Free Floormats Trigger New Cold War

Hyundai has been running a commercial where Japanese, German, and American car execs are running tests on a Hyundai SUV and becoming frustrated at how wonderful a vehicle it is.

That's, um, weird.  For one thing, it seems bizarre that they're so upset over a few cheap option packages.  Never mind the fact that they wasted so much money building that secret test facility in the mountains just to get information that's available on Hyundai's website.  I seem to remember Chevy did an ad along similar lines years ago, but that was for the Corvette, so it seemed a little more consequential than a midsize SUV.

But the biggest reason it stands out is that it's a pretty brazen use of stereotypes.  Of course, the German guy is no more German than the engineers VW uses on its own ads.  And it's always bugged me how both Japanese and German companies subtly use prejudice to their advantage by reminding everyone that it's not engineering, it's Japanese/German engineering.  And I also complained about American manufacturer's use of stereotyping earlier.

But this seems particularly unfair since Hyundai is from South Korea.  That country is relatively new on the world stage, so we don't really have many stereotypes about them.  If another company wanted to do a similar commercial against them, they'd have to have the Korean exec constantly eating kimchi.  And constantly remarking that it is kimchi, since I don't think I'd even recognize it.

They even seem to be rubbing it in at the end; normally I'd say the choice of 1995's "This Is How We Do It" would be a weird feature in a 2015 ad campaign, but in this case, we don't even know if they're out of touch, or maybe that song is just big in Korea right now.

VW toyed with making fun of it's competitors' nationalities a few years ago. They had a series of ads about former auto engineers - from various parts of the world - who had gone into other lines of work to avoid the stress of having to compete with VW.  They came across as quite mean-spirited.  Aside from how childish look-at-how-silly-our-competition-is ads are, they were kind of kicking people while they're down.  Was it really necessary to show a stressed-out British auto industry retiree?  And the Italian episode of the campaign was in especially bad taste, showing a guy named "Enzo" who supposedly couldn't compete with VW's GTI.  Of course, there was a famous guy at an Italian sports car company named Enzo, and I don't think he really worried about the GTI.

So hopefully we won't see much more of car companies promoting mediocre cars through overacting spoofs of its competitors.  But if Hyundai tries this again, I want to see somebody have the courage to turn the tables, and have an ad where all the Hyundai employees are doing Psy impersonations.

Mirror, Mirror

We have a tendency to think of the two political sides as mirror images. That is, they may have different goals and beliefs, but they go about pursuing those goals in the same way. This belief may come from the way we think of our political opponents: a wise person tries to see things from the other's perspective, whether that's an attempt at humanizing the other side, or a desire to know the enemy, Art Of War style.

But I suspect that a bigger reason we think of the political poles as interchangeable is that we analogize them to sports. Sports teams don't have an inherent way of doing things - a team that's all offence right now could be all defence in a generation, depending on the personnel they end up with. And similarly, we assume that a political party has a personality that's no more than a reflection of who's at the top right now.

But every now and then we get a reminder that the two sides are not the same. Different kinds of people get called to different beliefs and values, and systematically putting people with different ways of thinking on each side will make those sides act differently. We've seen an example of this in Canada over the last generation, as fate has conducted an experiment on us.

First, we had around a decade of government by the Chrétien Liberals. They were fairly popular - as governments go - but their real political strength came from the fact that their political rivals were splitting the vote between two parties: the traditional party that was close to the centre, and a newer, bolder party with more momentum and ideological purity. That was followed by about a decade of the Harper Conservatives. They're fairly popular - as governments go - but their real political strength comes from the fact that their political rivals are splitting the vote between two parties: the traditional party that was close to the centre, and a newer, bolder party with more momentum and ideological purity.

Okay, I admit there are at least a hundred ways the scenarios aren't the same, but as political experiments go, this is a pretty good opportunity to see how each side reacts to the same problem.

This is based purely on my recollections, but it seems to me that the merger talk on the right started much sooner. There was unite the right talk all through the Chrétien era, whether from Reform/Alliance officials, or from conservative pundits and politicians. Yet we're ten years into Harper, and the uncleft the left calls are still just a few voices in the wilderness. The occasional letter to the editor opines that there should be done sort of Liberal-NDP coalition, but not much serious consideration has been given. This election, both parties officially said no to working together, and the fact they at least cared enough about the issue to reject it seemed like progress to those of us who think a meter is a good idea?

So why was the right so much faster to embrace a merger? I'm sure many conservatives will seize upon this as proof they're just smarter, or at least more practical. But the flip side to that is that conservatives were also much faster to gloss over the ideological differences between a centrist party with a long tradition of governing, and a part born out of protest with no governing experience. I'd argue that the difference between the PC's and Reform in 1993 was greater than that between the Mulcair NDP and today's Liberals. Yet conservatives of the time were quite quick to dismiss those differences as long as our got them back in power. It seems that they are more likely to err on the side of having the better strategy than the preferred ideology.

Take The Pink Pill And Believe Whatever You Want To Believe

The "Female Viagra" is in the headlines. That's what the media is calling the first drug to increase women's sexual desire, which I'm sure the company's marketing department just loves. I've seen several stories on the drug, one of them just ten minutes ago, and I don't remember the drug's actual name.  I just know that the pill is pink, in contrast with Viagra's equally stereotypical blue.

Addyi (I looked it up) is controversial because it's struggled to get approval, and required a PR campaign by the manufacturer playing on the perceived unfairness of the huge number of drugs available for men's erectile dysfunction, to the complete lack of drugs for women.

I can't speak to the issue of whether it should be approved, but the thing that has bugged me about this story is that it is quite simply not the female Viagra. Viagra is a drug for men who want to have sex but find it physically difficult. This drug is for women who (presumably) are physically able, but don't want to.  It's a depressing statement about our attitudes towards sexuality that we confuse two things that are so different; it's as though we just file both ideas under this vague category of "sex stuff" and don't examine them further.

As such, it brings up a difficult ethical question. I'm not aware of any other drug that makes people want something. See, there is a small but significant group of people who consider themselves asexual, because they experience little or no sexual desire. And they seem to be reasonably happy, and bristle at the idea that they need to be "cured."

However, a person with no libido may still want companionship, and it appears that among humans, sex is a key part of that. Further, if you've lost your desire while in a relationship, that will cause tension. And that's the biggest practical argument I've seen for this drug: women in a marriage who are worried that if they don't provide sex, then their partner may go elsewhere for it. I can understand that predicament, but it makes the PR campaign take on an ugly tone: the claim by the ads was that it was unfair that men have their sex drugs, but not women. Yet, scratch the surface and you find that the main beneficiaries of the new drug are primarily the men married to the women taking it.

Still Waiting For My Blogging Trophy

Football player James Harrison has been in the news because he gave back his kids' participation trophies from sports, saying he believes such rewards should be earned. So, does the guy who gets paid millions of dollars a year regardless of whether he wins or losses have a point? It's made a lot of people angry, and earned praise from those who agree with his philosophy.

I think this is one of those cases where a few extreme incidents have pushed people to overreact. We get a few shock stories about kids' sports where everyone gets the same trophy or they only allow cooperative sports, and suddenly everyone demands no participation trophies at all. Really? You're saying that I shouldn't have gotten the three-inch participation trophy for minor soccer at age eight? Getting handed that little trinket just before the top scorer on the team got a giant trophy? That ruined my perspective forever?

But I also have another perspective on the rewards-for-achievement debate that I've never heard before, and that is, um, why? Look, I received very few trophies for sports, but plenty of the rewards for academic achievement (whether awards or high marks) so I've seen it from both sides, and I have to ask what good are either of them? Sure there are some awards that are difficult to win, and indicate genuine achievement. But we're not talking about the Superbowl or Nobel Prize here, we're talking about kids. Most of their awards are just the strongest kid getting a trophy, or the smartest kid getting an A. All those awards do is tell everyone who the strongest and smartest kids are. But everyone already knows that, so what's the point?  So unless we're talking about very high-level athletics/academics, those genetically blessed kids are getting their recognition for doing little more than showing up.  Essentially, they're just receiving their own participation trophies.

Sesame Street Has Been Brought To You Today By Selling Out To The Man

When the news came out that Sesame Street had a deal to go on HBO, this surprising news was received rather matter-of-factly. Some journalists just said vague things about income and downloading. Others joked about the incongruity of Sesame Street and HBO's other properties. Honestly, there are thousands of Muppet/Game of Thrones jokes to be made.

Apparently the show's finances weren't strong, since they were getting less money from PBS, and DVD sales have declined. Interesting fact I learned this week: currently, more kids watch the show online than on TV. As part of the agreement, it will still be available both on PBS and online, though only nine-months after its been on HBO.

I'm still uncomfortable with this. Yes, I've always been quick to say that progressives should be willing to use imperfect solutions to get real change in the world. This is using a disproportionately upper-class audience to pay for education that's accessible to all, which I would generally endorse. After all, Sesame Street isn't about current affairs, so showing your kids nine-months old episodes should really put them at a disadvantage. Having said that, the website Boing Boing points out that if getting the new episodes first wasn't an advantage, HBO wouldn't be paying so much for it.

What bugs me is that Sesame Street's raison d'etre was to level the playing field by making an avenue for education that everyone had equal access to. Even if it's a minor factor, it's sad that such a principle can't be maintained. For instance, the "street" in the show is portrayed as an urban street to career to poorer viewers that wouldn't normally see their lives on kids shows. Now we're entering a situation where largely suburban viewership will be funding a show set in an urban world they won't recognize.

Things the Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #26

Manchester United's shirts advertise Chevrolet. Juventus shirts advertise Jeep.

Donut Judge

I'm not feeling well, so I won't put pressure on myself to come up with anything particularly insightful.  I'll just observe that Tim Hortons is running its Duelling Donuts contest, where the public submits donut ideas, and celebrities and the public vote on the winners.  What caught my attention is that one of the celebrity judges is electronic musician Deadmau5. 

photo by Octavio Ruiz Cervera from Mexico, Mexico, used by Creative Commons

That seems like an odd combination, even if they are - in their own way - Canadian icons.  And then I had to wonder, did he wear the mouse head to the donut tasting?  How does he eat with that thing on?

Apparently he has a history with Tim's, doing a web series of going there for coffee with music celebrities.  And they thanked him for the publicity by sculpting his logo out of Timbits.  But it occurred to me that there's an association that I hadn't previously seen:

There seems to be a resemblance to that little guy they used to put on the Timbit boxes.  And if memory serves, they were using the Timbit guy in the early eighties, around when Deadmau5 was born, so this could be a baby picture.