Did Time Magazine Give Hilary Clinton Horns On Purpose?

Time1(PCM) Everyone who has been following the news lately knows that former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is in some hot water over her recent admission to using her personal email account for work rather than the government-issued one between the years of 2009 and 2013, when she was the Secretary of State.

The whole email incident has stirred up quite a bit of a scandal, so it is only natural that after seeing the cover for the upcoming issue of Time Magazine, which features Clinton, that one would question if the publication intentionally gave her what appear to be a set of horns.

Many feel that Time did this to in a sense demonize Clinton for the recent email debacle, however the publication claims that “any resemblance to cats, bats, or devil horns is merely coincidental”.  They go on to reveal that this is not the first time that a public figure has been “demonized” on their cover, as the location of the large letter “M” in the logo can unintentionally give the appearance of horns.

Clinton is expected to make an announcement about a 2016 presidential run very soon!

Share this with your friends!

How The Debate Over The Dress Almost Broke The Internet


(PCM) Almost every other debate or argument that typically takes place on the internet was put aside as everyone began to weigh-in with their opinions on #Dressgate.

It all started when a Tumblr user posted an image of a dress and asked for the public’s assistance to settle a debate among a few friends about the actual color of the dress. The post read “[G]uys please help me – is this dress white and gold, or blue and black? Me and my friends can’t agree and we are freaking the f*** out”. 

The question sparked up a firestorm of activity and confusion as seemingly people are completely split in the way that they view the dress. Many users agreed that the dress was indeed gold and white, while others saw the complete opposite and viewed the dress in black and blue.

For the record, the dress appeared to me to be gold and white, however it was interesting to note that Vice.com published an image of the Tumblr poster allegedly wearing the dress in question and clearly in that particular photo (posted below) the dress is black and blue. After I viewed the black and blue dress wearing image, I then took a look back at the original picture and only then was I able to pick up a few shades of blue.


The color of the dress remains a mystery and many experts feel that the reason why some of us see different colors is based upon the way the light is reflected off the image. That is only one reason and it is surprising that a small Tumblr post about a dress has even left many vision and image experts completely and totally baffled.

It even has me freaked out, because now that I am done put together this article, I am now beginning to actually see the dress in blue and black. It is just unreal!

What color do you see what you look at the dress? Did looking at the image of the girl wearing the dress change the color for you at all?


Share this with your friends!

Super Bowl’s Worst Play Call? Not.

russle-wilson-telegraphed-pass(PCM) It was bound to happen. The Monday morning quarterbacks are in full swing after the sudden twist in fate of the Seattle Seahawks loss in the Super Bowl when it appeared they had it in the bag. It took NBC’s commentator Chris Collinsworth zero time to bloviate how bad the call was. Morning talk shows hailed it as the worst call ever. What?

If you missed it, the controversy surrounds an interception by Patriots defender Malcolm Butler at the zero (0) yard line on what would have been the go ahead score for the Seahawks with a few seconds left on the clock in Super Bowl 49.

That touchdown score by the Seahawks would have all but sealed their win over the Patriots in Super Bowl 49. Instead the Patriots held on to their 28 to 24 lead after the interception turnover.

Immediately after the game, anyone that had any knowledge of football condemned the decision to pass in attempt to win the game. No one put the blame on the Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson who is rumored to be the next highest paid quarterback in NFL history. Instead the world could only blame the call to pass and the coach for making the call.

But was it a bad call?  The real answer is no. Here is the argument of why passing into the endzone was an acceptable call if not the right call.

  1. It was not fourth down it was second down. There were two (2) more scoring opportunities remaining.
  2. The Patriots expected a run with the formidable back Marshawn Lynch.
  3. Pass plays are no longer high-percentage risks.
  4. Pass plays at the one yard line are common place. Many have been performed in the current season and post-season.
  5. The Seahawks have the most reliable quarterback in the NFL.
  6. A pass play did in fact operate as a surprise tactic.
  7. The defensive alignment was geared to a run, only the compressed playing field changed the dynamic.
  8. A pass play allowed the Seahawks more opportunities to score with little time on the clock.
  9. An incomplete pass stops the clock, a failed run does not.
  10. The Seahawks attempted to both control the clock and score with as little time left as possible. The pass play fit their plan in that if it failed they took some time off the clock but left enough with a pause to plan and execute their next play effectively.

Consider the Seahawks had one remaining timeout. Passing on 2nd down allowed the Seahawks to run on 3rd down, then use their final time-out to plan 4th down most effectively. The Seahawks would not be pressed to hastily execute the final and most important play of the season.

The fact is the quarterback made the pass a bit long. Not much, but enough. The defensive back Malcolm Butler read the route early and jumped it. It was a play that is not generally made by defensive backs but in most interceptions it is due as a result of a defender taking a bit of a risk, because if they miss – the receiver has a free run as-soon-as they catch the ball while the defender’s momentum has taken them in the opposite direction. Due to the compressed playing area, the defender had little to risk by attempting to jump the route.

Malcolm Butler, the hero for the Patriots answered reporters in the post game stating he too was expecting a run, but his training kicked in once the play started and he recognized the route. He jumped a pick and the route. No easy task. That the undrafted rookie made it look easy may the reason everyone wants to condemn the call.

Blaming the Seahawks is a waste. Crediting the Patriots for training and Butler for execution seems a better answer.

What could go wrong for the Seahawks, did go wrong. That is sports. That is life.

Share this with your friends!

Can We Talk About That Nationwide Commercial?


(PCM) One of the biggest buzz kills during the Super Bowl 2015 absolutely had to be when insurance company Nationwide aired their child death commercial during the first half of the Big Game. In fact, I’d even be willing to say that there was probably more entertainment garnered from reading everyone’s reaction tweets on Twitter after the spot aired than from watching the Super Bowl itself.

In fact, we have no idea what in the world was going on with any of the ads from this year’s Super Bowl. Normally, we look forward to some of the most clever and quirky ads to be broadcast during the game, as advertisers are supposed to be on their “A” game for these spots.

This year the Super Bowl ads were a huge downer, with the exception of perhaps two or three semi-funny spots. It seemed that all the commercials were pushing this year were dead children, domestic violence, hashtags, and lost puppies. It was really terrible!

The only area where Nationwide may have succeeded is that their brand is certainly on everyone’s lips and you know what they say … no publicity is bad publicity. Many people have already begun calling Nationwides spot the worst commercial choice in Super Bowl history. Ouch!  Did the company even think it through?  Any bit of common sense would have said that this was not the right time or place for airing that type of commercial.

In dealing with the backlash and controversy over the ad, Nationwide has since released a statement which says:

 Preventable injuries around the home are the leading cause of childhood deaths in America. Most people don’t know that. Nationwide ran an ad during the Super Bowl that started a fierce conversation. The sole purpose of this message was to start a conversation, not sell insurance. We want to build awareness of an issue that is near and dear to all of us-the safety and well being of our children. We knew the ad would spur a variety of reactions. In fact, thousands of people visited MakeSafeHappen.com, a new website to help educate parents and caregivers with information and resources in an effort to make their homes safer and avoid a potential injury or death. Nationwide has been working with experts for more than 60 years to make homes safer. While some did not care for the ad, we hope it served to begin a dialogue to make safe happen for children everywhere.

Share this with your friends!

Super Bowl 49 Boring Until the Last Minute

Malcolm-Butler-int(PCM) Fans and analysts will debate the play call that cost the Seahawks their back-to-back Super Bowl wins, and few will remember the name Malcolm Butler in months to come, but can anyone honestly say this was a Super Bowl?

malcolm-butlerThe final score of 28-24 in favor of the Patriots over the Seahawks may appear to have the earmarks of a great and close scoring game but in truth it was not.

jearmaine-kearse-receptionUp until late in the fourth quarter with Jermaine Kearse making a circus catch on his back, there were no truly exciting plays. No huge interceptions run back, no fumbles or sacks that stopped drives. Outside of Tom Brady’s first drive first quarter interception in the endzone, each scoring drive by both teams held no excitement.

A fan of either team will argue this but the logical counter is those fans are fans. They are bias. The final score could have been 7-0 and it would have been an awesome game by any fan that roots on either team.

No, the truth is Super Bowl 49 sucked. It was boring. It was slow and the commercials were just as boring. Sure one or two were cute, from Budweiser’s contrived heart string puppy commercial that easily manipulated the female audience near tears, to Liam Neeson’s phone app video game rage in character of his Bryan Mills Taken persona. Beyond those efforts, anyone that felt the game or commercials were memorable is hard up for a good time.

The only good thing about Super Bowl 49 is that a debate of why the Seahawks passed on the 1 yard line when they have a league franchise player Marshawn Lynch that could run the ball in backwards with ease.

But isn’t that end game controversy all that is necessary for the public to forget how slow and boring this game was and elevate it to a great Super Bowl?

Be honest if you watched this game.  It was boring and 2 minutes of excitement can hardly make up for almost 3 hours of dull.

In defense of the NFL and the Super Bowl, you can’t script a good game. Good and great games take place mysteriously. Serendipitously. Super Bowl 49 was not one of them.


Share this with your friends!
WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15