Celebrity endorsement QUESTION


I was watching a Boniva ad featuring Sally Field when I realized, “If I were a woman with osteoporosis, I think I’D be taking Boniva because Sally seems so sincere.”
I also recall, many years ago, Andy Griffith’s popular ads for Ritz crackers, which didn’t get me to try the product, but did get me to go around saying, “Mm-MMM. G-o-o-d cracker.”
William Talman, who played DA Hamilton Burger to Raymond Burr’s Perry Mason, appeared in a number of anti-smoking ads, such as this one; as an avid watcher of Perry Mason, this definitely enhanced my anti-smoking position, especially with my father, who smoked a pack or more of Winstons at the time.
The Jerry Seinfeld AmEx ads, such as this one were clever enough, but had no effect on getting the card in my wallet.

My questions for you fine folks:

1. Any celebrity endorsements actually lead you to purchase an item or at least supported your position to do so? Any celebrity endorsements turn you off from a product?

And, unrelated to the topic:

2. Will Sarah Palin’s appearance on Saturday Night Live help her, hurt her or make no difference? I say it helps slightly. She comes off as engaging when reading cue cards.

3. What is your favorite Four Tops song? The great Levi Stubbs, the lead singer, died yesterday. For some reason, 7 Rooms of Gloom came immediately to mind, but appropriately, I suppose it’s I’m in a Different World..
***
Just say no!

. ROG

IRV


Arthur, an expat American living in New Zealand, on one of his recent podcasts, maybe #116 or #117 (I’m too lazy to check) was talking about different ways to vote in different counties. One of the methodologies sound a awful lot like what’s being called around here instant runoff voting. Though I’ve never had the opportunity to vote by this method, I’m inclined to support it. You can read about it in the link I provided, but let me try to explain by example.

Let’s say there were five people running for President. Just for fun, we’ll call them Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nader and Obama. IRV allows one to vote for the candidate one most desires without worrying about “throwing away” a vote on a minor party candidate. So one could vote for 1. McKinney 2. Nader 3. Obama 4. Barr. If someone gets a majority of the vote, then the race is settled. But let’s say that the vote is 34% each for McCain and Obama, 14% for Barr, 10% for McKinney and 8% for Nader. In turn, the Nader votes would be distributed to Nader voters’ second choice. Since a majority still would not be reached, McKinney’s and then, if necessary, Barr’s votes would be distributed. It may still come down to “lesser of two evils”, but one could vote for a third party candidate without concern that the candidate would be a spoiler.

This would be most important in those jurisdictions, such as Louisiana, that REQUIRE a majority vote. Those runoffs, unless they are held on the day of the general election, almost invariably involves an even smaller number of voters than the first round. add to that, an extra round of voting is expensive. Instant runoff voting would eliminate the need for those costly redoes.

Of course, the problem with the system is that there is a real possibly that people might actually ELECT a third party candidate if they’re not discouraged by the notion of a wasted vote. The machinery of the Democrats and Republicans alike will see in in their best interest to oppose it. Yet it has made headway in a number of cities and towns across the country.

Anyone who’s actually an expert on IRV and wants to dispute any of this, feel free.

Oh, here’s a new flash animation on a variation of instant runoff voting used in elections for more than one seat – making it a system of proportional representation.
***
The Racialicious podcast on Why you shouldn’t listen to polls, an interview with David W. Moore. A main point: Americans weren’t as rah in favor of the Iraq war as the polls suggested, based on the formulation of the question. Last month, a Wall Street Journal review of Moore’s book, the Opinionmakers, criticizes this specific point, noting (correctly) that more people were leaning towards supporting the war. But the leaners, who were forced to come down on one side or another on the issue, might have answered differently had the question been phrased differently, or if “no opinion” was a real option.


ROG

MOVIE REVIEW: Man on Wire


On August 7, 1974, Phillipe Petit spent 45 minutes walking, dancing and lying on a cable that connected the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center. How he does it is the story of Man on Wire.

That the outcome is known makes the fact that James Marsh’s documentary, enhanced greatly by home movies that were made by those planning the caper, works so well as a suspense film. The best comparison I can think of is the movie Apollo 13, when I waited impatiently to see if we’d hear the astronauts’ voices again, EVEN THOUGH I KNEW THE OUTCOME! It’s that kind of story.

The core of the saga, of course, is Petit himself, who, at 5’8″ and 135 pounds, was as small as his surname suggests. That he dreamed of doing the crossing before the buildings were even constructed was just one glimpse into the mind of a man who could inspire others to do his bidding by the sheer force of his outsize personality. We get to see Petit and many of his co-conspirators as they have what are essentially dry runs in Australia and France.

The heart of the tale was getting teams up each building to set up the proper equipment to keep Petit from falling 110 stories to his death. The film does not touch on 9/11, though seeing the construction site of the WTC looks eerily like the hole after the cleanup. There is one shot of Petit on the cable as a plane flies by that’s momentarily jarring. Petit himself has said that he doesn’t want to talk about 9/11 because he has his own memories of the Towers.

If you had forgotten, or never knew this story, it’s probably because it took place only two days before Richard Nixon resigned as President – only obliquely referred to in the film – and that DC news took over the news cycle for several days.

This movie, as of October 11, 2008, had a score of 100% on the Tomatometer. Carol and I saw the movie last Sunday at our favorite cinema, the Spectrum 8, and while we both liked the film very much, we didn’t love it, though I’m definitely recommending it.

This movie was rated R at my theater (though PG-13 on IMDB and in most references) largely because of one scene near the very end of the film and for drug references.
ROG

The “War on Poverty”: Not Won


I was surprised to learn that when the FOCUS Churches of Albany started a food pantry 40 years ago, the thinking was that it would be a temporary measure. Certainly, once the Viet Nam war was over, the government could spend more money on “butter” issues. Or fairer, more equitable distribution of wealth would take place.

Instead, the food pantry has become an ever-larger commitment for FOCUS, and no doubt other food providers all over the country. Even before this recent economic downturn, the need had never been greater.

I’ve long been puzzled by the notion of poverty in a wealthy country such as the United States, as opposed to other parts of the world. The business news touted how much more wealth the nation as a whole was creating. American workers were increasingly more efficient. Still, there were more and more people coming to the food pantry doors.

Now Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor statistics note that the national poverty rate has increased from 11.3 percent in 2000 (a record low) to 12.5 percent in 2007, an increase of 5.8 million Americans living below the poverty line. Meanwhile, the nation’s unemployment rate has risen from 4 percent in 2000 to 6.1 percent currently.

One of the great fears of most organizations that deal with the poor and near-poor, I’m sure, is that given the current economic uncertainty, contributions will dry up. Indeed, I saw a number of stories on the news pointing to half-empty shelves. Yet, I have read long ago that, proportionally, people with relatively little give far more than those who are well off.

Please contribute to and/or volunteer for a food pantry near you.

ROG

ABC Wednesday: M is for Montalban and Music


Sure I remember Ricardo Montalban from Star Trek and Fantasy Island and the “soft Corinthian leather” car commercials.

Some time ago, I came across the picture above, but I don’t recall where anymore.

Ricardo was a founding member of Nosotros, designed to “strategically change the stereotypical image portrayed by Latino actors.” There is a theater named after him and affiliated with the organization at 1615 Vine Street in Hollywood.

But perhaps his greatest legacy I learned about from my friend Deborah, who found this:
or here.

Ricardo Montalban sings for Esther Williams the song that has become a classic, “Baby It’s Cold Outside” in the 1949 movie “Neptune’s Daughter”; the film co-starred Red Skelton. “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” won an Oscar that year for Best Original Song. Unless the Oscar rules have changed, this is likely the first performance of the perennial tune.

Ricardo is still around at the age of 88, doing occasional voice work.

ROG

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial