About Me

Name:Just a guy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 

Is propaganda ever ok?

Posted by Just a guy on Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:41:59 AM
I'm not a big fan of television, which I guess is why I am the only one perturbed about the new anti-tobacco commercials. At what point does it become okay to distort the truth in order to get a "good" point across. The commercial that stuck out most to me (after visiting the website http://www.whudafxup.com/) was the claim that new flavored cigarettes are directed towards kids.

In this commercial they set out to prove that these flavored cigarettes are designed specifically with hooking kids on nicotine. In the commercial they try three major things to engrave this idea in your mind. Sufficing to say, none of them are very convincing.

The first thing that is brought up is the name of the cigarettes. The point they are trying to convey here is that said  products have names that grab attention, specifically that of minors. First let me say that I am not a marketing executive, nor would I be good at it, however I find it only logical that if you are making a flavored tobacco (which I know has been suggested by some of my ADULT coworkers) you would give it a name that signified it as something new and cool in the tobacco world.

They then take it a step further by setting up a stand to show how it attracts kids. I have one large problem with this part, it is under ridiculous circumstances. They setup up a pseudo lemonade stand, paint it pink, then design the names of the cigarette flavors  to further attract  kids. In other words, they turn it into a  lemonade stand and then put a small basket of cigarettes on a counter  that you would have to walk up to see. NOWHERE BUT ON THE PACKS is tobacco mentioned on the stand. They then top this off by putting the stand in the middle of a park. They then use this to prove that kids were more attracted to the cigarettes than adults because more kids came up to the stand. All it really proved was that kids were more attracted to a lemonade stand than adults when placed in the middle of a park. Probably better used as a case study for any six year that needs to earn some money for his new bike by selling some ice cold lemonade.

The hack in these commercials then throws us an amazing curve ball, one that obviously proves his point. He states that in 1972 (34 years ago) an internal tobacco document stated that "it is a well known fact that teenagers enjoy sweet products". I would like to officially make a statement: It is a well know fact that EVERYONE likes sweet products. There you go guys, and that statement was made by one of the former kids in the generation you're "protecting". So please, get a real point, then fight the tobacco company. Don't go about it like this, because at this point I have about as much respect for you as I do for your sworn enemy Big Tobacco
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lamenting Lamont

Posted by Just a guy on Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:56:22 AM
Last night, as you all know, the Democrats finally began the Sovietesque purges of their ranks. Liebermann has become the casualty of a hostile takeover of his own party by left wing radicals. I need to be perfectly honest about this, I'm scared. I'm afraid of the Democrats taking congress because if they would do this to one of their most loyal subjects imagine how they would treat their enemies. I'm talking to you Hillary, how long were you and Joe friends? Was it that you had to do it? Or are you simple acting under the "you scratch my back I'll stab yours" mentality? Face it folks, the extreme liberals of this country are a threat to freedom. Bigger government, "peace" talks with Islamo-Fascists and a demand for unconditional surrender of Israel. Lamonts own website makes his views on where America should head is obvious:

"Looking forward, I salute the patriotism and wisdom of Congressman Murtha and others who emphasize that “stay the course” is not a winning strategy for Iraq or America. Our best chance of success requires that the Iraqis take control of their own destiny. America should make clear that we have no designs upon their oil and no plans for permanent bases. While we will continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked, our frontline military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home."

Let me summarize that statement for you: "We should cut and run, to prove to the world that if you just hold out long enough America will attack itself internally until we run away". thus never winning a War again. Make no mistakes about it people, the threat is not just sitting over in the Middle East. Cuba is 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Hugo Chavez, the leader of Venezuela has strong ties with two very important places, Iran and Cuba. Iran to give the necessary "Support" and Cuba, the perfect place to launch a Beachhead.

So yes, to put it quickly, I'm scared.





Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The "protection" of our youth

Posted by Just a guy on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:15:00 AM
Legislation was recently signed into law in Louisiana to ban certain video games for any minors. Now you may think that stopping violent video games from getting into the hands of our kids is a good thing or you may be vehemently against it but this bill is pure lunacy. This bill does fill the normal role of anti video game legislation in that it stops the sale of violent video games to our youth. But it takes it a bit further, and by a bit I mean they burn the constitution.

It has now become illegal to sell a game to a minor that: "The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence."

Now I'm no saint, but I feel that I have contributed my share to society. I pay taxes and have never once committed a violent crime.  What may surprise you is that I used to be obsessed with guns! that right, I played cops and robbers and "shot" my friends to the point where they were "dead". Now I know that the point "Video games don't cause violence" has been driven to the ground so let's jump to my favorite part of the legislation.

"The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

That's right Mario, get off our TV screens you sadist! To leave something up to that much interpretation is just lunacy. We have now come to a point of appeasement. The ESRB was established to prevent something like this from happening, but we all now how appeasement works. Now politicians are deciding that the losing battle they are fighting against violent video games should be expanded to gratuitous video games.

Maybe I'm just a young whippersnapper that doesn't understand the evils of interactive electronics yet, or maybe I'm just ignorant, but since when is it ok to censor something due to it's artistic or educational value? I believe that no one would argue a Fahrenheit 451 society to be a beneficial one for our youth, but I find it hard to believe there are those who find the antithesis of that to be acceptable. I only hope that the appeals put together by the Video Game lawyers remove this legislation as it did in Minnesota as censorship is not something that this country should stand for.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »