Ohio - political ad capital of the nation?

I have no idea if Ohio is the political ad capital of the nation, but it sure seems that way.

Americans For Prosperity had a "Doing Fine" ad that targeted President Barack Obama's now infamous statement that, economically, the private sector is doing fine. That ad ran for 10 days in Ohio.

Now their "Not a Tax Increase?" ad is running - on TV and radio.

Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (GPS) is out with a new Ohio ad targeting Sherrod Brown. The ad is called "Show" and will run on broadcast and cable TV through July 20th. It's a $1.1 million total buy.

“We’re keeping the pressure on Sherrod Brown to quit the massive spending and stop President Obama’s health care takeover,” said Nate Hodson, Crossroads GPS Director of State and Regional Media Relations.

Crossroads GPS other ad in Ohio, which will run through August, is part of a $25 million buy in key states. "Excuses" is running this week in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Toledo. The Ohio portion of the buy was $3.3 million.

There is also this anti-Brown ad from Checks & Balances, focusing on his vote to increase energy prices in Ohio, that ran in Ohio's coal country.

These are just a few of the numerous ads being aired in Ohio, which is a targeted state for the presidential campaigns. As much as people hate political ads, this is a good thing for our local stations who are getting all this revenue. And this is only the beginning.

Parents still know more than their children

When I was in the third grade, I told my parents that I didn't need to go to school anymore. I said that I knew how to read and write, add, subtract, multiply and divide and, with that knowledge, I didn't need to actually report to school every day.

I wasn't stupid enough to think I didn't have more to learn, I just thought I could do it on my own without showing up in a classroom. Being 8, though, I didn't think about how I would gain the further education I needed - I just didn't want to go to school. My parents were not persuaded and I did continue my education at Edgewater Elementary.

Parents will tell you that children always think they 'know better,' especially when in the teenage years. But having been children themselves (I know - it's still hard to believe), parents always knew that wasn't exactly true.

Except that, today, the message that children know more than parents is permeating our culture ... through advertising.

I've seen several commercials where kids are reading information on the Internet about their parents' medical condition and telling them to go see their doctor about some new medication.

There may be some validity to this scenario in that many children are more Internet savvy than their parents, but whatever happened to parents teaching children about how to be discriminating in terms of the information they read? I certainly remember my parents telling me that you can't believe everything that's written down, just because it's written down.

While questioning the tactic of having kids advising parents about medical research, along comes a Sears commercial using a child to influence a parent on the purchase of appliances.

In the ad, a father comes into the Sears store and tells the sales clerk that a bunch of people (who are pictured behind him) have told him he needs to get a new energy efficient washer and dryer. Included in that group of people are his local anchorman and his daughter. There is then a close-up of the daughter holding a picture of a polar bear and looking sad. The daughter says something about 'remember the polar bears, Dad.'

The premise that man-made global warming is a threat to polar bear populations is tenuous, at best. One of the original reports on which such 'science' is based is not accepted by all. Furthermore, forecasting scientists say the U.S. Geological Survey reports on which the polar bear 'endangered' status were based are "critically flawed."

Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, “To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.

“These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”
...
Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.

Further, they write, the Geologic Survey reports do not adequately substantiate the authors’ assumptions about changes to sea ice and polar bears’ ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations.

Therefore, the authors write, a key feature of the U.S. Geological Survey reports is not scientifically supported.

The consequence, they maintain, is significant: The Interior Department cannot use the series of reports as a sound scientific basis for a decision about listing the polar bear as an endangered species.

But despite the valid scientific questions regarding the existence of man-made global warming, this commercial shows a parent making a major purchase based upon a child's unfounded fear for an animal.

There's another issue in the commercial when the clerk says that the amount of money saved in energy costs could pay for the dryer over time. The father turns to the group and asks, 'why didn't you tell me that?' The response is for the anchorman to repeat the claim - as if that makes it true.

I suppose an adult could be forgiven for expecting that 'facts' reported on the news by anchormen have been checked for validity and that both sides of an argument are presented. However, we know that such expectations often go unfulfilled in this day and age.

Children, however, are gullible - believing many things told to them without the experience and training to think critically about the issue. Why would a parent fork out between $900 and $3,300 for a washer and dryer based upon a child's indoctrination?

For that's exactly what this is. Children are not taught in school to think critically anymore. They're not taught to question, research and then evaluate. They're told what 'is' and then told to tell their parents the same things.

And what they're told is having an impact. In a poll done earlier this year:

One out of three children aged 6 to 11 fears that Ma Earth won't exist when they grow up, while more than half—56 percent—worry that the planet will be a blasted heath (or at least a very unpleasant place to live)...
...
On a sliding scale of anxieties, minority kids have it worst; 75 percent of black children and 65 percent of Hispanic children believe that the planet will be irrevocably damaged by the time they reach adulthood.
...
28 percent say that they fear animals, such as polar bears and penguins, will become extinct and disappear from the planet more than any other environmental concern.
...
59 percent of kids in metro areas are more concerned that the Earth won’t be as good a place to live when they grow up compared to non-metro kids (47 percent).

Most parents would be shocked by what this poll discovered and then do everything they could to reassure their children that such fears are not founded. That's what parents do. Allowing children to influence major purchasing decisions based upon said fears is ridiculous and certainly not conducive to the reassuring role parents are supposed to play.

While I take exception to such commercials, I don't think the problem is the advertising company that put it together nor even the company that paid for it.

The problem is the parents. Rather than take the time to research issues and provide perspective to their children, many often just 'give in.'

Children should be included in discussions about major purchases - not so much so they can influence the decision, but so they can learn how and why such decisions are made. Parents should explain the need for a new appliance; discuss the capacity or amenities that are necessary to meet the needs of the family; talk about what is 'necessary' versus what is 'desirable' in the product; and, especially, explain the family's budget - including what other purchases are sacrificed in order to acquire the 'needed' item.

Children, by hearing and participating in such discussions will learn how to make similar decisions on their own. And, in doing so, will learn to base their own decisions on reason and logic - not just emotion, like the advertisers would like.

Ridiculous commercials, lack of propriety and loss of manners

As I was watching TV last night, I was struck by two things regarding the commercials: the ridiculousness of some of the legal requirements for prescription drugs and the complete lack of decorum or propriety for some items.

Between ads for erectile dysfunction (a term that just about every child has heard) and post-menopausal symptoms, I couldn't help but wonder why an advertiser needs to provide disclaimer information for people already taking a drug they are advertising.

Most of the e.d. drugs include some statement about contacting your doctor if you experience certain symptoms when taking the drug. The one I saw last night for osteoporosis geared toward post-menopausal women included a disclaimer that you shouldn't take the drug if you're pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant. Huh??

If you're advertising to try and get people to consider taking a particular prescription, aren't such disclaimers relevant only to those already consuming the drug? And wouldn't it be reasonable to presume that your doctor has already told you about possible side effects relevant to you before actually prescribing any medicine?

Normally, I tune out when such ads come on, but last night they seemed constant, intermixed with ads for feminine, sexual and incontinence products. When I was younger, I could never imagine ads on TV for tampons, condoms, sexual lubricants or adult diapers.

It wasn't that I didn't know about those things - it was just that there were some things you 'didn't discuss in polite company' as my grandmother and mother used to say. There were times and places to discuss such things, but it wasn't through an advertisement on television that invades an otherwise enjoyable evening of favorite shows.

To be quite honest, I still believe some things should remain personal or private. I would like to maintain some sense of propriety - when it is or isn't appropriate to discuss certain topics, issues or products - and I don't want to forgo the limited number of TV shows I like or be forced to invest in a Tivo in order to do so.

Sadly, I see these ads as an indicator of a bigger problem: the loss of manners in society. The proliferation of cell phones results in me knowing more about other peoples' issues, schedules and work than I would prefer. And it makes me extremely uncomfortable to be in a public restroom when someone in the next stall is on the phone carrying on, of all things, a work discussion while toilets flush around them.

At the grocery store the other day, I was standing in front of the milk refrigerators. A child - perhaps six or seven years old - squeezed between my cart and the door, opened it, and got out a milk. Seeing him, I moved my cart to make it easier, but he never said 'excuse me' or any other such comment - nor did he even acknowledge that I was in his way, except to push my cart. If he was being taught manners at home, he wasn't practicing them. And if he wasn't being taught such things, his parents are contributing to the decline of civil society.

Today, many substitute political correctness for manners. But if people were using manners, I don't think we'd have a need for 'politically correct' language or behavior.

Sadly, I appear to be in the minority when it comes to such perspectives, and I think our society is in decline as a result.