or you could just sing kum-bay-yah.
I have no idea how to spell that. Kumbyah? Koombaya? Cumbayah? LL Cool J?
CBS’ Survivor recently announced their intention to divide teams by race for the upcoming season of the waning-in-popularity series.
This has caused an uproar, of course… as well I think it should, especially when people like Rush Limbaugh use it as an opportunity to share their views about which race will prove a “winner.”
Eccch.
So I thought I’d help out by offering new ways to divide the teams that they might not have considered yet:
- PC users vs. Mac users
- Hockey fans vs. Football fans
- Lottery ticket buyers vs. Compulsive gamblers
- Lactose intolerant people vs. People with nut allergies
- Fans of Linkin Park vs. Fans of Tool
- Elvis impersonators vs. Michael Jackson lookalikes
- OCD sufferers vs. People with ADD
- Old Coke lovers vs. Those who liked New Coke
- Democrats and Republicans
- Polygamists vs. Feminists
- East Coast Rap vs. West Coast Rap
- Telemarketers vs. Anger Management class-takers
- Playboy Bunnies vs. MIT Grads
I think any one of them could be huge. Any more suggestions to save CBS from marketing peril?
UPDATE for Matthew Sheffield’s readers: Hi! I would comment at Mr. Sheffield’s blog, but my “registration to comment” hasn’t been approved. This isn’t a political blog. I make this clear here. Mr. Sheffield apparently did a blog search for the keywords “Survivor” and “race” and mine was the only one that must have seemed “lib” enough to mention from his results (because I mentioned Mr. Limbaugh.) And I’m Canadian… so I don’t vote in US elections.
A few points:
- Rush Limbaugh’s comments were ill-founded, lacking in context, based on antiquated stereotypes, and entirely inflammatory (this is his stock in trade, people… it’s what he gets paid to do, like any other pundit.)
- “Pundit” is a funny word.
- I think there are plenty of conservatives who have issues with Rush Limbaugh and the way he plays fast and loose with facts and news. I think most people should have a problem with that. And I don’t think he cares.
- This post was primarily an excuse to make jokes about lactose intolerance and New Coke and telemarketers. Because that stuff is the essence of humour (note the Canadian “u”)
- I do, however, think that stupid comments will be made about CBS’ little controversy-builder on both sides of the political fence. And when I say “people like Rush Limbaugh”, I mean anyone who speaks without considering the consequences of their speech. Again, this occurs across the political spectrum.
- CBS’ was profoundly irresponsible in deciding to make race the object of a publicity stunt because the problem of racism (and I love the comment — “it’s racial, not racist.” Yes, division by race is “racial.” All the crap that inevitably follows is “racist”, however) is simply too large and too thorny to find any resolution, reasonable debate, or clarity within the context of a reality show. It’s like trying to tackle feminist debate on “America’s Next Top Model” or gender psychology on “The Bachelor.”
- There are people dying all over the world because of assumptions, beliefs, and biases connected with race, and while Mr. Burnett may view it as provocative entertainment or “pot-stirring”, I believe that it is nothing short of cold-blooded, regardless of any provisos or rules or systems he may put in place to seem more “PC.”
- New Coke jokes are STILL funny. Even after all these years. Huzzah!
August 31st, 2006 at 8:04 pm
I’d love to see liberal v. conservative pundits. Jon Stewart v. Geraldo, Al Franken v. Rush Limbaugh, Nancy Grace v. Samantha Bee, etc. But I think instead of Survivor they should do it like the old Battle of the Network Stars. They could use those giant Q-tip weapons and try to make each other fall off beams into pits of slime. It would be awesome.
Or they could just do Christians v Muslims v Jews v Hindus v atheists.
I find the whole thing offensive on so many levels. I don’t get how they can justify any part of it.
August 31st, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Talk about serendipity! I didn’t even know that you had posted something about Reality TV!
August 31st, 2006 at 8:44 pm
from my own life - I’d like to see People Who Tan vs. The Fishbelly Pale. I’ll let you guess which one I am.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:22 pm
cat people vs. dog people
coffee drinkers vs. tea drinkers
night owls vs. early birds (scheduling dual would prove quite difficult, i imagine)
September 1st, 2006 at 6:26 am
PC people v Politically Incorrect people
Blue v Gray
Spy v Spy
Shirts v Skins
Good v Evil
September 1st, 2006 at 7:06 am
Kumb v Aya
September 1st, 2006 at 7:41 am
From Salon today “Coca-Cola, Home Depot, UPS and Campbell Soup have all joined suit with General Motors in announcing they’ve dropped advertising with this season’s “Survivor.”"
September 1st, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Pandora–would that be a win for “Good” or “Evil.”~,:^)
September 1st, 2006 at 3:45 pm
OK, I was wrong. I just read quite a bit of your blog with the intent of disproving your contention that you’re not “political”, and if not that, then at least proving that you’re “liberal”. I got nothing like that. You come across as a good writer, just generally discussing life, and (perhaps) a fun person….maybe a little too into yourself. The smoking cat made me laugh, too.
Regarding your alternative Survivor Teams, we did that awhile back right on NewsBusters. (Sometimes we take a break from self-righteous pontificating.) You came up with some new teams, but you forgot the all-important “First, Second, Third (and later) Born”, “Innies & Outies”, as well as “Blondes & Brunettes & Redheads & Baldies”. There were others, too, but I’m too lazy to look for them.
Rush Limbaugh’s comments on Survivors were taken out of context and intent, as they frequently are. He was poking fun at existing stereotypes, not expressing in any way what he believes about those groups. Even CNN corrected their mistaken report on his comments.
I suspect that the primary reason he bothers you is his delivery, but since you’ve obviously built up a very large warchest of anti-Limbaugh baggage, it would be pointless to try to get you to hear him in any other way.
Thanks for your time.
September 1st, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Now, Meg, PC users v. Mac users? That’s hardly a competition.
September 1st, 2006 at 4:37 pm
I love that you were willing to spend time reading my blog to “prove me wrong.” That’s awesome. No better reason on earth to read it, really:). But sincerely — thanks for taking the time to read it. I do appreciate that, and your perspective. My response:
I think Rush Limbaugh needs to understand that someone who is frequently quoted can’t always rely on print media to convey context… whether or not he was “poking fun” or not (his capacity for fun notwithstanding), he should be a little more mindful of how he comes across. I feel that same way about anyone in the political sphere, liberal OR conservative. I’d hold any Democrat pundit to the same standard.
And I’m selling Anti-Limbaugh baggage on eBay — anyone interested?
I like the idea of the Survivor team by haircolour, but would it be according to original colour, or colour of choice?
And heaven knows, can I dispute being “into myself” on a website named after me? Ha! Blogging is navel gazing by nature to some degree — but I think you might be mistaking introspection and self-deprecation for self-involvement. Or not. Check OUT my navel!
September 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Scott — I knew you would understand:)
September 1st, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Oh, thanks for responding, meg. I wanted to mention that you and Rush, apparently, have something in common. Isn’t it a real drag, having your words misinterpreted and misrepresented?
I think Survivor is missing out on the greatest blockbuster Survivor of all time in the “First, Second, Third (& later) Born. The physical and emotional comptetition would be fierce!
Lastly, I do like your tendency for spare writing. Maybe I’ll pop in once in awhile to see what’s up.
(Speaking of blogs, have you tried the NYHack blog? Give it a try. It’s written by a female NY cabbie. Caution: language)
September 1st, 2006 at 5:10 pm
http://newyorkhack.blogspot.com/
September 1st, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Not only do we have THAT in common, but I ALSO got stopped in the airport with a bunch of Viagra!
;)
Thanks for your comments, RJ. Come around anytime!
September 1st, 2006 at 8:30 pm
OK, then, how ’bout:
- Viagra Users vs. Sex Addicts Anonymous Members
- Milk Chocolate Lovers vs. Dark Chocolate Lovers
- Glasses vs. Contacts (glasses team would win ’cause the Contacts team would be on their hands & knees all the time, trying to find the one they dropped)
- Health Food Eaters vs. Junk Food Eaters
- Poodle Owners vs. Pit Bull Owners
- Trekkies vs. Renaissance Festival actors
- Highly Educated People With No Common Sense vs. Pooly Educated People With Keen Intellects
- Yes! on Jon Steward vs. Geraldo!!!
- Yes! on Night Owls vs. Early Birds!
This is a lot of fun!
I once worked with two extremely christian people who each thought the other was for sure going to hell. One believed the bible was the most important thing and the other believed the holy trinity was the most important thing. For that they condemned one another to hell. They would have made a great set of opponents.
September 1st, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Ha! That’s funny. But whatever happened to “what happens at the airport stays at the airport?”
September 1st, 2006 at 9:12 pm
I think Viagra should ALWAYS stay at the airport.
September 2nd, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Polygamists vs. Feminists is a classic.