Has anyone else noticed political advertisers' bizarre obsession with filtering their messages through the unassailably smug guise of well-spoken children? These kids, all of whom are so preternaturally cognizant of the issues of the world at large that they might as well be ripped from the pages of a Don DeLillo novel, are popping up everywhere, and it's high time we put them on "time out."
Okay, I can concede the effectiveness of some of these commercials, such as the "Parents talk to your kids about [choose one: safe sex/drugs/the military]." Not only do those speak to the value of making informed decisions in life, but they also bear an important civic message regarding involved parenting. However, the motivation behind the following "Divided We Fail" commercial seems a little more suspect:
Sure, it's a simple enough premise. Politicians should live up to their promises. Politicians should put the interests of The People first. The People, in turn, will vote for the most principled public officials. Sounds great, doesn't it? But who's naive enough to think that such a rosy, do-gooder paradigm is somehow analagous to our American politcal realities? That's right: children. Dirty, mischevious, pimple-pocked children. The biggest punchline of the whole commercial is the idea that there might someday be a "youth vote" that could influence elections. Come on! We've been fed that line since Humphrey ran for office, and it didn't make a difference then and it ain't gonna make a difference now. Leave it to a group of bored and malicious retired people to attack our facilities of reason by taunting us with children.
Worse yet, the cowardly Democratic majority in Congress decided to bait a 12-year-old innocent from Maryland to publicize their latest health care proposal while simultaneously taking swipes at the already feebled president. Please, Speaker Pelosi, I'm generally in favor of what your party stands for, but must you make me cringe so?
While the above examples have all been matters of poor taste, the CDC's latest bird flu commercial borders on the absurd. "Hey, Dad?" a curious chap asks his actor-father. "I know bird flu is quite rare in humans, but could that change if the virus changes? I guess it would be prudent to be prepared." This has to be a joke. Right? Wrong. Sadly, it appears that the U.S. Government's Center for Disease Control is either:
[a] so out of touch with reality as to assume that there is a growing concern among America's youth regarding a potentially deadly interspecies infection, and that these morbid children are both relentlessly pestering their uninformed parents regarding the possible doomsday scenarios while using words like "prudent" in their everyday conversations; or
[b] they're fucking with us.
I think we both know what the real answer is.
The moral of this blog entry: never trust children or the liver-spotted fiends who set them up. Since when has sex and advertising ever failed me?
2 comments:
I'm not saying I disagree, but its definitely classic leftist to take swipes at our own party while neglecting the bigger issue, which is : George Bush vetoed a CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE AMENDMENT WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT! Crazy.
But still, you're right, the Democratic Party is so pathetic at PR it makes me want to cry. For God's sake, did I mention that Bush vetoed a children's health care amendment? Why isn't this an even bigger deal than it is?
Yeah, that happened after I posted this. I was thinking about following up on that point but I'm, you know, lazy. Besides, I'm not much of a "big issue" kinda guy.
But you're right - besides being plain evil, W's reasoning for the veto are predictably and laughably outrageous: the Republican Party is a bastion of fiscal conservatism? Allowing the government to extend free and adequate health care is a bad idea? It's beyond logic, and thus beyond retort.
Basically I just wanted to point out how absurd the Bird Flu commercial was.
Post a Comment