Ford needs a better ad man

It's a maximally ineffective TV car ad.  It starts off with an animated cartoon of a SUV.  As the voice over explains that the SUV is too small to hold all the passengers.  The cartoon car shows bulges all of a sudden.  Then they melt down the cartoon car and redraw it. A happy voice over now explains how everyone fits inside, now.    That uses up half the ad time.
  Then we finally get to see a photo of the car they are trying to sell.  It bursts thru a big sheet of wallpaper.  The car is not on screen long enough to really see it.  It's painted mud color.  It has an odd name "C-Max" which is never spelled out on screen.   It has three grownups squeezed into the back seat looking squashed which kinda negates the point the cartoons tried to make.  Price is not given. 
   That ad ain't gonna sell cars.
   To sell a car on TV  you want to show the car,.early and all the way thru.  You want to show the car name prominently and early, 'cause cars all look alike these days.  Give the car a real pronounceable name rather than random strings of letters and numbers.Show people doing fun things in the car at interesting places.  For instance parked at a beach with surfboards on the roof.  Or with skis on the roof at a ski resort.  Or towing a boat trailer to a fishing spot. Or beside a tent at a scenic campground.  And paint the car a real color, not mud.

Facebook Privacy Probably does not exist

Monday's Wall St Journal had a piece headlined "Guide to Facebook's Privacy Options. I just spent half an hour checking my options. It's complicated and many options are so deeply hidden you are unlikely to find them without a road map. I think the wise facebooker considers all facebook posts public and refrains from posting anything embarrassing or that might turn off a future employer.

A Sweet Deal

The US Department of Agriculture is planning to buy 400,000 tons of sugar to prop up sugar prices.  That's $168 million worth of sugar, at the March price of 21.03 cents a pound.  Where is that sequester when you need it?
   According to the Wall St Journal, USDA is motivated by a desire to prevent bankruptcy among sugar producers who have borrowed $862 million from USDA this growing season.  If the producers go broke, Uncle doesn't get paid back, at least not in dollars.  Apparently the sugar borrowers pledge their crops as security for the loans.  If they don't have money, they give the sugar to Uncle Sam instead of dollars.  Last time this happened, 2000,  Uncle wound up the proud owner of  one million tons of sugar. At least sugar isn't perishable, that gives bureaucrats some years to figure out how to get rid of it.  The 2008 farm bill calls for this sugar to be made into ethanol and added to gasoline. 
   In addition to cheap loans and price supports, the sugar industry gets tariff protection.  World sugar prices are only 18 cents a pound, compared with 21 cents a pound inside the US.   The National Confectioners Association, big sugar consumers, claim the sugar producers have cost US consumers $14 billion in higher sugar prices since the 2008 farm bill passed.
  One bright spot.  Our democratic senator, Jeanne Shaheen calls this swindle  "unacceptable" and is sponsoring a bill to "give the USDA more flexibility in handling the sugar program".  More flexibility my foot, she ought to sponsor a bill to shut this scam down completely.
 

World's most famous stove pipe comes out of storage

The Vatican's chimney, the one that puffs white smoke or black smoke to signal election or non election of a new pope was on TV the other day.  Vatican workers were shown installing it in the roof of the Sistine Chapel.  Damn.  You would think that the world famous chimney would be solid masonry, there all the time,  not a piece of stove pipe kept in some storage place except for papal elections.  If for no other reason, Vatican tout guides would love to be able to point out the famous chimney to tourists. 

There oughta be law

Against telemarketers who ring your phone and then fail to answer when you pick up.  Penalties might include boiling in oil, keel hauling, and hanging from the nearest phone pole. 

Green Eggs and Ham, #1 in hard cover fiction

It's been a week and Dr, Suess still dominates the Wall St Journal best sellers list.  Of the 10 entries in hard cover fiction, 6 of them are Dr. Suess.  Green Eggs and Ham is now the number 1 best seller. 

New York Times makes up new science

The Times ran an article about Shaun Marcott and his team at Oregon State University.   Marcott claims to have "read" earth's temperature going back 11 thousand years.  Naturally (for the NYT) Marcott's temperature "reading" shows temperature's were colder than today, for the last 11 thousand years.  Global warming rides again.
  Naturally the Times didn't both to explain just how Marcott was able to measure the temperate 10,000 years ago.  That's actually quite a trick.  Many global warmers have made mistakes, like claiming tree ring wide indicates temperate.  (It indicates rainfall).
  The Times also quotes the notorious Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State.  Mann was exposed in the great Hadley Climate Research Unit document leak as an very partisan warmist not above fudging his results to get the answers that he wants. 
  Finally, the Times declares a solution to the age old question of "what caused the ice ages".  This has been a topic of discussion for the last century or more.  There are dozens of theories kicking around, none of them convincing enough to become generally accepted.  But this doesn't stop our NYT warmists.  The Times boldy declares that variation in the heat of the Sun causes ice ages.  Sun gets colder and we have an ice age.
Trouble with this theory is that instrument readings don't support it.  We have solar output readings going back to the beginnings of artificial satellites.  The instruments are sensitive enough to show the 11 year sun spot cycle.  But they don't show any long term variation at all.  Solar output today is exactly the same as it was 40 years ago (date of earliest satellite observations).   Which suggests that the Sun burns at the same level all the time.   
  Glad to hear that the Times is so scientifically hep, throwing out new theories as if they were generally accepted.  I always believe what I read in the Times.