Please Hold

It looks as though the Obama administration may have discovered an alternative to illegal wire-tapping after all.

The second reporter in this clip, seen refusing to hand over his cell phone to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, is CBS News correspondent Bill Plante. He provides his side of the story here.

Now, there's no arguing that the polite thing to do when entering any sort of meeting is to silence your phone, but the thought of the White House Press Secretary getting his hands the personal information contained within, and then tossing it to an unseen staffer is enough to raise red flags with a few folks - Plante included, evidently.

This isn't the first time Plante has shrugged off suspect "regulations" at White House press conferences. As seen below, Plante successfully circumnavigated the Bush Administration's priceless "no questions" order at Karl Rove's farewell appearance, shouting "If he's so smart, how come you lost Congress?"

Not exactly dripping with integrity, but satisfying none the less.

More of the Same

The benchmark of one hundred days in office is generally regarded as merely a nominal measure of presidential progress, looked upon by most as more of a "Can you believe it's been that long?" than a "Look at how far we've come." However, having just cleared that mark, the Obama administration is already sending some surprising signals to the nation about how far it plans to go - and in what direction.

In a second base-rattling move in the past three months, the administration announced last week it's plans to remain in lock-step with the Bush administration's relaxed policies on climate change. Specifically, Obama surprised many core supporters when it was announced that his Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, would not repeal certain restrictions on the Endangered Species Act that had been put into place by President Bush.

At question were limitations installed by Bush when he was forced to acknowledge the plain fact that global warming was indeed harming the planet, and it's residents. At the center of this issue is the polar bear, and it's rapidly diminishing habitat: polar ice. Forced by mounting pressure from environmental groups, the Bush administration finally conceded, near the end of it's second term, to place the polar bear under the protection of the ESA - but with a twist: The ESA would lose it's mandated ability to curb greenhouse gas emissions, essentially delegating ESA protection as a ceremonial title at best.

Now, for Obama, a president elected on a platform of "change", reversing this policy would seem like a slam-dunk. However, in what is turning out to be a bit of a nasty habit, the president has reversed another ambiguous campaign pledge (to "review" Bush's ESA modifications), and is continuing to uphold some of the most controversial policies of his predecessor.

For environmentalists, this ruling is devastating. It signals a refusal on the part of the president to install actionable policies to curb global warming. However, the most frightening aspect of this decision may just be that it undermines any sort of credibility Obama seeks to cultivate regarding his favorite topic: change. Where it can be argued that the nation's overall expectations of Obama, and his ability to reverse the damage done to this country by a disastrous eight years under Bush, were set too high (though, Obama himself certainly did nothing to dampen these hopes during his campaign and the run up to his inauguration - in fact, quite the opposite), it is perplexing at the least to find that a simple return to the way things were before Bush is seemingly too much to ask.

In retrospect, it can be noted that Bush gave the nation what it expected, supporters and detractors alike. Now it is Obama's turn to deliver on the lofty promises he has laid out before us. Should this recent trend continue, however, it seems likely that the only distinguishing factor between the hundred day intervals of this administration and those of the last will be the abject disappointment we encounter; not in our president, but in the hopes we have placed with him.

Old Man Withers!

Checking my email after writing the post above (this post is being time stamped prior in order to follow), I noticed the usual news blurbs on the side of the page. Among the usual American Idol updates and grim economic results, was a healine that caught my eye: "Obama Seeks to Block Release of Abuse Photos." Folks, you can't make this stuff up. Here are some excerpts from the AP article, reprinted from Yahoo! News:

• "President Barack Obama declared Wednesday he would try to block the court-ordered release of photos showing U.S. troops abusing prisoners, abruptly reversing his position out of concern the pictures would "further inflame anti-American opinion" and endanger U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan...


• The White House had said last month it would not oppose the release of dozens of photos from military investigations of alleged misconduct...


• "This is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action," Obama said of the photos. "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."


• The Justice Department filed a notice of its new position on the release, including that it was considering an appeal with the Supreme Court...


• Spokesman Robert Gibbs said release of the new batch of photos from the Pentagon cases would merely "provide, in some ways, a sensationalistic portion of that investigation."


• "The decision to not release the photographs makes a mockery of President Obama's promise of transparency and accountability," said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh, who had argued and won the case in question before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. "It is essential that these photographs be released so that the public can examine for itself the full scale and scope of prisoner abuse that was conducted in its name."


• Human Rights Watch called the decision a blow to transparency and accountability... On Capitol Hill, Republicans welcomed the change, however.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have officially entered the United States of Bizarro World.

The Best Damn Line Graph...Period

Another day, another conversation with "Smack." This one really doesn't need any introducion or explanation.

As always, feel free to weigh in by posting a comment. Enjoy.

Within Reason: So, as I was shaving my beard on Tuesday, I was tempted to leave the moustache. I just couldn't do it. I feel like the moustache is not a viable facial hair option for some one my age. So, 3 questions:

Is there an age limit/requirement for moustaches? If so, what is it? Are there exceptions?

Smack: For the purpose of this conversation, I’ll be addressing moustaches sans any accompanying facial hair. A moustache by it’s lonesome is not so much governed by age restrictions as it is by societal stigma. In the public eye, a solo moustache is (with few exceptions) a sure sign of either father hood or pedophilia. It’s viability as a facial hair option hinges on your willingness to passers-by let which of these two roles you fit.

WR: Do you think that has always been the case, though? Which of those two roles did Magnum PI or Michael Jordan fit?

S: Upon further reflection I’m tempted to add a third category for men who have demonstrated such an unwavering degree of manhood that they can carry their iconic mustaches across generational gaps into today’s world. I would include in this category Tom Selleck, Burt Reynolds, Wade Boggs, Ron Jeremy, Dale Earnhardt, Sam Elliott, Hulk Hogan, and of course Chuck Norris.

What is the Magnum PI of 2009? 24? Jack Bauer does not have a mustache.

Since you brought up Jordan we also have to discuss Larry Bird. I can’t include him in this new third category with that blond wispy mustache. He should have had to register as a sex offender for having it.

WR: Hmmm. I think this is more about the time frame than it is about the individual moustache wearers. For instance, it wasn't just Wade Boggs who wore a moustache in 1986, it was probably 75% of the Red Sox roster. Don Mattingly, the other premier hitter of that era? Moustache. Nowadays, if Eric Byrnes grows a moustache, it's pointed out on The Best Damn Sports Show, or Jim Rome brings it up.

What I don't understand is, why has the goatee been able to escape the "eeew" factor? Kevin Youkilis has a nasty goat, but it's only when he goes 'handlebars only' that people speak up about it.

S: It is absolutely a thing of the times. In the 80’s and early 90’s mustaches were in, but now they’re not. My point was that there are certain wearers that are able to carry it over to today and still make it work. But when Jason Giambi comes out of nowhere with a huge ‘stache it’s on SportsCenter.

There’s no real answer for why the goatee escapes criticism. It’s a style thing. How, in 1992, did Hammer pants seem like a great idea? They just did.

WR: Yes, but is clothing different? We expect these sorts of fluctuations in taste with clothing, I just find it odd that facial hair is not immune. Even hairstyles, which can be dated, do not receive the same scrutiny as the 'stache. Well, maybe the mullet - but most mullet wearers probably have handlebar moustaches, too - so who knows what the true root of the criticism is.

Here's the other thing about goatees - they are the least manly facial hair. Not simply because they were popular in the 1990s, when being "Mr. Sensitive" was cool, but for the fact that they take the most manicuring. All of these manly - men with goatees are actually metrosexuals, based on the amount of time they spend grooming. Also, I heard a radio caller make the following point a while back, and it has stuck with me ever since: a goatee makes your mouth look like a vagina. Sorry to be crude, but it is true.

S: When you say that a man’s mouth makes you think vagina… you’ve left me nowhere to go with this.

WR: You're right, uncalled for, but true. Let's get back to the important issue here: Is there a line graph that can illustrate this phenomenon? As in, as time has gone by, it has become increasingly less acceptable for young men to grow and wear moustaches.

Why did this happen? What made women of a certain age of time period wake up one day, look at a moustache and think "eeew"? Because, if you think about it, women did not used to just find these acceptable, they were considered desirable.

S:

The Thin Red Line

I received an email today from a co-worker that I think some of you may find interesting. Undoubtedly, many of you have received a similar email in the past - especially where we are coming off a bitterly fought presidential election. You know the type: "Important" facts that "every voter" or, better yet, "American" - "should know about", usually accompanied by some fancy graphics, vague statistics, or mildly disturbing or eye opening photograph.

Well, the election has come and gone, and after apparently going back to the drawing board (once again), the chain-mailers are back:

It does not hurt to read this several times.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:

• Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
  
• Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
  
• Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million


• Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicanswon was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Normally, these emails go straight to my 'delete' folder, but I was feeling a bit feisty today. My reply:

Republicans (at least those like this fellow - which are increasingly numerous) are always quick to point this sort of thing out, despite the fact that any reasonable American, regardless of party alliance, could put together a nice one of these little chain emails with statistics like "Percentage of Citizens with 4 year Degrees in Areas won by Party" and "Number of Universities" "Number of Museums" "Infant Mortality Rate" "Average Reading Level" "Life Expectancy" etc, etc. I would wonder what that grid would look like. I wonder what I would be called for pointing this out.

There are 2 reasons that most Americans don't do this: 1) The Union, who's sanctity Professor Tyler seems so anxious to uphold, holds it's Presidential elections through the electoral college. Every time it works against a party, it's "broken" - but when it works in your favor....well, that brings me to 2). Remember the election of 2000? If you do, you've ignored these same Republicans who told the majority of Americans - who voted for Al Gore (in fact, not just the majority, but at that point, the highest popular vote tally ever recorded for an individual candidate) to get over it. That was the past, time to rally behind our Commander in Chief. So, this is really just par for the course.

These are the same folks who rail about Federal spending under Democratic leaders, though Republicans spend multitudes more - and put up billboards like this:

...and say things like this: "I believe 9/11 could have been prevented if we'd had a Republican president at the time," Meehan (who put up the billboard) said Wednesday on CNN's "American Morning."

Also, Professor Tyler must have gotten a staffer from the University's Democratic-leaning math department to calculate his statistics, because they're a little "fuzzy" - unless two states have seceded from the Union. Perhaps the 29-19 tally (which totals 48) in favor of the Republicans, didn't work as well in his favor as does the actual final tally of 28-22 - in favor of the Democrats.

Again, most folks just delete these, and quietly chuckle to themselves about what they have just read. Not me, though, not anymore. I'm getting a little too tired about reading some one's lies about our truths destroying everyone's 'freedom.'

Who's With Us?

In keeping with a recent trend, the following post is a transcript of a conversation with fellow blogger "Smack" - with this added wrinkle: it cross references a post from Paul Levy's excellent blog Running A Hospital.

The topic at hand, as introduced by Paul Levy's post, is the unethical pension payments being made to 10 former Massachusetts legislators, and an interesting proposal on how current elected officials can address this issue.

Excerpts from Paul's post, including my comments (the first of which I erroneously posted anonymously) comments, are below, followed by the conversation with Smack. I encourage readers to weigh in with their own opinions by posting a comment. Enjoy.

Another approach?

Here's a proposal for a different approach to a political issue currently facing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, one that would enhance the stature of the Governor and would also achieve the result most people think is correct.

Imagine the following. Each of those 10 former legislators receives the following call from the Governor's office: "I'm calling to let you know that at 3pm this afternoon, Governor Patrick is going to call on you and the other nine former legislators to voluntarily relinquish this pension benefit. He would be honored to have you stand by him during this press conference to announce that you have agreed to do so -- to give you a chance to receive credit for a selfless act that sends a signal to the people of the state that former public officials realize that this kind of benefit undermines public confidence and current efforts to balance the state budget and retain important services."

The second part of the conversation, to be held in reserve pending the reaction to this request, would be the following:"I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way. The Governor wanted me to let you know that, in that case,we will display a picture of you with the amount of payments you will receive in your lifetime both at this press conference and in every public appearance the Governor makes and on his websites, where hundreds of thousands of people will see this until the situation is legally reversed. He would prefer not to do that because he appreciates your years of public service, but there is something more important at stake here."

Now, perhaps those ten people wouldn't care about this, but I am guessing that their reputation in their community matters to them.

Maybe that would help them to do the right thing. Whether they did or did not, it would give the Governor additional moral authority to pursue appropriate legal action to undo this benefit and achieve other reforms. It would set him apart in the public eye and help in pending budgetary and pension fund matters.

Anonymous said...

Paul, it’s one thing to capitalize on public opinion to bring about meaningful reform, but it’s another thing entirely to use a public office to strong-arm citizens under an ambiguous "moral authority." Should these pension payments cease? Absolutely. Is there a more practical and ethical way of handling this? Certainly. Imagine the precedent an action like this would set. What limits would this moral authority have? What recourse would the next group of targeted individuals have?

Paul Levy said...

These are not "citizens" in the general sense. They are former legislators and are earning this money solely as a result of that legislative service. I think the Governor has the right to ask them to display a higher standard.

Ian McCarty said...

1. The Governor has no "moral authority."2. We are all citizens in the"general sense."3. This would just be more grandstanding by the Governor, still the only hold out in terms of filing actual legislation to resolve this issue. As Tim Cahill said on Tuesday "I think the Governor is grandstanding on this issue. He's the only one who hasn't filed legislation to change this. The Senate has, the House has, and we've been filing some form of pension legislation for the past couple of years. Change going backward is just grandstanding. It's not going to save a lot of money in the long run, and it's not going to restore confidence if we're not changing things going forward."

Within Reason: Check this out - interesting topic.

Smack: I think I basically agree with Paul.

WR: You're kidding. You think the Governor should be able to strong arm law abiding citizens based on a non-existent moral authority? Should a pro-life governor post photos of women who have had abortions on-line?

This is like when the government starts taking away civil liberties and tries to sooth the public by saying "law abiding citizens have nothing to fear."

S: How do you figure that public servants have no moral obligation? They’re voted into public office to serve the state. It’s wrong that they’re taking a pension. They should stop or face public scrutiny. It’s state money that they’re messing with. I don’t feel the same way about the private sector.

WR: We are governed by laws - not people. We don't elect kings, we elect officials to administer our government. Granted, we want forward thinking officials who can be both proactive and reactive in their management of our government. You do not legislate morals in this country - in fact, quite the opposite. Legislating morals violates freedoms that are inherently granted to us, and the government cannot impede upon or legislate - in other words, we come into being with rights, the government is in place to make sure no one gets in our way of exercising them.

If it's the public money that bugs you, what if Governor Patrick wanted to amend our welfare system to a point where a few dozen people, who were legally receiving government money, were asked to repay the government, or face public scrutiny. Would that work for you?

S: No, that’s different. Unless the people on welfare are elected officials and their welfare payments are public record.

I don’t know the specifics about this law that they’re collecting pensions under so I can’t comment on the legality of what these people are doing. Following your logic…Outing these people would legal. The info is all public record. So it’s ok, right?

WR: About the law - it's questionable, and should be revoked - but it's the law. About the public record - you're right. But I'm not talking about the availability of information, I'm talking about the intent to intimidate. About the elected officials - if we expect them to follow the laws, they must be the same laws that govern all of us, and they must be enforced uniformly throughout the populous.

There are laws in place to ensure the "good behavior" of elected officials (ask Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, or Rod Blagojevich), but these 10 former legislators were operating within the law.

S: There’s a fine line between aggressive reform and two wrongs making a right. I think, specifically in this case, it’s ok to send a message. I don’t think it’s setting the precedent to strip private citizens of any rights.

WR: The precedent it's sets is "I am the Governor. My opinions regarding past events are de facto law. Anytime I find out somethings been going on that I don't like, I will change it - and pressure ‘violators’ to act like the law has been in place all along."

S: There are no quotes necessary for violators. What’s happening is not illegal but it’s wrong.
The precedent it sets is: if you’re a public official then you’re publicly accountable for wrongdoing.

WR: When does wrongdoing become wrongdoing?

S: In general or in this example? In this example it became wrong when they unethically took pensions.

In general - I don’t have enough time to put proper thought into a definition right now. I’m not going to just throw something out there for you to rip apart.

WR: Here is my larger point - both you and Paul are trying to say that the government should be able to specifically target individuals and instances that, however legal they may be, are not ethical, popular, or both. The problem with that is - we are a society of laws. When the government starts side stepping laws to enforce their agenda, even if it is in lock step with public opinion, you get the breakdown of our society. That may sound dramatic (and it is - but come on, this is me), but you can draw a parallel between this and, say, water-boarding, i.e. Terrorists: "Immoral." American Government: "Moral Authority." American Public: "Terrorists Bad!" American Government's course of action - "To hell with the laws! We're right! Go get the caterpillars and Dobermans." See what I mean?

S: But this isn’t about enforcing a particular agenda, unless you think doing the right thing is an agenda. This is about fixing a problem in a public forum. You can’t liken this to water-boarding because torture is illegal.

It’s the corruption that’s breaking down our society. If we start making these people accountable then maybe we’ll get somewhere. FYI, I think we should amend the law also.

WR: What is the "right thing?"

S: That goes beyond the scope of my argument. In this case it’s clear and it’s my understanding that you agree with me on that.

WR: I'm not arguing that the law is correct, I am arguing that law itself is correct.
I am sure there have been plenty of elected officials - again, W. comes to mind - who have thought "To hell with the law, it's wrong and I AM RIGHT!" It does not work that way, though. If you want the pensions to stop, change the law - you are the government, you can do that (to a point). As a matter of fact, it is all you can do within your elected capacity. To step outside of that capacity is an even more severe transgression against our system of government than is bilking it for a few thousand $k.

S: I agree that they should change the law.

I still have no problem with publicizing what these legislators have been doing and how much they’ve been taking. It’s not an extreme measure. The public should know, especially if these people are in a position to run again.

WR: We'll have to end it there, agreeing to very strongly disagree. The law is the law for a reason. I understand that in this case, the "violators" in question are former public officials, but this standard is an imaginary line that could be placed anywhere moving forward, were this precedent to be set.

S: But how is this even a precedent? Since when is pointing out public information a new thing?
There has to be accountability and transparency.

WR: We’re at an impasse. Let’s open this up to commenters.

Smack Talk

Due to positive feedback, Within Reason has gone back to the "Smack" well sooner than expected for another round of banter. This week, the discussion of a new snack product took us down the darker - and more comical - alleys of advertising. Feel free to join the conversation by posting a comment. Enjoy.

Within Reason: So, "Doritos Late Night" - have you seen that?

Smack: Don’t think so – what is it?

WR: Check it out: Doritos.com (ed. note - please check this out and weigh in with your thoughts/ideas)

S: I don’t get it.

WR: Neither do I. It's one of those things that's bugging me a little too much. Either it's targeting people who are up late with the munchies - in which case, would make it about as sensible a move as "Bud Light: Cookout" - or it is an evil genius plot to get people to talk about Doritos who normally would not.

Or, I'm totally missing the point. The commercial, which I saw for the first time last night, doesn't help. Essentially, it’s the typical 18-29 Scion-ish commercial, with Doritos. At night. Late.

S: http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/04/27/adventures-in-branding-doritos-late-night/

WR: Hmmm. Nice piece, and a nice site. Still doesn't get me any closer. Perhaps what I'm experiencing is a bit of disappointment. This is almost a good idea. Marrying 2 objects - or an object to idea(l) - is exciting whenever a new boundary is crossed.

If, this is as it seems - just an attempt by Doritos to appeal to the "Dude, what time is it?" crowd of late night eaters, then it almost backfires for a few reasons: 1) I would venture that Doritos has a pretty firm grip on a decent share of the "in-home, late night munchies" market among the targeted demographic. 2) The easiest way to get late-teens and early twenty-something’s NOT to buy something is to try this hard to sell it to them. 3) You're dividing your market unnecessarily. I'm not that into junk food, but I'd buy Doritos, and eat them in front of my boss, to boot. I would think twice about buying "Late Night Doritos" because they are so specifically targeted to a certain demographic. Like the "Overthinkingit.com" site points out - this is kind of like Cinemax. When some one says "I didn't see the Sopranos - I have Cinemax" there are those that hear "I was too busy enjoying 'Cinemax After Dark last night" and think to themselves "...dirty, dirty man." It would be as if The Cheesecake Factory came out with an "All Night Taco Stand" at select locations.

S: You’re going to buy them. Even if you deny it I won’t believe you.

WR: There is only one junk/snack food that I am powerless to resist: 'Hint of Lime' Tostitos. This is kind of my point - people up late at night, suffering from 'the munchies' eat snack food. Doritos and Tostitos both occupy that market. And while Tostitos Hint of Lime would undoubtedly satisfy the snack urges of plenty of those late night eaters - it does so without selling out, and eternally (or until the marketing budget dries up) linking itself to a somewhat questionable demographic.

To get to your point, Tostitos may be able to get me to buy 'Hint of Tequila', should they ever try.

S: Don’t forget about Funyuns. There is one and only one demographic that repeatedly gets duped by that product.

WR: Well, I don't know. I've never seen a Funyuns commercial, or seen one in print. That could go either way. Actually, I'm not even sure I know which demographic you're referring to. I associate Funyuns with young children, so in that case - you'd go after them. Anything snack-foody or cool, just go after the kids. Parents want to make kids happy. This gets back to my comment about marketing to anyone under 30: that is a very perceptive demographic.

If, as a child, I knew that my mother thought it would be a "good idea" for me to consume something - it immediately went on the "not too psyched to try that" list. Conversely, if I went to my mother armed with the incredibly targeted information about Cinnamon Toast Crunch having "vitamins and minerals" and "being part of a balanced breakfast" - she knew that I was brainwashed by a commercial that was essentially pushing sugar on me. I actually love that, now that I think of it. The people behind those commercials knew that by sprinkling in (pardon the pun) "scientific facts" about the quality of their product, it would make the child all the more likely to repeatedly demand the product from the parent - "But it IS healthy" - usually ending in one of those "I will collapse right here in the cereal aisle if you do not buy me Cookie Crisp, with it's 6 healthy ingredients - out of 73." Looking back, they could have skipped the actual research and said things like "Full of nutritional breakfast goodness" or "Complete with all the ingredients your mother will be looking for" (technically true) or "Now with corn, which the Native Americans referred to as maize. Just like you learned about in school." Any talking points.

S: Funyuns aren’t heavily marketed, but the demographic I’m referring to would be all the main characters in “Half Baked.” I don’t see too many children being turned on to puffed rice with onion powder.

WR: That's why they call them 'Funyuns.' I wouldn't see too many children being turned on to puffed rice with partially hydrogenated corn syrup and yellow 32, until you call it 'Corn Pops.'

S: Which reminds me… Have you seen the new commercials for high fructose corn syrup? Seriously?

WR: Yes! Those go right with the Exxon Mobil commercials that try to say "we care about Earth." Again, it's just the trick of marketing - getting you to think for a second longer about a specific product than you normally should. Even though everyone who speaks English should be able to deduce that there is something inherently wrong about a commercial that's essentially: "Hi there! I'm high fructose corn syrup. Not that you were probably wondering at all, but there's nothing wrong with me. In fact, I'm made from corn. You like corn, right? Hey! Alright - good talk, America. Remember: just forget about me." Even in the case that these adds are targeting the select few who actually remember the strangely revelatory 1990s-ish discovery that "Hey, what do you know? This stuff is like sugar on steroids. It can rot your teeth and make you fat. What? Oh yeah, diabetes, too!" - most of those people could be taken care of with a "We're America's producers of high fructose corn syrup. We'd like to address a few of the concerns you may have about our product. As you all know...Hey! A blimp!" - cut to black.

It's really like a commercial from gasoline. Not a brand, just gasoline. Or a hybrid of both "Hi, I'm Peyton Manning speaking on behalf of high fructose corn syrup. You know how you could theoretically ride your bike to work, or take a train - but almost all of you drive a gasoline powered car? Well, the next time you're ready to dump all over high fructose corn syrup - good luck finding incredibly sweet food without it. You could, but, people would think you were just getting all uppity. Now back to this very special episode of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition."

S: The whole campaign hinges on their new slogan, “It’s ok in moderation.” WHAT?

Even a Doritos Late Night patron can read between the lines and see that this product is not good for you.

You don’t see tobacco growers doing this. Why? Because as you point out, it just raises awareness of the issue that you’re fighting. Only the Corn Refiners Association could come up with an ad campaign like this. I can picture their board meeting… It takes place in Omaha in a barn loft, by torch light, and they’re getting all worked up in their overalls… One particularly articulate member speaks up: “We gotta do somethin!”

WR: ...and no one thinks "about what? We OWN the artificial sweetener market for everyone except Momorexics." Actually - bingo! There it is. It totally fits the criteria. It's a sensible commercial. They’re going for the Moms. Not for their kids, but for the actual Moms. "Hey, don't you miss juice? Because, you know, Crystal Light isn't juice. A little juice won't kill you. Also, tasty cookies. Just saying."

At least they're not going the alcohol 'moderation' route, where every add says to "Enjoy Responsibly" after presenting you with the following - A bunch of young people sitting around thinking "Awwww man, this is the worst lakeside gathering I've ever been at. And man oh man is it hot or what? hey...wait a minute...ice? In July??? Whooo hooo! Here comes the Silver Bullet! Yeah! Now that I'm smashed, I LOVE volleyball! And those hot chicks LOVE me! Thanks booze!"

Maybe the corn syrup folks could go after the kids with a commercial like this: Boring school lunch, same old fish sticks...chugga chugga CHOO CHOO!! It's the High Fructose Corn Syrup Express! Yaay! Popsicles! It's actually raining cookies! Juice with literally zero nutritional value from all the water fountains! Our teachers turned into The Wiggles - who are singing "M-o-d eee-ration!"

That would work.

S: If we could make that commercial that would be one of the better parodies/satires ever.

WR: And somewhere in Nebraska (or on Madison Avenue), the Corn Refiners of America's ad firm would think "damn!"