Not that anybody asked....

Any listicle, BuzzFeed piece, or similar "oh-so-deep" piece about Florida seems to invariably throw out one FL distinguishing factor that keeps coming up. It's usually something like "OMFG PUBLIX SUBS!!!1! Amirite? If Heaven doesn't have Publix subs, I don't think I wanna go."

Confession time. I think Publix subs are fine, but they don't seem to be anything special. They certainly seem to use fresh quality ingredients like Boar's Head meats (if you'll pay extra) and good bread. So it's probably better than Subway.

But it's a sandwich. Can you really not find any other places around you that use quality ingredients and make a sufficiently above-average quality sub?

Hell, for that matter, Publix sells everything they put on subs... but I don't hear anyone say "I bought some good meat and good bread and WOW I had a mouthspolsion from what I made!!!!!"

Which makes me think that some of the Publix tingly sensation is a Starbuckian collective communal decision to like something.

The best writing tip I ever received

In college I had an opportunity to write for a University publication primarily directed to boosters. I was given a pretty solid writing tip, and I've found it useful throughout the years as a way to keep articles interesting.

There's a natural tendency to try to load up information about your article's subject right up front and just get it all out of the way. Subconsciously, I think there's an idea you're being helpful. This is especially true when writing about a specific person or place. A typical early sentence might be:

The event honored John Thompson, a 26-year-old native of St. Petersburg, is a botanist by trade and an avid cricket fan. 

The problem is that having said just about all you have to say about John in that one line, further sentences often fall prey to the monotonous said Thompson or Thompson added etc.

Instead, don't put any of that description --- or as little as possible --- up front. You can (either mentally or literally) make a list of the subject's characteristics and use them as synonyms for the subject's name as you're writing. If you write clearly and consistently you won't even need to reintroduce the subject over and over again. Being a profile piece, it will be clear you're still speaking about the same entity.

John Thompson was recognized at the event for his accomplishments in the field over the past year.

The St. Petersburg native was joined by his mother, father, and two brothers at the event. "It's a pleasure to receive such an honor in the field I've come to love," said the botanist, "it's been a wonderful opportunity."

Have you seen good examples of this?

Poll: What's Trump up to?

What do you think, in his heart, really is motivating Donald Trump's run for president?

He craves attention, and this is how to get regular doses of it, on the biggest stage.

He legitimately feels his ideas, positions and experience make him well suited to run the country.

As a favor to his friends, the Clintons, he is deliberately being divisive in the GOP primary.

He's doing it on his own to make a mockery of the system, a sort of "Colbert Report" character.

He's just a man that needs challenges, and this is the next big challenge for him.

He thinks it will help his brand and make him more money in the long run.

He's so frustrated by the candidates he can't sit still and feels compelled to run.

Something else?

Poll Maker

So my letters that they honor Demolition Man remain unanswered

So apparently Time's Person of the Year is "The Ebola Caregivers" or some such collective.

Meh.

I never care for it when they get cute and do something other than have the Person of the Year be, ya know, a Person. They've done this with increasing frequency recently... the person of the year will be "Earth" or "You" or some such vaguery.

It seems to be an attempt to be clever, but I think once they broke the seal by not having it be an individual they've since gone to the well too many times (how's that for a tortured mix of metaphors?)

Though to be fair, a bit of Wikipediaing (is that a verb yet?) sees apparently their first time being cute was 1950 with "The American fighting-man". What would a 1950 equivalent of "Meh." have been?

Also on the final list, apparently, was "Ferguson Protestors". I'm just glad at least they didn't pick that. Not for any haughty political or racial reasons... just that awards like this seem to suffer sometimes from a bias of recency. Whatever is freshest in our minds is the "biggest" thing that happened in the year. Apparently last year they very nearly gave it to Miley Cyrus, who "coincidentally" had just had the fococta twerking thing on MTV. At least cooler heads prevailed there, with his Popeliness just beating out the first woman who ever shook her ass while dancing.

Don't Go Vote

Your social media channels are presumably clogged up like 836 in an afternoon rainstorm... though instead of 2004 Honda Civics that don't signal right or left you're lost among political comments that do nothing but signal right or left. Today, it's dominated by one message: "Go vote!"

My sentiment is a bit different. I say Go vote**!

** Unless you are the kind of low-watt bulb that votes based on something like "Which candidate you'd rather have a beer with", which one looks better, for/against "The Hispanic-sounding name", or some other such inanity. 

I'm not just saying "Go vote, unless you're an idiot" (well okay that's actually most of my point). There's a bit more nuance here though.

If you haven't voted until Election Day but always planned to go out today, and you read up a bit --- or ask a friend you know who's really into politics, or even just print out the endorsements from a likeminded organization, then please go vote.

If you have a friend on Facebook who says "Go vote", and your response is "Oh that's right, that's today isn't it?" then do us all a favor and stay the hell home. Vote for America's Next Top Voice Can Dance With The Stars and leave the republic to people who won't go in and Christmas Tree the Scantron.

First Church of Bacon: Confession

Bless me fryer friar, for I have sinned. It's been like 12 hours since I last had sausages.

So, there's this whole cottage nerdherd industry that's popped up around pointing out that eating bacon is a damned fine idea.

There are shirts proclaiming the love of bacon. BaconFreak.com is a store site entirely dedicated to all the products you can get, including a not-small page called "Bacon Beverages" (which apparently is distinct from the "Swine & Wine" section). Jim Gaffigan has a whole shtick in his standup routine about bacon in all its awesome glory.

Here's my penance. I love bacon. I also am a (sadly increasingly) big fan of ham. And sausage. And pepperoni. And pork chops. See, it turns out that pork can often be prepared into a variety of tasty dishes.

So, why are we treating bacon like it's something we just discovered and named for the first time ever?

The ability to eat your meat AND have your pudding.

I've been hearing a lot of discussion about how Jameis Winston is killing his NFL career options because of college chicanery.

I dunno, it's worth pointing out that the two longest careers for Noles from the previous championship were Lavernaeus Coles (who got kicked off the team) and Sebastian Janikowski (who was supposedly nearly kicked out of the country).

I'm sure a lot of teams are really thrilled they passed on Dan Marino because he mighta partaken in the ol' devil weed in college. Randy Moss and Warren Sapp probably are just fine with how their careers turned out, thanks.

Maybe Bradley v1.1 can post some

Maybe I'm missing something. It seems 7 or 8 years ago there was suddenly a lot of discussion about human cloning... ethical concerns, issues of rights, a bit about the march of technology, etc.

There was a lot of "what do we do, and what does it all mean?" There were well-publicized but ultimately bullcrap claims by groups saying they were already doing it.

Then a couple of governments passed laws that said "No! We disapprove."

... and... that's that? We just figured set it and forget it?

No scientist is ever gonna work on something that would change the world and make history so long as it's... federally disapproved of?

What blog? This is a... wording!

No one ever shook their ass suggestively when dancing before "twerking" in 2013.

Technology allowed "selfies", the amazing new phenomenon of taking a picture of yourself.

"The Knockout Game" introduced the never-ever before seen occurrence of delinquents finding fun in randomly beating the crap out of somebody.

I think 2013 might have been the year of pretending something is new because we just agreed to call it something else. I drove by Barnes and Noble yesterday, and I noticed it was full of, umm... "pagies"

The problem with most TV advertising today

"You know that commercial where the guy in a suit is talking with a bunch of kindergarteners and they say cute stuff?"

"Of course, those are great commercials. I love them, the kids are so cute and the ads are always so memorable."

"Yep, that's it. What's it an ad for?"

"Ummm.... I wanna say a bank? Or is it some kind of insurance? A lot of those are insurance."

(For what it's worth, they're for......

AT&T)

The big question (no, not Sammy or Dave)

Had an interesting conversation come up in a recent discussion in a community group I was part of. We were taking a look at the generations (millennials, greatest generation, baby boomers, etc.) In this particular conversation we were talking about my own age group... for the sake of this illustration let's say those born between 1973 and 1983.

The question was.... do we ask "The Big Question"?
Obligatory Monty Python reference...

That is to say, does my generation preoccupy ourselves with --- or at least discuss --- What's it all about? Is there a higher power? Why be moral? 

My answer at the time was, generally speaking, no. These are not priorities for my generation. I said we care about two things:

1) Being distracted/entertained... we want the latest games, electronics, Netflix, etc. to occupy our attention and amuse us.

2) Having our individuality recognized and celebrated... well we were raised for decades being told how we were each a beautiful snowflake full of potentiality etc. etc.... we got in the workforce and even if you're 22 with a BA in English, we are special and wanna be heard and challenged and patted on the head, dagummit.

What do you think? Does the 30-40 set think much about "dear 8 pound, 6 ounce baby Jesus"?

If not, is it just because most people don't think about such weighty issues as they start off on what's supposedly adulthood? Or is there more?

Is it worth 60 Minutes?

So, an NBA player I've never heard of (which, to be fair is probably 85% of the league) came out and is the first active player in a major men's sport to do so. Being the first to do something like that is a huge decision, and of course one that ain't easy...

Enough has been / is being said about that... I'm interested in a ripple.



One athlete, newly signed Dolphins WR Mike Wallace, said on Twitter "I'm not bashing anybody don't have anything against anyone I just don't understand it." "All these beautiful women in the world and guys wanna mess with other guys SMH..."



One little bit of clarification... I'd seen "SMH" to mean so much hate, but I heard this AM that this is more likely shaking my head.

The news media, in a story like this, desperately wants a bad guy. There's only so much life, and very little conflict (woohoo conflict!) in a news story if it's met only with active and former players and celebs universally coming out and all saying something to the extent of "Good for him. We support you."

Secretly, or perhaps not so secretly, the media really wants someone to say "Well if I see him I'm gonna punch him hard in his face with my hand because queer. Grrrr!" What reporters love more than men or women is being able to say "We're not gonna call this guy a knuckle-dragger... but... here's what he said, and here's someone else who said this guy's a real knuckle-dragger."


The awkwardness here is that this isn't what Mike Wallace said. Wallace basically said "I don't get it and can't relate. I like women. I don't see it."

You can't subtextually suggest people grab their torches and head for someone's house for saying "That's his thing. Mine's chicks." To be proportional, the suggestion has to be... umm... let's all go and turn this guy's thermostat up from 70 to 73.


I'm sure Bill Romanowski's phone is probably ringing off the hook. There are a lot of cub reporters out there who are desperately seeking someone who will say "Grab a rope let's string this guy up. Yeehaw"

So far the closest I've heard was Chris Broussard on ESPN saying he's been led to believe it's a sin, and that he also holds in his heart that premarital sex goes against his personal beliefs. Some more on that here... http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/espn-chris-broussard-clarifies-views-jason-collins-don-221941033.html

May that be the worst that comes out of this.

Side note, and a bit of stupid humor (b/c what would this vanity blog be without...)

Do you suppose this makes it harder to be the color commentator for the next game this guy plays? There's a lot of unintentional double entendre in sports speak, esp. if you're a giggly third grader. Collins comes out with the ball, penetrates hard into the lane, etc. etc.

Can I carry around a "Like" Button?

I confess that I don't know how to process it when someone walks up to me and starts a conversation with "I thought what you put up on Facebook was really funny. I always think your stuff is great."

My initial reaction is to think Dammit, I have no use for real-world feedback. If you like something, post on Facebook that you like it. Plus, hey, then the world can see how genius you think I am!

But I'm fairly certain that's not a healthy or proper response.

Facebook is my meth. Or, more to the point, getting feedback from my peeps is my meth.

Walking up to me and just telling em you liked something is... like showing me a picture of meth instead.

Wait, no, that's a pretty shitty analogy. I need to figure out a better metaphor. And figure out how to respond when people say they liked something I put online.  Damn you, first world problems!

There's no I in Christmas... oh wait...

Clearing up for those needed. Things Christians SHOULD, and SHOULD NOT get worked up about around Christmas.

YES:
Menorah + Christmas tree do not = balanced decorations

Why it's probably worth it:
A menorah is a religious decoration. A nativity scene is a religious decoration. A Christmas tree is not a religious decoration.

Christmas tree instead of nativity is "Well we don't want to put up anything religious."

Okay. Then take down the menorah. It has to be both or neither.

NO:
WalKMartcy's says Happy Holidays in their advertisements instead of Merry Christmas! Boycott them!

Why it's misguided:
Retailers' primary purpose for the holidays is to run specials, generate sales, etc. This holiday agenda has nothing to do with the Christian notion of what Christmas is to be about. So... if they want to turn their promotions around this season into being 10% off for the holidays rather than 10% off because of the birth of Christ... let'em. 

The local Kim Kardashian perfume vendor shouldn't really factor that much into whether you observe the season in your particular house of worship.

YES:
Holiday specials about "the true meaning of Christmas"

Why it's probably worth it:
The last TV special that actually addressed the meaning of Christmas was the Charlie Brown one. Not saying it's been a long time, but I think there's a scene where they're sitting around smoking Lucky Strikes. It seems like instead there are a lot where Christmas is about reconnecting with a deadbeat estranged father, finding a nice boyfriend, or successfully accomplishing the task of spending a harmonious evening with your family.

There's one "true meaning of Christmas"... everything else is fodder for a Harriet Carter mail order coffee mug assortment.

NO:
It's not Xmas! It's Christmas!

Why it's misguided:
Do people sometimes use this because they don't want to mention Christ? I suppose. But more often it's likely because it takes up less space. And, as countless articles on the interwebz will tell you, chi, which is the Greek root of the letter X, and was the first letter of the Greek spelling. 

There's more important things to get worked up about, such as...

YES:
We're out of egg nog.

Nuff said.


   

might I borrow your buggywhip for a fortnight?

Had an interesting experience the other day that was probably irrelevant but I can still wax philosophic about, and after all isn't that what vanity blogs are for?

The other day I uttered three little words, words that used to be really common but I find few people utter anymore. And lest you think this is one of those romantic wanderings, it was "It's for you."

Yes, someone called my phone looking for someone else. It occurs to me this used to happen all the time, and now it's a completely bizarre occurrence. Like someone smoking a cigarette indoors and not having five people scream "WITCH!!!" and start boiling tar and plucking feathers.

I have about 1/3 of a complete thought on all the daily common experiences that are becoming outdated in less than a generation... certainly reinforced by seeing ads for "You've Got Mail" and ruminating on the point that this statement probably means nothing to a youngster now and meant nothing to anyone 25 years ago. Will report back if I ever do figure out what the point of this is.

Hey, I just met you... promote me maybe?

I'm running into a weird type of person in my tyrannical and awe-inspiring reign as president of the local Young Republicans club (of which I'm sure Wagnerian tributes are being written as we speak)...

I'm not sure if this is a new phenomenon, or I've just never noticed it before.

About twice a week, I get an email that goes something like this... "Hello. I found your organization's website, and I noticed there are vacancies on the board. I am very involved. Can I have a leadership position? How can I get that?"

You would think when writing to an organization without having ever attended a single one of their meetings or for that matter met a single person that you know is in the group... you wouldn't ordinarily open with "Hey! Make me part of your executive board before I walk in the door. Oh, umm... please? There, I asked nicely."

The thing is at first my reaction to this was "Well this person's certainly enthusiastic, if a bit misguided. I'll encourage them to come out and get involved, and maybe after I know they're here to stay and not just a flash in the pan, I can find something for them to do! We can always use a few more good inner cadre types."

However, without fail, these "Hello, I found your group, give me a title now" types apparently are never in it for the long haul. Indeed, some of them never even make it to a single meeting!

Maybe it's because they join everything and want so many positions that come with some responsibility that they don't have nearly as much time as they thought they would. Maybe it's because they're of the all or nothing at all sorts of personalities. Maybe they're just looking to pad their resumes and aren't really looking to actually earn their stripes.

I've got a really solid board now. Maybe the best board I've seen since I started getting really active in the club about 8 years ago.

And I don't think a single one of them introduced themselves to the club with "Hello, how do I get to be in charge?"

As in, a government run by hippos?

So, for Dems today... half of the messaging is social conservatives are crazy-dangerous because they irrationally cling to moral codes to drive their positions on issues... and the other half is the rich don't pay their "fair" share in taxes, and that's not "right" and they "ought" to do be made to do more, because that's what's "just"?  K, thankx.

Maybe if they just gave ME the millions...

I've commented (complained?) here on the past before about Toyotathon Hondadays Chevypalooza advertisements.  It just seems to be obnoxiously ever present, and I'm not even a little bit convinced it positively influences sales.

The new Volkswagen ads take this to a bizarre extra level of uselessness and general suckitude, though.

At first glance, the theme would certainly seem to be "People who are test driving our car at the dealership mistakenly think it's a car they own!! Hah!"

After you've seen the series a couple of hundred times, you may get what they're actually meaning to say... something about how the car is so easy to get initially in terms of down payments, they, umm, need to remind you that... you need to buy the car first then take it.

Regardless of what the subject is, I submit that I don't think the widely placed and regularly repeating TV spots will sell a single VW that wasn't highly likely to sell anyway.

That's the argument with these (mildly) humorous TV spots.  You'll occasionally hear "Well hey they got you talking about it, didn't they?  And isn't that the point?"

NO.  It costs millions of dollars to create, cut and distribute these ads.  VW is no happier that I'm here ranting into the ether over it.  Advertising should move product.

I'm probably bitter, or at least biased, because advertising budgets are usually substantially larger than PR budgets.  And this always seemed askew to me.

Let's say you see 15 tv ads with a singing cartoon chicken in a Chevy... then read an article where a journalist looks at and independently examines the benefits of a new Ford model in detail... which is more likely to loosen your ol' purse strings?

Gobbledyfoobidies revisited

Re-visiting my previous post, "McDonald's is now Gobbledyfoobidies", which looked at why the blue hell a company with a century of name recognition like Brink's security would choose to forgo all that and call themselves Broadview instead.

http://johnspartan.blogspot.com/2009/08/mcdonalds-is-now-gobbledyfoobidies.html

You probably remember seeing a lot of their millions and millions of dollars in TV advertising that had variations of pretty white women having a party and then getting assaulted by house guests who, umm, left and came back and then the alarm went off and they talked to someone on the phone, that made it all go away somehow.

At the time, I wondered if anything was sillier than giving up Brink's for "Broadview". As is often the case, it seems the answer to that question is YES... basically having wasted the last 6 months or so (and the aforementioned millions), because the company is merging with ADT to be known as.... ADT.

Seems someone at ADT has this wacky idea that if you have a brand name people know and readily associate with your product, you may want to consider using that name.

Maybe in 6 months they'll change again to Gobbledyfoobidies.

This post brought to you by...

Dear Taco Bell,

Skinny guys don't get 5 layer beef cheesy burrito things every day. And hot chicks don't work behind the counter.

And that's not even getting into the thought of 89 cent food being mostly scary.

Love, Bradley


Dear Random Insurance Commercial With Bobby Lee Looking Asian Guy:

Damn you for getting Kansas - Point of Know Return stuck in my head.

Love, Bradley



Dear Car Company:

David Bowie's Major Tom is not a really sharp choice as background music. Major Tom's ship malfunctions and it ends up being a one way trip. Might as well call your car the Titanic.

Love, Bradley



Dear Home Security Company:

WTF? Your ads are getting weirder and scarier.