Internet Barbeque

Critique: Chef Boyardee travelin' can commercial

2010-01-09T21:25:00.002-05:00

Love this commercial for Chef Boyardee. Little girl and her mother at the grocery store. Little girl hands her mother a can of Chef Boyardee [Processed Noodle and Beefs flavor]. Mom, whose face remains off screen (and, as you can surmise, is probably one of those awkward off screen dubs) tells her, dismissingly, “no, honey, you’ve had Chef every week this week” or something similar and equally nauseating. Seriously. There might have been a time when I could eat canned noodles every day. That time has passed. Anyway, saddened, she puts the can back and continues to follow her mother through the grocery store. A whistle erupts! Similar to one you’d use to get your dog to come and see the TPS reports it ripped apart while you were asleep. But it’s not a dog that comes, no, but that can, that very can the little girl wanted for dinner, a modest request indeed, falls from the shelf, and embarks on a cross-country journey to find that little girl, dammit. And at the end of the journey, and coincidentally, the end of the voiceover blurb about how great canned pasta is, the can practically rolls into the little girl’s lap, just as her mother yells from the kitchen (and by kitchen, I mean a recording studio because it’s dubbed over, again) “what do you want for dinner?” The girl gives a smile, with her freshly-returned dinner treasure.

A couple of things. First, can we follow the “natural” path this story will take? Little girl hands her mother the can and…? “Where did you get that?” Little girl shrugs. “I asked you a question young lady, where did you get this can!?” Little girl, feeling like an ambushed little mouse, “I don’t knooooow! It rolled into my lap while I was watching tv!” Mother amps it up, “DID YOU TAKE THIS CAN FROM THE STORE? I WANT TO KNOW RIGHT NOW!” Child begins to bawl. And…scene.

Secondly, you let your slightly pre-toddler daughter eat Chef Boyardee EVERY DAY? That shit will kill you, don’t you know? Might as well put ketchup on styrofoam.

Third and lastly, what is the message, here? You’ve made the poor kid eat the damn can for, apparently most of that week. Heaven forbid the kid’s mother wants to give her something different for dinner. No, no. Yield to your child. Feed them canned noodles. Continue to do so until scurvy and rickets set in. Because frankly, the Chef already owns your kid, and now the Chef owns you. Thankyougoodnight.

We can do better, people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An__erKclS0&
Have a field day.

Wolverine was a disappointment.

2009-04-18T04:29:00.003-04:00

X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a disappointment. I don't want to say too much more than that, because I want others to form their own opinions without prejudice. That being said, I feel some need to prepare others for what awaits them.

I'll start with some of the brighter sides. Jackman still plays a great Wolverine. His Wolverine is probably the best, and possibly only redeeming quality of the entire film. He maintains the qualities and personality that make the character great.

Schreiber does a good job as Sabertooth, though his motivations throughout the movie are somewhat inconsistent. The movie starts with a montage of Wolvie and Sabertooth as half-siblings and eventually brothers-in-arms (which, at least as of yet, never happened in the Origin comics) before joining Team X. And this is fair enough. A couple of things happen, Wolvie and Sabertooth have a falling out and Wolvie leaves, and then, for whatever reason, Sabertooth starts killing off former Team X members. And this is supposedly due to Wolvie breaking his bromance with Sabertooth. Whatever.

Will.i.am as Wraith was fine, I guess. As were Dominic Monaghan as...some guy who can control electronics (who was never part of Team X in the comics), and Agent Zero.

The Blob. Why was the Blob in this movie? You will soon as yourself the same question. He was never in any of Wolverine's origin stories, nor was he ever involved in Team X, Department H, or anything remotely relevant. Okay, fine, turning off fanboy mode. Was he an asset to the film? No. And his fight scene with Wolverine was just awful. And pointless. You'll see.

Gambit. I like the guy who played Gambit. I guess. People made a BFD about him finally being in an X-Men film. And I'll point out that, like the Blob, Gambit has absolutely nothing to do with Wolverine's origin story. I guess it took the studio three X-Men films to realize people wanted Gambit involved, so they decided to throw him in the next project, whatever the hell it'd end up being.

*Origin story about Magneto?
Throw Gambit in there.
*No? Storm's origin?
Sure, maybe Storm goes to a restaurant and Gambit is the chef, or something. Cookin' up dat' hot gumbo.
*Naah, the studio is going with Wolverine, guys.
Okay, maybe he'll be at a casino playing cards or something, and Wolverine comes to roust him for information.
*Cheers! Excelsior!

Too bad he's only in it for about 10 minutes. No, he doesn't die or anything like that. He's just not in it as much as the commercials would lead you to believe.

Deadpool. Poor Deadpool. Okay, I can't say too much about Deadpool without spoiling, but what I will say is, for what little it is worth, Ryan Renyolds does a good job portraying the merc with a mouth during the first 15 minutes. But what they do to his character, I believe the word "bastardized" is appropriate.

Which leads me to the main plot. If the film were an accurate or even approximate translation of Wolverine's origin story, I'd excuse the hackneyed plot. And to be honest, for the first 2/3rds of the film, it really came very close. The film then falls into the oh-so-familiar ---

Wolverine - I'm looking for X! Tell me where he is!
Random mutant you'll only see on screen for a total of 8 minutes - No!
Wolverine - I'm gonna fight you!
Random mutant - Okay you win! I don't know where X is, but here is a similarly useful, though comparatively deficient piece of information to help you continue your search!
Wolverine - Boffo.

And ultimately, when you do find out the ultimate goal of the villanous William Stryker, you sir, you, fine, fine sir, will realize how it feels to pay someone 10 dollars to take two hours of your precious life away.

At this point, I really, really, REALLY want to tell you what his goal is. Because it is so insultingly hackneyed.

But aside from that, I think my biggest complaint is that I feel they were so bent on fitting in as many mutants into the film as possible, that each mutant's presence is reduced to little more than a glorified cameo. If they had stuck with the core characters (e.g. sans Blob, Gambit, electric guy) there may have been more time and opportunity to develop the characters of some of the lesser known (but accurate) members of Team X, such as Wraith and Agent Zero (who is Asian in the film but unmistakably German in the comics, but whatever.)

There could have even been time to develop a less-hackneyed plot!

Sarah, just stop. Please. Stop.

2009-01-08T16:18:00.002-05:00

Sarah Palin is whining about whether Caroline Kennedy will be getting similar treatment from the media, as she did during the Presidential general election. Kennedy, who is running for Senator in New York, has been scrutinized for having little experience in national politics, and only being given an opportunity based on the family name, and so-called "elitist" circles.

I could say more. And I want to. But I have to get ready for class. So I'll leave it at this.

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah. Do you know why the country was picking on you? And why the country has said comparatively little about Kennedy? Could it be because you're more attractive? Perhaps. Maybe because we hate people with accents, by nature? Shucks, no. Or...

Could it be that you were running to be second-in-line to run the most powerful country in the free world? Second-in-line to a man over 70, with past skin cancer? Could it be the potential that you could, with one "gaffe" detrimentally influence the path of the entire free world? And that Caroline Kennedy, by comparison, in the worst case scenario, would be just another fucking Senator?

Sarah. If you were to run for Senate in Alaska, do you know how much attention we would have paid you? Do you know how many minutes CNN would dedicate to that story? How many sketches Tina Fey would do, dedicated to your campaign? Absolutely no one would fucking care, because it would be just another incompetent Senator from Alaska.

And we wouldn't have been so critical, if you weren't such a total fucking ditz. Africa is a country, rape victims shouldn't have to pay for their own rape kits, and the Bush Doctrine means attacking other countries before they do shit to you. And P.S.: Doing an interview in front of a turkey getting killed is a dumb fucking move.

Found on Facebook

2008-12-11T23:02:00.002-05:00

(Facebook User 1) is [wondering] if ANYONE has the Amy Grant Christmas CD and would let her burn it?!?!?!

(Reply from Facebook User 2) i do but it might be kinda hard for you to burn it

---

It wouldn't be hard for me!

*instant rimshot!*
(hit the big red button)

BlogoCon 2008 - Disappointing showing, guys.

2008-12-11T15:17:00.002-05:00

Seriously, I don't ask for much, guys.

I had a panel at BlogoCon 2008 in Fargo, this weekend, and I was counting on at least some of my faithful readers to show up, and give a little support. You know how many showed up?

2 people. And they were both asleep. Presumably from the prior panel. Or they were homeless.

Great job, guys.

How to form an opinion on an economic crisis.

2008-11-23T06:55:00.001-05:00

For those reading who do not know who I am, I’m a recent law graduate, with a degree in Criminal Justice. I also like to think I follow the news regularly enough to get a gist of current events, political and otherwise.

If you were smart, you’ve already caught the problem. Like the guy who watched Memento and already knew what was going on.

Where I get my news has as much a bearing on what I believe as how my burger tastes pre- and post-ketchup application.

I’m willing to admit it. I am a regular MSNBC watcher, but I read multiple online sources, in a (disappointingly feeble) attempt to get the “full body” of an event. Often though however, an issue will not have so many nuances that, following a visit to one or a few sites, I am still unable to get a grasp of, or have an opinion.

This economic crisis is worthy of a second diary post.

For those of you familiar with legal . . . stuff, there’s something out there called the Daubert standard. And this whole situation is eerily reminiscent. For those of you unfamiliar . . . it’s totally unimportant, but an explanation of the analogy is as follows.

You have a Mr. Jones who purports to be an expert in . . . spoons. Everything spoons. But to allow him to testify on the behalf of your client (against some guy who hates spoons,) you have to prove that whatever kinds of . . . spoon experiments and written papers have scientific value. Did Mr. Jones follow the scientific method in conducting the experiments and writing the paper? May his conclusions have been unduly influenced by others (e.g. were his experiments paid for by SpoonCo.? Was he an outspoken spoon advocate prior to the experiments?) All of these things and more, you and the opposing attorney will argue about, and the Judge will have to make a decision as to whether to allow Mr. Jones’ experiments, conclusions, papers into expert testimony.

Of what I do know regarding the economic crises, here is what worries me. Aside from a few in Congress, many in those elected offices are unfamiliar with national economics. As such, they count on watered down X versus Y, X or else Y, better X than Y explanations from the few Barney Franks they depend on. Fair enough.

You also have the Bush Administration who either has some hidden incentive to keep things craptastic, or, more believably, hired a few folks who really had no grasp of how bad they messed up over the past half decade, until today.

Either way, MY problem is this. I don’t know who to believe. And further, I don’t know if those Mr. Joneses who wish for me to believe them necessary believe what *they* believe. Simply put, I don’t think they know what is going on, nor how to stop it.

With all due respect...

2008-11-18T18:58:00.002-05:00

...Hillary Clinton, you lost in the primaries.

By merit of coming in second place, and having garnered as many votes as she did, she is not entitled to a "reward" of a cabinet post, Secretary of State, the highest cabinet post in a presidential administration instrumental in executing foreign policy. This post should be given to a person deserving by merit of their knowledge and experience in foreign affairs and diplomacy.

(For the sake of argument and disclosure, I personally believe Bill Richardson would fit this post well. He has a master's degree in international affairs, has served in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and has served as a U.N. Ambassador, to name a few credentials.)

To this, most would suggest Clinton has experience by merit of her history as First Lady and work in the Senate. At the time during the primaries when this argument was made, the context was in comparing Clinton's foreign diplomacy achievements to Obama's lack thereof. The context is different, today. The context (or the question, rather) is whether this experience is sufficient for the post of Secy. of State.

She never served in a foreign relations committee, nor was she given specific foreign diplomatic tasks and responsibilities by her husband during his presidency, for which she was held answerable. If the only experience one can point to is her supposedly bringing peace to Ireland and running under sniper fire in Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is a stretch to argue she fits the post, and a dangerous posit to say there is no one else more qualified. P.S. She voted in favor of the single biggest blunder in American foreign policy of our time, the Iraq War. (Others such as Biden did as well, but they've at least had the fortitude to say they've regretted their vote. )

The message that such an appointment would send is that it it is not merit, but political influence that will decide who is the most fit for the highest, and arguably most important cabinet post.

Time to be Chicken Little... / Angry talking points, and the people who love them.

2008-11-06T06:39:00.005-05:00

Following the election results, I sent the following text to a couple of my friends:

"This (sic) next few years are going to be the most divisive years in American history. I hope we're all ready."

I got a variety of responses from people, but for the most part, everyone reacted with a tone of confident readiness. I'm happy about that, but not all too surprised. I don't keep friends who I find out to be unjustifiably prejudice...

---

...which leads to one problem (of many) I'm going to make some attempt to talk about, now.

Most of you reading this have, or are familiar with Facebook. If you don't have an account, I'll make a brief account of what you might have missed, over the last week or so. Angry people repeating angry talking points from angry, partisan news sites.

Case in point, I challenged at least three people to tell me why Obama is "Marxist," and none of them could. Two of them repeated the "redistribute the wealth" bit as a justification, and I responded that it takes more than favoring "redistribution" to be considered a Marxist, and that, for starters, Marxism involves favoring State ownership of the means of production, and that the closest thing to it that has happened in recent time is the bank bailout scheme (and that example only works if you conclude banks are a means of production, which is an arguable point. Besides, right or wrong, both candidates ultimately favored this course.)

I even went so far as to tell them that the "derogatory" they likely mean to use is "Socialist."

The response tended to be "well, who cares, its wrong. Redistribution of wealth is wrong," along with some "you're punishing people who succeed," and "this reduces the incentive to be successful" and the like.

What people tend to forget are two things.

First, Obama would not be the first to raise taxes on the wealthy. Ask Eisenhower (would you call him a "Marxist" too?) and a couple of others.

In addition, this whole bit about giving a cut to people who "don't pay taxes" being equivalent to giving money to those who "don't pay taxes," is an oversimplification equating to a farce.

Income tax is not the only tax you pay. Some you pay on the front-end, e.g. payroll taxes, or taxes deducted from your paycheck. Others you pay on things you buy, e.g. sales tax. Some still, people pay on benefits received by the whole, e.g. Medicare/Social Security tax.

In addition, taxes you pay on things you buy, e.g. sales taxes, are taxes in which everyone pays the same percentage on the good. But you have to remember that different people make different amounts, and as such, pay in different proportions pertaining to how much they make. Those who make 250k are hurt less by X dollars sales tax than those who make 50k. (Or, X/50k is greater than X/250k. This is called a regressive tax, because the poorer you are, the greater proportion you pay.)

There is no one in the United States who "doesn't pay taxes." The difference is on what end you're paying them. (Don't let anyone sell you on this shit, its completely bogus.)

Second, and make sure to yell this in said "anyone's" face, any tax that isn't a flat tax is a redistribution of wealth. And in modern history, there has been no federal flat income tax. This includes Bush, Sr. This includes Reagan. I guess they must have been redistributing the wealth, too.

And I'll add a third point! Punishing less successful people for being less successful makes even less sense. I hate "catchy" phrases like that, but honestly, thats how it played out, when I wrote it. It makes no sense to reduce the tax burden on those already living more comfortably than those who are more likely struggling (to pay those regressive taxes!)

---

Honestly, a 4% increase in the marginal tax rate is seriously not the end of the fucking world like everyone predicts it will be. It only effects any money you make over 250k, and only 14% of "small businesses" surveyed made over 250k. (Watch while those who argue this punishes success conveniently leave out the tax credit Obama plans to give to businesses for every employee hired.) If your business makes 251k, all 251k does not move to the higher bracket (like a lot of people would lead you to believe,) only 1k does.

Folks, its fair to make arguments over whether it is right to take back a small part of what Bush, unwarranted, granted to the wealthy, but don't let someone push you around with nonsense. Sidenote: Some guy at a bar tried to tell me he was "in accounting," and I told him my dad is an accountant, I've taken law classes on accounting, and that is how marginal rates work. Its easy to be confident when you know you're right. Especially on such a nuts & bolts fact.

(I mean, its not even an opinion, thats how marginal tax rates work!)

Speaking of which, this was a lot more than I meant to say about taxes, and less on what I . . . meant to say, but if I have to finish this post with a point, it is this: We will have two choices for the next two years. We can bash the President based on canned talking points, then risk being made a fool of when we can't explain what we mean (like the Marxist alarmists.) Or we can get educated, and have a informed discussion that makes some damn sense.

I'm going to write a longer post later tonight, after my siesta, but...

2008-11-05T14:28:00.002-05:00

Would you rather get a:
1. Booty Call
2. Cooty Ball

I know my answer. Do you know yours?
Moment of Zen.

Oh, these News Feed updates are getting crazier and crazier...

2008-11-04T22:37:00.002-05:00

...and its all thanks to my crazy UTA friends. I already de-friended one because she posted so many "news" items from Newsmax (lol) and Fox News, that my News Feed was literally all (but two items) filled with her posts. I tried to de-prioritize her posts, but that doesn't work if no one else has posted anything more recent. So, de-friended. Now she can tell other people how much of a "Marxist" Obama is.

And now, this away message update, from another "friend."
"**** is pissed @ those who voted for the antichrist for America u r a disgrace to this country! I hope you regret your decision when your paycheck is MUCH smaller!!"

De-friended. I have no patience for people who can't respect a difference of opinion. I don't call McCain voters a disgrace, and there's no reason someone should feel it okay to do so to Obama voters.

I have a strong feeling there's gonna be a lot of de-friending going on, over stupid comments made during the next week. Or the next four years. Or after that.

Wow, what a depressing thought, getting called a "disgrace" for the next lifetime because I voted for Obama.

Movie rating comparisons (from Rotten Tomatoes)

2008-10-28T12:45:00.000-04:00

Zombie Strippers (40%) fared better than The Happening (11%).

Look out, M. Night! Here comes . . . Jay Lee? Well, to be fair, Lee was a "Location Manager" for a CBS Schoolbreak Special.

Willkommen!

2008-10-28T12:14:00.000-04:00

I'm starting a blog today called, as you can tell from above, Internet Barbeque.

Why is it called Internet Barbeque?

Honestly, while I was thinking of a name I ran across a link I saved on my del.icio.us for a commercial for Mr. Spriggs Barbeque. I figured Internet Barbeque is inane enough to stand out, but relevant and grounded enough for even the most conservative conservatives to handle. Besides, what conservative doesn't like barbeque? Sarah Palin likes barbeque. Especially mooseburgers.

Anyway, I'm going to try to come up with some good regular items and keep it thoughtful, but rich in street cred. If anyone has suggestions, feel free to leave a comment. If I don't reply or respond, it means I don't like you.

Oh, relax!