Jami Says, "Stop Finishing My . . ."

Sandwiches! (anyone get the pop culture reference?) While Ugly Betty may not want to use her blog to vent about petty frustrations, I use it for that among other things. Today's topic, Sentence Enders. In annoying conversation participants, they edge out (but just barely) the people that mouth the words you are saying. Sentence Enders are those people who insist in joining you for the last few words of each sentence, as though it's the chorus to a song. I find this so obnoxious that I often fantasize about adding "Gorilla, peanut butter, head lice!!" to the end of my thoughts. Look, I know that there are times when the end of the sentence is obvious. That doesn't constitute an invitation for a group sing-a-long. You wait for your turn and say whatever you want. We're not bonding; you're causing me to consider faking a sudden laryngitis onset so I can end our conversation, even if I like you. Thank you.

Jami and the "Controversial" Ad

Ah the SuperBowl. Several hours of new commercials interrupted by occasional football. Sorry, Peyton, I was rooting for you, but it wasn't your year, at least you already have a ring. As we watched the show at home eating the entire batch of dip I'd made for the party that was cancelled due to Pittsburgh freezing over, we saw the ad for Focus on the Family staring the Tebows. Growing up, I didn't like Focus on the Family, or their founder Dr. James Dobson, in part because he encouraged my parents to be responsible and stricter than I wanted. Bad Dobson! I have come around to a grudging respect for the man, since, with the teen years behind me, I can admit that perhaps it's not a bad thing to know who your kids are dating and where they are after school. However, this is not about my personal feelings about the good Doctor or his organization. I have to admit, I was confused when the Husband told me there had been a bunch of controversy and even some attempts to keep this ad off the air. Why? A mom talking about how she almost lost her baby and that she still worries about him even though he's a big football player? I mean, didn't the Campbell's soup ads have almost the same message, but for soup? So I look online and discover that he's indeed correct, people tried to get CBS to ban this ad without even seeing it because it might have a strong pro-life message. And today commentaries about how inappropriate "this kind of ad" are for the SuperBowl! You have got to be kidding me! I find that not only ridiculous, but a little scary. Here's why: Yes, Mrs. Tebow mentions that he is her "miracle baby" but for all I knew before all the hub-bub, that could mean she thought she was infertile or she had a difficult pregnancy or she had lost several babies before him or he was really premature or any other number of things. I thought the ad was for Focus on the Family, an organization that does WAY more than pro-life stuff, and yes, they are conservative and Christian, but as far as I know, it is still legal to be both in this country, even to talk about on TV. Focus on the Family paid for the time, so as along as they stayed within FCC guidelines and whatever extra rules CBS might have set, they can say whatever the heck they want. You don't like it? Don't listen, or send them a letter or buy your own time to show an opposing opinion. That's they way our society works. I feel the same way about the obnoxiously stupid and bordering on disgusting ads for a certain web domain provider I choose not to provide additional advertising for by mentioning their name One opinion column I read suggested that "Years from now, as we sit through SuperBowls stuffed with ad after preachy, chastising ad, we might just long for simpler times of burping frogs." Really?? You think that having ONE ad for ONE organization is going to lead to that? Also, I'd be hard pressed to call that ad "preachy" or "chastising". Most opinion style groups aren't going to have the cash for a SuperBowl ad, and we all know that if the ads get boring, technology provides us ways to ignore them, along with talking to the other folks at the SuperBowl party, bar or family gathering. I read here that the president of NOW slammed the ad because it glorified violence against women. I find this laughable, considering all the other things other ads glorify. Did ANYONE watch that commercial and say "Hey, if Timmy Tebow thinks it's cool to tackle his mom, I'm gonna go beat up a woman right now!" If you did, please know that Timmy also thinks it's cool to get a vasectomy and turn yourself in to the police. To the people who claim that the point of the ad was "Don't get an abortion because your kid might end up being a Heisman trophy winner" I say ask Mrs. Tebow if she'd still be as happy with her son if he were a 90 lb nerd who is only a champion in the World of Warcraft. I bet she would, but then no one would have asked her to do the ad. Look folks, whether or not you want to acknowledge it, every commercial on TV is designed to influence your thinking. No matter if it's for buying a certain brand of beer, visiting a website, eating at a restaurant or purchasing a particularly delicious brand of triangle-shaped nacho-flavored chips, every ad you see is made to encourage you to some type of action. If you really believe this ad is inappropriate, ask yourself why? Because a mom loves her son and says so on TV? Or because it's sponsored by a group you disagree with? Nothing should be banned on the public airways just because some people don't like it. I would say the same thing about MoveOn.org, the Boy Scouts, or Family Guy. To say that an ad with the tagline of "celebrate families, celebrate life" is somehow worse than the ads that glorify alcohol or avarice is hypocrisy to say the least. The fact that this is even a discussion worries me. Having seen the air-able versions of the other controversial ad, I can see why there was some debate about one that may have gone further. Not because I agree or disagree with it, but if I ran a station, I'd be wary of approaching the FCC's lines. But watch the Tebow commercial, really watch it and then tell me - what in there is objectionable enough that it should be pulled?