Saddlebacking Unveiled


As it must be hard not to know at this point Rick Warren recently gave the invocation at the inauguration of President Obama and as you my listeners are likely to already know he’s not a fan of people catching the gay. Some may believe this is due to the church’s close naming convention to Brokeback and Bare Back however, let us not digress to far. Today is a triumph of democracy as Dan Savage of Savage Love has helped us to define the true meaning behind Saddlebacking. The love columnist who popularized the term Santorum by pointing out there is also a senator of the same name has opened a vote for the term Saddlebacking and here is your winner:

Saddlebacking: sad•dle•back•ing \ˈsa-dəl-ˈba-kiŋ\ vb [fr. Saddleback Church] (2009): the phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in order to preserve their virginities

After attending the Purity Ball, Heather and Bill saddlebacked all night because she’s saving herself for marriage. Unfortunately her parents found out because they got santorum all over the sheets.


Find out more about Saddlebacking at saddlebacking.com

But I liked hating that guy.


Well, crap. I had a passion that left me feeling good; hating those infomercial salesmen. First it was Billy Mays, who has made we sit bolt upright in bed in a hotel room on more than one occasion after falling asleep with the TV on. I pride myself in that I have never purchased a single item from Billy Mays or his Chuck Norris like beard, despite him shouting at me about how good OxiClean is. The best quote I have found yet: Washington Post staff writer Frank Ahrens called him “a full-volume pitchman, amped up like a candidate for a tranquilizer-gun takedown”.

But, more recently, I have turned to hating Billy’s douchebaggy replacement, Vince. Vince sells products like the ShamWoW! which after further inspection is not a Warcraft Shaman Powerlevelling service. Vince has a different approach then Billy, prefering more to stare wildly into the camera and not blink you into buying whatever he’s peddling.

Turns out that the not blinking thing has a source. And after reading this article from Skepchick.com I have reluctantly had to shoulder the hate I have for these guys in order to fuel the other hate I have for the Church of Scientology.

Turns out Vince is a castaway from the CoS and is using the money he makes from selling his products into paying to fight the cult.

From the article,

He filed suit against them in 2004 for ruining his movie, his life, his business, and being dickholes. I couldn’t find any information on the outcome of this lawsuit, but according to ESPN, Vince is still fighting the good fight. And he is using every dime he makes from selling ShamWows and SlapChop as well as all the proceeds from Underground Comedy to fight them.

Taking on Scientology is one of the bravest things a former member can do. The Church doesn’t take kindly to dissent. Though they claim that fair game is no longer a Scientologist policy, there are plenty of stories to indicate that fair game is still alive and well, if technically “unofficial”.

Good luck Vince.

Pelosi Says No to Alcatraz


There are many proposals being kicked around as to what to do with our foolish friends at Gitmo when the prison closes.  Nancy Pelosi has decided that she doesn’t want the terrorists in her state.  Great!  Not in my back yard.  I get that, but her justification is pretty lame.

“Alcatraz is a tourist attraction. It’s a prison that is now sort of like a — it’s a national park.”

Pelosi has obviously missed the boat here.  If you say “tourist” with a Texas accent you get “terrorist”.  Just a little change in marketing and you can now sell it to the people.  But let’s look further into this.  It’s a national park.  It’s a prison, that is a tourist attraction, and is a national park.  What do you call a park that attracts tourists and is a prison?  It’s called a zoo.  Add some Al-Qaeda baboons and you’re all set.

Kennedy Qualifications


Just seen on TV. CNN poll says 42% think Kennedy is Qualified, 21% don’t know, 27% say no. Of course she’s qualified. She’s a Kennedy.

Posted from a href=’http://sampath.wordpress.com/moblog’moBlog/a – mobile blogging tool for Windows Mobile

The Web vs. Economics


I found this little nugget in an article written by Owen Thomas over at Valleywag.

It seems that LiveJournal might be going the way of the carrier pigeon.  Their parent company, Sup, a Moscow-based company, has laid off 20 of LJ’s 28 employees with no warning or severance and blamed it all on a “downturn in the economy”.

The article goes on to talk about other social networking sites that may be going out of business in the near future, but I’d like to take a look at a larger concept.

How do websites justify the ridiculous amounts of money that they “earn”?

Advertising?  Seriously, do you know anyone who has ever clicked an ad banner?  I have a hard time finding someone who doesn’t have ad blocking software integrated with their browser.  I don’t blame web companies for cashing in on this phenomenon.   If someone offered me a million bucks per year to put ads all over my website, I’d do it too.  What I’m wondering is why companies pay incredible sums of money to advertise on the web or on TV.  Ad revenue is the driving force behind things like

I understand advertising.  I understand the business need to get your name out to the public in order to increase interest in your product.  However, the dollar amounts here are far beyond the point of getting any kind of reasonable return on investment.

Citigroup paid 400 million dollars for naming rights at the New York Mets’ new stadium. Wait a minute.  Do you mean the same Citigroup that recently took billions of dollars in bailout money from the Federal government?  The same folks who are begging for dollars from Uncle Sugar are spending 400 million bucks to name a baseball stadium?  (the same baseball stadium that was paid for by taxpayer dollars?)  The same Citigroup that paid millions to have their name attached to the annual Rose Bowl game?

I have a special message for all of you Madison Avenue types out there.  We don’t watch 99% of the commercials that you throw out there.  Thanks to the two greatest inventions of all time, the TiVO and the remote control, we either fast forward through commercials when we are watching a recorded show, or flip channels to something else while commercials are running on live TV.  You’re paying millions of dollars for ad time that viewers spend going to the restroom, making a sandwich, walking the dog, changing the channel, or outright fast-forwarding past.  Web advertisers?  If your ad is seen by a million users (and that is a seriously optimistic case, given ad blocking software), let’s say that you get a click-through rate of 1% (according to this article, the actual click-through rate was 0.5% back in 1998)  That leaves us with 10,000 people who clicked your ad.  Of that, let’s say that 10% of those users actually buy your widget. (The number in the article is 12%)  That’s 1,000 sales or a 0.1% rate of success for your advertising.

So, using that number as our basis, let’s look at a Super Bowl ad.   Last year, the Super Bowl was viewed by a record audience of 97.5 million people.  If we use the figure of 3 million dollars for airtime and tack on another couple of million for other costs (actors, filming, ad exec salary, etc) we have a nice round figure of 5 million dollars.  0.1% of 97.5 million is 97,500 people who purchased your good or service because of your Super Bowl ad.  Let’s round that up to an even 100,000 people.  5 million dollars for 100,000 sales comes out to 50 bucks per “widget”.   Do you know anyone who would pay 50 bucks for a case of Budweiser?  Pepsi?  Tostitos?  Pizza Hut?

Pets dot-freakin-com?

If I were an advertiser, I would focus my efforts on being “easy-to-find”.  I’d make focus on an online presence and make sure that if someone searched the web for “widgets” that my company would be one of the first one’s found.  To that end, I can understand how Google makes a ton of money.  Search engines are ideal for advertising because people are looking for you.  Paying a ton of money to expose your company to an indifferent (at best) audience is not a good investment.

Oh, and for the record, I still have no freakin’ clue what insight.com is or why they have their own bowl game, and I have absolutely no desire to find out.

Madoff Victims Get Bailout


Another sign the country has gone to hell. Apparently the Madoff victims are going to get a bailout.  Not the traditional bailout we’ve seen, but it is the usual spreading the wealth, or rather loss in this case.  Apparently everyone who cashed in before Madoff’s ponzi scheme collapsed must give back both their earnings and principal.  Apparently authorities are going to use a similar case as legal guidance.

In October 2008 a judge in the Bayou case, Adlai Hardin Jr., ruled that investors who cashed out their interests within two years of the scheme’s exposure had to hand back their principal as well as their profits—even though they were innocent victims of the swindle—if there was evidence that they got out because they suspected, or had been warned, there was something amiss. (The court also ordered profits made within the last six years to be surrendered.)

Mitchell Banas, a lawyer who represents an endowment for Christian Brothers High School in Memphis—which got its money out of the Bayou fraud before it collapsed but now must return both profits and principal—says the outcome is “extremely unfair.”

So, if I’m reading this right if you invest in the stock market and you lose, then you can expect everyone who cashed out to pay you off.  Following this logic any stock holders of Enron who got out before the collapse should be paying their entire investment (read savings) out to the losers who were holding stock on the day Enron collapsed.  This explains why our government is bailing out GM and Chrysler.  Some idiots seem to believe that the winners will bail out the losers.  This means that our free market system is going down the toilet.  Las Vegas will also be wiped off the map due to this sort of thinking.  I also believe it is a racist policy.  Think of all the Indian reservations that will go out of business if the house has to share it’s winnings with people that lose money.