Advertising that has gotten under my skin, in one way or another:

Oh, it appears that the labels are always published in alphabetical order. I'd prefer them reversed for this post . . .

Have you noticed - and about the only way you wouldn't is if you don't watch television - the Visa Check Card commercials? Some complex, German-clockwork-like operation is humming along smoothly: hamburgers flying from grill to bun to tray to consumer (pardon me if the details aren't 100%), or happy customers and clerks juggle toys. In each scenario, consumers swiftly complete their transactions with a quick swipe at the card reader, until one thoughtless customer approaches and tries to write a check or - **GASP** - pay with CASH (IMAGINE the NERVE of some people!), to the utter inconvenience of those in a rush to complete their business and move on. Immediately the entire, formerly-efficient machine grinds to a screeching halt, and the offender either sheepishly completes his slow, outmoded transaction while everyone around him scowls, or knowingly smiles and breaks out her Visa Check Card, to everyone's approval.

I'm sorry, but I'm NEVER going to accept the premise that a credit/debit card is the only socially acceptable way to pay. Some would suggest that this is just another step toward the Revelation-predicted mark of the beast, without which individuals will not be able to participate in commerce. I'm not going there. Still, I utterly reject, and resent, the implication that using cash (which, in the U.S., still says "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private," right? I'm pretty sure the Visa Check Card doesn't say that!) or writing a check inconveniences others to such a degree that I should feel socially obligated to pay for EVERYTHING with a piece of magnetism. It is one thing to suggest a product's benefits, and quite another to imply that we all have a social obligation to use it.

And that doesn't even begin to address these commercials' underlying message about the rush in which we seem to live our lives.

Every time one of these ads appears, I grow more angry at Visa over them. They offend me to the point that I'm really glad I don't have anything in my wallet that says Visa on it!

Another one, which didn't bother me quite as much, appeared as a sidebar ad on an e-mail website. Match.com told me today: "It's okay to look!" It's the old cliché, "Just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you can't look at the menu." But isn't there a difference between noticing someone who walks by on the street and going to a website specifically to look? Isn't the latter a choice that moves me a step closer to at least considering a dalliance? Don't get me wrong: I look. I've even looked at such sites. But now that they assure me, "Oh, don't worry, it's okay . . . " I find that I must ask, "Is it, really?"

And further, I find that I know the answer.

I suspect that this actually ties into the recent conscience thread. It isn't always a matter of doing what is obviously or objectively sinful or hurtful. But rather than considering whether I can justify an action as harmless, isn't it better to ask what choice best helps me to be the husband - and in general, the person, in my current life context - I'm called to be?