The Superbowl ad we should have seen

[Quantum Windbag]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j_8qCbHsUA]Halftime in America: Remy Chrysler Ad Parody - YouTube[/ame]

 

[waltky]

The Superbowl ad we shouldn't have seen...

Budweiser's Super Bowl ad only adds to military’s alcohol problem
February 5, 2014 ~ I like beer, and would wager that most veterans like beer too. Budweiser placed a similar bet Sunday night during the Super Bowl with its ad “A Hero’s Welcome,” which showed a Norman Rockwell-esque homecoming for Army 1st Lt. Chuck Nadd in his hometown of Winter Park, Fla. — courtesy of Budweiser.

The ad tugs my heartstrings in the same complex way that standing ovations at Washington Nationals games for veterans do. The applause feels good, and is certainly better than what Vietnam-era veterans faced too frequently at home. Nonetheless, the Budweiser ad should have never been aired. The ad ignores the complicated relationship that veterans have with alcohol, obscuring how much harm booze does to veterans when they come home. And the one-minute spot arguably breaks a handful of government regulations meant to prevent public endorsement of private brands, especially where alcohol and drugs are concerned.

Two main sets of military regulations exist to prevent the Army from getting, well, too buddy-buddy with companies like Budweiser. The first are the military’s ethics regulations. Joint Ethics Regulation section 3-209 states that “Endorsement of a non-Federal entity, event, product, service, or enterprise may be neither stated nor implied by DoD or DoD employees in their official capacities and titles, positions, or organization names may not be used to suggest official endorsement or preferential treatment of any non-Federal entity except (the services’ official relief societies).” Under that regulation, the Army cannot legally endorse Budweiser, nor allow its active-duty personnel to participate in their ads (let alone wear their uniforms), any more than the Army can endorse Gatorade or Nike.

The second set of regulations relates to the Army’s anti-alcohol program, something that has been in place for decades, and has evolved out of the all-volunteer force’s desire to have a drug- and alcohol-free workplace. Paragraph 3-4 of that regulation, titled “Deglamorization,” states that “t is Army policy to maintain a workplace free from alcohol,” and that “Alcohol will not become the purpose for, or the focus of, any social activity. At all levels alcohol will not be glamorized nor made the center of attention at any military function.” That rule forbids the Army from bringing alcohol companies like Budweiser onto bases to support Army functions, and regulation sharply limits the ways the Army can interact with these alcohol makers and distributors, limiting such interactions to essentially flowing through Army-approved concessions on base (like the base liquor store or Officer’s Club).

I sent a detailed list of questions about how, and why, the Army seems to have ignored both sets of policies. An Army spokesman said the ad had been vetted, and that Army officials concluded that Ladd’s appearance in uniform while on duty did not constitute “official support to or otherwise partner[ing] with” Budweiser or the Veterans of Foreign Wars in the spot’s production. This logic convinced the Army’s top leaders that it would be OK to raise a toast to Budweiser. Because these are Army and Defense Department rules, and not statutes carved into law, senior Pentagon leaders can generally waive them. However, an option’s legality often says nothing about its wisdom. The problems with the ad go way beyond the legal questions, and are in many ways far more serious.

MORE

 

[Politico]

The NFL, a private business, should have been forced to show a commercial against their will. How Rightyloon of you.