Friday, June 09, 2006

Not while I'm eating, thank you...

This could easily read like an open letter to the lawmakers of our country.

While our government struggles with pieces of legislation about whether gays should marry, or who determines a woman's right to choose, I have a far more pressing matter that I think deserves your attention.

Here's what I propose: a law that bans airing commercials about certain products during the hours of a normal dinner, say 5:00 p.m to 8:00 p.m.

I'm tired of sitting down to dinner and watching a hair clog shoot through a drain courtesy of liquid plummer. I have no desire to hear about Herpacin while I'm consuming anything. And is it really necessary to watch a cartoon bear wipe his ass while I'm having meatloaf? Do I really need to hear about periods with excessive bleeding or yeast infections while eating mac and cheese?

I'd start a petition, but more than one administration has made it abundantly clear that they don't read them, or care about their approval rating.

On that note, our Commander-in-Chief should enjoy a nice spike in approval rating thanks to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (which has left me decidedly far behind in my annual dead pool). This spike will last until the American public figures out that all we've done is:

  • created a martyr.

  • promoted the #3 terrorist, whose name will make headlines shortly.

  • inspired one-thousand more zealots to take up arms and join the cause for their fallen hero.

War is not the answer.

Update: In reference to the claim that one-thousand more zealots will take up arms, my brother asked me if I had any data about the number of civilians we've killed over there as a result of our invasion. Imagine, if you will, someone invading the United States to liberate us from George W. Bush. In the process, your house is bombed and your son/daughter/father/wife/mother/brother/sister or all of the above are killed. Who do you hate more, Bush or the invaders?

Here's the link, Dave. It's a pretty astounding minimum and maximum number.

Update II: We didn't have to wait long. #3 was officially promoted.


Tillerman said...


Jay said...

I think my least favorite commercial during the dinner hour is the toenail fungus one that features a little critter that picks up a toenail and dives right in. This image gives me the skeevies any time I see it, really. But it is especially hard to take during dinner.

The minimum and maximum death counts you linked are certainly shocking, however absolutely useless. It is definitely including the people killed by insurgents (side note, let’s not argue over the term “insurgents.” Even I hate this term. After all, aren’t *we* insurgents. For the sake of this discussion, we will just let it mean the foreigners not wearing US military uniforms blowing stuff up). The numbers also don’t tell us how many of those people would be dead whether or not we invaded, or how many are alive that would have been dead had we not gone in. How many of those dead were killed during the actual invasion. That is, they were shooting at our troops when they got killed. I don’t think anyone will blame a Marine for putting a bullet between the eyes of someone trying to do the same thing to him, whether or not he even wants to be there. How many of those dead are the result of crime, or infighting among Iraqis. I hate when statistics are used inappropriately. As Benjamin Disraeli said, “There are three kinds of lies – lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

Dave said...

even if only 25% if those listed were legitimately killed directly by the U.S. , due to unavoidable (ha!) colladiral damage, ineptitude, or self defense, it still throws us in a giant catch-22. the "terrorist" have brothers and sons who vow revenge. and the civilians we kill, do too.

the war on terrorism is as winnable as the war on drugs. way to go reagan! way to go, bush! reagan put our youth in chains; bush in caskets

Ben said...

That's the thought process I was going for Dave. I'd even like to take it a step further:

I think 25% don't even have to be killed by US troops. They only need to be *perceived* as responsible to get a undesirable response from surviving friends and relatives. And the fued started here can last for generations. Japan and WWII was the exception, not the rule. Arab nations have been known for holding grudges...i.e. Israel.

erica said...

Ben, you don't want to learn about being fresh... down there? ;)

Agreed, those commercials are gross.

Nicole said...

it sounds to me like you are anti-Bush.{ I like ya even more if you are!!!}
I must confess, I was fond of Clinton {politics, not bedroom antics....his biz}
I also found the quip in your most recent post funny, about the French comment for your new Canadian followers. In my area of the country, you wouldn't brag about being french...haha. No offense to any fellow Canadians. My name is even very French, Nicole LaRose { LaRose is married name, hubby has french in him, but not I}, so trust me, I would know. Thanks for the very nice post on my blog as well, you are most welcome anytime too. I replied to your comment, let me know what you think of my parenting " skills".
Take care, Nicole
{ See, Canadians and Americans CAN get along LOL}