Thus far I've never taken an Uber.  That may change at some point for all I know, but thus far I've avoided them.  It's been for a few reasons, but three stand out.  One is that, while I understand they cost less that a  taxi, that's because cabs are licensed and have to pay a lot of money for a medallion.  It's not because they want to price gouge.  Another is that the concept is basically that you're getting into the car of a total stranger who is not responsible to a company or anyone.  It's just still a creepy idea to me.  Perhaps I'll get over that, perhaps not.  And the third reason is that I've always found their corporation reprehensible on a bunch of levels.

If those don't bother other people, and they think the advantages transcend anything else, fine, I completely understand.  These are just my own personal reactions.

​And then came this yesterday from Axios on its HBO TV show --

Among other things about this ghastly comment (comparing to kidnapping, murder and dismemberment of a journalist -- who was a U.S. resident, as well -- to "self-driving"?  Seriously???), it should be remembered that unlike other crimes, murder has no statute of limitations -- meaning it's basically the only crime that society doesn't "forgive" after 10 years.  Or ever.

That aside, it's important to watch this clip to the end, because it notes the Uber CEO followed up with a "clarification." In fairness it's an extremely good clarification, saying that he had something in the moment that he didn't believe, and the murder was reprehensible, and should not be forgotten or excused. In equal fairness it was most probably written by a lawyer who the moment he saw the video likely had his hair set on fire and screamed, "OH, MY DEAR GOD, WE HAVE TO FIX THIS!!!!!"

For the record, that additional comment was not a "clarification," as it tries to state, but rather an apology -- just one without having to stoop to the word "apology."  He not only should have stooped to word, he should have groveled and begged forgiveness.

I mentioned the other day that there were two TV ads running that I loved, and two that bugged me.  I've mentioned the former, so now for the latter.

This first is one that I think a lot of people like.  It's for AT&T from their "When 'Just okay,' isn't good enough" series.  (Actually I didn't even remember that it's for AT&T -- I had to look it up.  And that's never a good sign for an ad.  It's okay for an ad to be annoying if the point is to get product attention which leads to sales.  Note that "product attention" does not always lead to sales.)  This particular ad in question is the one that takes place at a business meeting, and a guy says, "That's okay, I speak Dutch," and then proceeds to screw up the translation which the Dutch businessman, not knowing a word of English, think is on the level.  It's pretty funny on the surface -- but inches under the surface is idiotic, which is why it bugs me so much.

If there are any people in the non-English-speaking world who speak English the absolute best -- and maybe even better than many Americans -- it's perhaps the Dutch.  Maybe the Danes are neck-and-neck with them, but I think the Dutch might be ahead.  That's because I think the Dutch (other than just speaking English impeccably) also know American society, culture and politics incredibly well.  When I've been on those tech junkets to the IFA trade show in Berlin, I was always blown away by how insightful the Dutch were about the United States.  I even remember one conversation about politics where I referenced a particular video from a few months earlier that was part of a political story, and as I began to explain it, the fellow stopped me and said, yes, he knew about it.  In fact, when I wrote about the Consumer Electronics Show last year, I singled out a fascinating couple of products that did near-instant translations -- and the company making them was from Holland.  The Dutch really know language.  And care about language.

So, if there is ANY people in the world who do NOT need a translator in an international business meeting meeting, of all people -- it's the Dutch.  The ad agency could have picked any country in the world to be the one needing a translator...and the one they picked was the one more than probably any in the entire world who didn't need translating.  They probably did it because "Dutch" is a funny word.  But there are lots of languages who names are funny and could have fit in. Azerbaijani, Portuguese, Bahasa, Urdu, whatever.  But no, they picked "Dutch."  Ack.
​

The other ad is for Celebrity Cruises.  Actually, this doesn't so much bug me as I'm utterly bewildered by it.  They have a woman running through a Celebrity Cruise ship in an ethereal sort of montage, along with images of her eating and playing and having fun, and this wonderful soaring song is playing with a woman's voice singing, "Feed your head!  Feed your head!"

Now, most people who lived through the late 1960s knows immediately what that song is.  It's one of the most infamous of the era since it actually got banned on a number of stations.  That's Grace Slick of Jefferson Airplane singing "White Rabbit."  And the line "Feed your head" is taken from Alice in Wonderland and very blatantly in the song (and probably in the book too, but much, much, much more subtly) is a reference to to taking psychodelic drugs.

One pill makes you larger,
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you,
Don't do anything at all
Go ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall

Which leads to --

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's off with her head
Remember what the Dormouse said
Feed your head
Feed your head

Now, if Celebrity Cruise Line wants to promote an immersive psychodelic-like cruise with a hallucinogenic experience that overwhelms you sensory overload, fine.  But the problem is that they're promoting this particular cruise for families! In fact, at the very end of the ad it says, "Kids sail free."  That's what's bizarre.

I'm sure that their thinking is that there so much to do on their cruise, and there's huge amounts of delicious food to over-indulge in and it's all an overwhelming bounty for your senses.  But -- but that's Grace Slick.  And that's "White Rabbit."  And she's singing about stuffing your head with psychodelic drugs.  "Feed your head, feed your head."  And...hey, folks, "Kids sail free."  Totally, utterly weird.

And yes, they know what it is.  This is the full one-minute version of the ad.  They absolutely 100% know what the ad is.  Zero chance of it slipping under the wire or misinterpreting it.  This version doesn't have the "Kids sail free" sales pitch at the end -- apparently that's reserved for showing it on TV -- but it does start with a little kid by the pool with his dad, being hugged, almost the first thing you see.

Again, I don't dislike the ad.  It's really well made.  I just am utterly bewildered by who on earth they're trying to sell to.

A couple days ago, I posted two TV commercials that I especially liked these days, one of which was for Volkswagen that used the classic song, "Turn Around, Look at Me."  They only use about 20 seconds of the song, though, so I thought I'd post the whole thing.  Just because I like it, and it deserves a full hearing.

I don't know for certain if the ad uses the version made famous in 1968 by The Vogues.  It sounds like it, but commercials often use "sound-alikes" because they can't get the rights to the original, or the cost is to high.  Listening to the ad again, I do think it's The Vogues.  But this most definitely is -- 

[Side note: I almost posted a video I found of the original group reunited performing the song in concert in Australia probably about 15-20 years ago.  But it cuts off right before the big, final, booming last note.  And sorry, you don't cut off the song before the big, final, booming last note.  I'm not going to post it here, but if anyone wants to see it, it's otherwise quite nice, and you can find it here.]

As I mentioned the other day when posting the brilliant Lord of the Rings air safety video here from  Air New Zealand, the airline has made a wide range of Big Production safety videos including a couple more from Middle Earth. I've posted one other, and here's a third -- "Just Another Day on Middle Earth"  Hey, this is Lord of the Rings, of course it's a trilogy...

There are a handful of TV ads that have caught my eye recently -- a couple of them very good, and a couple that bothers that I think are...well, less so.  I figure that I'll start today with the good ones.

Of these good ones, you probably know the first since it's been playing a lot.  The other though could have slipped through the cracks.

I think the first for two reasons -- one is that I've always liked the song by the Vogues, though that's not a substantive reason for liking the ad.  That's because I think it makes an absolutely great social point, and does so in a very subtle and very funny -- and impactful -- way.

The other is an ad for YouTube.  (I'm not quite sure why YouTube is advertising, but it's hardly a bad idea for any company.)  I don't think it's been seen all that much -- the only place it's touched down for me is during the baseball post-season playoffs. And given the subject matter of the ad, that might be the only place that they've bought air-time for it.  So, if you've missed it, I think you might appreciate how charming and evocative and whimsical it is.

If you can avoid reading the description of the ad on the embedded video below, do try to avert your eyes before clicking on the thing.  It's not a big deal if you do happen to read it, but it gives away someone that makes the ad a bit more fun to discover as it plays out.  But you learn that very early on, so it's fine if your eyes wandered...

So, here then is the second ad currently running that I love.  I'll post the two others that bug me upcoming soon.

Last week, I wrote about and posted here a spectacular in-flight safety video for Air New Zealand, "The Most Epic Safety Video Ever Made" that was an extension of The Lord of the Rings  I noted that the airline has a history of making wonderful and elaborate air safety videos, including several others based on Middle Earth.

Here's a second of those Middle Earth safety videos.  It's not as near-operatic as the original, but great fun on it's own -- and would stand out even more if it wasn't for the "Most Epic" one that was, indeed the most epic.
​

Yesterday, I posted the wondrous "Most Epic Safety Video Ever Made," that Air New Zealand made that parodied the Lord of the Rings.  Today, I thought it would be nice to show how The Most Epic Safety Video Ever Made... was actually made.

Here's the fun, behind-the-scenes look --
​

I've meant to write about this CNBC article for a long time, ever since it was published last November 11 -- almost a year ago.  But Trump keep getting in the way, and ultimately it wasn't "dated," and the point of it held true even as months passed, so I kept putting it off.  But enough already.  Let's finally get to it.  (Hey, I may be slow, but I'm diligent...)

As the article states, "These charts show how Democrats represent the growing modern economy -- and how Republicans are left behind" 

The point of the article is that the Red districts that Republicans represent over the "smaller, fading segment," of the U.S. economy with a work force that is "less-educated" and relies more on traditional manufacturing and resources. On the other hand, Blue districts represented by Democrats are "the larger, growing one, fueled by finance, professional services and digital innovation."

This is just one of the several charts in the article and tells the point most clearly and easily --.

To be clear, the point of the article -- and my addressing it -- is not to be against working men and women.  After all, both sides of the discussion are working men and question.  At issue is which industries are most productive and helping the most to drive the U.S. economy

The article looks at the 2016 presidential race to make the point even clearer.  It notes that Trump won 2,584 counties compared to 472 counties that were won by Hillary Clinton.  (To be clear, they are addressing "counties," not districts and not votes.  A county is a land mass, while voting districts are broken up more equitably.)  But the study by experts at the Brookings Institution showed that these significantly-fewer counties that voted for Hillary Clinton "accounted for nearly two-thirds of U.S. economic output."

Brookings took their study into the 2018 House mid-term election. At the time the article was written, a few races were still yet to be decided, but they were able to break figures down by district here.  And the number of  districts won by Democrats in the Mid-terms accounted "for 61 percent of America's gross domestic product, [while] districts won by Republicans 38 percent.

I also found one of the article's conclusions especially telling.  As Brookings researcher Mark Muro notes: "The Democratic Party and Republican Party, at this point, really do occupy different economic worlds and represent different economic worlds."

You can read the whole article here.


​

The Washington Post had a major story yesterday which Rachel Maddow devoted most of her show to last night, about Russian influence in the United States, mostly focusing on a $200 million deal in Kentucky to build an aluminum factory the day after which Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked sanctions against the Russian oligarch -- and Putin's close ally -- who owns the company.

At the heart of one issue is that if the factory wasn't built, then a great many people in Kentucky who are desperate for jobs would lose theirs at the new, upcoming plant.  It's a deeply understandable concern.  On the one hand, jobs for those in need.  On the other hand, Russian influence over the Senate Majority Leader to direct policy of the entire United States.  Including, for instance, McConnell blocking any efforts to protect the country against Russian cyber-attacks in the 2020 election.

Much as its a deeply understandable concern and there are two sides to the issue, that doesn't mean the two sides are equal.  Losing the jobs would be devastating to those workers.  But then, the deal shouldn't have been made in the first place if it meant giving Russian control in U.S. policy.  The "greater good" is seems to me far, far greater.  And that means the deal should be stopped, in order to protect the United States.

It should be noted, to keep full perspective, that this same Russian oligarch, Sergei Deripaskov -- who worked with convicted felon Paul Manafort and, again, was on the sanction list for serious reasons -- has already contacted governors in eight other states about building factories in their states, as well.  No doubt to have further Russian influence there.

To be very clear, having said that I don't think the aluminum factory deal should go forward, I feel terrible about the people in Kentucky who don’t have jobs.  But we shouldn’t have this factory there in the first place for those jobs to be able to “taken away.”  And maybe if so many people are out of work in Kentucky, maybe Republicans shouldn’t have tricked people into thinking coal was coming back, but instead train people for new green environmental industries.  Or…or maybe we should increase unemployment insurance rather than lower taxes and then cut back the unemployment benefits program.  Or maybe we should create a federal jobs program like FDR did in the New Deal.  Yes, yes, I know that conservatives hate liberalism and hate FDR and hate social welfare programs.  But when you don’t have those programs, one of the results is destitute people who are willing to sell their country out to the devil who offers them a way to do so.
 
Just because I don’t think they should have jobs from a Russian company trying to subvert the United States doesn’t mean I think we should ignore their plight.  After all, I’m not a conservative -- I don't believe in only “What’s in it for me?” and "I got mine, you're on your own."  I believe in helping those in need.  Just not by selling out the rest of the United States.  So I think there are things we as a country could do for them.  And if those people out of work find “liberal” solutions distasteful, they don’t have to take advantage of them.  They can stay out of work without some form of government assistance or government jobs programs trying to help them if they want, it's a free country.  They can rely on churches and private business to set up shelters and food programs -- though clearly that hasn't been working which is why they're out of work and desperate.  But if they really do want to pass up on liberal assistance, it would their choice.  Personally, I don't they would pass up on the opportunities to help their lives if offered them.  Just like people didn't during the Depression, and just like they don't pass up on Social Security and Medicare when then become available to them, no matter how "liberal" the programs are.  Personally, I think liberal solutions to give you help for a better life are much better than selling out your country – or starving.  But that's me.

Apparently Republicans, and Mitch McConnell as their Senate leader, feel differently.  

And Mitch McConnell is SO upset that he has been given the nickname of "Moscow Mitch."  The heart just bleeds for him.  But then, apparently that's what we bleeding-heart liberals do...