Funny that many of the same people who want to legalize drugs are the same people who want to make hamburgers illegal.
HT First Things
Funny that many of the same people who want to legalize drugs are the same people who want to make hamburgers illegal.
HT First Things
© 2024 Creative Minority Report — Powered by WordPress
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
October 1, 2010 at 7:25 pm
What a terrible mother, making her child sit in that chair doing a sedentary activity like coloring instead of playing outside!
Oh…wait.
October 1, 2010 at 7:26 pm
…
Anyone else seeing a set-up for a demand of the ability to take folks' children because you don't like their diet or other parenting decisions?
Power: the Ur-drug.
October 1, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Gosh, I'm confused again!
Are you saying that obesity isn't a problem?
Why are you even talking about making hamburgers illegal or heroin legal when neither is proposed by this clip?
Why is this labeled "Big Government," when the Ad Council is a private, not for profit corporation?
PSA's have had a real influence in stigmatizing such bad behavior as littering and drunk driving, would it be so bad if bad eating habits were stigmatized as well?
October 1, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Dutchman, I don't think anyone is confusing the Ad Council with the government. But there are some striking parallels between this ad and government action regarding food. I offer a few examples:
1. Santa Clara County banning toys in Happy Meals, because the food is unhealthy.
2. San Francisco considering similar measures to those taken in Santa Clara Co.
3. The proposed (and subsequently squashed) soft drink tax in New York State.
4. Los Angeles' moratorium on building new, stand-alone fast food establishments.
And on and on the list goes.
The ad equates giving a child a hamburger (which apparently has no cheese, bacon, etc on it, by the way, and for all we know is made with 93% lean meat…) with injecting him with heroin. You don't have a problem with that comparison? One can kill you instantly, the other provides sustenance.
On the other hand, it does make a call for increased parental responsibility- something the government would rather appropriate instead of educating. If you don't believe me, refer to the above 1 through 4.
October 1, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Jonathan:
The use of striking images is the metier of advertising. Yes, the analogy of heroin use to obesity is over the top, but that's the point, to get you to think. This ad calls for increased parental responsibility, which is something I think we can all agree on. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to show the kid eating something that we would all agree is more in the nature of a treat than sustenance (like an ice cream sundae, or cheetos, or marshmallows), but I think the point is clear none the less.
Media is important, and the few PSA's that get on the air are a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the practically nonstop advertising for things that we are usually better off without. For every PSA about good eating habits, there are probably two commercials for McDonald's alone.
And, while I don't favor the measures you outlined in points 1-4, these really aren't so very draconian if you think about it. No one is saying you can't sell toys, or "happy meals," merely that you can't use a toy to sell food. And, if soft drinks are bad for you, then why shouldn't they be taxed at a higher rate like cigarettes or alcohol? Stand alone establishments? That's zoning, a primary function of local government.
I guess what I'm wondering is: what is the harm in a PSA that encourages parents to take more care in what they feed their kids?
October 1, 2010 at 9:38 pm
But soft drinks aren't bad for me. Perhaps I should switch to something harder.
October 1, 2010 at 9:50 pm
I imagine my son watching this and becoming terrified if I make him something on a sesame seed bun. That's right, I make my own food, and the food my son eats. Truth be told, he wouldn't have a sesame seed bun because I don't make those.
My point is, the bun could contain tofu or swordfish, but a young child will be terrified by those images. Eating disorders, anyone?
October 1, 2010 at 10:04 pm
I also remember many years ago when one of my younger cousins wouldn't eat fried egss because, "They're drugs Mommy!". (After watcing the PSA "This is your brain on drugs")
October 1, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Wonder what the beef council thinks of the comparison between meat (and bread) and heroin. Yikes!
Now Cheetos, on the other hand, I might buy that comparison! But beef and bread? Good grief!
October 1, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Okay. Cheetos are clearly a drug. How can you tell?
1. They have far less substance than they appear to.
2. They taste really good, but contain nothing of value.
3. They stain you hands and make you feel guilty.
4. You want them all, so you hide them.
Oh wait, Too much information…
October 1, 2010 at 11:12 pm
"Over the top" would be comparing junk food to ignoring him; comparing two servings of bread, a serving of vegetables and a serving of meat– AKA, "a hamburger"– to heroin is just moronic.
The point is shock value, probalby demonizing meat (any bets?) and getting attention. I know I'm not going to listen to anything a moron that put out such garbage would say, so it's counter-productive at best. (see also: PETA)
The American version of this is lame, but not offensive. There's a chance that a parent will walk by while Bugs and sports stars tell you how much better life is when you do something physically active an hour a day and tell the kids to go outside. Still probably a waste of (our) money, but there's a chance.
October 1, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Sorry, this is just really creepy. Maybe in places where heroin use is common place and everyone in the family is familiar with drug paraphernalia, this would just be another commercial, but this is ridiculous. I really don't want to explain that whole scenario to my four year old. I am so tired of being treated like a clueless drone by the "village council". This is the biggest reason our family doesn't have TV. Hard to believe I learned how to feed my family a balanced meal without a "program". Oh wait…I had a mother.
October 2, 2010 at 12:26 am
Dutchman, the problem is that if there are enough people who buy into the message of the PSA, they will want "something done" about the plague of fast food. That "something", of course, will be government regulations and control of fast food establishments (beyond what already exists.
This type of ad is equivalent, in my mind, to the fire-and-brimstone preachers trying to scare people into believing in God.
October 2, 2010 at 12:46 am
This type of ad is equivalent, in my mind, to the fire-and-brimstone preachers trying to scare people into believing in God.
I'd put it at "worse," since I know far more healthy folks who have never HEARD of the "food pyramid" and eat totally different from what it suggests than I know folks who follow the "food pyramid" and are unhealthy.
…
Come to think of it, most of the folks I know who are thin and healthy, at all ages, get a good amount of meat in their diet. They also spend time in the sun, drink both beer and coffee and are seldom ill. That group includes military folks with desk jobs clear through to the 80 year old ranchers who haven't seen a doctor since they got out of the military.
October 2, 2010 at 2:40 am
since there is no advertising on the paper bag or any wrapping, I assume this is a home-made hamburger. Perhaps it wasn't cooked thoroughly and the child will get E coli. Is that it? Or is home-cooking bad in general?
October 2, 2010 at 2:42 am
Absolutely incredible. There is no limit to the insanity of the nanny-state Left.
October 2, 2010 at 2:53 am
Neither person looks all that obese to me.
October 2, 2010 at 3:15 am
If good nutrition is "Left," then are you saying bad nutrition and obesity are conservative values?
And how does advocating more parental responsibility make this "nanny-state?"
And if you can "imagine my son watching this and becoming terrified if I make him something on a sesame seed bun," then maybe you should supervise his television viewing and maybe take some time to explain to him what hyperbole, metaphor, and symbolism are.
And saying that PSA's that address an obvious problem will lead to more government regulation makes about as much sense as saying PSA's that promote "designated drivers" will lead to Prohibition.
Back in the Sixties I remember the big PSA push was against littering and, guess what, it worked! When I was a kid, you would routinely see people throw junk out of car windows as they drove by, but no longer. Littering is now socially unacceptable and I am certain that PSA's had something to do with it.
When cigarette commercials were taken off the air in 1970 or thereabouts, the tobacco companies insisted that anti-smoking PSA's be taken off the air as well. Over the next five years, per capita cigarette consumption went up (from 3,985 to 4,123) reversing the trend of the previous five years when anti-smoking PSA's had saturated the airwaves.
Social pressure and stigma are powerful forces and there's nothing wrong with using them for social good. Again, when I was a kid un-wed motherhood was stigmatized and rates of bastardy were low, but now Murphy Brown sends a message that it's okay, so social mores have changed for the worse in this case. When I was a kid, drunk driving was pretty common, I even remember some of my father's friends joking about how they weren't sure how they had got home the night before, now no one would brag or joke about such a thing.
Maybe this isn't a well conceived or effective PSA, but it is not "nanny stateism," nor does it advocate anything that a sane person would object to, and thirty seconds of this is much better for anyone to watch than more marketing for junk food.
October 2, 2010 at 3:16 am
Hamburgers: an obvious problem that needs to be addressed, and to heck if it scares the kiddies.
October 2, 2010 at 3:17 am
This comment has been removed by the author.