A defense of executive killings »« Is the pope a credible expert on what constitutes reality?

First they came for the goldfish…

As if the first ad with its murder of goldfish was not bad enough, Herman Cain is back with an even more outrageous one.

What is it with these crazy Herman Cain ads that feature that creepy little girl and animals being slaughtered for sport? There seems to be a very disturbed mind at work behind them.

At least this time the little girl is not yelling at us, though the post-nuclear landscape overseen by Cain remains. And is the shooter actor Rob Lowe?

It is not only animals that are being tortured, so are metaphors. If the rabbit is small business and the catapult basket represents current tax laws, then what does the rabbit being flung into the air by the basket mean? And who or what does the shooter represent?

I see a disturbing trend here. First they came for the goldfish, then they came for the bunnies. What’s next, puppies?

Comments

  1. Mano Singham says

    It is likely true that the animals are not being harmed since that would be appalling but there is something disturbing about repeatedly using the imagery of killing animals.

  2. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Cain is still pushing his 9-9-9 tax plan to raise taxes on the poor and middle class and drastically lower taxes for the rich (including himself).

  3. Zinc Avenger says

    “… After my attempt to participate in your human ritual called “democracy” failed, I shall make your televisions show footage of cute animals being tortured! You shall make me your ruler, or I shall escalate the animal cruelty! Bwu-hahaha! Bwu-ha! Bwu-haha! BWU-HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!”

  4. Morejello says

    Apparently their economics advisor is also their physics advisor. That’s not how that style of catapult worked.

  5. Tony says

    So Joe Camel can’t be on cigarettes because it could influence children.
    The Budweiser Frogs were discontinued because it could influence children.
    Cookie Crisp had to change their ad campaign so that kids didn’t get the wrong message about thieves escaping the police.

    Yet its ok for a Herman Cain commercial involving gratuitous animal slaughter to include a real child?*

    *I’m aware that there’s no connection between Herman’s ridiculous commercial and the above examples. I’m just pointing out that it’s a sad reflection of our society that commercials involving anthropomorphic animals and cartoonized cops have to change to be “less appealing” to kids–who don’t generally appear in those commercials–while an animal slaughtering commercial involving a real child is deemed ok by society.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>