that's what she said!

Now while I am a complete supporter of cancer research, and consider it to be a serious issue, one cannot but help but wonder how Colon Cancer Canada considered this was the best slogan they could choose from:

Never the best idea, to stick sexual innuendos on the mind of potential donors, when they go to pull out...their cheque books, that is.

A very serious cause, no doubt...but this is borderline ridiculous.

you don't make friends with salad

It is so rare that in a marketing relationship I can be so proud of one side, while so loathsome of the other, at the same time. Yet my perennial favourite advertisers, Burger King (with CP+B at the helm) have managed to do just that, with everyone's favourite gold digger, Heather Mills.

Apparently Mills has decided to spread the good word about BK's new veggie burger...and in her infinite kindness, is only taking a $4 million commission...awwww.

From a marketing standpoint, this is brilliant once again on Burger King's part, as this has already made a ton of buzz in the news, and even if Mills is a PR disaster without a leg to stand on (I'm sorry, I just had to), BK still benefits from getting the word out. McDonald's has struggled for years to move their vegetarian products, especially burgers, so any market advantage will help. But from a moral standpoint, Linda McCartney must be spinning in her grave over this.

Mills is, keep in mind, marketing a veggie burger for the burger chain that actually keeps a serious face on about selling a 4-patty burger, stuffed with only bacon and cheese in between. She is marketing for a company that represents a vegan nightmare, whether it is from just the mass consumption by its rotund customers, or the environmental disaster caused by BK and other chains like it, with their less-than-moral food processing methods. Even if the veggie burger sells a million units, the Whopper will still sell 10 million, and even Sir Paul himself cannot stop BK from ever selling meat products.

Some say (probably Mills herself) that even with a company like Burger King, this promotion will still be a benefit, as it may turn potential meat-eaters into vegetarians...what they seem to fail to realize is that (A) not only are you trying to turn a meat-eater in a goddamn BURGER KING, with odors of the sweet temptress of bacon and cheese surrounding the joint, but (B) you are doing so with a FAST FOOD VEGGIE BURGER...while I am no culinary expert, they quite frequently taste like shit. If you are going to turn a meatie into a veggie, do it with taste (literally).

With the extra PR going BK's way aside, this just seems so wrong on so many levels. Mills is supporting a veggie burger nobody will buy, from a company contributing so much to the McDonaldization (ironic, I know) of society, agriculture and the environment, and taking a $4 million pay cut to boot.

Media mongering - that's where Heather's a viking!


(MAR. 24 UPDATE: So Heather's manager said she has not signed this contract after all...however, they said that Mills "would love to get vegan burgers or any vegan food out there via any avenue possible and Burger King would be a great place to begin." So I still stand by what I said. Byaaah!)

why is our children not learning any longer?

Since when did TLC stop being "The Learning Channel", and become "The Mundane Reality Shows Depicting Everyday Life Channel"?

Sure, it may have been boring back in the 90's...but it was for Learning! The big three may have had all those jazzy shows, but where else could I watch Beakman's World, Bill Nye or hope to catch a peek of a nasty surgery drama before being busted by my parents?

And yet, when I flip over to Channel 34 now, I get my varitable pick of the litter from:

- Miami/LA Ink
- Little People, Big World
- Shalom In The Home
- Jon And Kate Plus 8
- What Not To Wear
- Say Yes To The Dress

And finally, the pseudo-awesomely titled: Honey, We're Killing The Kids.

Apparently the network is hung up on rhyming titles, playing off stereotypes, and highlighting snobby, bitchy women (and the people who try to bring their big heads back down to Earth).

I can understand the rebranding towards more life-based shows, as TLC is now owned by The Discovery Network...but really? This low? They've already greenlighted 18 Kids And Counting, highlighting the every god-fearing move an Evangelical Arksansas family of 18 (cue the Deliverance banjo), who apparently were airlifted straight from the YFZ Ranch...so what's next?

Cash For Your Trash?
Obese People, Little House?
Say Yes To The 4-Year Limited Warranty Auto Lease?

It would seem that, yes W., our children is learning less and less, by each minute of the Take Home Chef marathon that passes...only on TLC!

Dey're tekkin our jerbs!

I can't believe this is even a topic of discussion. The fact someone gets paid to ask why Tim Roth, a British actor, chooses to use his own accent on his new show, Lie To Me, is simply mind-boggling. But since I am a student of the mundane arts, let's debate it, shall we?

Apparently, the dispute that Maclean's writer Jamie Weinman has is that Americans (notice how he doesn't include his own Canadians in the fold?) love "everymen" (and women) on their television shows, while the foreign accents belong with the darker, foreign characters...your Charles Widmores, your Simon Cowells, and just about any bad-guy on 24. Americans just cannot embrace their heroes, whether it be Dr. House (Hugh Laurie, a Brit), Dr. Troy (Julian McMahon, an Aussie), or any other mix in between, if they are not seemingly as American as imported apple pie.

But Weinman feels the time has changed for Americans to now beginning to embrace, and I quote, "furriners" in the lead on television, no longer hiding their accents. While he feels that the case of Roth, an excellent classically trained actor, in Lie To Me makes him seem like a "nerdy James Bond," the accent brings a sense of mystery and intrigue to the character that brings perhaps the only interest to the show (yes, I am trying to keep up...with intense struggle sometimes). The fact Maclean's actually chose to devote space to the show is itself a mystery.

But even if America is ready for this "massive change" (did anybody bother to ask the Brits? The Aussies? Even us Canadians?), does this mark the overhaul of the TV and film industries, to "reform" proper accent acting? Quentin Tarantino turned down Leo DiCaprio to play a Nazi in his latest, Inglorious Basterds, in favour of an Austrian actor, Christoph Waltz...could this be because of DiCaprio's inability to hit his German stride? Or because QT wants to avoid a laughingstock like Valkryie, where Tom Cruise and Kenneth Branagh exchanged supposedly German speak in upstate New York and Irish accents interchangeably?

While I would personally like to see films at least attempt to try and pull off the best accent while still speaking English, as opposed to just settling on British English (Schindler's List good, Gladiator bad), to get this literal will just cause more headaches. The beauty of acting is being able to embrace different characters: their traits, their behaviour...even their accents. That's how "furriners" playing Americans (Anthony Hopkins, Daniel Day-Lewis), or vice versa (Marlon Brando, Meryl Streep) got their Oscar gold.

A person's accent, or acting at covering it up, should not even be considered "taboo" (as Weinman does) as it is just a part of the job. When done well, it can work beautifully. In the case of Roth, where they spin their accent into the part of the character, it can work just as well. But when you try and jump the gun by putting a top actor with a wild accent, you get the likes of Cruise in Valkryie. You get Gerard Butler in, well, basically everything he's done.

And perhaps worst of all...you get Dennis Hopper on 24.

Mola-mekka chala mekka hola hayla hey!

Hawaii is mad at Saturday Night Live for mocking their tourism industry, claiming their workers are underpaid, and their biggest export is "fat white tourists!" They argue SNL portrays Hawaiian culture as being "compressed" for the sake of their tourists, thus sullying their proud culture and heritage.

Obviously, they have the right to be upset, but let's face some facts:
(A) without Tina Fey or Amy Poehler anymore, SNL is meaningless.
(2) tourists don't stay away from Hawaii because of the recession; they only stay away if the Lost cast is on the interstate.
(D) when the hell is Hawaii ever going to stop being a huge vacation destination?

and finally...

what makes Hawaiians think they're so special that any other place in the world can't attract their own

fat

obnoxious

nerdy

stereotypical tourists?

with apologies to Wanda Sykes

I would not consider myself to be the type who can get "starstruck." Whenever the Toronto Film Festival rolls into town, I am not the type to start sprinting towards any crowd in the hopes of potentially seeing any, some celebrity (unlike my significant other); rather, I try avoiding said crowds, for fear of being trampled by overzealous teenagers and cougars alike trying to snag a picture of Matt Damon with his head down.

However, if I had to name one person who would "strike" me, that man is Larry David. Hands down, no contest, L.D.

Whether I can say he'd be excited, grateful, or just pissed off to be confronted by a fan, who knows. I love the guy to death, and everything he touches, whether it be Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, or even clips of Fridays I can track down. His bitterness is brilliant, his over-analyzing of the most mundane issues is brilliant, and his willingness to slam anyone and anything with a simple case of misunderstanding is legendary.

At least, I hope anyone and anything.

News broke this week that the full cast of Seinfeld will reunite on Curb this upcoming season (which never seems to arrive), and while Jerry, Jason Alexander and Julia Louis-Dreyfus have appeared solo on CYE, they have never as a group, Jerry was only in the show for a quick moment, and Michael Richards has yet to appear. It will be the first time in over 11 years the "New York Four" appear together, no less on the show created by the show's original show-runner.

But what to talk about?

Do they just completely ignore the events of the last three years? Is Richards' Laugh Factory incident completely shrugged off in favour of another storyline, likely some sort of storyline that continues the cast's quest for recognition other than their Seinfeld roles? I don't think it should, and I really hope Larry David does not hold back either. CYE has not been shy about digging up skeletons in the closets on past guests (just look at Richard Lewis' alcoholism being spoofed time and time again), and Michael Richards' regrettable fall should be treated no differently.

Enough time has passed to spoof it before (see: South Park), Richards has repeatedly apologized, and can reconcile for good with the help of his former foursome. Curb has also had no qualms about using the "N" word, actually naming an episode "The N Word" in the last season, based on Larry's constant mis-use of the word, and the odd circumstances in which he barely escapes with his life as a result. Showcasing Richards' struggles to get back into the mainstream following the incident can be therapy playing out for the audience to see, a form of vindication for Richards to regain some respect in the entertainment community by not only poking fun at his own expense, but by having the Seinfeld cast of all people doing so.

Plus, let's face it...the untapped comic potential of this situation, and even Richards on Curb, is golden. Jason and Julia have been used (and in some cases, nearly overused) already, and Jerry Seinfeld hasn't gotten anywhere near his comic high in at least ten years. He very well could gain some of it back here, but he is still certainly a gamble.

The answer is in Richards: can you just imagine the potential showdown with Wanda Sykes? The uncomfortable first meeting of Larry's new black "girlfriend" Loretta? Trying to convince Leon Black he, too can be "his caucasian"?

So please, Larry. Prettay...prettay...prettay please. Don't let the K-Man off the hook for this one.

(And while we're on the subject, Woody Allen is on your show this year too, right? Any word on the Soon-Yi cameo?)

Crazy Uncle Don

There's a good reason political analysts don't discuss sports: because they're trained to discuss politics, not sports.

Campbell Brown would make just as bad a Monday Night Football sideline reporter as Suzy Kolber would make host of Face The Nation. Politics have their place in the world, yet that is outside the sports world. The times they have tried to cross, they have failed miserably, most notably with Dennis Miller on MNF and Rush "The Magic Douchebag" Limbaugh on Sunday NFL Countdown.

When it happens in America, this is considered a violation of the sacred code of sports talk. Perhaps because sports are meant for sports, for broadcasters to rant about anything but is considered blasphemy to the most fanatical sports fans. If you think about it, Sunday NFL Countdown is the only medium that was able to successfully shut Rush Limbaugh up, which is no easy task by any means. (Perhaps Michael Steele can learn some lessons from Swami and Co...)

So how come in Canada we allow it every Saturday night?

Yes, it's one of those "should we love or scorn" Don Cherry pieces folks, and its not only over his absolutely horrendous, Liberace-esque choice of clothing. It's because week in and week out, Canada lets Don Cherry rant about whatever the hell he wants, and while his hockey-related comments are controversial enough, we let him cross the threshold into racism, xenophobia and uber-conservatism without so much as a hiccup. The argument has been said that Cherry is "like that uncle, who always speaks his mind no matter what, and no matter how much you disagree, you still love the guy". But is that right? When are we supposed to tell Crazy Uncle Don to shut up already?

The controversy has stemmed recently over Cherry's comments on Alexander Ovechkin, who is now undoubtedly the sport's biggest star (in North America and abroad, an appeal that Sidney Crosby doesn't have), in claiming that his exuberant goal celebrations will one day come back to haunt him. Regardless of my opinion on Ovechkin and his personality, you cannot argue his presence marks a changing trend in the sport, and those who still have their minds stuck in hockey's recent glory era of the early 90's (the days of Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Messier and Roy), believe the sport has been "damaged" somehow. It is time to pack up, move on, and embrace the future, and the future passes through Ovechkin, whether you like it or not.

To call Don Cherry an "old school" kind of guy is obviously redundant: we've known that for years. But does it make what he does right? Of course not...it is quite obvious part of his major problem with Ovechkin is that he is a Russian, and he has had no shame in sharing his dislike of European players over the past twenty years. Perhaps it is because Eastern Europeans have now settled in North America for some time now that we are not offended, as they are no longer the "new" stereotype on our radar (could you imagine the backlash if Cherry went after a Hispanic, Asian or Middle Eastern player?), but that is still ethnic stereotyping, still xenophobia.

Making this all the more entertaining is the fact that Ovechkin could care less about Cherry. While other players (mostly French Canadians, as they still grew up on Grapes) have recoiled in fear over the comments about them on Coach's Corner, Ovechkin simply shrugged him off, claiming "he’s not interesting to me, I don't care about him," followed by the bold accusation that Cherry is simply "jealous" of him and Russians altogether. While Cherry has yet to offer a rebuttal, he will surely be pissed.

Thinking Ovechkin is just a young punk with attitude, who will get his someday. Perhaps that's true, who knows. But it is not for Cherry to decide. Bad publicity is still publicity, and whether Ovechkin is the cockiest bastard on the planet or not, that does not hurt the sport...it only popularizes it. Look to the likes of Terrell Owens, Alex Rodriguez or Dwight Howard for your proof.

But what will riling him up more do? Will he launch into a tirade on Russians on-air? Will he chastize the league for allowing Europeans into the league at all? Even Americans perhaps? French Canadians? And when does it cross the line from complaining about European players in the league to being about Europeans crossing the pond and sullying the Anglo-Protestant stronghold that has dominated Canada since the 1700s? When does his support of the troops on behalf of the NHL turn into an attack on our largely-liberal society for supporting Barack Obama, but not the War In Iraq? And most importantly, should we even wait?

I do not seek to attack Cherry and his entire career, as he has done tremendous things for the sport of hockey, the development of young players who are now flourishing in the league, and the various charities he parttakes in. He is an honourable man for the most part, and while I would have certainly not put him in my Top Ten Greatest Canadians, he has certainly had quite an impact, for better or for worse. But is charitable work enough? Is it okay if Jerry Lewis runs a telethon, even though he degrades women and gays on said telethon? For science's sake, even Rush Limbaugh has a charity!

I only mention Rush again because this ESPN article, which largely introduces an unknown Cherry to the American hockey community, calls Cherry "part John Madden, part Rush Limbaugh." But why should we even have that? A man who speaks his mind is one thing, but a man who uses his soapbox to spurt out largely racist, xenophobic and, frankly, outdated and stale rhetoric (that has nothing to do with sports, remember!) does not belong in sports.

Long story short: Can it, old man.

And take Elliotte Friedman with you on your way out.