A couple of weeks ago, just as the new television season was beginning, I made reference to a remark from the star of an NBC series who speculated that despite the long wait between the previous season’s finale and the new season’s first episode, fans were more fired up than ever, because, after all, absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Not true, I said:

“Waiting three months to see the next new episode of a show I like enough to make time to watch during the regular season doesn’t make me want that next episode more.  It makes me want to see what other shows are out there that have newer episodes available sooner.”

In April, I will have worked in television for 18 years.  And I haven’t spent all that time in this career without learning something!

Now, apparently, the networks are learning it the hard way, according to TV Squad:

“Across the board, those sophomore series that went on hiatus for more than six months are way down in the ratings. Apparently, absence doesn’t make the heart grow fonder when it comes to the television landscape. It makes the instant gratification generation forget you existed. And stop caring.”

If I’m going to make a point of scheduling time out of my week to watch a specific program, even if I’m going to watch it after it has aired via Tivo, one of the world’s greatest inventions, I expect that program to do its part and be there.  An occasional rerun is something I can live with.  A couple of months of reruns during summertime is something I will begrugingly tolerate because that’s the way it is.

But waiting six months or so is, to me, the same as seeing the show canceled.  By the time it’s back on again, I will have had to rewatch the previous season to remind myself of where we are in the various storylines.

And I haven’t seen a show, yet, that I’m willing to make that kind of investment in just because the networks can’t get scheduling straight.

How about you?  Are there any shows you’ve given up on because of long delays in new episodes?

Did anyone see Sarah Palin’s interview this evening on The CBS Evening News? It was actually frightening thinking that this is someone who could soon be — as the saying goes — a “heartbeat away” from the presidency.

Here are a few highlights:

COURIC:  Do you consider yourself a feminist?

PALIN:  I do.  A feminist who believes in equal rights.

As opposed to…what? Are there feminists who don’t believe in equal rights?  I sort of thought that the feminist movement’s very purpose was to address gender inequality.  It was one of the few times Palin actually answered the question, even if the answer was a bit laughable.

COURIC:  It will take about ten years for domestic drilling to have an impact on consumers.  So isn’t the notion of “Drill, Baby, Drill” a bit misleading to people who think this will automatically lower their gas prices and quickly?

PALIN:  Well we shoulda started ten years ago, tapping into domestic supplies that America is so rich in.  Alaska has billions of gallons of oil, hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas onshore and offshore.  Shoulda started doing it ten years ago, but better late than never.  It’s got to be an “all of the above” approach to energy independence.

So if we had started ten years ago on a project that would take ten years’ time for consumers to start feeling the benefits, we’d be feeling the benefits.  I think that’s what she’s saying.  And I think we already could have figured that much out.

What many of us still can’t seem to figure out is what happens ten years after that, when we’re suddenly getting plenty of oil — assuming that works out — and we’re just as dependent as we ever were on a commodity that still has a limited supply.  Human nature would dictate that we’d just blindly go on enjoying the use of the newly-obtained oil, without regard for what happens next.  And that’s reckless.  Environmentally and economically.

Couric then asked about Palin’s swipe at Joe Biden, when, speaking at a political rally, she said, “I’ve been hearing about his senate speeches since I was in, like, second grade.”

COURIC:  When you have a 72-year-old running mate, is that a risky thing to say, insinuating that Joe Biden’s been around a while?

PALIN:  Oh, no, it wasn’t negative at all.

Stop the music.  That was a lie.  You can tell, from the way she said the remark, that it was not intended as a positive remark.  She continued:

PALIN:  He’s got a lot of experience, and just stating the fact there that we’ve been hearing his speeches for all these years.  He’s got a tremendous amount of experience, and you know, I’m the new energy, the new face, the new ideas.  And he’s got the experience.

Seriously.  She really said that.  This, coming from the woman whose running mate’s entire campaign is centered on the relative lack of experience of Barack Obama.  So if she’s now trying to portray experience as a bad thing, and the “fresh face/new idea” person as the good thing, what, exactly is she saying about that 72-year-old, experienced running mate of hers?

COURIC:  In establishing your world view, I was curious: what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and understand the world?

PALIN:  I’ve read most of them, again, with a great appreciation of the press, of the media —

COURIC:  Which ones specifically?  I’m curious.

PALIN:  Um, all of ‘em.  Any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

COURIC:  Can you name a few?

PALIN:  I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.  Alaska isn’t a foreign country where it’s kind of suggested, it seems like, “Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, DC may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?”  Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

Wow.  Just wow.

Asked about whether she feels global warming is manmade, (and Katie had to ask more than once to get an answer), she eventually got around to saying this:

PALIN:  …There are man’s activities that can be contributed [sic] to the issues that we’re dealing with now with these impacts.  I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical and over history we have seen changes there.  But, um, kinda doesn’t matter at this point as we debate, “What caused it?”  The point is, it’s real, we need to do something about it.

It kinda doesn’t matter what caused it?  Can someone please explain to me how we can do something about it if we don’t get definitive answers about what caused it?  I agree that there are cyclical weather patterns that are in the mix; that, however, does not mean that we should not be working to identify the elements of global warming that are manmade and to deal with them immediately.

Then there was this, when asked about homosexuality:

PALIN:  I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions they make in their own personal relationships.  I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years who happens to be gay.  And I love her dearly.  She is not my “gay friend,” she is one of my best friends who happens to have made a choice that is a choice I haven’t made.

I’d like to be a fly on the wall the next time these two dear friends get together for coffee.  I’d love to know how her friend would react to the asinine notion that being gay is a choice.  Anyone who genuinely believes that homosexuality is merely a matter of choice must, by definition, believe that they themselves could just have easily “chosen” to be gay, too.  Could you have gone the “other way” — whichever that way is — on a whim?

The only “choice” when it comes to homosexuality is whether or not to act on the urges you feel.  But being gay or straight — being attracted to whomever you are attracted to — is not something that you just choose to do one morning like one chooses what color shirt to pull out of the closet.

Thursday night’s vice presidential debate ought to be a hoot.

I was able to catch a bit of The Late Show with David Letterman last night, when David Letterman was still talking about John McCain’s sudden decision to bow out of a scheduled appearance the night before.  McCain canceled his appearance at the last minute, so he could play superhero and “race” to Washington to save the country from an economy he told Letterman was “about to crater.”

In the clips below — from Wednesday’s show — Letterman, who made it clear that he regards McCain as a real hero for his war service, wasn’t particularly amused:

“So the economy is about to crater.  You’re a senator, a fourth-term senator from Arizona.  You go back to Washington.  You handle what you need to handle.  Don’t suspend your campaign.  You let your campaign go on, shouldered by your vice presidential nominee.  That’s what you do.  You don’t quit.  Or is that really a good thing to do?”

Then there was this about McCain’s absent “second string quarterback:”

“You say, ‘I gotta get back to Washington to save this country.’  Good for you.  ‘And while I’m gone, campaigining in my stead will be my great running mate from the state of Alaska, Sarah Palin.  And she comes out and campaigns.  What happened there?  What’s the problem?  Where is she?  Why isn’t she doing that?”

Here’s a clip of nine minutes’ worth of Letterman’s remarks on McCain’s last-minute decision.  Enjoy.

Towards the end of the clip, Letterman points out that McCain had called him personally to tell him he was “racing back to Washington,” then pointed to a supposedly-live clip of McCain sitting down for an interview with Katie Couric.

Maybe his pit crew had to change a tire during the race to the airport and they just happened to stop right outside CBS News?

On last night’s show, Letterman pointed out that after all of that, McCain didn’t actually leave for Washington until Thursday morning, which would have given him time to make Letterman’s show with no problem.

Everyone who is a big fan of Sarah Palin, or who thinks that she was the perfect choice for John McCain to make as his running mate should be concerned about this.  I quote from Jeff Tompkins’ blog:

“On September 7, eight days after Gov. Sarah Palin was announced as McCain’s running-mate and three days after the Republican convention ended, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said Palin would answer no questions until the media treated her with ‘some level of respect and deference.’”

Respect and deference?  Does anyone believe that McCain would make such a demand about Obama or Biden?  Does anyone think that McCain thinks anyone else should be treated with “some level” of respect and deference?

But wait.  It gets better.  Quoting Jeff’s blog again:

“At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

“McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.”

It was McCain who made experience such a major issue by comparing his experience, including his vast experience as a Prisoner of War, which is somehow supposed to make him ready to lead from Day One, to Obama’s.  (Yes, this “Day One” thing has been made to sound so dire by both sides that it only seems appropriate that we capitalize it!)

When McCain then selected relative unknown Palin as his running mate, he insisted that she was more experienced than Obama.

So…

Why isn’t Obama demanding a similar style for his debate with McCain?  If he has less experience than Palin, and Palin can’t handle a “real” debate, then you’d think Obama would be making the most demands.

If Palin is the perfect choice as a running mate, ready to lead from Day One, and so much more experienced than Obama is, why can’t she handle the same kind of debate Obama himself is headed towards?  Why limit anything?  Why not turn her loose on Biden and watch the proverbial bloodbath?

Sounds like a double standard to me.  And when it is focused on the politician labeled “one heartbeat away from the presidency,” that should give everyone pause.

The public deserves answers from those who want to lead the nation.  The public deserves answers to questions that aren’t “softballs.”  And the public deserves candidates who aren’t afraid of facing the press to answer its questions.

If the questions are unfair, we’ll know it.  But we can’t judge a candidate by his or her answers if the candidate won’t provide any.  And any candidate who isn’t willing to step up clearly isn’t ready to lead from Day One.  The pressure coming from the press corps is nothing compared to the pressure of leading a country and making decisions that affect people’s lives on a daily basis.

If you can’t handle the former, how can you seriously be expected to be able to handle the latter?

This week, several prime time television shows make their season debuts, and in some cases, their big premieres.  Yesterday morning, while flipping through the morning news programs, I caught a clip of NBC’s Today featuring a guest from the show Heroes.

I’ve never seen an episode of Heroes, because long before it premiered, I realized that it was going to be one of those shows that you have to watch too carefully…the kind you have to drop everything else for so that you can sit glued to the set so you won’t miss any important clue about some dramatic revelation.

(It’s entirely possible, since I’ve never seen the show, that I was wrong about that little guess.  But by now, it’s too late to just pick up in the middle, so it doesn’t matter any more.)

Anyway, this actor made the comment that he thought the long wait during summer hiatus — and in the case of Heroes, the wait was apparently much longer than that — was a good thing because it makes the fans just want the show that much more.

Nope.

Sorry.

Wrong.

The television viewer in me doesn’t buy that ridiculous argument for a second.  Waiting three months to see the next new episode of a show I like enough to make time to watch during the regular season doesn’t make me want that next episode more.  It makes me want to see what other shows are out there that have newer episodes available sooner.

A couple of seasons ago, I liked a show on USA Network called The 4400.  It was a science fiction series about 4,400 people who disappeared over a period of decades, then reappeared all at once from outer space with an agenda to dramatically change the world.  Some of the returning people seemed to have good motives, but all did not.

USA scheduled the show to air against traditional television seasons, so the show would have its “season” premiere in June or so, then run through the summer and wrap up that “season” in August.  By the time the following June rolled around, despite a ridiculous number of reruns of the few episodes that had been produced, you still had to go back and re-watch everything so you’d remember all of the little plotlines you were about to see advance in the next season.

It didn’t make me want to see the show that much more; in fact, waiting almost a full year to see a new episode since the cliffhanger the previous summer was almost enough to make me forget the show had ever been there.  I almost managed to miss one of the show’s season premieres because it didn’t occur to me to even look for it.  I happened to see a promo for it and realized it was that time of year.

Of course, the fact that The 4400 was a cable program says a lot about the traditional networks’ stubborn refusal to have a 52-week television season.  By taking summers off — and filling the summer months with that ridiculous reality crap — the networks just invite viewers to go elsewhere for entertainment.

And they hope that every September, when it’s time for premiere week, that those loyal viewers remember to come back and see what’s new.  They could afford to do that back when there were only three or four channels to choose from. But as competitive as the business is these days, with umpteen million channels out there hoping for your attention any time you pick up the remote, that three-month “downtime” just isn’t a good idea.

In the old days, a season was more than 30 weekly episodes.  There are some shows nowadays that seem generous if they manage to pop out 18 new shows in a given season.  And I’m not talking about the klunkers that get canceled after a few weeks.

It’s time the networks do away with the end of the season and keep new shows on all year round.  If they have to force limited-run series like Biggest Loser and Survivor into the mix, that’s fine; just give one or two shows a breather now and then to make room for them.  That’s still better than putting all of your regular programs on rerun patrol.  Then I’d have no reason to hunt down new shows when my favorites have nothing new for me.

The only show I’m looking forward to seeing is CSI:, the original one, not the Miami or New York versions, to see what happens with Warrick’s apparent murder.  (I’m pretty sure the character is being killed off, because it looked like he had sustained injuries that would not lend themselves to a “miracle recovery” in the season finale.  The promo I saw the other day indicated that CSI: doesn’t return until the first week or so of October, so it’s that much longer I have to wait around to see what happens next.  And it’s that much longer that I have to stew about it.

How about you?  Any shows you’re eagerly awaiting this season?  How would you feel about the networks killing the “summer vacation” scheduling plan?  Would you be more likely to get into a show that would offer more new episodes year-round?

Does anyone really care what John McCain wears?  Or Joe Biden?  Or Barack Obama?

(In answer to the latter, the answer is generally no, unless the question of an American flag lapel pin is raised.)

Hillary Clinton says that’s an example of the sexist media:

“I think you have to ask yourself and it’s a little exercise I’d like everybody in the press, and really all of us, to go through: Would the same thing be said about a man in a similar position and the answer 99 times out of 100 is no. I think it’s been a long time since anybody covered what Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain wear or their hairstyle or any other personal characteristic like that.”

So I have a little exercise for Hillary.  For a full year, she should do the following:

1. Stop getting her hair done.  Settle on a particular, simple hair style that never changes.  Nothing too poofy, nothing with any kind of dramatic sweep.  The way Bill wears his hair.  Just don’t follow John Edwards’ lead with the $300 haircut.  Any man who spends more than $40 for a haircut — I spend $15 on mine — is going to get talked about in the press, too. (And for that matter, any candidate for president who seems to delight in calling his opponent “elitist” but wears $520 shoes is going to find his fashion choices talked about, too.)
2. Stop wearing jewelry.  A wedding ring is fine.  Nothing else.
3. Stop with the makeup.  A little foundation is acceptable, because in public appearances, any politician is likely to slap on a little powder if he or she knows cameras are going to be around.
4. Stop with the colored pantsuits.  Navy blue, black and grey are fine.  Orange, red, jade and baby blue must go right out of the closet at once.  When did you see Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden or any other male candidate wear an orange suit?

In other words, if you want to be treated like a man, make yourself look like a man in every respect possible.  Is that unfair?  Before you answer, look at Hillary’s own words:

“I think you have to ask yourself and it’s a little exercise I’d like everybody in the press, and really all of us, to go through…”

All of us?  Why, Hillary?  Is it possible — just possible — that it’s not so much just the press that’s being sexist, but our society as a whole?  In many, many ways, the press is a mirror on society:  the press doesn’t create discrimination, but it does very often reflect what’s already there.

If women in politics really want to be treated like men, by virtue of not having their hair and wardrobe talked about, then why would they dress in a way that’s different from men?  You don’t blend in by trying to stand out.

Hillary wants to project her own personal style, yet have no one notice it.  She doesn’t want to look like “one of the guys,” yet resents it when it’s pointed out that she’s not one of them.

Sounds like a double standard to me.

Before the women in my audience start jumping on me about this, let me be clear:  as a voter, I don’t care what Hillary wears.  And I really think that most people don’t care, either.  But when a candidate comes out wearing an outfit the color of a pumpkin, for example, we’ll all notice it.  Most of us will notice it for a few seconds and move on.

To be fair, I don’t notice a lot of coverage about Hillary’s outfits.  Letterman is always good for a laugh on the pantsuits, but no one is considering David Letterman part of the news media, are they?

But if you’re the candidate and you don’t want any notice made of it, wear something else.

It’s only human to notice what’s the same and what’s different about us.  It’s unfortunate, because so many of us have hangups about individual differences that have no bearing on the person at all.

But you can’t make yourself stand out then complain when someone notices what’s different about you.  If your qualifications and your beliefs are the most important thing about you, then make that the first thing people notice about you:  not how well you’ve accessorized.

Every now and then, I’ll switch on closed captioning, just to see what displays.  I just watched an episode of The Andy Griffith Show, the one called “Citizen’s Arrest,” in which Gomer arrests Barney for making an illegal U-turn.  In one scene, Opie tells Gomer that Barney got angry and resigned as deputy.

Here’s the exchange:

GOMER: You say Barney quit? He really quit?

OPIE: Yep.  He’s off Pa’s force.

But in the world of the hearing impaired, closed captioning turns Opie’s line into this:

Yep.  He’s off Paw’s force.

Paw?

I wonder if the captioners ever write things like “bear necessities” or “bale someone out of jail.”  Has a hearing impaired person been forced to endure reading of someone putting clothes in a “drier” instead of a dryer, or a man giving his fiancé a one-carrot ring.

It wouldn’t surprise me.  The hearing impaired deserve a copy editor, too.

Forgive a telephone-related pun, but it does double duty in this case.

Just when I couldn’t stall around any longer about heading to our newsroom to answer calls from angry viewers who wanted to watch their shows instead of severe weather coverage, I was told that news had it covered!  Sweet.

I had already had enough attitude just reading a few incoming emails.  I never cease to be amazed — although after 17+ years in television, I shouldn’t be surprised anymore — by the level of rudeness people display when they have something to say.

They’re quick to tell us what we do wrong, and even quicker to tell us what “idiots” we are.  (And that’s the kind of term the more polite ones say.)  And of course, they can’t seem to resist adding that they’re “never watching our station again.”

I’m not unsympathetic at all.  I appreciate the fact that they like something we have to offer enough that they’d get passionate about it.

But I also suspect that they wouldn’t stand still for someone talking to them that way for one second, and that if there was severe weather threatening their specific street and we weren’t on the air alerting them about it, they’d be raising hell about why we were “asleep at the switch.”  (Believe me, I’ve worked at other stations where we missed something and received exactly that kind of response.)

So I wonder what gives them the audacity to take that kind of attitude with someone else.  There is a right way and a wrong way to complain.  Some know how to do it effectively.  Most, unfortunately, don’t seem to get it.

There was a time when I’d have thought Saturday morning television would never be without The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Show, and that the kids’ block of PBS would never be without Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.

If anyone runs Bugs and friends on Saturday morning, I guess I am watching some other channel at the time.  Fact is, I haven’t seen the rascally rabbit for a while now.

And now there’s news that while Sesame Street is still going — although virtually unrecognizable to those of us who grew up with it in the 1970s — Mr. Rogers is being sent packing from many PBS affiliates.

No new episodes shows have been produced for seven years.  Rogers passed away five years ago.  And officials at local PBS stations now say that the old tried and true program is showing its age, along with a decline in viewership that they have to act on.

Yes, ‘Neighborhood’ was a sometimes-hoaky production.  Yes, there were times when Rogers himself seemed far too “goody-goody” for anyone over the age of 12 to possibly be able to take seriously.  But for those who were younger than that, he was something special.  And for those of us who remember watching when we were those little kids he talked to, there was no one quite like him when it came to pointing out the fact that we’re all valuable in our own special ways.

Maybe there will be some new production with new characters that will communicate exactly the same message in a whole new way that is somehow just as effective.

But I doubt it.

Talk about coincidence!

Yesterday, I mentioned that I was considering dropping the bulk of my cable television service.  Now, I learn that my apartment complex has worked out some kind of deal with Comcast so that everyone in the complex will automatically get “basic service,” which translates to channels 2-99.

Unfortunately, that basic service is not free: instead of shelling out entirely too much money a month to Comcast, I’ll be shelling out an amount that’s supposedly somewhat less to my apartment complex as part of the rent.  Comcast says I should see a savings; my apartment complex seems oddly unsure of exactly what it will cost.  The letter I received in the mail isn’t the most clear piece of communication, either.

But I guess I’ll take paying less if I can’t find a way to not pay at all.

I’m seriously considering something that I can’t believe I’m considering at all:  cutting my cable television service.

My parents first got cable television some time around 1979.  Back in those days, there were only about 20 or 30 channels total, but that in itself was a great improvement over the four we’d had before that.  Back then, HBO wasn’t a 24-hour channel; they came on around 5:00pm and broadcast movies until 6:00am or so, then signed off for the day.

Ever since then, we’ve had cable.  I’ve never lived anywhere on my own without, and never considered trying to do without.  Until now.

For one thing, like my dad, I spend far too much time in front of the television.  Unlike my dad, I do not do this while complaining about how worthless television actually is.  I happen to enjoy television…when there’s something on worth enjoying.  My dad will sit through things he doesn’t like, then complain about how there’s nothing on.  (I’ve never quite understood that.)

But there is less and less worth watching on all of those cable channels.  My favorite channels — outside of the local ones — are TV Land, GSN and TruTV.

On TV Land, I like the classic shows, like The Andy Griffith Show, I Love Lucy, All in the Family and Sanford & Son.  Unfortunately, TV Land keeps adding a lot of reality crap and movies to their lineup, and I’ve just read that they’re planning more of the same.  If the channel is supposed to be all about nostalgia TV, then show me classic television shows!

On GSN, I like the classics there, too, especially the Gene Rayburn version of Match Game from the 1970s and the original What’s My Line? from the 1950s and 1960s.  Unfortunately, GSN added a lot of interactive and original crap that never measured up to the quality of the old favorites.  And I heard they were bringing back a block of Chuck Barris shows like The Newlywed Game and The Dating Game, which I never liked to begin with.  Then, my cable provider, Comcast, decided to play dirty and suddenly move GSN to the digital tier, which means I’d have to pay more for it.  I pay Comcast quite enough as it is, thank you, so I’ve been without GSN for a while now.  Somehow, I’ve survived.

TruTV, which used to be CourtTV, carries a few cool shows like Forensic Files.  I don’t care for the Most Shocking or Most Daring video shows, but the CSI: fan in me does enjoy the Forensic Files-type shows.  But I can watch CSI: and still get that kind of content, even if it’s more fiction than fact.

Sci-Fi Channel used to be a favorite, but I don’t care for most of the sci-fi they run nowadays.  And History Channel used to be a favorite, too, but I honestly haven’t tuned in there in months.

Turner Classic Movies and American Movie Classics are great channels; I just watched Adam’s Rib on one of them the other day.  But I can always pull out an old Hitchcock film if I’m wanting a classic.

I’d like to take that nearly $60 a month and pay other bills with it.  And I’d like to put the time I’d spend searching for something to watch to better use, like more reading, more writing, and some Bible study that my friend Archie has inspired me to do more of.

I still love television, and I think I’ll always be hooked.  But some things are more important than TV.  (And yes, it’s really me saying that!)

If Comcast would let me cherry-pick five channels and charge me just $10 over the “local reception” package, it would be worth it.  But short of that, I think I’ll drop down to the few-dollars-a-month local reception and just see how it goes.

So tell me this:  Are there even 10 non-local channels that you watch regularly? Are there any that you think you couldn’t live without?

When it comes to fast food advertising, it’s clear that only Chick-Fil-A gets animal humor.

Back in June, I pointed out that a new line of Captain D’s spots have people who are about to eat things other than seafood being “attacked” by a giant fish that slaps them around until they eat seafood after all. Why, I asked at the time, would a fish want people to eat fish?

Here’s one of the spots in question:

Now there’s Burger King, with a new spot featuring a man hiding in a hotel room, about to eat a chicken sandwich, when a cow shows up at the door, apparently angry that a hamburger is not what’s for dinner. Why, I ask now, would a cow want people to eat hamburgers?

See for yourself:

Chick-Fil-A, on the other hand, has the ad campaign that makes sense. Their cows how old up signs that read, “Eat Mor Chickin.” Cows, after all, don’t know much about the silent e.

Get it? Cows wanting you to eat chicken. So you won’t eat cows. So they won’t end up as the main course.

Is that so hard to understand?