BumpShox and Bumper Bully

Pr*tty

I have been waiting for years to see a well-designed alternative to the type of product shown on today’s Sh*tty side. Granted, the disadvantage of a more discreet design is that it doesn’t cover the full bumper, but I bet it still absorbs a majority of parking-related impacts and does so without looking like a lobster bib on your car.

Sh*tty

Man, are these awful looking. I get it. They’re practical. But what I don’t get is that if this thing is made of stuff that can protect my bumper, why isn’t my bumper just made of that stuff? It’s called a bumper, after all, not a ding collector.

And the name of this particular brand really irritates me. Bumper Bully? Last I checked, bullies weren’t in the habit of defending anyone. So I figure anyone who owns one of these intends to back into me, then take my lunch money.

Stolen "Cars"

Some of you may have seen that I had a review of the Pixar movie Cars up on Design Observer a few weeks back.

Despite the many comments by folks who didn’t get it, the piece was intended as satire, and posited that Cars is propaganda for the neo-Creationist dogma known as Intelligent Design. The day after it was posted, the movie critic and active blogger/tweeter, Roger Ebert, tweeted a link to that review. Needless to say, I was pretty excited about that.

Then, last week, while enjoying a trip upstate to visit some family, I got an email pointing me toward something I couldn’t believe. On July 4th, Roger Ebert posted a satirical review of director Michael Bay’s Transformers franchise. In that review, he put forth the argument that the Transformers movies are Intelligent Design propaganda. Needless to say, I was less than excited about that.

I promptly picked my jaw up from the floor and posted a comment on Ebert’s piece, which went into his editorial filter to await approval. Surprisingly, he actually chose to allow it through, but offered up the lamest possible excuse for his obvious aping of my idea:

Lodged in your head? Yeah, no sh*t.

I also tweeted about this and posted it to Facebook (so, apologies to those of you who have seen this all before), all with no response to speak of. Design Observer also tweeted it. Still, no response. Later in the week, a friend left a similar comment on the blog and again Ebert’s response was equally lame:

As if tweeting my blog almost two weeks prior somehow excuses his “use” of it.

And, in one of the only other comments on this topic in the thread, we get a highly inaccurate analogy, but alas, a fairly apt summary of the futility of my fight:

I won’t ever get the acknowledgement I’m hoping for, obviously. Ebert has no reason to admit any wrongdoing. His is the prevailing blog, and therefore immune to any substantial outrage or public outcry. So, in a odd twist of fate, all I can do is this: teach the controversy.

Thank you to Philippe Theophanidis, who tipped me off, and wrote a very generous blog post about it, in my favor.