What Didn't Sit Right About the Doritos Commercial?

I've already spoken at length about the controversial Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad but there was another ad that stuck with me and I just couldn't figure out why. It was one of the many Doritos commercials that were featured during the telecast and it was the one with the little kid who slaps a young man who was courting his mother.

Although I initially found some humor in this particular ad, I found myself thinking there was something deeper about the spot that didn't sit well with me. I couldn't figure it out until I read this post by Jam Donaldson. You can view the ad below (click here if the player doesn't show up) and read some poignant thoughts from Donaldson after the video.



From Donaldson:

"I know, I know, it's only a commercial; they are just meant to be funny. However, with the lack of strong black men on television, eternally single black Mothers, black young men seen as goofy sex-starved slackers and out-of-wedlock bad a** black children, somehow this spot just played in to every aspect of the community that silently haunts us. And then we are supposed to laugh.

All that was missing was the hoochie teenage neighbor, thug life aspiring rapper older brother or the sassy overweight no-nonsense, neck-rolling auntie. These black archetypes are getting so tired. I'm sooooo weary of the single-mom-playboy-man-bad-kid paradigm that seems to dominate our images on TV. And now its being used to sell Dorito's. I almost long for the days of the mean black dad and the coon. At least men were in control of their households. I mean, when a child can get in your face, slap you and you sit looking petrified, how are we to believe the black man is strong and in control of anything? (President Barack Obama, not withstanding)

But on the other hand, there's no real reason why a scenario that takes place every day in the homes of single parents everywhere can't be relayed with a bit of harmless, over-the-top humor. So maybe there's no harm, no foul. It could be me. I don't know. I just feel like it's time for a new breed of stock characters in our pantheon of media representations. Am I being a hypersensitive black person (HBP)? Am I tripping? Am I PMS'ing? I mean, I can't lie, I love me some Dorito's."

This ad demonstrates just one of the many images that are presented to us every day in the media that we may laugh at and not give it a second thought. It could simply be innocent fun or we could be contributing to the perpetuation of damaging stereotypes. Some may even wonder if, as a white man, I'm in any kind of position to even be commenting on this. And maybe they're right. But I do think it's something worth thinking about.

Tim Tebow & The Abortion Debate

For millions of Americans, Florida Gator Tim Tebow is a football star and a positive role model for little kids everywhere. But to a vocal segment of our population, the former Heisman trophy winner has been ruffling some feathers recently. It all started when word got out that Tebow would be featured in a 30-second spot that will run during the upcoming Super Bowl.

The ad will focus on the choice that Tebow's mother made to give birth to him after some doctors suggested that an abortion would be advisable after she contracted a serious illness. As you know, Mrs. Tebow went ahead with the pregnancy and Tim turned out fine.

As I've heard numerous opinions on this issue, I've seen three different perspectives:

1. Tebow should have a right to say what he wants in whatever forum he wants.
2. Tebow has a right to say what he wants but not during something like the Super Bowl.
3. Tebow is a narrow-minded, religious nut for even suggesting that it might be a good thing for women to consider that abortion might not be the best option.

What I've found most interesting about this whole debate is that many individuals that consider themselves "pro-choice" seem to get really upset any time someone advocates that women keep their baby. It doesn't sound that many of them are truly pro-choice. It feels like they are almost angry that Tebow's mom chose to have him and she wants others to consider the same choice. Many of the same people, who are the most staunch proponents of non-censorship, want to censor those that they disagree with.

The reason why I am pro-life is that I believe that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being. And I am not in a small minority. In fact, Americans are nearly evenly split on this issue. As I've said before, I believe that abortion is my generation's slavery. It is a terrible evil that is allowed by our government. Just as many in the South argued that the Civil War was really about states' rights, many pro-choice advocates claim that the abortion debate revolves around the civil rights of women.

The primary "right" that the South was fighting for in the Civil War was the "right" to own human beings and treat them as chattel." The reproductive "rights" that are involved in the abortion debate is the "right" to kill an innocent child within it's mother's womb. You may disagree with my perspective, but I believe that scientific evidence backs up my belief that abortion is murder. Children are the most vulnerable members of our society and to not speak up for them when they can't defend themselves is wrong in and of itself.

But what if children that were about to be aborted could defend themselves. Would that change things? Look at what Stephen Schwartz has to say:

"Suppose, in the encounter between doctor and child [in an abortion], the child won half of the time, and killed the doctor in self-defense—something he would have every right to do. Very few doctors would perform abortions. They perform them now only because of their absolute power over a small, fragile, helpless victim."

So for something that I feel is the greatest evil of my generation, I believe it is totally appropriate for a well-known figure to speak on behalf of children that can't speak for themselves. Over 200,000 people died in Haiti recently and we applauded each star that spoke out on their behalf. Close to 50 MILLION children have been killed in their mother's womb since 1973 in the United States alone! Isn't it fitting, then, that in the midst of one of the most-watched viewing event in American television challenges people to consider this all-important issue?

I appreciate what Scott Maxwell of The Orlando Sentinel said about this as he compares pro-life advocates to civil rights activists:

"I strongly disagree with my friend and colleague, George Diaz, who argued today that the Super Bowl is the wrong time for anyone to press political or social issues. Would one argue that if, 55 years ago, Rosa Parks had wanted to air a PSA for civil rights, that she find some other, “more appropriate” time to do so? (Excuse me, Mrs. Parks, but if you wouldn’t mind just keeping your seat in the back of the bus until we can see if the Giants pull this victory out, that’d be swell. Besides, there’s a really funny commercial involving monkeys and soda coming up.)"

I realize that there are people that will be reading this post that are just as passionate about this issue as myself but on the other end of the spectrum. That's okay. I still consider you a friend. But it doesn't mean that I agree with you. This issue is too important for me to say "to each his own." It is not like the choice between Coke or Pepsi, Nike or Adidas. It involves human life and for that, I will always choose life.