Marketing to the unmarketable.

Before I begin, a hat-tip of sorts to one of my favoritest bloggers - the Gaytheist.

This post has inspired me to reply a bit. I woulda done it in his comments, but I'm being selfish.


From his post -

there was a gay version of this commercial too. From what I remember, it wasn’t carried at all on network television and only a very few cable channels carried it, but it was very subtle: no holding hands, no kiss, no bodily contact.

If there was a company like Heinz or Levi’s that created a commercial with a gay couple who kissed on screen, do you think any networks or cable channels would show it?

This is the commercial he's talking about:




I saw this commercial air on Bravo during Top Chef, and I was a bit thrown. I mean, I have no issue with the content- let's just get that out there now - and I think it's about time we saw something even remotely marketed at the 10% (or thereabouts) of our population that enjoys schtupping with members of their own gender.

Here's what threw me - there was NO outcry that I heard. None. Watch that commercial again, real quick - tell me it doesn't scream fruity gayness all over the place (not that there's anything WRONG with that /seinfeld). NO outcry. Zero. Fox News? Billy O? Nothing. Complete silence.

Why? Oh heck, I don't know. Could be because people who watch Bravo! in general understand that it's about the gayest Gay gayness that ever was Gay on TV. Could be that the conservative pundits saw nothing at all non-hetero in the clip - 2 dudes hanging out, right? So what if they're ridiculously good looking, super-groomed, well-dressed, and make more eye-contact than all of the characters in an entire season of Lost? It's BROs man, nothing to worry about there!

But that's the thing - I can't think of a way in which that WASN'T directed at the gay purchasing market. We're talking about around 10% of the consuming public of this country, and a demographic that's known to have a better-than-average amount of prosperity in comparison to us (somehow economically crippled) breeders. Companies are likely chomping at the bit (uh...) to capitalize on this blooming market.

But there's a problem. In order to DIRECTLY market at these people, companies will have to... well... directly market to those people. That means commercials. Print ads. Etc. And honestly, those ads can fly in some places. Bravo! for example - or the Advocate, etc. Some web advertising. But as is illustrated by Bill O'Reilly freaking out about a Heinz commercial in Europe that happens to involve a man-on-man kiss for the hilarity of the juxtaposition (see, the guy is actually the mom and the mayonnaise is just SO convincingly like a deli's mayo that the mom is magically transformed into a brooklyn-native guy that looks like he could convincingly beat the snot out of you if you looked at his pastrami wrong), it would not fly for long.

The commercial in question and his commentary -

(Again, a hat-tip to this post at the Gaytheist)

A freak-out. Over a commercial about mayo. Running in EUROPE.
djkaldjlawjdljkladjlwakjklajldaldlksanfjewgkta

THAT is the attitude that must evolve in this country. The knee-jerk OMG IT'S GAY AND EVIL that permeates our very fabric.

On the bright side, I DO think it's evolving. Pop culture is bearing that out rapidly. The acceptance of the diversity of sexual preferences is moving along, even if it's slow. This isn't something that can be forced down the public's throat (um... tee hee hee sorry), either. It just has to happen a bit at a time. I think that the first steps along the way are already taken - gay people are finally humanized, thanks in part to things like Will and Grace and Ellen DeGeneres.. or hell, Brokeback Mountain (which I have yet to see, honestly, but I'll get to it).

I think that one day in the relatively near future, we'll see advertising explicitly targeted at gay people on TV during a mainstream show. Of course, it might take a while and there will be weird backlashes along the way, and all sorts of soothsayers and priests will freak out, but whatever. It's gonna happen.

James Dobson is a waste of genetic material. FYI.

SO.... James Dobson has accused Barack Obama of distorting the teachings of the bible.

Here's a couple of fun quotes. First, let's take Obama's quote:

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asks in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?

"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama also said to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."

He also calls Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."

Mmmkay. Not too shabby, really. Even though yeah, I'd rather NOT see any discussion of mythology in politics, it's not too bad. He's pretty much right-on about the sermon on the mount, too.

Next up is Dobson's response.

In the comments to be aired later Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said, later adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Mmmkay, then. Not surprising, really. It's interesting to me, though, that he chooses to call this confused, and says that the teachings of the Old Testament are no longer relevant.

Right. Time to look it up. I decide to go with a nice easy issue, homosexuality (because gay people are FAAAAAAABULOUS and I need some hilarity in my day). So, a quick google search gets me to the Focus on the Family site, which then refers me over to this site. The discussion of the appropriateness of homosexual behavior contains a shocking lack of funny. I'm disappointed... there goes the funny part of my day. Still, it uses Leviticus as one of the bases for the "gay ppls are bad mmkay" argument. AAAAND, to continue to spell out the hypocrisy at play here, Leviticus happens to be one of the parts of the (wait for it) OLD FRICKIN' TESTAMENT. Yes, the SAME OLD FRICKIN' TESTAMENT which is apparently too outdated to be of any use in a christian discussion on theology. The very same OLD FRICKIN' TESTAMENT which is used to discuss bans on abortion, bans on gay marriage, keeping me from buying scotch on the SABBATH (which is a concept from the very first PART of the OLD FRICKIN' TESTAMENT, you DOUCHE)....

You eating that cake yet? You can't have it, you know. It's earmarked for people who get that the bible is in general, from Old to New and everything in between, a mistranslated, misunderstood, mediocre-grade quality, plagiarized work of fiction as created by dozens of authors over thousands of years, best suited for making money off of hicks who like to donate their savings in order to get a bunion healed up in a tent in some rural setting.

At some point, preferably soon, someone will hit these really annoying evangelicals over the head with a clue bat. Until then, I'd appreciate it if the news media could possibly (at least briefly) stop giving them free publicity.

Seriously? This is a CHANGE?

Here's the headline:
"Influenced by TV Shows, Juries Want Scientific Evidence" (link goes to article. thanks Fark.)

From the article:

Still, television-educated jurors are increasingly demanding impeccable evidence before they'll lock someone up.

Um.... wait, what?

"Juries are so impressed with scientific evidence," said Rex Butler, a prominent Anchorage defense attorney. "And, of course, scientific evidence is so much harder to challenge than the statements of witnesses and things of that nature."

Seriously. This is new somehow?

Holy... uh... I really hope if I ever go to court for anything, I have one of those uppity juries that, you know, requires unimpeachable evidence in order to TAKE AWAY A PERSON'S FREEDOM.

/head+desk

What's the harm, anyway?

This is the harm.

IT'S 2008. I just...

Every time something like this happens, I think to myself "HOLY COW, people. WHY??" and EVERY time I think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, kids dying would be enough of a clue to some of these people that prayer alone just doesn't work. Hell, prayer DOESN'T WORK AT ALL, but let's at least get to the point where they at least believe it's okay to treat their children, who might be dying of something really easy to work on (like say, diabetes or a urinary tract blockage).

LOLGOD!!!

Why didn't I think of this first? I love lolcats. I love making fun of things. I'm an atheist. I should have put it together.

Good stuff. Adding lolgod to my links today. Go check it out.

Matt Taibbi disembowels McCain

No, not literally. Jesus, you sick bastard - you really think he would? Wow. And I thought *I* was twisted.

Go read THIS article and stop thinking about people trying to forcibly remove the digestive system of a doddering old man.

Yes, I said it.

Doddering.

Old.
Man.

as in - Dude is old. He's past the mandatory age of retirement for federal employees. He is likely not senile, but he's old.

Is that a reason not to elect the guy? Nope. But it IS something McCain's campaign bitches about. They hate it when his age is pointed out - except by McCain himself on SNL, of course. (Matt talks about this in his article too, but I am emphasizing it a bit)


Sing it with me now, kids:

John McCain is really old (doo dah doo dah)
John McCain is really old (oh the doo dah day)
OHHHH he's REALLY OLD
ohhhh he's really OLD
John McCain is OMG old
Ohhhh he reaaaaally is.

Tim Russert is dead. I get it.

SO.... MSNBC, normally my go-to news source in the mornings, has just earned itself a "you are a self-centered douche" award.

Hey guys, we know. Tim Russert died. He was a great guy. You loved him. Lots of fans are sad about it. His family is devastated. The NBC family will never be the same. Etc. It sucks.

That isn't a good enough reason to make a newsmaker the news.

Tim Russert, I am sure, would be cringing right now over the obnoxious coverage of his death. All weekend long, MSNBC was plastered with coverage of everything from Tom Brokaw reminiscing to old clips of Russert talking about the Florida 2000 election fun. I thought to myself, while flipping over to CNN to find out about the people being flooded out of their homes and what's being done to help them, "let MSNBC have their weekend. Fine."

Then this morning, I turn on the news while getting dressed, and Matt Lauer is interviewing Tim's SON. The guy's body isn't even dead yet, and he's interviewing his SON. Sure, the interview wasn't an MSNBC interview (it was NBC, but being shown on MSNBC becasue - well, look at the last three letters of that name), but it was wasting my morning during a time where I would expect to see the NEWEST and BIGGEST news stories.

I feel badly the guy is dead. It sucks. But- and this is very large but - I want to know what's going on in the world BEYOND the news office. Tim Russert's death was newsworthy - but it wasn't worthy of 72 hours of coverage.

For shame, MSNBC. Grieve in private. Go to his funeral. Show a 1-hour special sometime this week. BUT FFS, GET OFF OF IT ALREADY. Make the news SHOW THE NEWS.

Obama gets it. Religion, I mean.

Right then. Looky there. A nuanced, intelligent speech about religion and its application in modern life and government. He *gets it*. And he has balls to get it. Just saying "this is not a christian nation" is inviting the ire of the talk pundits that proclaim this nation to have been founded on christian principles (it, uh.... wasn't. just so we're clear on that).

Hat tip (I don't wear hats, actually, but you know what I mean) to the Friendly Atheist, who posts many wonderful things which should be required reading for everyone I know.

HEMANT MEHTA for (D) VP.
:)

Cassini, Saturn, and wow.

There's beautiful... and then, there's REALLY frickin' beautiful (click here, you fool!).

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/05/cassini_nears_fouryear_mark.html

The Cassini project has been an incredible exploration mission - we have a robot flying around Saturn, taking some of the most beautiful pictures I've ever seen. The pictures are only the tip of the iceberg, though - the science is spectacular. A moon is venting organic compounds into space. The rings do strange things that might only be explained by the presence of a black hole at the center of the planet. The effects of gravity interacting between two moons (the "shepherds") can be viewed directly in the moons in the form of waves and vortexes.

Neat stuff.

First TRULY new development in guitar tech.

Go here (click this text you fool) and watch the video.


HOLY cow. I want this. Any of my readers who happen to be really rich and want to make me really happy, buy this for me. No, seriously.

McCain supporters and strategies

Before I begin - to the 9 or 10 of you who read this regularly, sorry about not updating for a while. No, really. I feel SO badly.

Moving along -
Does anyone REALLY like McCain? Is anyone REALLY energized about his candidacy? Does anyone actually say "HEY OMG MCCAIN! I LOVE THAT GUY!"?

I mean, I KNOW a lot of people do. There are a lot of people out there who are excited about the guy - but uh....

I know, personally, exactly ONE person who will definitely vote for McCain - and I don't think he's exactly excited about McCain. I'm sure there are more people around me who like him, but I'm just not seeing it. I'm not exactly sheltered, either - I know a lot of conservative people, and I live in a flyover state. I mean, here I am, in an accounting firm, and people are excited about Obama. Weird. I've heard, more than once "well, this is the first time I'll vote Democrat!".

So... I'm beginning to think McCain's a bit nervous, right about now. His best hope was to run against Hillary Clinton - she's someone who most Republicans HAAAATE, so it would have been easier to energize the base. Obama, on the other hand (at this point) actually seems to be attracting Republicans and 3rd-partiers into the mix (IE me), which has got to be terrifying for McCain and his prospects.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh a while back (yes, I do on occasion. shut up.) and he said, essentially, that a McCain / Obama election would be about ideas instead of personality. Of course, he's of the opinion that Obama has no good ideas, but whatever. I think he's right - this election, at least as far as I can see it, will hopefully work on ideas.

OR...

Here's the more likely scenario: McCain is going to do everything he can to scare people into voting for his ticket. The talk radio waves will be filled with accents on the HUSSEIN middle name, and vaguely worded allusions to his wife hating white people and being unpatriotic (both sentiments I find absolutely deplorable - no wife would support her husband in a political race for the presidency and slog through all that crap if she was unpatriotic. She would have encouraged him to, you know, make millions as a partner in a law firm or teach or whatnot - but politics? Come on!). McCain will say that Obama's policies will leave the USA insecure and dangerous. Immigrants will hop the border. Black men will rape white women. Dogs and cats will live together and the walls of some precinct in New York will weep blood. Mass hysteria.

Yep. It's gonna be a fun election. And by fun, I mean that I am pretty sure that I will want to hack off my own ears with a rusty spoon by November.