Marmaduke Explained

Just found this blog, Marmaduke Explained. Strikes me as a funny idea . . .



I don't know if the comments are all that good; it may be that it lacks something in the execution.



Better, I think, is this sort-of-Freudian reading of the cartoon.

Here's his general index, featuring analysis of Garfield, Dennis the Menace, the Born Loser, and other cartoons and comic strips of dubious quality.

HEAD ON! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD!

(think piece?) Most advertisements don't really penetrate the surface of our consciousness. They drop back to the level of background noise (perhaps because my impulse is to turn the volume way way down during ad breaks, if not muting entirely or channel-surfing). Ads that shout, particularly if the words being shouted are reproduced in all caps on the screen, are an attempt to break through the clutter. Local ads characteristically do this, as it goes with low-budget presentation presumably meant to reach couch potatoes accustomed to doing what authorities tell them to do.

SALE SALE SALE! THIS WEEK ONLY

Or the typical Art Van advertisement with big yellow letters superimposed on pictures of dining room or bedroom suites.

So how about this?



The ad doesn't say why someone might want to apply this stuff directly to their forehead. It looks like Chapstick or Speed Stick deodorant.

A review by Dan Nell of the LA Times is fairly amusing.

The ad is simplicity itself, if simplicity reminds you of North Korean propaganda. A woman rubs her forehead with what appears to be a roll-on deodorant while a female voice shouts: "HeadOn, apply DIRECTLY to the FOREHEAD! HeadOn, apply DIRECTLY to the FOREHEAD! HeadOn, apply DIRECTLY to the FOREHEAD! HeadOn is available without a prescription at retailers nationwide!" This is the 15-second spot. Because of the economics of basic cable advertising, the ad will often run back to back, so you get 30 seconds of "HeadOn, apply DIRECTLY to the FOREHEAD!" etc.

This is the sort of thing that sends people into bell towers with rifles.

So--is there a commercial that sends you over the edge? Something that gets into your head, perhaps with a catchy jingle, that you can't get out? An ad that has an effect on you regardless of your intentions?

(If you want for some perverse reason to watch the Headon commercial, you can find ithere. Keep in mind that this may be just another viral marketing ploy, making an ad so bad that it gets links in blogs.

A related site to check out: Commercials I Hate.)

Audience input

If you want some basis for despairing at the audience for television, or at least for television news, take a look at the comments on Katie Couric's debut as CBS News anchor last week. Before the internet, there was a certain threshold for audience input: it was necessary to write or type a letter, stick on a stamp, etc. New, thanks to comment sections, audience members can write and send more easily than they can blog. And as with blogs, they can be pseudonymous.

Here's what I mean:

Posted by Joe | Sep 5, 2006 12:54:34 PM

Who the hell still watches the evening news anyway? Most of us are still working at 6:30p - guess this is a question for the old folks.

A literate comment, by comparison.

Posted by Wizzer | Sep 5, 2006 2:37:26 PM

Unless she is topless I won't watch.

Posted by Oswald | Sep 5, 2006 3:18:59 PM

What out of touch, overworked, lame brains would watch ANY of the networks evening news broacasts??!! It's the sure way to get your whitewashed, politically correct, liberally absurd news fed to your useless, moronic, lemming selfs.

If it takes Couric to get you to watch, you are far to stupid to care about the news. What have you poor saps done since your fearless alien Dan Rather left? (no pun intended)

[Note: if you want to accuse someone of being stupid, it's best if you don't write "to" where "too" is required, or make the plural of "self" into "selfs." It undercuts your authority.]

Posted by Earl Flynn© | Sep 5, 2006 4:04:05 PM

Sorry I don't watch the news anymore. Too much brainwashing going on that's beginning to insult my intelligence. Watch what you say Katie, you could end up like Rather.

It occurs to me that some brains could use a good washing. The comments go downhill from there.

Posted by Cool Hand | Sep 5, 2006 7:10:17 PM

Overweight, liberal, over-hyped, irrelevant, fastly declining, a total bomb. And that's just the network! Hey, they don't call it See-BS for nothing!

As far as Couric? Well, I think the fact that See-BS had to tow her fat, insulated, northeast liberal ass around the country on a "listening tour" pretty much shows they have no f***ing clue as to what they're doing. Online news, Fox News and talk radio now RULE the airways. See-BS and others are quickly going the way of the wooly mammoth.

It's always a tip-off when a commenter HAS TO USE ALL-CAPS to MAKE SURE we give his words APPROPRIATE ATTENTION! HEY YOU, I'M TALKING TO YOU. YES, YOU!!!!

Posted by No Comprenda | Sep 5, 2006 8:28:45 PM

I, like millions of other Americans, do not watch the CBS news.

If they want to increase their viewers, maybe Katie should speak Spanish to attract the illegal invaders from south of the border.

Posted by jnik | Sep 5, 2006 9:36:26 PM

So the home of Murrow and Cronkite is now occupied by this perky little cheerleader chipmunk? I missed it tonight! Did she show plenty of leg?

Posted by Katie Hater | Sep 5, 2006 9:20:51 PM

Katie sucks, always has, always will. She blames any Christian she can for anything. I could care less if her show goes well or goes to hell.

For this and other comments from the site, it would be a challenge to find any evidence to support the (usually implicit) claims. Sexism, anger at celebrity, anger at perceived political and cultural agendas pretty much jump off the screen.

This post should not translate into "people are stupid." All the comments are reflections of ideological positions which hold the writers: some offer traces of evidence, some channel talk radio or (more rarely) stock positions from the other side. (For reasons I may explain later, "liberal" has been inappropriately used.) In some cases, opening news and information up to public comment produces incisive and corrective comment. However, the question here--how do you feel about the first solo news anchor since Baba Wawa sitting in Dan Rather's old seat--does not appear to inspire either.







http://www.smartalecmusic.com/inner-views.Tanyahutchins.htm

Flat Daddy

My attention was drawn to this story by a news report on NPR. Seems that the Maine National Guard has made a service available to soldiers and their families: they will take a high-rez photo of Daddy--or Mommy, as pointed out in the article and story--blow it up to life-size, and mount it on stiff foam so that the families missing parents, or children, or siblings, can have an image of the missing person to carry along with them. (News stories at Boston Globe, Here's work in progress (images drawn from Boston Globe,Portland Press Herald, and Metafilter:







So, if you want to have Daddy sit in the backseat with you on a drive, no problem:







And family reunions and dinners at the local Denny's are a snap if you can bring the guys along (and the dinner tab is lots cheaper):







This got some commentary from Jesus' General as well as the posters on Metafilter.

I'm curious as to what people think on this one.[genre for post--looks to me like response.]