Throwback songs used in commercials

I've noticed recently that a lot of commercials these days feature music from decades past. I'll be the first one to admit that this phenomenon is nothing new...actually it's been going on for quite some time and it makes plenty of sense why (older music is more easy to identify, appeals to a larger demographic). What I find interesting about this choice of marketing is the underlying motivation behind its use. Currently, I have a theory that older music is being chosen for new commercials because it gives viewers a sense of nostalgia for times when the country was in a much better state. People associate the mid-twentieth century in the United States with widespread economic prosperity. Companies today can recreate that feeling of economic prosperity (by using classic songs) when consumerism was at an all-time high. Be sure to be on the look out next time you see a commercial playing on TV and you hear that timeless classic from the 50's, 60's or 70's.

The video above comes from Hewlett-Packard's 2010 "Happy Baby" commercial. The song selection comes from Melanie Safka's 1971 hit, Brand New Key. The lyrics go, I got a brand new pair of roller skates, You got a brand new key, I think that we should get together and try them out you see. If you listen to the song or know anything about when it was written, you will hear that timeless feel to it with a little bit of folk melody mixed in (Safka said it reminded her of an old thirties tune). Besides being one of my favorite commercials today, it also plays of the whole nostalgia theme quite well, giving a potentially bland product a unique appeal that transcends reasonable explanation. Why should we want an HP printer because of some addicting song? Well for one, it reminds us of the must-have products Americans started buying in bulk in the mid-twentieth century (luxury home items that soon became necessity home items, i.e. certain household appliances). That's what you call clever marketing my friend.

The John Wall Dance

My favorite dance in sports right now is the John Wall Dance (as seen above). I know it's nothing new, but since Wall has been getting a lot of press lately, I thought it was quite relevant. Basically, Wall holds his arm up looking like he's about to flex but instead he rotates his wrist back and forth creating a showstopping dance move. The move itself is very simple. I think the appeal of the move is how understated it appears to onlookers. The John Wall Dance is easy to learn, fun to do, and looks incredibly suave when performed right. All in all, this move packs a whole lot of punch. Who would have guessed that a guy with a name sounding like he took part in the First Great Awakening could come up with something so addicting?

Here's a video of Wall doing his thing as a freshmen at Kentucky. A small shoutout must be given to Dorrough for providing the catchy background music.

Hillary 2012? Would she be a better fit than Obama as president?

I know Hillary Clinton is a very divisive figure in the world of politics. Ever since the end of her husband's presidency, Hillary has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Her polished presentation (maybe too robotic in many people's opinions), ambition for power (seriously, Senator of NY?), and familiar last name (for those political dynasty-haters) have created a strong anti-Hillary movement. I myself must admit that Hillary has never been my cup of tea (maybe you could guess by my moderate conservativeness). After seeing her campaign in 2008 fail miserably, I felt pretty good about not having to worry about Hillary ever moving back into the White House.

With the state of affairs in this country today, I've given a lot of thought to who the future leaders of this country should be. Being someone who values moderate political actors (I like politicians who can stand up to their own party. After all, parties are more about themselves, not so much about everyday citizens), I've never been a big fan of both the far left or far right. Even though I consider myself a moderate conservative (on economic issues primarily), if the Republican party nominates a partisan, far right candidate I do not support, I will simply not vote for him. What matters to me most is that we have elected officials who will focus on the country's most pressing issues (not waste 15 months of dialogue on comprehensive health care) and be able to reach out to the people in order to gain support for legislation. Lately, even some Democrats are reconsidering if Obama was the best person to do that.

Like I mentioned in a previous blog post, I deeply respect Obama and admire the way he deals with criticism and the thoughtfulness he puts into most of his decisions. It's not Obama's fault this country is dealing with huge spending issues (but he could add to the already existing problems by further indiscriminate government spending) and unemployment is so high. There are serious flaws in our economy (we need to be innovative and take the lead back in manufacturing, exports) and society (the brightest young minds are not going into fields where they can even the playing field with foreign competitors) that have been brewing for decades. Americans became content with living in nice suburban homes and driving nice SUV's. Soon enough, other nations caught up as we lost our edge and jobs were lost in the process. The real change Obama should have been making tangible to the public mind was the change in attitude of competing with fellow Americans to an attitude of competing with the rest of the world. I'm not saying Obama didn't have this focus in mind, I'm just saying the discourse was too broad that many of his supporters used the message of change to give hope to their own selfish pursuits rather than to revitalize the world's greatest economy.

So what does this have to do with Hillary?

Reading a recent Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, I found myself envisioning what a Hillary Clinton presidency might look like. To be honest, this is something I would have been completely against before (prior to 2009), but with Obama struggling to find his niche in the executive role and the Tea Party manipulating elections nationwide, I began to entertain the idea of supporting Hillary in 2012 if she decides to run. Some say she's as liberal as they come, but in reality, I came into the 2008 primaries thinking Hillary was far more conservative than Obama (especially on foreign policy). Either way, the prospect of her versus Obama or a candidate right of the Tea Party assembly line, doesn't seem too bad to me at the moment. Maybe it's just misguided nostalgia for the mid-1990's but I honestly think now might be the right time for Hillary to give it another go.

The 10 Best Linebackers: 2005-2010

Being a Western NY sports guy, the arrival of Shawne Merriman in Buffalo intrigued me quite a bit. Although the Bills are notorious for acquiring players 3 years after their prime (Terrell Owens, Lawyer Milloy, Drew Bledsoe), the team has nothing to lose at this point (actually at 0-7, they still have 9 games to lose).

Even a modest contribution from Merriman would be an improvement over most of the Bills current defensive players. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting big things from Mr. "Lights Out", but I'd at least like to see what this guy can do in a Buffalo unifrom when healthy. Remember, this is the same player who finished 3rd in the AP Defensive Player of the Year voting in 2006 (finishing behind Jason Taylor and Champ Bailey).

If you're thinking Merriman can't contribute on the field without steroids, let me just remind you that #56 was suspended for steroid use prior to his 3rd place finish in the 2006 Defensive Player of the Year voting. In just 12 games after the suspension, Merriman tallied a league-leading 17 sacks as well as 4 forced fumbles. Knee and calf injuries have plagued Merriman since 2008. Up until that point, Merriman had made the Pro Bowl in all three seasons, including 2 First-Team All-Pro selections and 1 Second-Team All-Pro selection. If Merriman's legs can hold up, Buffalo will be getting an All-Pro linebacker whose still only 26 years old. For a team lacking a dominant pass rusher, this just might be what the doctor ordered.

Since I've already given you a little blast from the recent past, I thought why not come up with a list of the 10 Best Linebackers from 2005-2010. I guess this list is tailored to put Merriman on it at some point (because Merriman was drafted by the Chargers in 05') but I carefully constructed it to be as fair as possible.

1. Ray Lewis, Baltimore Ravens. The guy has been selected to eleven Pro Bowls in fourteen seasons. He doesn't every seem to fade away either. His Week 2 tackle against Darren Sproles in 2009 epitomized Lewis' career: always knowing where to make the right play at the right time. His technique is flawless.

2. Patrick Willis, San Francisco 49ers. Has made the Pro Bowl in every year since he was drafted in 2007. Also won Defensive Rookie of the Year. In his rookie season, Willis record 20 total tackles, 2 sacks, 1 forced fumble and 1 pass deflection against the Bucs in Week 16.

3. Brian Urlacher, Chicago Bears. Until injuries started to derail him midway through the 2008 season, a case could be made for Urlacher as the best linebacker from 2005 up until mid-2008. Urlacher won Defensive Player of the Year in 2005 and led his team to the Super Bowl in 2006. One play that will always endure in my mind is a play Urlacher chased down Michael Vick from behind in a primetime game in 2005. 

4. Demeco Ryans, Houston Texans. With Brian Cushing's controversial and explosive year in 2009, many forgot about Ryans, the heart and soul of the Texans defense. Ryans was named 2007 Defensive Rookie of the Year and has made two Pro Bowls in four seasons.

5. Joey Porter, Arizona Cardinals. If you asked Porter, he would be #1 on this list. A four-time Pro Bowler with 92 sacks in 11 seasons, Porter certainly deserves to be on this list.

6. James Harrison, Pittsburgh Steelers. Didn't see much playing time until 2007. From that point on, Harrison has made a major impact on Mike Tomlin's defense. Harrison won Defensive Player of the Year in 2009 and made the game-changing play in the Steelers Super Bowl win against the Cardinals the same year.

7. Lofa Tatupu, Seattle Seahawks. He made the Pro Bowl his first three years in the league. After missing all of 2009, Tatupu is looking like his usual self again this year.

8. Shawne Merriman, Buffalo Bills. Back in his "Lights Out" days, he left nothing on the field.

9. Mike Vrabel, Kansas City Chiefs. A versatile linebacker who was an integral part of the Patriots dynasty in the 2000's. Maybe his name looks like it shouldn't be on this list, but Vrabel was one of the constants on a defense that won 3 Super Bowls.

10. Jon Beason, Carolina Panthers. Because he came out the same year Willis did (see #2) Beason is often overshadowed when people discuss talented young linebackers. Beason has played in two Pro Bowls in three years and finished runner-up to Willis in Defensive Rookie of the Year voting in 2007.

Petreaus-Pawlenty 2012: A likely win the Tea Party wouldn't let happen.

Does the Tea Party like winning or does it just like to be provocative? In less than two years, we will find out the answer to that question when the 2012 presidential election is held. Even before then, Tea Partiers will have an incredible amount of influence in choosing who the 2012 Republican presidential nominee will be. Judging from its power grab in the 2010 midterm elections, the Tea Party will back one of their own (probably Sarah Palin) and try as best as they can to undermine the support for a more centrist candidate.

This is foolhardy in my opinion. If the Tea Party really wants to remove President Obama, they should do so using a realistic approach. If Palin wins the nomination, she will garner no across-the-aisle support (McCain had some support from Democrats from older voters in 2008). On top of that, her image cannot be resuscitated among independents. 2008 did too much damage to the Palin brand. Unless the country bends backwards before 2012, independents will want nothing to do with Mama Grizzly.

Unfortunately for those non-Tea Partyers who want an alternative to Obama, the Tea Party will likely decide who that challenger will be. Qualified candidates from the Republican party will be pushed aside or more likely decide not to run at all because of Tea Party bullying. What we won't see in 2012 is what happened in 2008: a moderate Republican winning the Republican nomination. Sorry moderates, but your place in the party is being hijacked. 

So expect a Tea Party-backed candidate in 2012. Although it's a wide-open field with plenty of time left until the race, the likely front runners look to be Palin and Mike Huckabee at this point. Too bad, because a ticket with General David Petreaus would have been a sure win for Obama opponents. If 2012 becomes an election year about national security (which I think it very well may become), no one would shine brighter than Petreaus, the greatest military figure of his generation. Pair him with Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (a guy with bonafide executive experience and success) and you have yourself a dream ticket for 2012. 

Too bad Petreaus will likely never enter the political arena. With the Tea Party looking over the shoulder of any non-supporter, it looks like many qualified men or women will not throw their hat in the ring. Rather, the Tea Party will only attack the current Republican establishment in hopes of elevating their own status in the national scene. Someone should tell the Tea Partyers that the Thirteen Colonies won the Revolution, they didn't just show up to lose the battles.

CNBC Debate: Mandy Drury or Erin Burnett



I love watching television. There's just something about staring at a screen and believing everything I see on it is so much better than real life. I actually came up with a rule for my TV watching habits about a year ago. The rule goes, if a certain show makes me dumber for watching it, I can't watch. Therefore, no VH1. I do make exceptions however (Jersey Shore, Real World, even though those are on MTV) because the humor in some shows actually makes me more intelligent (in terms of pop culture knowledge).


Recently, I've been glued to CNBC (the channel definitely passes my rule). The programs on the channel follow the day's market and then at night when the market closes, it usually goes to special programming (Biography on CNBC is one of my favorites). In terms of access, CNBC has great interview segments with major business leaders around the world. Their TV personalities are extremely knowledgable and know how to play the part as well as look the part.


Any casual or serious viewer of CNBC will notice the undeniable sex appeal of their female anchors. Perhaps they've caught onto the trend that sex sells (tried and true since the Stone Ages) because many of the veteran personalities have been "sexing" it up as of late. A key example is Erin Burnett (pictured above on the right). Burnett is a 34-year old former businesswoman who co-anchors Squawk on the Street. From her background, one might not expect Burnett to be your typical knockout. She graduated from Williams College and worked as a financial analyst for Goldman Sachs before moving into media. If you check her out from back in the day, you will certainly notice Burnett has a very "cute" look, but not necessarily a "sexy" one.


One of Burnett's colleagues is named Amanda Drury. Mandy, as she is affectionately called, hosts several shows on CNBC. A recent addition, Drury comes from the Land Down Under, graduating from the University of Melbourne and working for CNBC Asia before her arrival in the states. As opposed to Burnett, you can tell Drury has always been the hottest girl in the room wherever she is. CNBC execs are not shy about letting Mandy go on the air with suggestive clothing (pictured above on the left) and male viewers (and some female I'm sure) probably don't mind to say the least (my friend and fellow blogger informed me how his office does not allow his coworkers to watch CNBC anymore because anchors like Drury are too distracting and decrease productivity).


Burnett and Drury both are bonafide eye candy. No one can deny this fact. Whereas Drury (imagine the girl pictured above with an authentic Australian accent and incredible business knowledge) is the "I know I'm hot, you can only have me in your dreams" kind-of-girl, Burnett is the girl who has just realized how attractive she really is and wants everyone to know it (the smartest girl you know, who can rock a business suit and make you think she's the coolest girl you know as well). Personally, I really think guys' preference for Burnett or Drury comes down to the classic blonde vs. brunette debate. Most guys I know say, "I'd fuck the blonde, then marry the brunette." What proper language indeed. But to be honest, this is what all guys talk about. Some guys are for blondes others brunettes. Me? I like both, but nobody likes a waffler.


So in the debate that is Burnett vs. Drury, I will have to side with Burnett. Although blondes may have more fun, score one for the brunettes in this case.

Was Obama's 2008 election victory Tea Party-esque?

I admire Barack Obama. I'm not a fan, but I admire him. What I like about him is he has to put up with so much shit, but he still rolls with the punches. The whole religion controversy (Is he Muslim or Christian) and citizenship issue (Is he really an American?) were so contrived that you would expect no one to even entertain their validity. Alas, many Americans were gung-ho about Obama's purported origins and their conviction that he didn't "belong." I don't understand their reasoning but apparently many hyper-partisan conservatives who prefer to add "Hooooo-sane" to his full name do. No wonder Stephen Colbert can write so many jokes by just paraphrasing certain conservative rhetoric.

Despite the appeal of Obama (which I definitely see where it comes from), I don't think it's anything groundbreaking or extraordinary. Obama is an ideas-oriented guy. The Obama speaking-doll would mainly say two phrases: "Change" and "Yes, We Can." His narrative of transforming this nation is where the "Change" slogan comes from. The "Yes, We Can" suggests that anyone (young people, the lower class) can participate. But ask a good portion of Obama voters in 2008 why they voted for him and you will probably hear generic campaign vernacular. This is not surprising. Obama capitalizes on capturing the imagination of his voters through flowery, prophetic talk. You know who else could pull that off? The Old Gipper, Ronald Reagan.


So that leads to the main theme for this post. Did Obama's election victory in 2008 have elements of Tea Party support? Well, to start off, let's just say no one from the Tea Party was going to the polls for Obama in 2008. With that idea out of the question, what the heck am I referring to?


The Tea Party is celebrated and despised for having a lack of political experience and grassroots culture. Therefore, the appeal of their candidates comes from their image as Washington-outsiders yet their flaws lie in the fact that they don't know how to govern. What's interesting about the Tea Party is their lower to middle class background and their previous inexperience with politics. Not to stereotype the group, but the latter characteristic explains why many in the movement don't understand how the government works currently. All in all, the movement's supporters are passionate, hard-working Americans who just started to get involved with politics as soon as the going got tough.

Now take a look at where Obama's support was coming from in 2008. What kind of adjectives would describe them? Lack of political experience (for most young people and those caught in the hysteria of 'Yes, We Can')? How about grassroots culture?

The question is, is it fair for liberals to attack the Tea Party for being a bit misinformed on politics (of course they would be if they weren't in the game until recently) and grassroots in nature? Admittedly, I know the argument against the Tea Party doesn't focus on their grassroots aspect, however, it uses that theme to create the perception that they are a bunch of bumbling Americans without any legitimate voice (they would be legitimate if there were some "intellectuals" in their leadership and therefore their opinions would "actually" matter). But the liberal attitude is don't pay attention to these less-than-average informed voters if they don't agree with liberal policies. After all, they weren't excluding supporters in 08' who could say little more than "We need change" and "Yes, We Can."