My wife and I both love the Christmas season. The hugs from our kids and grandkids, the wonderful aromas that waft temptingly from the kitchen, watching while our neighbors spend frozen hours stringing lights around their houses and even suffering through some relative’s annual “Gosh-aren’t-we-incredibly-successful-and/or-blessed-and-our-kids-are-better-than-yours” Xeroxed infomercial tucked inside their annual Christmas card. Even that we enjoy – in a perverse sort of way.
We especially enjoy taking a warm mug of coffee (or tea or hot cocoa – we’re very ecumenical) into the living room and watching one of the many sappy, but enjoyable, movies that celebrate the season.
Last night we were watching a pleasant, harmless and utterly no-thought-required made-for-TV movie when a wonderful idea came to me. One that I’m sure the Supreme Court would toss on the grounds of it being the embodiment of “cruel and unusual” punishment, but I thought, what the hell, if I’m suffering through it, why shouldn’t rapists, murderers and child molesters suffer even more.
You see this pleasant, harmless and utterly no-thought-required made-for-TV movie was constantly being interrupted by the dreaded “Holiday Commercial.”
While watching (for at least the eighth time in a ninety-minute broadcast) the same Victoria’s Secret commercial featuring young women in scanty underwear swishing seductively along wearing (I’m not kidding here) the wings of angels, a vision of these same women, still swishing seductively, but wearing “Hoodie-Footie” flannel garments (that defy any normal definition of the term and are advertised at least as frequently) popped into my head.
It was then that I decided that those charged with the most heinous of crimes should be sentenced to life-without-parole, but they should be forced to watch these idiotic and insulting holiday commercials 24/7 until they day they die from natural causes (in deference to the tender sensibilities of our left wing, über-liberal, well-indoctrinated brothers and sisters).
The 24/7 parade of commercials should not be interrupted by even a momentary view of a normal program. All right, all right, “normal” might be a poor choice of words, but you all know what I mean.
Just hour after hour of beautiful people selling perfume for their loved ones, while wearing a Santa hat. More beautiful people, who can’t be older than about 23, giving their beautiful wife, husband, significant other, or total stranger for all I know, a brand new, shiny luxury car with an enormous, red gift bow sitting on top (the payment book for said car would, I assume, be wrapped in a separate package and given later in the day).
Such a punishment would naturally cause the ACLU to file suit in Federal court to prevent it being carried out, and they would undoubtedly cite the “cruel and unusual” nature of the punishment.
OK, so maybe they’d be half right. It is kind of cruel. Actually, it would be very cruel. But since most of you are thinking it would also be funny, you might begin to see the attraction of public executions during the Roman Empire and the medieval period. But I digress.
On the “unusual” front, the ACLU would lose. Just one time the Supremes might actually apply common sense to that issue. If the entire population of the United States is subjected to these inane efforts to induce us all to buy things we don’t actually need, and those efforts embodied by television commercials bombard us hour-after-hour and day-after-day then it can hardly be classed as “unusual” punishment.
And I won’t even address the depravity of political commercials. Let’s save those for terrorists.
Of course the Supremes may still declare torture-by-television as simply torture and declare it unconstitutional. If that were the case, perhaps we could convince them to allow it for first offenders only. I mean if you were subjected to a year of non-stop commercials, would you commit a second offense? I know I’d behave myself.