Monday, October 25, 2010

The Philosophy of Ritz

So, here is a common misconception born of false advertising:  "Everything Tastes Better on a Ritz".  Think about that.  There is no way that can be true.  Now, there are some things which you should never put in your mouth (much less on a Ritz) but that is not mentioned as a stipulation.  Take poo for example.  Despite the delicious butter flavor of the Ritz, poo would still taste horrible on a Ritz cracker.  But, would it taste better, you may ask.  Well, no.  The Ritz could do nothing to ever improve the taste of poo.  I think that Nabisco is really setting themselves up for litigation here because what if some idiot (and there are a lot of those about) decides to take that advertisement literally and says to himself, "Excellent! This broken glass will taste excellent on this Ritz!" and then he sues Nabisco because he has some slight internal bleeding? Would he lose his case given the high probability of scientifically proving that broken glass might not taste good (or even be edible) but it does taste better on a Ritz.  After further thought, I confess that if I had to eat poo, I would rather eat it on a Ritz than not. 

And there is also the condition of the Ritz to consider.  What if it is a moldy Ritz (assuming that Ritz can grow mold)? Wouldn't cheese on a moldy Ritz actually taste worse? Is Nabisco assuming you are going to always have a good Ritz on hand? Cheese is a mold anyways, so does that factor in at all?

Speaking of which (not the cheese being a mold but the part just before that), what about those things that would actually taste worse with a Ritz? What about ice cream? Does ice cream taste better on a Ritz? Beer? Gummi Bears? What if the ice cream, beer, and gummi bears were all Ritz flavored? Would the most delicious meal ever taste even better on a Ritz? And if it is the "most delicious meal ever" is it not possible that it is already on a Ritz? It would have to be.  Considering that, wouldn't the "most delicious meal ever" be a Ritz on a Ritz?

What if you put a Ritz on a Ritz? Would that Ritz taste better because it was on another Ritz? Is that even possible? If you had a huge pile of Ritz and just ate the top one would you be able to discern the difference in the quality of taste of the Ritz on the top and the Ritz on the bottom? If everything tastes better on a Ritz then it stands to reason that if you put a Ritz on a Ritz the Ritz on the Ritz must taste better than it did before it was put on the Ritz.  What if you put a Ritz on a Ritz but then, right before you eat them, you flip them over?! Then what? If you eat two Ritz (Ritzes?) together do they appreciate in flavor equally or does one taste better than the other? What if you take the Ritz off the other Ritz? Does it immediately devolve to the level of taste it was at before it was put on the Ritz or is the status affect permanent?

Like so many deep philosophical questions out there, we may never learn the answer to the mystery of the Ritz.  And so, to make sure that this post is the absolute best it can be, I am putting it on a Ritz.

1 comment:

Nena said...

I have never put that much thought behind a Ritz cracker.. but now I'm beginning to question it myself. Thanks!