The Brits Are Back

     A recent article brought me to the realization that I have
been neglecting the Brits.  It has been ages (however long that
is) since I undertook to make fun of a British folly.  This doesn't
mean the Brits have given up the pursuit of the silly and
ridiculous.

     Their past antics simply set the bar so high that their
recent follies just don't stand out.  Requiring farmers to give toys
to their pigs and treating sandwich wrap as industrial waste are
hard to top.  Requiring small chested police women to wear
florescent vests was a cut above the ordinary too.

     I don't know if their latest act rises above, or falls below,
their prior achievements.  It is at least competitive.

     An Israeli company, SodaStream, produces a machine for
making carbonated drinks at home.  SodaStream's adds have
been banned from British Television.  How bad must something
be to earn a ban from British television?

     What horrors do these adds include?  Television
advertisements in Britain are regulated by something called
Clearcast.  Clearcast found the atrocity in the adds.  Supposedly
the adds denigrate the bottled drink industry.

     Can anyone even dream of anything more horrible and
dastardly than denigrating the competition?  Aren't we fortunate
that no advertiser in the USA would ever dream of suggesting
that the competition's products are inferior, or even dangerous?

     What did SodaStream try to inflict on innocent television
viewers?  According to Newsmax "SodaStream  . . .  promotes
itself as environmentally friendly because it reduces the use of
plastic bottles and aluminum cans.  The ad shows plastic bottles
disappearing as people at home use their SodaStream machines."

     Can you even imagine an advertiser in the USA daring to
suggest its product was more environmentally friendly than a
competing product?  Of course, New York mayor Blomberg
denigrated large sodas to the point of making them illegal in
New York City.  Perhaps he should be banned from television. 
Maybe he is banned from British television.

     I can imagine two possible explanations for the British ad
ban.  One is, the British bottled soda industry has a strong lobby. 
That is something we in the USA should understand.  The
makers of screw in florescent bulbs lobbied successfully for the
ban of incandescent light bulbs.  It is even reasonable to suggest
that they denigrated the incandescent light bulb industry.

     The other explanation lurks in the world of political
correctness.  Many monsters lurk in that world.  In this case two
cannons of political correctness clashed head on.  Which is the
most important?  Should one advocate for the environment or be
anti Israeli?

     SodaStream's plant is located in West Bank country
which some consider to be the domain of those people
commonly called Palestinians.  Never mind that the plant's
employees are Arabs.  To some the plant is still evil and must
not be allowed to promote its products in Britain.

     I wonder how much anguish the politically correct suffer
when forced to choose between two of their favorite children?  
Perhaps we should take a collection to provide grief counseling
for them.  On second though, not a good idea.  That would
probably be deemed politically incorrect and cause them more
grief.  On third thought, should we waste our time worrying
about the self torture experienced by those who propagate the
squirrelly ideas that flow from the world of political correctness?

     If the people supporting the ad ban were half clever they
would have banned the adds for promoting soda rather than for
encouraging the elimination of cans and bottles.  At least they
could have been at peace with themselves, assuming the
politically correct can ever be at peace with anyone.

                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum
18440 29-1/2 Mile Road
Springport, Michigan 49284