Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » Super Bowl

Let’s Get a Little Political: Should the Federal Government Be Sponsoring a Nascar Team?

rabbifink — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:31:26 +0000

During the Super Bowl I wrote one tweet about the ads. It got a lot of notoriety. (See: The Tweet That Made Me Famous (and what I meant by it)) But there was another tweet I had about the ads which I didn’t publish. Instead I made a real life comment to a fellow human being (my wife). (One of the problems with social media is that sometimes we type what we should be saying and we stunt our human interactions. So I try not to tweet if there is a human who can appreciate my observations…)

Anyway, what I didn’t tweet was an observation about some ads during the Super Bowl for the Marines. As you know, those ads are pretty pricey. About $2 million a pop. So I was surprised when I saw (I think) two ads for the Marines during the Super Bowl. That’s $4 million tax dollars recruiting for the Marines.

I was a little surprised and little disappointed. I was surprised because the ads are so expensive and disappointed because I wasn’t happy to see millions of tax dollars spent on an advertisement when the government is supposed to be cutting spending on social programs. Especially when the ones wh0 want to make the cuts are Republicans and they are also the ones who support spending on the military.

It bothered me. But not enough for a blog post. Then there were some votes in Congress.

In one day (February 18, 2011) the House voted to block Federal Aid for Planned Parenthood because there Planned Parenthood has been linked to [legal] abortions. Planned Parenthood was receiving a lot of aid. They will now receive none. Planned Parenthood is following the law and the Supreme Court has held that legal abortions could receive Federal funding.

It’s tough to see an important social organization lose their funding, but with a budget crisis it seems inevitable that some programs will be cut. Don’t get me wrong, I think Planned Parenthood serves an important Federal interest and should receive funding for all activities that the law permits. But, if there is no money, I understand they are a non-essential organization and could be privately funded so they lose their money.

But then on the same day, the House voted to approve a sponsorship of a Nascar team by the US Army. Now, I’m no fool, I know that the money to Planned Parenthood is much more significant than the money going to Nascar. But how does it look when you’re cutting funding to non-essential organizations like Planned Parenthood and giving it to even less essential places like Nascar!?

Between the Super Bowl ads for the Marines, the Nascar sponsorship and all the other billboards, TV ads and other marketing for the US Defense Forces, there is a lot of money at stake. The Federal government has no problem spending all that money.

Seeing that, I decided it was worth a blog post.

When you’re trimming the fat, you need to trim all the fat. Not just the fat that others are enjoying (remember in this analogy, fat is a “good” thing) while you leave the fat on for yourself…

————

I was less upset about the ads for the car companies that received bailouts from the Federal government. Those ads are part showing the world that the bailouts worked (whether they did or not is not relevant, the Big 3 have a right to try to convince the public that their Federally sponsored product is worth buying).

The Tweet That Made Me Famous (and what I meant by it)

rabbifink — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 08:18:52 +0000

“I sat down to watch a bunch of commercials and there was a football game in between them! Hey Oh!”

Ya, so there were a few commercials during the Super Bowl. They were pricey and they were the ads that managed to get past the censors (See: Super Bowl Ad Censorship: A Good Thing)

For the record, my favorite ad was the Chrysler commercial about Detroit. I am a Los Angeles snob and don’t really think too highly of Detroit and its failed auto companies (sorry, not a fan of the bailout). I didn’t think the ad was the kind of ad that would have people buzzing the next day. And it hasn’t But artistically, it was magnificent. The videography, the theme, the narration, the music, the gospel choir, it was amazing. (Video below)

And I will not be convinced otherwise so don’t even bother.

The ad that has generated the most buzz (overwhelmingly negative) was the ad for Groupon. The ad begins with some beautiful shots of Tibet and its people. The narrator has a serious tone and he is telling the viewer that Tibet’s people and rich culture are being seriously threatened. Suddenly, the narrator’s tone changes and he tells you that despite their suffering he is enjoying $30 of food at a Tibetan restaurant for $15 thanks to Groupon. (video below)

The backlash was intense and immediate. People were outraged at the insensitivity to the plight of the Tibetan people. Groupon’s ad was maligned. I too found it distasteful.

But when I thought about all the anger directed to Groupon for their ad which was insensitive I began to wonder about all the other ads which were also crude and insensitive.

So I took to Twitter and tweeted:

Amazing. More people are offended by Groupon’s ads than the coarse objectification of women in EVERY SINGLE OTHER AD!

— Eliyahu Fink (Eli) (@efink) February 7, 2011

Pretty quickly, the Tweet was garnering some serious attention. To date (24 hours later) it has been retweeted (What is a retweet?) using the native retweet feature 52 times by people who I do not know. It has been retweeted the old-fashioned way by dozens more. I had struck a chord.

In fact the tweet was even picked up by Read Write Web on their blog: Why Groupon’s Super Bowl Ad Was So Offensive (According to Technorati, RWW is the 12th ranked blog in the world.) Pretty cool! And I was flattered.

Anyway, what I meant by that tweet was not that the Groupon ad was not offensive. Nor did I mean to say that I took offense to all the other ads. It was an observation.

What rankles Super Bowl viewers? An obtuse and oblique use of Tibetan suffering in an attempt at humor offended way more people than the ads that directly objectify women as sex objects. I am not about to start a crusade to rescue women from men who behave and think like the figurative Frat Boy. (Although, maybe I should.) I am simply pointing out that collectively we don’t care enough that women are portrayed in such a one dimensional sense.

Apparently, a lot of you agree with me.

I find it shocking that many reasonable thinking men and nearly all women put up with this form of advertising. The Chrysler commercial mentioned above used none of the cheap parlor trick that the ads that objectify women used. It was effective because it was artistic and related to our more sophisticated faculties as opposed to the animalistic urges which the other ads appeal to.

Haven’t we come far enough as a society that ads which objectify women and portray men as single minded neanderthals are passé? Not yet?

Can we get there soon please?

Here is the Chrysler ad:

Here is the Groupon ad:

If you want to see ads objectifying women find ‘em yourself…

RETRACTION: Tim Tebow Ad WAS Harmless NOT Reckless

rabbifink — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 04:38:50 +0000

So like everyone else, I bought into the hype.

I thought the Tebow ad was going to “tell his mother’s story”. It did not.

She still called him a “miracle baby”, but that is not that big a deal.

I apologize for the previous blog post. I wrote what I wrote based on speculation that others made about the content of the ad. They were wrong.

But I am leaving the previous post up. The reason for that is that in my opinion Focus on the Family wanted us to think they were going to send the message that was speculated. They wanted us to form opinions and discuss the potential ramifications of an ad featuring a “miracle baby”.

I had an opinion and I stick to it, despite the ad falling short of what everyone assumed it was going to say.

And I am not going to Focus on the Family’s website to read the Tebow’s story. I don’t really care.

The actual ad is below. Judge for yourself…