shredded aortas. oops, i meant oats.

i am disturbed.

i am usually anti-disclaimer. but i realize that what i'm about to point out hits at a pretty controversial issue. i also realize that i'm probably not entirely correct (and i hope you appreciate that one because you're not likely to hear it too often). but it's a tough one; and i, as aforementioned, am disturbed by it.

i speak of the new anti-smoking campaign television ads recently launched by new york state. i only get a few channels, but i've seen them on all of them (granted there are only 4). anyway, as far as i can tell there are two new commercials — and i fully acknowledge i may be also be logistically inaccurate about things here because of my very limited access to television. so feel free to correct me if you know otherwise. but what i've seen are two commercials, both of them beginning by someone lighting then taking a drag of a cigarette. they both follow the smoke down an inside view of what i presume is the smoker's esophagus. now this isn't exactly pretty, per se, but there's nothing offensive about it. what comes next, though, i do find a bit troubling.

commercial a, at this point, cuts to an operating table on top of which sits a human brain. there is a surgeon standing behind said table. the surgeon then proceeds to partially dissect the brain with some sort of surgical tool, and the viewer is spared no grisly detail. the brain is grey and pallid and blobby as i guess brains on operating tables being dissected usually are and the surgeon goes right at it, slicing it down the middle and exposing some of its inside. i find i've usually looked away by the time the brain starts to trickle, ooze, drip blood from its little brainy, veiny, gelatinous cavities.

[shudder]

commercial b takes another part of the body; this time we get a close up of what we are told is the aorta of a 32-year old smoker. this in itself is pretty unpleasant looking: a sort of nude color, sphincter-like looking thing that definitely appears as if it could have used a little wipe-down for its tv appearance. i mean i know there are lots of fluids and gooey things and what not in there, but man. anyway, i get the point: you damage your aorta if you smoke and that's bad and now i see what my sad aorta looks like and that i shouldn't damage it anymore. now this is a good point, but the aorta is pretty foul-looking. and really find it intolerable when hands appear from behind the aorta and begin to squeeze it from the top down like an nearly exhausted tube of toothpaste for the purpose of demonstrating precisely how much actual build-up smokers add to their unfortunate aortas with each cigarette. the substance that is henceforth expelled from the diseased aorta looks something like chunky and hardened mayonnaise. the hand continues to squeeze and more of this revolting, pus-like matter squirts/oozes out.

and let me tell you, i'll take a bleeding brain anytime after that one.

now i'm not trying to be disgusting for the sake of being funny or even just to be disgusting, for that matter. and i don't believe i'm being obnoxiously squeamish; in fact i really don't think i'm an overly squeamish person at all (hello, planned parenthood?). however, when i'm sitting on my bed, as i was this morning around 9am, enjoying a nice bowl of shredded oats and milk while i try to catch some weather from al roker, i really feel conflicted as to whether or not i should be forced to watch someone gut an aorta. or, for that matter, if a six year-old girl sitting and fiddling with her barbie dreamhouse on her living room floor while a babysitter checks to see who's on oprah should be subjected to a gooey, blood-sweating brain. you know, i'm just not sure.

and i know there is an argument to be made about my use of the word "forced," here. it is true, nobody is holding a gun to my head demanding that i watch television. but couldn't the same debate surround some other government mandates regarding what can and cannot be aired on television or the radio?

in response to a not-so-slight conflict over bono saying the word "fucking" during last year's golden globe awards (NOT, of course, in the sexual sense but in the adjectival sense), federal communications commission chairman michael powell wrote:

'i find the use of the "f-word" on programming accessible to children reprehensible.'

and i'm not taking an official position on this (like my opinion could ever be official), but there seems to me to exist a certain disparity here.

[for your reference, the fcc has declined to return our phone calls pertaining to this matter.]

on a personal note, i smoke cigarettes — maybe a little more frequently than infrequently. in spite of that i am not biased; i am all for anti-smoking campaigns. and i think anyone who says otherwise is being ignorant. who is actually against discouraging people from picking up a dangerous habit? and you really can't be against something that gives the public straightforward information. people should be educated; they need to be able to make informed choices. if i suddenly declared that people should not have access to the information they need to make knowledgeable decisions then i would be a giant hypocrite. GIANT. informed decisions. information. truth. good stuff. but back to the matter at hand, i do perhaps think that this campaign is taking the whole graphic-image-use-to-make-a-point a little far.

what on earth is the matter with something old-school like this?


cigarettes, skull and crossbones, you know: death.....
what's wrong with that? it gets the point across and doesn't make me dry heave. word.