Apparently we need to ban or limit Coca-Cola and Pringles and Oreos and all those things that are terrible for us not just because we don’t know what’s good for us, but because Coke and Nabisco and Food, Inc. advertise.
Never mind the fact that the very essence of politics and governing is advertising, we cannot expect appeals to that kind of consistency to persuade people. Instead, take a wander through your grocery store for fun. I just did. Does V8 not advertise? Does Birds’ Eye not try like crazy to get us hooked on veggies? Do Snackwells and froyo and all manner of healthy alternatives not advertise like crazy to “induce demand” from us rather than promoting some social good? Recognizing this I assume you’d have to conclude that advertising ipso facto does not mean the advertised product is bad for you. Or if you maintain that advertising is something other than neutral, then explain why even for goods that are similarly advertised, do we not see people getting hooked on broccoli or some similar “indulgence?”
For a more apt analogy, I give away this website for free and advertise it at the end of many an email, yet I manage only a few hundred people to be “hooked.”
>> “Reading the Unbroken Window Will Make You Bigger, Faster and Stronger”
I also understand it to be a good treatment for restless leg syndrome and halitosis. 😉
BHO advertises on the Weather Channel that he can reduce people’s monthly mortgage payments.Maybe that is the reason TWC is supportive of his alarmist IPCC long-term weather forecast.