I am gray today (with an "a")

Churchill said, "It is however easier to infuriate Americans than it is to cow them." This is a good observation, and one that probably wouldn't have been made by an American. That's why it's refreshing (sometimes the refreshment comes after the initial shock) to get an honest opinion about oneself from a reliable outside observer.


A particularly unproductive (and sometimes annoying) trait of we Americans, which was pointed out to me a few years ago is our feeling that we must add our own opinion to whatever conversation is being had around us, regardless of pretty much anything; including our knowledge of the subject matter, the need for further commentary, our ability to add an original thought, or even just the necessity of continuing the conversation at hand. Of course the advent of the Internet has only further enabled this (and yes, I am aware of the irony of writing this observation on my blog). But for some time now I've considered the question of why this is so. Tonight I believe I received another clue. It is true Americans have the right to express their opinion. But, we then appear to move from a position of right, to a position of obligation or requirement, as if to suggest that to refrain from offering our opinion would be a disservice to ourselves and whatever community we happen to be in at the time. Perhaps we are that insecure...or perhaps we're just that bored and self-involved.


I was afforded this insight by the YouTube community. The new Dell commercials have this catchy little tune playing with them..."I am green today, I chirp with joy like a cricket's song..." etc. It's just a finger picked guitar with harmonizing female voices, but it emotes a feeling of relaxation, and the lyrics are fun for their imagery. "I am gray today, gloomy and damp like a morning fog." YouTube has the video here, but I wouldn't suggest actually watching the video. The song is from an album titled "Dance for the Sun", and is apparently meant for children's yoga. The video was obviously meant for the same thing as was the album, namely consumption by children alone. I'd actually love to hear the story of how this song ended up on a Dell commercial.


Notice though the comments that go along with this video, all 560 (at the time of this post) that have been added since the video went up in July of this year. How could there possibly be 560 separate, meaningful, productive comments about this music video? This isn't "One of Us", or a Beetles song from their later years. This is a song on a children's album about colors. I'd say there could be a max of three comment threads, none of which could ever total 560 comments. These threads would be "this is why the song is good", "this is why it's bad", and the over under on the cost of the video, which would probably end up somewhere around $7. Yet the comments for this video include lengthy discussions on what is a color and what is not, rude responses to those discussions, the apparently unavoidable opinion that "macs rule", and of course 200 comments each for "I like (or love) it and the singer" and "I don't like (or hate) it and the singer". In one of the spars, a poster asks another why that poster had chosen to write a comment that some had found very annoying. I think the annoying comment was that gray is not a color, which did indeed lead to a very lively and directionless exchange, including a discussion about how the word "gray" is spelled (apparently it's spelled with an "a" in the artistic community, though naturally not everyone could agree on that). The poster of the "gray" comment replies, "the first amendment".


Constitutional law has decided that speech can only be legally banned when it is likely to incite imminent lawless action. Obviously that interpretation doesn't cover the hundreds of unnecessary comments on the "Colors" video (although it could be argued the video itself may incite illegal drug use in an attempt to understand it), and it doesn't cover millions of comments we Americans feel compelled to make each day on any given topic, in any situation, via any medium. However, it is also obvious that a legal action is not by necessity a wise or beneficial one. For instance, it's perfectly legal to tell one's wife she is getting fat, but not at all wise. It's perfectly legal to make a Lorena Bobbit joke, but not at all beneficial. Our lives would be richer and our talk more meaningful and productive if, before offering up whatever happens to be on our mind in that moment, we instead take the responsibility to not only consider whether we are able to speak, but also whether we are wise to do so.

Drinkability

I have so many objections to Anheuser-Busch's new ad campaign that I can hardly even make this post. However, let me begin by saying that this will not be a beer snob post. While it has been suggested that this label would perhaps be an accurate one for me (I'm not so sure), I'm not here going to even attempt to make a critique of any of A-B's beers. I'm sure that's been done over and over, and I don't need to repeat that work. Long ago I came to realize that the American macro-brews serve a purpose, and while that purpose is not to brew delicious beers of various varieties, it is at least in part to offer refreshment to those who would not perhaps enjoy a more aggresive or full brew. I don't need to enjoy these macro-brews myself to see that others might.

I do however have a problem with the "drinkability" campaign. To begin, drinkability is a noun, albeit one that is not frequently used. It's a liquid that's suitable or safe for drinking. A-B claims the difference between Bud Light and other light beers is drinkability; that "just right taste". Of course a taste can't be described with a noun because taste is a noun in this context, so that would just be silly. For instance, I probably wouldn't describe the taste of a taco as a cow, as in "this taco tastes cow". That obviously doesn't make any sense, and for good reason. In English, you can't use a noun to descibe a noun. As someone who watches a bit of sport, and so not a few of these commercials, I would prefer a claim like "the supremely drinkable beer", just for my own ability to passively consume the message, ignore it, and move on.

But petty English grievances aside, I'll admit that we don't use "drinkability" as a noun much, and Urban Dictionary does in fact use it as an adjective "evaluating how smooth and easy-to-drink a beverage is." This is also an accepted term in the beer community to basically describe how fast one drinks a beer when one is not attempting to drink either quickly or slowly. So, in this context, the use of the term by A-B makes sense.

However, this means that A-B is spending roughly $50 million US dollars to inform people they can drink a bunch of Bud Light, quickly. Awesome. But wait, is this good? Isn't water the most drinkable liquid in the world? Doesn't that mean that if Bud Light is the most drinkable beer, it has the most water? Is this really how a brewing company would like to differentiate it's light beer, on how close it is to pure water? I'm thinking probably not, but it is in fact what this new ad campaign is suggesting.

Finally, since I do watch some sports, I also get to enjoy the Budweiser commercials that are currently being aired. The pitch here (with a little shout out to Idaho) is that Budweiser is the only beer that offers the perfect balance of taste and refreshment. Sound familiar? Yes, A-B is currently suggesting that its "premium" lager offers the same advantage its light beer does, namely that it tastes alright, but is also good for pounding and use in beer bongs. I suppose though that I should be respectful of the thread of honesty that's running through these campaigns. I wonder if all of this is InBev's idea...

Caleb's early life training

Nader4Prez

I was walking to a football game the other day and was pretty focused because I was late and there were thousands of people milling about (Go Broncos...and BYU this weekend). As I cruised by a group of young adults, one of them tried to hand me something and then said, "Nader for President". I actually laughed out loud. Not at them, but at the idea. I should have gone back and apologized to them, because I'm sure it sounded awful, but it was just so absurd to say something like that out loud that I couldn't help but laugh. I actually wish it could happen...not that Nader could be president (although that would certainly be "change"), but that it were possible for him to be president. I realize I should here provide some sort of well thought out solution to the problem, or at least something that sounds decent but wouldn't have a chance in real life, but I don't know how to address the problem of only have two people to choose from in any given election, and so I'm going to let this end with a wish. I suspect the root of the problem is money, but I can't prove that.