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 2, 2010 at 3:22 am
(On a side note… you may want to expand your social circle a bit. I'm a borderline recluse, and I have seen folks throw stuff out of their cars- even lit cigs, which scares the heck out of me!– know folks who joke about not being sure how they got home the night before, and bastardry was rising long before Murphy Brown.)
October 2, 2010 at 3:26 am
Are bad nutrition, obesity, and parental negligence conservative values?
Begging the question; this assumes that hamburgers, or something they would validly represent, indicates those things– it also assumes that objecting to the government making such a PSA means that you support what they or any supporter of the PSA says it is against.
October 2, 2010 at 4:13 am
My point was not that littering nor drunk driving have been eliminated, just that they have been substantially reduced in recent decades. (Drunk Driving fatalities are down from 2 per 100,000 in 1972, to fewer than 0.7 in 2008.) Nor was I implying that illegitimacy has risen only since the airing of the notorious Murphy Brown episode, rather I was pointing up an important cultural mile-post on the way from a Hollywood that never showed bastardy in the 1940's, to a complete acceptance of it in the movies/television of today.
Do not accuse me of begging the question by asking if bad nutrition, obesity, and parental negligence were conservative values. The question was rhetorical, pointing up that GOOD PARENTING IS A NON-PARTISAN ISSUE! Furthermore, PSA's in this country are not made by the government, so the "nanny state" accusation is spurious as well.
October 2, 2010 at 4:22 am
What's Wimpy going to do? Will "I'll gladly pay yo Tuesday for a hamburger today" be reguarded as a drug deal?
October 2, 2010 at 4:25 am
I really don't care what your point is, as I have to go off of what you actually said. (wrote, but language hasn't adapted yet)
Furthermore, PSA's in this country are not made by the government, so the "nanny state" accusation is spurious as well.
…Which country are you in, Dutch?
PSAs in America generally are from the government– here's the link I offered earlier, to the American version of this campaign, which is sponsored by health and human services. (The anti-smoking PSAs, since they were required by the government, are a sort of cut-the-middleman tax.)
I haven't checked the funding of this PSA, once I verified that it wasn't my money. (at least not directly)
The question was rhetorical, pointing up that GOOD PARENTING IS A NON-PARTISAN ISSUE!
And objecting to this bit of moronic fluff has what, exactly, to do with good parenting?
Ignoring, of course, that "good parenting" is rather subjective.
October 2, 2010 at 5:01 am
From your own link: "The Ad Council is a PRIVATE, non-profit organization that marshals volunteer talent from the advertising and communications industries, the facilities of the media, and the resources of the business and non-profit communities to deliver critical messages to the American public."
Okay — once and for all: the accusation was made that "There is no limit to the insanity of the nanny-state Left." JUST HOW IS THIS LEFTISM? Usually, those that advocate state action are leftist, while those that advocate private action are understood to be conservatives. This PSA advocates more private responsibility, rather the opposite of what is understood as "leftism."
October 2, 2010 at 6:03 am
If we want to reduce alcoholism and intoxicated driving, perhaps we should ENCOURAGE the consumption of SOFT drinks rather than the harder beverages.
October 2, 2010 at 6:30 am
From your own link: (etc)
…
You're a parody, aren't you?
Right there, on the opening page:
Sponsor Organization: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
You're trying to tell me that because the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services partnered with the Ad Council to do something, then paid to run the result, the product isn't from the government? And it was magically free to the tax payers?
JUST HOW IS THIS LEFTISM?
How many conservatives do you know that want to run PSAs about what people "should" be doing?
October 2, 2010 at 6:55 am
Come to think of it… anti-smoking PSAs came, and now my state is talking about making it illegal to smoke tobacco (or possibly just cigs) inside any rented building, no matter what the landlord says.
October 2, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Could someone tell me how hamburgers are bad for you? Carb. Protein. Flame-broiled goodness.
What the hell? It's not like a can of lard or something. They're not even fried.
Let me take you to the Texas Fair and buy you a slab of deep fried beer. Now THAT is scary.
Scarily delicious.
October 2, 2010 at 9:28 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
October 2, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Blackrep:
No one is saying that hamburgers are bad for you, just too many hamburgers. The problem addressed here is CHILDHOOD OBESITY, and it's just as possible to pack on the pounds with healthy food as it is with junk food. That's right, TOO MUCH of ANY kind of food will turn you into a lard-butt, beefalo, porker, fatso — whatever the skinny kids say nowadays to torment the little chubsters.
October 2, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I have no idea of what constitutes "sponsorship" in this case, since the Ad Council uses voluntary labor, donated production facilities, and commercial air time that remains unsold and so is simply filled up with these PSA's. I know because my father was a copywriter for Leo Burnett for twenty years and was often involved in campaigns to encourage blood donations. Perhaps this campaign was undertaken at government urging, but taxpayer money was not involved, and if no volunteer thought this was worth doing, then it would have remained undone. Again, I know this for a fact. Back in the 1960's my father and his friend Berny were the ONLY ones working on blood donation (because others wanted to work on more glamorous projects like anti-smoking) and often the spots they wrote and proposed went un-made because no producer wanted to do them.
And so yes THIS IS FREE TO THE TAXPAYERS through the "magic" of volunteerism.
And I suppose you are right. Anytime someone puts aside self-interest and does something for free, without expectation of personal profit, just for the common good, I guess THAT IS LEFTISM! And if that's what you mean by "leftism," then I would be proud if you called me a "bolshevik!"
October 2, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Definitely a parody.
Nobody can seriously look at an ad campaign sponsored by a US federal department and claim, with a straight face, that it was free……
October 2, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Y'know, my father was an ad man form before I was born until he retired in the late 1980's. He invented the Keebler Elves, named Glad Wrap, and bought the theme music from "The Magnificent Seven" to use in commercials for Marlboro Cigarettes. At one time or another he worked for Leo Burnett,Foote, Cone & Belding, and Young & Rubicam. His friends were all ad men. I grew up around ad men. And you know that fellow Don Draper, from Mad Men? He was based upon my father's boss, Draper Daniels.
So, I actually KNOW SOMETHING about how this works.
Ad men are all well educated, highly paid, and pretty liberal in their politics. Most of them have this notion that, as well rewarded members of society, they have an obligation to pay society back, to use their skills in some small measure for the common good. (The word for this is "charity." Maybe you've heard that word before?)
My father's personal involvement with the Ad Council was to promote blood donation. He wrote TV and radio spots (even did the voice-over in one), designed bill-boards, and wrote the copy for print advertisements. (He even GAVE blood. That is, he donated his own life's blood FOR FREE. Nobody paid him for it. Not the blood bank, not the government. He did it out of the goodness of his heart. I give blood every three months too and I guess, to your way of thinking, that makes me dupe of the government or something.) When TV or radio spots were written, a producer needed to be found with the facilites to actually make the spot, and often they were never made. Then, when the spots were made, television and radio stations would donate the time (usually unsold blocks in less desirable time slots). I remember that one station in Chicago would not run spots for blood donation because the general manager was a Jehovah's Witness. With bill-boards or print ads, my father could usually get one of the art directors at the agency where he worked to do the graphics. The printer had to be paid for bill-boards (and the Red Cross usually could come up with funds for this), but then the actual space on the bill-boards was donated. With print ads, mass-circulation magazines would usually donate so many collumn inches of unsold ad space to the Ad Council each month. (That's why there were never any PSA's in Playboy all through the 60's and 70's, every inch of ad space was sold!)
My father once arranged a broadsheet to be posted at the Grand Avenue Subway saying that the Red Cross needed your blood, that their headquarters was just up the stairs on Grand Avenue, and that you could go and give your blood there right now! The poster was so successful at generating donations that, when the CTA wanted to sell the ad space to a paying customer, my father paid out of his own pocket to keep it up for another six months. He was very proud of that, and it didn't cost you, the taxpayer, a cent.
October 3, 2010 at 1:01 am
He even GAVE blood.
… This is supposed to be amazing?
Everyone I know who is allowed gives blood when allowed. I can't, because I was in Thailand after the Christmas tsunami.
Nice great big long list of what your father did– that's called appeal to authority, by the way; there's no real assurance of knowledge from what someone you're related to knew — but I really do not care.
You can talk about your father all day and night, and it still doesn't counter verifiable third-party facts, showing that yes, the government pays for PSAs.
For crying out loud, there's even an FCC regulation about closed captioning on PSAs funded by the gov't. (47 USC § 611)
Anybody remember all those "very special episodes" about, say, drugs in the 90s? Government advertising, where they traded the half-priced ad time for episode time.
For someone so obsessed with charity and sure of your (or your father's) greatness in that regard, you sure are lacking in when it comes to other people.
October 3, 2010 at 6:00 am
Please read 47 USC § 611. It says "Any television public service announcement that is produced or funded in whole or in part by any agency or instrumentality of Federal Government shall include closed captioning of the verbal content of such announcement."
Ads produced by the Ad Council are NOT produced by the Federal Government, nor are they paid for by the government.
October 3, 2010 at 6:10 am
Wait, no, I take that back.
UNCLE! UNCLE! You made me say uncle. I give up! You are right:
• Public service announcements are just godless communism. It's much better for your kids to watch commercials for energy drinks, pop tarts, and beer.
• Childhood obesity is a GOOD thing.
• Every tax dollar spent on health and human services is wasted.
• Ignorance is a good thing and no agency, government or private, should ever seek to enlighten anybody at any time ever.
• The same people who want to get rid of hamburgers want to put fluoride in our water.
• The only reason anybody ever does anything is for personal profit, unless they are communists out to ban hamburgers!
Did I miss anything, or is my contrition perfect?
October 3, 2010 at 6:17 am
The ads they make with federal agencies would fall under that regulation, even if they were made with the Ad Council.
You can't be as stupid as you're acting, so I'll have to assume this is one of those "blinded by passion" things. Or you're a troll who's really not very good at it.
October 3, 2010 at 12:56 pm
"Funny that many of the same people who want to legalize drugs are the same people who want to make hamburgers illegal."
Really? Australians want to legalize drugs and ban the hamburger? Since when?