During World War I, the military needed enough food to fight, and civilians back home sacrificed so that they had it. But there weren't any treats. In fact, ice cream was considered "not essential," so the sugar that would have gone into its manufacture was diverted elsewhere, despite the pleas of the ice cream industry. That would change drastically over the next two decades, as Americans turned to ice cream during Prohibition as a substitute for alcohol, and then during the Great Depression as a rare affordable treat. Ice cream came to be associated with the American way of life. So when the U.S. joined in World War II, ice cream went with them.
In 1942, as Japanese torpedoes slowly sank the U.S.S. Lexington, then the second-largest aircraft carrier in the Navy’s arsenal, the crew abandoned ship—but not before breaking into the freezer and eating all the ice cream. Survivors describe scooping ice cream into their helmets and licking them clean before lowering themselves into the Pacific. By 1943, American heavy-bomber crews figured out they could make ice cream over enemy territory by strapping buckets of mix to the rear gunner’s compartment before missions. By the time they landed, the custard would have frozen at altitude and been churned smooth by engine vibrations and turbulence—if not machine-gun fire and midair explosions. Soldiers on the ground reported mixing snow and melted chocolate bars in helmets to improvise a chocolate sorbet.
Read more about the American obsession with ice cream, and how the frozen treat went to war, at the Atlantic. -via Metafilter
Comments (0)
For those of us with a disposable income, a simple sticker like this can remind us that material goods like these are a frivolous luxury. For those of us who cannot afford the hottest new gadgets on the market, we can smile to ourselves and need not covet.
Or not.
Very rarely have stickers of this ilk done anything but tick people off, if they meant this to have any actual effect on the average person.
There are better ways of getting the message out than defacing property, and if I paid for ad space, gods help the frakker I catch sticking one of those on it.
Having said that, I like the picture of the one pointing at Kathy Griffin.
People using these stickers are probably opposed to certain societal trends, not merely specific products. At best, it's preaching to the choir. To everyone else, the sticker applier is just some crank foisting his unwelcome opinion on people.
There are plenty of other ways to fight marketers. First and foremost, live what you preach. Your wallet is a ballot and companies listen to the voters. Don't buy their products.
If someone tries to strike up a conversation with you while wearing an earpod, ask them to remove it first because you consider it rude.
If you're very serious, picket the store. I doubt people who are anonymously plastering stickers have the courage of their convictions to picket a store though.
For what it's worth, I don't own an iPod or any hand-held music player (nor will I buy one for my kids). Becoming a father has taught me the difference between lip service (stickers) and walking the walk (teaching by example).
Oh, and AJ, give it up. You don't own an iPod, that's fine - but there's nothing wrong with owning one. No need to be smug about it. Personally, I enjoy listening to music. You're just Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694
If we don't already know we "don't need" the things in the ads....that's not something a sticker can change.
It's just his dumb way of trying to change society. Or something.
Seems a little hypocritical, a lot smug, attention-seeking desperate, douchebaggy, vandalist, ineffective.
People do this sort of thing to make themselves feel important. Just take a bath in your Burger King already, and get over it.
Buying what you do not need - huh?!
Are you the same people complaining about Gas prices???
We live in a very materialistic world, where useless products have taken over our lives, hoepfully this'll make people realise we don't need the latest gadget.
Anyway, these people are making millions, I'm hardly gonna feel an ounce of guilt for putting a sticker on one of their millions of adverts.
this is a simple but great idea :)
;)
.-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stickerking/sets/72157601707648957/
This guy (or group of wanna-be artists) has been plastering every light pole, newspaper box, mailbox and pretty much flat surface in a 30 mile radius lately.
Is this the new cool thing? They don't even have the talent of many graffiti artists, it's a joke.
It's my choice if I want to rent my retina out, not someone who decided they own my retinal space.
Advertisers are vandalising my retina with their ugly words and strange messages.
Can no one see the delicious irony in this?
Black hole implosion?
It's not only vandalism, it's self-promotion disguised as a movement, disguised as a message. It's not cool, kids. I don't care if your adhesive is green and doesn't leave a carbon footprint. It's wrong, and shame on those that support this kind of communication. If we were living in a perfect world...
Wow that was easy. and stupid.
I agree. I hate seeing ads everywhere I look and applaud anyone's attempt; lame, patronising, ineffectual and pointless to many that it may well be to reclaim just a little of my visual landscape from advertisers. I don't care how much they paid for that ad. Screw them.
The ads and windowspace may be an eyesore, but they're less of an eyesore than those stickers.
Also, as others have stated, it's vandalism. It doesn't matter how long it is up there, or how hard it is to remove.
From the middle of the baritone section, I don't buy that because companies have paid for advertising space they have a right to have their adverts completely unobstructed all the time. By that measure advertisers should apply for a partial refund and we'd all be fine again. They could set up cameras trained on every billboard in the world and corporations accounts with the billboard owners could be credited every time anyone stands in front of their poster.
Advertising exists to get us to buy stuff we don't need. If we needed it we would find it ourselves. We are now confronted with a wall of unwanted commercial messages in most towns and cities. All this redundant junk costs money and resources to produce. Perhaps it could be better employed elsewhere?
I applaud this effort. In fact, I'm gonna get me some stickers!
I applaud this effort. In fact, I'm going to get some paper bags!
******
What kind of bubble to you live in to think the world around you exists for your personal visual satisfaction? If all people are equal, then they have equal rights to purchase space and use it as they please. Even for advertisement. You're no better than them -- how dare you dictate what they do with their own property? If they tried to control *your* property, you'd be up in arms. A double standard if ever there was one.
To all you people defending the companies 'rights', maybe you should look at what crimes these companies have committed. Sweatshops, false advertising, environmental destruction... I only support the rights of non-criminal enterprises.
Regardless of the truth (or relevance) of the parasitic message, the basic issue here is property rights, not what the ad says. You want to tell people they don't need stuff? Fine. Buy an ad.
This sticker is just more garbage.