhat sad when you mention to someone that you don't watch TV on a regular basis and them looking totally shocked. I bought a used large screen TV cheaply a few years ago but I lived in a valley where you could only receive one or two channels clear enough to see after you've messed with attennas long enough. Everyone wondered why'd I get the TV. To watch movies. (When I watch a movie I want to see it as it's meant to be.)

For a few years I didn't even own a TV. A couple I knew gave me one just because they couldn't stand the thought that I didn't have one. Now I watch a show every now and then and think I would like to see it on a regular basis. (24, Alias, CSI) The only problem, since I've had the habit of not turning on the TV other than to see a movie I forget about the show and several episodes go by before I see it again.

Strangly I remember a Simpson's episode where the childrens show was canceled so the kids had to find other things to do and everyone was in a utopic like world for a moment.

But the biggest thing is people are so hooked on TV today that it controls most of what they think and how they relate. I don't watch TV because it became mind numbing after a while. Now seeing other's reactions to how TV effects their lives makes me not want to start back. Shows just keeep seeming to degenrate more and more. The ones that actually make you think are few and far between. WHen they do happen to get aired they don't tend to last long.

Re:TV

[josh crawley]

I'd suggest that you check out a website: fravia.kilrathi.pl

You might like some of the more intersting topics :-)

Oh, this one's easy...

[ebbomega]

2000...

Lots of hype about people spending billions upon billions of dollars on Superbowl ads...

So there's this one where a monkey in an E-trade t-shirt walks up to a stereo, presses play and gets up on a table in front of someone's garage, and there's these two guys sitting on either side clapping. The monkey proceeds to dance to the polka music for about 20 seconds.

then they cut to the text that says:

"We just wasted 8 billion dollars. What're you doing with your money?"
"E-trade.com"

I was laughing till the next commercial break.

Odd juxtaposition

[Nathdot]

In reference to the 'Anti-Terrorism Ads':

Does anybody else think that the ad juxtaposition will bea little off kilter?:

*A dancing/singing CG cow will say something like: "This Bud's for you!"

*Anti-Terrorism ad

*A dancing/singing britney spears will say something like "Mmmm, pepsi... It's how to be cool!"

:)

more ads i'll never get to see... sigh.

[limber]

alas, here in Canada (at least in this chunk of SW Ontario), we never get to see the superbowl ads in the first place, 'cause they're typically substituted for cheesy local advertising by the Canadian broadcasters showing the event.

here's the CRTC's lousy explanation. (the CRTC is i guess a loathesome canuck version of the FCC, except considerably more pretentious and out of touch with reality.)

apple's big brother? sock puppets? anti-terrorism? nope, more like just another "Leon's No Money Down Miracle Event!". (and no, my building doesn't allow satellite dishes)

The other severely annoying bit that they mess around with is virtual ads. Basically, the broadcaster superimposes logos and other teeny corporate markers over top of crowds, the first down line, and billboard shots. It's usually quite glaring.

i just wish they would broadcast an unadulterated signal!!!

Re:more ads i'll never get to see... sigh.

[AnimeFreak]

Just be glad that the CRTC made it possible for Cable and DSL (and broadband in general) not to be fucked over like what happened in the United States.

Re:more ads i'll never get to see... sigh.

[easyfrag]

You think you have it bad, at least you're not subjected to NTV , the local CTV affiliate in Newfoundland.

This is a station that has the worst picture quality anywhere in the western world, not only that but the network logo that sits in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen throughout the broadcast is larger than most and its in colour. That makes viewing stats a real challenge to say the least.

This station (because of the small market) usually doesn't sell out its ad space so they fill the remainder with videos of boy bands, give me sock puppets anyday.

Re:more ads i'll never get to see... sigh.

[osbornk]

I was really amused to watch a NFL playoff game while skiing in Mont-Tremblant, Quebec. they superimposed canadian company logos all over the American stadiums. I didn't know that Canadian Tire advertises so extensively at Soldiers Field.

Re:more ads i'll never get to see... sigh.

[mpe]

alas, here in Canada (at least in this chunk of SW Ontario), we never get to see the superbowl ads in the first place, 'cause they're typically substituted for cheesy local advertising by the Canadian broadcasters showing the event.

Remember that if you can pyhsically pick up a signal from the US it's prefectly legal to watch it in Canada.

Re:Am I the only one...

[bryan1945]

Yeah, the drug users on welfare, crack whores on welfare with kids on WIC and food stamps, the drug dealers who kill people, the deaths caused by people who do drugs and drive, the drug users who have the government pay for their rehap, the money to keep drug users in jail for BREAKING THE LAW (oh, you forgot about that point, didn't you? "But I don't hurt anyone!" you whine. Fine, once you get the law changed, go do your drugs, but until it's changed it's still the law.)

I'm not saying you do any of the above, or ever will (besides the breaking the law part), but there are many who do, and it hurts the rest of us. Personally, I say make all drugs legal and tax the hell out of them, like cigarettes. You get your drugs at a known quality standard, no illegal drug pushers, tax money for the state.

I'd love it if they made pot legal again. I don't think you are a terrorist, but the terrorist guys over in Afghan made most of their money by growing opium. Lots of terroist type action in Columbia where a lot of coke is made. The connection is there.

Also, I like how you are pissed that you will be paying some money to fight the terrorists, and you want to assasinate a fairly decent guy over it. Perhaps you may want to contemplate on the rationality of your response? Say someone keys my car, I know who it is but can't prove it- he cost me money, should I now go assasinate him?

Also, Bush only pointed out countries that have known records of terrorist actions. No mention of actually acting them (yes, I watched his speech). Most likely he threw that out to scare them so they don't try and pull another 9/11. These countries don't have good track records of being peacefull and such.

Just my thoughts and opinions.

Re:Am I the only one...

[canadian_right]

And most of the collateral damage you point out is caused by the drugs being illegal. The price is artificailly high beause they are illegal making it difficult for people with few skills to support their habits without resorting to crime. Violence surrounds the drug trade beause it is illegal. Legal drugs will still cause problems, but the cost to society in general will be much, much, lower.

How come Bush hasn't turned himself in for doing coke in his youth? Shouldn't he be doing ten years in some nice Texas jail?

Re:Am I the only one...

[bryan1945]

Good point on that being due to them being illegal. Missed that one. D'oh. But I still have to stick with the fact that it is currently illegal, though I do agree that they should be made legal.

As for the coke charge, he never said he did it, and as far as I know he was never charged with it. As for the truth of it, hell I don't know anymore- truth on a political level is a concept that I just don't understand anymore. It went nuts somewhere between "I'm not a crook" and "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".

Re:World Ideologies as Explained by Reference to C

[bryan1945]

My insidiousness(way bad sp) is all encompassing and undefined. I zig when I should zag.

If you can't cope, too bad.

Ollie North

[SgtChaireBourne]

Two 30-second spots ... suggest illegal drug sale profits may help fuel terrorism.

I thought Ollie North helped remove any doubt about that. Besides the "war on terror" does have a clearly defined enemy. It just lacks a clearly defined end point or exit strategy... for obvious reasons.

Back to the psychology / technology -- ads use mamilian and primate level drives to make a sale or lure potential customers. Can anyone suggest some good books about primate social behaviour? something corresponding to Jakob Nielsen's book Designing Web Usability : The Practice of Simplicity or Krug & Black's Don't Make Me Think: Common Sense Approach to Web Usability, with theory plus good examples.

Re:Am I the only one...

[mpe]

And most of the collateral damage you point out is caused by the drugs being illegal. The price is artificailly high beause they are illegal making it difficult for people with few skills to support their habits without resorting to crime. Violence surrounds the drug trade beause it is illegal. Legal drugs will still cause problems, but the cost to society in general will be much, much, lower

All of these are little different from what happened when the US decided to make alchol illegal. Then realised sometime later that this caused more problems than it solved...

How come Bush hasn't turned himself in for doing coke in his youth? Shouldn't he be doing ten years in some nice Texas jail?

Same reason that the "war against terror" didn't start with the CIA. In which case shouldn't GW Bush be spending his 10 years at Camp X-ray...

That's a crock and you know it.

[CdotZinger]

In, say, 1975, it may have been true that PBS showed a decent percentage of intelligent, out-of-mainstream programming--I certainly remember it being more high-minded when I was a kid--but that hasn't been the case for a long time.

Present-day PBS is devoted to promoting what used to be referred to derisively as "middle-class tastefulness," to stroking the self-satisfied "soft elitism" of a semi-rich, mostly white, baby-boomer audience who fancy themselves enlightened and cultured because they prefer light theatre to sit-coms (unless those sit-coms are British), pops concerts and soft AOR rock to "crazy modern music" and MTV, Julia Child to Martha Stewart, the thoughtless pseudo-leftism of the American university to the thoughtless pseudo-rightism of dirty blue-collar slobs, and the white-bread consumerism of the Crate & Barrel to the white-trash consumerism of the Home Shopping Club.

It's just another "lifestyle channel" with a superiority complex borne of its guaranteed existence regardless of its lack of popularity amongst the proles whom it deigns to "educate."

The specific show in question, Mental Engineering, has got to be the most miserable piece of shit I've ever seen. For those who haven't seen it, it goes like this: Attention-starved minor local media celebrities, failed academics, and a hack comedian play back a few tv commercials, and intersperse them with soft-spoken, moderately intelligent--if only by tv standards--commentary and slow-witted "quips," agree with each other about everything, and laugh dignified little fake laughs. Riveting stuff. It's kind of like a painfully drawn-out Daily Showsegment, but not as smart, not as critical of mainstream opinion, and not funny.

Re:That's a crock and you know it.

[RazzleFrog]

PBS has become a more commercialized (and therefore less intelligent) venture mainly because it has lost the support of viewers and now relies almost entirely on corporate sponsors. Corporate sponsors, of course, expect ratings and ratings only come with pop trash.

I would also argue, though, that PBS varies from station to station. Here in New York we actually have 3 PBS channels available and I can see a huge difference in the programming between them.

Re:That's a crock and you know it.

[stud9920]

In, say, 1975, it may have been true that PBS showed a decent percentage of intelligent, out-of-mainstream programming--I certainly remember it being more high-minded when I was a kid--but that hasn't been the case for a long time.

As a foreigner, my only experience with PBS was an hour long subject about hot dogs in America in one of the fine Delta Airlines planes from New York to Brussels.

Re:That's a crock and you know it.

[Tackhead]

> semi-rich, mostly white, baby-boomer audience who fancy themselves enlightened and cultured because they prefer light theatre to sit-coms (unless those sit-coms are British), pops concerts and soft AOR rock to "crazy modern music" and MTV, Julia Child to Martha Stewart, the thoughtless pseudo-leftism of the American university to the thoughtless pseudo-rightism of dirty blue-collar slobs, and the white-bread consumerism of the Crate & Barrel to the white-trash consumerism of the Home Shopping Club.

Hey, Julia can cook. She's not afraid to dollop half a stick of butter and a whole head of garlic into a recipe when it's called for. Julia's mad c00x0ring sk1llz wipe the friggin' pan with Martha's.

Of course, light theatre bites just as bad as sitcoms, and even though eMpTyV doesn't play music anymore, that "light rock"... *shudder*.

Yeah, OK. You're right about most of the stereotypes of PBS viewers. But lay off Julia and the French Cuisine, man. Step the fsck back ;-)

I don't agree.

[El Camino SS]

There is a reason that the US has a "drug war" is that by their very nature, drugs make people do things that they normally wouldn't do. I could care less about drugs. But the category of 'things people normally wouldn't do' usually means killing convenince store clerks for $200. THAT IS SOMETHING I DO CARE ABOUT. There are definitely overzealous police out there that destroy peoples lives, but there is an interesting statistic about drugs...

Fact: 85% of all violent crimes in the US are committed because of, or under the direct influence of drugs.

That statistic has been around since hard core drugs... and has remained constant.

Does that mean that your friend that does pot is evil? Hell no. Or anyone that does pot evil? No. Have I personally seen a pot deal gone bad that caused the death of people? Hell yes.

Really, its all about the junkie violence, and making sure that you don't get shot walkig through a bad neighborhood. Or harassed by a drug addict every time you pump your gas.

I know most people speak of rehab. But what are the assurances that they're going to make it? AND WHAT IF THEY DON'T? If you're on the hard stuff, back to stealing, and if you're really strung out... stickin up people when you're not thinkig straight.

They have to go after the dealers. They're the ones with the money and influence. Its purely a minimumization game. Everyone is right when they say that you can't stop it.

Really, the police could give a shit about you getting high. Your boss cares about that. The police care about some idiot getting so strung out that they do something insane and attack John and Jane Q. Public.

Re:I don't agree.

[gowen]

drugs make people do things that they normally wouldn't do

Such as "laugh at Jim Carrey movies". But seriously folks...

Fact: 85% of all violent crimes in the US are committed because of, or under the direct influence of drugs.

I don't know if thats true or not, but I am not taking your word for it. Source please. While you're looking for that, heres a rather better researched bit of evidence

"Rather than inducing violent or aggressive behavior ... marijuana was usually found to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses." [The Nixon-Shafer Presidential Report on Marijuana Usage]

Re:I don't agree.

[CaptainSuperBoy]

Fact: 85% of all violent crimes in the US are committed because of, or under the direct influence of drugs.

Sounds like one of the government's propaganda statistics. Even if this stat were true, most of that 85% would be alcohol.

That statistic has been around since hard core drugs... and has remained constant.

What does that mean? 'since hard core drugs'?

Have I personally seen a pot deal gone bad that caused the death of people? Hell yes.

Isn't that a good reason to end prohibition? If we end prohibition, we take the criminal aspect out of the drug business.

If you're on the hard stuff, back to stealing, and if you're really strung out... stickin up people when you're not thinkig straight.

This image of a strung out addict robbing and killing has been burned into our heads by propaganda, not reality.

Re:I don't agree.

[El Camino SS]

You're right on that one.

I didn't say marijuana. I personally could care less about marijuana. It isn't an aggressive drug, so legalize it, fine. Tax it to high heaven. Hell, you can even drive a car high on marijuana the last time my pharmaceutically-inclined brother checked (not that I endorse that, no way! that might cost lives).

Just if you legalize it... tax it like crazy to go after all of the hardcore street drugs. Those are the ones that are causing the deaths.

I didn't source out my statistic because I can't remember, it was so long ago. But if you look at the national crime statistics, it'll be close. I think it was a book on drug regulation, both for and against, and it let you decide. As you can all see which side I chose. My decision.

I am a news photographer, so I see A LOT OF HOMICIDES AND VIOLENT CRIMES. I can personally attest to the validity of that statistic as one of the most consistent guys in the commmunity that shows up at the violent crimes. I'd personally say 90%. It always seems to be there. It is a de facto question to the police and bereaved.

I realize everyone's need for recreation. But there are better ways to have fun in my opinion, and I have no reservations about making street drugs illegal and heavily regulated. For all of you ladies and gents that want to legalize marijuana, all I can say is I'm sorry... like I said, I could care less about marijuana.

Re:I don't agree.

[rtechie]

"There is a reason that the US has a "drug war" is that by their very nature, drugs make people do things that they normally wouldn't do. I could care less about drugs. But the category of 'things people normally wouldn't do' usually means killing convenince store clerks for $200. THAT IS SOMETHING I DO CARE ABOUT."

Like laugh at Pauly Shore? Sorry...

"Fact: 85% of all violent crimes in the US are committed because of, or under the direct influence of drugs. That statistic has been around since hard core drugs... and has remained constant."

Well, you'd have to cite a credible source for that statistic, because I've never hear it before.

A lot of violent crimes are commited under the influence of ALCOHOL, though I don't have an exact percentage. There is also the fact that if you're under the influence of drugs and commit a crime you're probably more likely to get CAUGHT. I have no idea how they could measure the sobriety of people who get away clean.

"Does that mean that your friend that does pot is evil? Hell no. Or anyone that does pot evil? No. Have I personally seen a pot deal gone bad that caused the death of people? Hell yes."

And this would be MORE likely if you could buy pot at Starbucks?

"Really, its all about the junkie violence, and making sure that you don't get shot walkig through a bad neighborhood. Or harassed by a drug addict every time you pump your gas."

You mean homeless people, right? And they wouldn't be homeless if all they had was alcohol, right? I'm not sure I follow this.

"They have to go after the dealers. They're the ones with the money and influence. Its purely a minimumization game. Everyone is right when they say that you can't stop it. "

The drug dealers that have money and influence are the ones that won't go to jail precisely BECAUSE they have money and influence. Rich, influential people don't go to jail.

"Really, the police could give a shit about you getting high. Your boss cares about that. The police care about some idiot getting so strung out that they do something insane and attack John and Jane Q. Public."

Nobody was talking about eliminating laws against robbery, assault, etc. Intoxication isn't a defense now, nor has it been in the past.

The St. Paul Star Tribune?

[Macoolio]

Actually... (in case anyone cares) It's the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Super Bowl Commercials of the past

[geo-geo]

CBS is showing on Friday evening @ 8:00pm "Super Bowl's Greatest Commercials 2" which should give those who enjoy them a look at some of the good ones from the past. As they say "check your local listings as date/times may vary in different regions!"

demise of AdCritic

[kilonad]

With AdCritic's unfortunate demise, who can we turn to online to download the awesome superbowl commercials? Yes, the anti-terrorism ones will suck, but every year there *are* at least a few gems. So, with AdCritic gone, any suggestions?

It all sucks without ADCRITIC.com

[bareman]

Ad critic was a wonderful resource and all the companies that do advertising are missing a wonderful resource that helped extend their message to a larger audience.

I am badly missing Adcritic.com.

It was also a very nice place to find out who did the music for ads so I could go buy the artists CD's.

Re:It all sucks without ADCRITIC.com

[multimed]

Adcritic was awesome. I hope they come back. Though I'm not entirely sure why they're gone? I guess if they're trying to run a for profit business, I get it, there's just no money in their business model. But if they're only out to get along and not make millions, why can't they? The only cost they really should have would be bandwidth. And I have an interesting solution to that. Why don't the set themselves with something like a peer-to-peer structure. They can have post the movies on their site first--and have users download & share the movies from their own computers & bandwidth ala Kazaa/Morpheus. They would have huge savings on costs, not having the enormous bandwidth costs, and yet keep the stuff out there archived and the most popular stuff would be mirrored and quickly available P-to-P. steve

Re:It all sucks without ADCRITIC.com

[Vizzie]

If you go to http://www.songtitle.info/ they have some amount of commercial to song mapping available. Although, I miss adcritic as well, for the rest of the site. You'd think that a place where people went to see ads could make money off advertising...

Re:Am I the only one...

[bryan1945]

I did point out in a response that I missed that point.

I also pointed out that drugs are still illegal. I don't see how people abusing a social system because they are addicted to an illegal drug makes me liable to pay for their problem.

the drug dealers who kill people" - these are all caused by it being illegal, i wouldnt expect you to understand that though since you are a moron.

I never knew that it was illegal to kill people ONLY because some drugs were illegal. Grow up, AC, and actually read all my posts and responses. Maybe even grow a backbone and not go AC?

Britney - a refreshing change on Homoeroticism Day

[simetra]

Really. The SuperBowl is just the culmination of the season of homoeroticism (aka Football - American, not that sissy soccer crap in 3rd world countries).

I thought that football=homoeroticism was a complete myth, until I saw the NFL's promo commercials, with guys practically giving eachother hand-jobs. I forget now the tag line at the end of the commercials... something like "NFL - the way it should be". Or some such silliness.
I won't be watching Homoeroticism Festival myself, being a heterosexual. If I were tied down and forced to watch it, I would welcome any images of Britney Spears, in much the same way a starving man would relish the image of a steak. She is a hottie!

They should have a Homoeroticism Festival Minus The Homoerotic Crap show... i.e, the good commercials where guys aren't blowing eachother, and any good music acts done during half-time. It would probably be a short show though.

Re:Hmm (OT as hell, but screw it!)

[mekkab]

actually, I hate to get technical with you, but
America isn't a Rogue nation out of control,
it is the last super power with no-one to keep it in check.

Since its developed a structure based on these checks and balances of its adversaries, now that the big adversaries are gone they need to invent new ones to keep the structure rolling.

Hopefully they'll get smart and just make the us population its adversary.

Re:I'm curious

[michael_cain]

For me, the "herding cats" commercial from a couple of years ago. The artists did a wonderful job of mapping calf physical behavior onto some of their digital cats. Of course, I have no idea what they were selling with it-- some sort of system integration software?

Monty Python's Terry Jone's war essay!

[jibs]

Why grammar is the first casualty of war

"WHAT really alarms me about President Bush's "war on terrorism" is the grammar. How do you wage war on an abstract noun? It's rather like bombing murder."

"Imagine if Bush had said: "We're going to bomb murder wherever it lurks. We are going to seek out the murderers and the would-be murderers, and bomb any government that harbours murderers.""
...

---
Bush Family Values Photo Album
---

Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.


Bush and Ashcroft are making laws to keep this kind of revealing information from ever being released. The Freedom of Information Act was created after Nixon's antics, and it is being withdrawn for the wrong reasons. We need to keep gov't checks and balances, as this article clearly proves.
---
An article about Gulf War propaganda, outlining how the 'Babies Torn from Incubators by Iraqi Soldiers' was manufactured and used by Bush to instill war fever. 2 minute read.
---
More gov't lies - Trumped up terrorism numbers
---

I think I figured out the reason the White House covered up Bush's condition!

FACT 1)
REPORT: President Bush Has A Heart Arrhythmia; White House Did Not Disclose After Pretzel Incident That Mr. Bush Has Sinus Bradycardia
---
FACT 2)
Arrhythmias Causes and Risks:
[...]
Arrhythmias are also caused by some drugs. These include antiarrhythmics, Beta blockers, caffeine , COCAINE , psychotropics, and sympathomimetics.
...
---
GRAPH COMPARISON The EKG on the top shows normal sinus rhythm. The EKG at the bottom shows sinus bradycardia

A slowly beating heart means that he's not getting as much oxygen to his brain as healthy people, right? Could this partly be the reason his intelligence suffers?
:)

Re: USA Freedom Corps

[Fubar]

How is this group going to be different from organizations we already have dedicated to emergency responses, such as the Red Cross, Amateur Radio and the Salvation Army?

Seems like if the government is short on cash, providing redundant services would be a waste.

Re:Am I the only one...

[overunderunderdone]

I do lots of drugs...

That is apparent ;)

Am I the only one who is totaly disgusted by the headlines in the paper today annoucing that we are going to atack coutries who have showed no aggresion towords us?

I didn't see any headlines *announcing* that we were going to attack anybody. I certainly didn't see any even suggesting aggression to any degree towards nations that "have showed no aggression towards us". I did see a few mentioning Iraq, Iran and North Korea though these nations are openly hostile and the headlines fell far short of "announcing that we are going to attack". These three nations, if not engaged in outright aggression, have adopted distinctly hostile foreign policies. All three are supporters of terrorism and are pursuing the acquisition of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. While I agree that it would be wrong to simply "attack" these nations, it is perfectly reasonable to publicly denounce their support of terrorism and Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs.

Wars are less likely to happen (though they still may) if we are unambiguous in our policy and intentions. Just look at what happened when our ambassador to Iraq was vague about the US response to an invasion of Kuwait - had she made it plain that we would be willing to go to war over the issue it would not have happened. There are actions that these three nations will take if they can that would inevitably lead to war with us. It is important (and only fair to their decision makers) that they know our policy of holding sponsor states responsible for the actions of their terrorist proxies applies to them. And it is important to at least suggest that our policy of non-proliferation has been stepped up a notch and may go beyond signing unenforcable treaties and occasional economic sanctions - particularly for nations so explicitly and vocally hostile to us.

Led Zeppelin sells out

[Random Man]

Be prepared to retch when you discover that Led Zeppelin has finally, after thirty years of keeping their music out of commercial hands, sold out to General Motors for a Cadillac commerical.

Story in the NY Times .

Somehow in all those years of listening to "Trampled Under Foot," I never thought they were thinking "Cadillac"...

Re:Led Zeppelin sells out

[talks_to_birds]

Led Zeppelin?

Aren't they all dead?

Or is that the Who?

t_t_b

Error Correction

[ralvek77]

The Star Tribune is from Minneapolis, not St. Paul. The St. Paul paper is the Pioneer Press. Just wanted to clarify in case anybody really cares.

Re:World Ideologies as Explained by Reference to C

[famillionaire]

You could change 'Surrealism' so it says 'two burning giraffes' and 'flaming tuba lessons'; by doing so you would include clever [?] references to the work of two actual surrealist painters without substantially altering your basic statement.

America isn't a nation.....

[Groovus]

it's a continent. The United States of America is a nation. Don't go dragging poor old Mexico and everyone else in America into this mess - they've got enough problems as is.

Dubbed commercials

[Jetson]

I wonder if they'll talk at all about the trend of local cable companies to sell "Superbowl" commercials to local businesses. One of my local radio stations is reminding all the listeners to tune in to see their commercial. The cable company up here regularly inserts local advertising during international event coverage. They even replace advertising on CNN with ads for their own local news station.

Re: USA Freedom Corps

[Malcontent]

The purpose of this organization is to mobilize civilians in the effort of "homeland security". In other words they will act exactly like the brownshirts in nazi germany.

So what?

[GPS Pilot]

The length of time an effort has been going in is irrelevant. The "war on crime" has been going on a lot longer than the "war on drugs." It has gone on as long as there has been civilization -- in effect, perpetually. Should we therefore admit defeat and disband all police forces?