Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Nov 24, 2010
Addendum to "Are you watching?"
My friend Jason, the one who tipped me off on the polar bear commercial below, also sent me this picture of a poster he came across on the job. I am sensing a trend here...
Nov 22, 2010
Are you watching?
This post contains some frank discussion and videos that, while apparently appropriate for prime-time television, might make you feel sick.
We don't typically watch much TV at my house, but this Sunday we tuned into the Colts/Patriots and Giants/Eagles games. Besides seeing both Manning brothers bite the dust, we got an earful and eyeful of commercials. And those were just the ones we didn't mute because we were distracted.
Now, we usually mute commercials because they are generally so loud, obnoxious, and, these days, objectionable. Below is a sampling of about four of the worst ones we saw last evening. They range from plain old dumb to suggestive to downright raunchy.
But first is a commercial brought to my attention by my friend Jason, who saw it the other day and found it not only laughable, but intellectually offensive. It depicts a polar bear swimming away from his melting iceberg, climbing onto a beach on the Pacific coastline, and walking all the way across the continent to hug a man in NYC. The man drives a Nissan Leaf, 100% electric.
As Jason observed about its absurdity: if the bear can live in the continental United States, as he does quite aptly in this commercial, what does it matter if the iceberg melts? Similarly, how can a wild animal know, and why would it care, what kind of car this man drives? It's looking for its next meal!
Beyond this, as long as 30,000+ scientists maintain that global warming is a scam, why should we accept the premise that the iceberg is melting in the first place?
Again, as Jason astutely remarked, Nissan is clearly attempting to pull at the strings of the bleeding hearts in order to sell overpriced, under-proven (or not at all proven), unreliable technology. If you buy this car, it will make you feel good. At least, when you get stranded because no one ever thought out all of the kinks involved with this technology, at least you can be reminded that you did something to keep those world-trekking polar bears from being stranded.
Next we have a commercial that my husband challenged while studying for an upcoming exam. I was in the pantry doing some reorganization. Hearing him chuckle, I asked what it was about. He said that the claim made by the commercial is flatly contradicted by the basic laws of physics.
The suggestion is that the braking force on a roller coaster could be converted into electricity and used to power the coaster on its next run (a system Toyota has apparently incorporated into some of its new vehicles). The problem is that, in such a situation as this one, you will never get as much energy out of the coaster as you put into it, due to friction. So, while a nice idea, it wouldn't be able to make an amusement park self-sustaining. Perhaps combined with solar power and other resources the idea could come together, but not as simply and neatly as the commercial suggests.
I'm all for clean energy and finding innovative ways to meet our power needs, but I'm not on the bandwagon bound for blindly promoting "green energy" at the cost of common sense and realism. This commercial simply amounts to another attempt to goad the American public into investing its hopes, dreams, and hard-earned cash into this kind of technology. Beyond this, it is a contribution to the "cult of green" and the worship of mother earth. Beware that we replace faith in God with devotion to snails and polar bears.
Next up: a commercial that disarmingly highlights what the focus of our day-to-day entertainment has become. Watch.
So, what did you think was going to happen there in the beginning? What does that say about what we have been subconsciously conditioned to expect from something as casual as a 30 second TV commercial? And why do we need to see people licking their fingers? Gross.
If you're not sure where I'm headed with this, the next commercial ought to give you a good idea.
What a... funny... way to sell hamburgers.
But, hey, that's small fries (pun not intended) compared to the next one, which juxtapositions innocent babies with sexual excitement over documentary depictions of animals mating. Or am I wrong?
To say that this is sick is an understatement by my estimation. Haven't we reached a pinnacle of immorality and pervertedness when we are willing to sully the innocence of babies in such a gratuitous way? Oh, here's an adorable little baby who has a naughty little internet habit revolving around wildebeest. Ha. Ha. Ha. Can you send me the link?
If you can even find a television show worth watching, might I suggest that you do your best to avoid the commercials?
We don't typically watch much TV at my house, but this Sunday we tuned into the Colts/Patriots and Giants/Eagles games. Besides seeing both Manning brothers bite the dust, we got an earful and eyeful of commercials. And those were just the ones we didn't mute because we were distracted.
Now, we usually mute commercials because they are generally so loud, obnoxious, and, these days, objectionable. Below is a sampling of about four of the worst ones we saw last evening. They range from plain old dumb to suggestive to downright raunchy.
But first is a commercial brought to my attention by my friend Jason, who saw it the other day and found it not only laughable, but intellectually offensive. It depicts a polar bear swimming away from his melting iceberg, climbing onto a beach on the Pacific coastline, and walking all the way across the continent to hug a man in NYC. The man drives a Nissan Leaf, 100% electric.
As Jason observed about its absurdity: if the bear can live in the continental United States, as he does quite aptly in this commercial, what does it matter if the iceberg melts? Similarly, how can a wild animal know, and why would it care, what kind of car this man drives? It's looking for its next meal!
Beyond this, as long as 30,000+ scientists maintain that global warming is a scam, why should we accept the premise that the iceberg is melting in the first place?
Again, as Jason astutely remarked, Nissan is clearly attempting to pull at the strings of the bleeding hearts in order to sell overpriced, under-proven (or not at all proven), unreliable technology. If you buy this car, it will make you feel good. At least, when you get stranded because no one ever thought out all of the kinks involved with this technology, at least you can be reminded that you did something to keep those world-trekking polar bears from being stranded.
Next we have a commercial that my husband challenged while studying for an upcoming exam. I was in the pantry doing some reorganization. Hearing him chuckle, I asked what it was about. He said that the claim made by the commercial is flatly contradicted by the basic laws of physics.
The suggestion is that the braking force on a roller coaster could be converted into electricity and used to power the coaster on its next run (a system Toyota has apparently incorporated into some of its new vehicles). The problem is that, in such a situation as this one, you will never get as much energy out of the coaster as you put into it, due to friction. So, while a nice idea, it wouldn't be able to make an amusement park self-sustaining. Perhaps combined with solar power and other resources the idea could come together, but not as simply and neatly as the commercial suggests.
I'm all for clean energy and finding innovative ways to meet our power needs, but I'm not on the bandwagon bound for blindly promoting "green energy" at the cost of common sense and realism. This commercial simply amounts to another attempt to goad the American public into investing its hopes, dreams, and hard-earned cash into this kind of technology. Beyond this, it is a contribution to the "cult of green" and the worship of mother earth. Beware that we replace faith in God with devotion to snails and polar bears.
Next up: a commercial that disarmingly highlights what the focus of our day-to-day entertainment has become. Watch.
So, what did you think was going to happen there in the beginning? What does that say about what we have been subconsciously conditioned to expect from something as casual as a 30 second TV commercial? And why do we need to see people licking their fingers? Gross.
If you're not sure where I'm headed with this, the next commercial ought to give you a good idea.
What a... funny... way to sell hamburgers.
But, hey, that's small fries (pun not intended) compared to the next one, which juxtapositions innocent babies with sexual excitement over documentary depictions of animals mating. Or am I wrong?
To say that this is sick is an understatement by my estimation. Haven't we reached a pinnacle of immorality and pervertedness when we are willing to sully the innocence of babies in such a gratuitous way? Oh, here's an adorable little baby who has a naughty little internet habit revolving around wildebeest. Ha. Ha. Ha. Can you send me the link?
If you can even find a television show worth watching, might I suggest that you do your best to avoid the commercials?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)