• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

clear eyes, wow

LibraryLady

Emeritus
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
14,331
Location
Maryland
I keep seeing the commercial for Clear Eyes eyedrops, with the spokesman Ben Stein. Yes, the same Stein who hates science and thinks Darwinism leads to genocide. Therefore I have written the following letters. Please critique before I send this off!

September 2, 2008

Prestige Brands, Inc.
365 W Passaic St
Rochelle Park, NJ 07662

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am puzzled by the advertising for one of your products, “Clear Eyes,” the television commercials featuring the actor, Ben Stein.

Mr. Stein has stated that science leads to killing people, as documented here, http://boingboing.net/2008/05/01/ben-stein-science-le.html. He has participated in the making of a movie, “Expelled,” which denigrates scientific method. And yet you use him as a spokesman for a product which I sincerely hope was produced through science.

If I am not mistaken, the product, “Clear Eyes” and your other products, such as No-Doz, Chloraseptic, and New Skin Liquid Bandage, are all produced in laboratories by scientists. If this is not the case, then I would not purchase any of these items, and would discourage my family and friends from doing so, as I would not want to see them sickened or injured.

I see a fundamental contradiction between having a person, who is by his own admission anti-science, advertising products supposedly produced by science.

Please let me know how you reconcile this inconsistency.

Yours truly,
 
Reply:

We use Ben Stein because he sounds funny and makes people remember the ad. We don't really care about politics that don't impact us directly. Also, we're selling a product not promoting science.

Sincerely,
The Suits.
 
I think Stein was commenting on the German scientists that tested on Jews during WWII. I think maybe a wider sample than just a blurb on a site called boingboing might be in order. Basically I think you might want to do a bit more research on Stein before you get offended by him selling eye drops and boycotting the company that uses him to sell their product.

-Maus
 
I think Stein was commenting on the German scientists that tested on Jews during WWII. I think maybe a wider sample than just a blurb on a site called boingboing might be in order. Basically I think you might want to do a bit more research on Stein before you get offended by him selling eye drops and boycotting the company that uses him to sell their product.

Have you seen _Expelled_?

I think you might want to you your own research before you start being a Stein apologist.
 
No I have never seen Expelled. It is a TV show (entertainment), correct?

I don't understand the apologist comment as I don't really see where I am defending anyone. I just thought a comment taken out of context might not be a good evaluation of a person's character. If you want to sell me on boycotting a product because you have bias against the spokesman then you might want to formulate a more convincing argument than a blurb.

-Maus
 
Maus,

Expelled bills itself as a documentary but is actually a piece of propaganda. This makes Stein a lot like Michael Moore but on the right instead of the left.

Specifically the documentary is about certain scientists getting punished by the scientific establishment for promoting Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Not surprisingly many (such as LL) in the skeptical community are quite passionately opposed to this movie. There are already other threads on this forum that discuss the accuracy of the claims made in the movie.

While I agree with LL in her opposition to Expelled. I think boycotting the company that makes Clear Eyes is a bit extreme, for several reasons:

1. Stein was hired and as such is simply a mouthpiece for the opinions of the company, not an independant agent. I do not agree in trying to prevent Stein from working in his chosen field because he expressed opinions I disagree with.
2. Stein was the spokesperson for Clear Eyes before the documentary was made so he clearly was not hired because of or even in spite of the documentary.
3. I am not certain how involved Stein was in Expelled. Was he another hired voice, or was it his pet project, or somewhere in between? I haven't bothered to find this out because it simply is not important to me.
4. I am not surprised that Stein has conservative views. Before he was an actor/spokesperson, he was a speech writer for Richard Nixon and has always been open and proud of his relationships with those in the conservative movements. Being surprised and offended that he made a movie in support of conservative beliefs is just not constructive.
 
Well, I think that the letter in the OP would have more impact if the writer put a little more explanation of her problems with Mr. Stein in the letter. While I think it is important to offer references, the reader shouldn't have to read them to figure out what you are talking about.

Offer direct quotes, explain the whole issue...don't rely on an external website to do it for you, because the reader won't go there. The body of your letter is the only place where you have an opportunity to make your case. Use it!

That being said, I don't support your boycott. If Prestige Brands sold educational products, I would think you had a point. Boycotting home and beauty products because of an unrelated political and philosophical disagreement? Seems counterproductive to me.
 
Thanks for the clarification cwalner, it helps if I get a background on what the movie is about and some other things.

I think neltana pretty much sums up the problem with the letter, and I served as a live example.

-Maus
 
My only advice is to find out if he is still making new ads for clear eyes, or if they're just re-running the old ones. If the latter, well, I wouldn't bother. If the former, I think a letter stating your concerns is fine. The products aren't educational, but they're sorta medical in nature. Clear eyes and the other products are medicated, yes? It's not just sterile saline, right? If they're actually medicated, they're using modern science, and I think LL has a decent point. (Of course, if they're placebos, then maybe ben stein is the perfect spokesman!)
 
The adds looked remarkably like the old ones.

Either way, perhaps the company wants to re-think using a man who so spectacularly demolished his credibility as a spokesman.
 
I agree with you that they SHOULD rethink it, but on the other side you have the weighty issue of already having paid for the ad and not wanting to pay for a new one. Seems to me that he'd have to poo on the flag or something equally un-ignorable in order to get them to pull an ad they've already paid for.
However, if we're talking about an ongoing campaign, one that might have more ads in the future, then they might be persuaded to switch to a different concept (or spokesman) if enough people write letters.ince, They haven't actually paid for those ads yet.

My point, I guess, is that while LL's campaign has a small chance of success in the latter case, it has, I would guess, a near-zero chance of success in the former case.
 
The man shills for saline, and has an annoying voice that qualified him to be a bit part in a particularly stupid movie back in the 1980s. I can't imagine why anyone would care what he thinks about the origin of life on earth. Or any topic, for that matter. Let him preach creationism in the street if he wants to. People will just look at him and say "wasn't that the dude who was the annoying teacher in that stupid movie? Matthew Broderick's married to that woman who played the main whore in that show, you know. Oooh, a Starbucks! Let's go in."

I think he had a crappy gameshow with Jimmy Kimmel at one point, too. On Comedy Central. Oooh. Let's ask him what he thinks about science!
 
I have a question, and I know I'm very behind on this topic, that has to do with Glenn Beck. I saw a clip of Glenn Beck actually calling this guy the "smartest guy he knew" (!!!), and supported Expelled, saying that "if you're religious, you should see this".

Uhm, did this come as a surprise to anyone else, or have I not seen enough Glenn Beck to know that this would be coming? Is there a thread I failed to find on the topic?

Anyways, to get back on topic. Personally, I remember seeing his Clear Eye commercials far before Expelled was created. While it might be an idea to encourage him being fired from Clear Eyes, I'm not sure if I support that; it's an attempt to get him fired for an argument he made in a subject that has little to nothing to do with eye drops. However, if sales go down for Clear Eyes, I'm sure that the company will figure it out sooner or later.
 
Last edited:
Ben Stein is one of the smartest people around. He's also an example of a mind going into the weeds defending an emotional position.
 
Ben Stein is one of the smartest people around. He's also an example of a mind going into the weeds defending an emotional position.
John Derbyshire, who some here love to hate as a reactionary conservative, wrote this about Ben Stein and Expelled:

What on earth has happened to Ben Stein? He and I go back a long way. No, I’ve never met the guy. Back in the 1970s, though, when The American Spectator was in its broadsheet format, I would always turn first to Ben Stein’s diary, which appeared in every issue. He was funny and clever and worldly in a way I liked a lot. The very few times I’ve caught him on-screen, he seems to have had a nice line in deadpan self-deprecation, also something I like. Though I’ve never met him, I know people who know him, and they all speak well of him. Larry Kudlow, whose opinion is worth a dozen average opinions on any topic, thinks the world of Ben. So what’s going on here with this stupid Expelled movie?...

(...snip...)

I turned over some possibilities, but decisively rejected them all. The first thing that came to mind was Saudi money. Half of the evils and absurdities in our society seem to have a Saudi prince behind them somewhere, and the Wahhabists are, like all fundamentalist Muslims, committed creationists. This doesn’t hold water, though. For one thing, Stein is Jewish. For another, he is rich, and doesn’t need the money. And for another, the stills and clips I have seen are from a low-budget production. Saudi financing would surely at least have come up with some decent computer graphics. No, Ben Stein is no crook. He must then be foolish; and that’s sad, because I now think less of a guy I once admired, and whom my friends admire. Life, it’s just one darn bubble bursting after another.
Derbyshire is National Review's resident pessimist/Cassandra, so that last sentence is not at all out of character.

Biologist P. Z. Myers, in a less organized way, has been pointing up the errors and deceptions in Expelled since the wretched thing hove into view. (Here he links to a whole stack of reviews, including a couple of positives.) Other science-literate bloggers have been weighing in, often very angrily. One of my favorite comments came from “Pixy Misa” (Andrew Mazels) who correctly called Ben Stein's accusing Darwin of responsibility for the Holocaust “a blood libel on science.”

I would actually go further than that, to something like “a blood libel on Western Civilization.” One of the most-quoted remarks by one conservative writer about another was Evelyn Waugh's on Kipling. It bears quoting again.
[Kipling] was a conservative in the sense that he believed civilization to be something laboriously achieved which was only precariously defended. He wanted to see the defences fully manned and he hated the liberals because he thought them gullible and feeble, believing in the easy perfectibility of man and ready to abandon the work of centuries for sentimental qualms.​
Western civilization has many glories. There are the legacies of the ancients, in literature and thought. There are the late-medieval cathedrals, those huge miracles of stone, statuary, and spiritual devotion. There is painting, music, the orderly cityscapes of Renaissance Italy, the peaceful, self-governed townships of old New England and the Frontier, the steel marvels of the early industrial revolution, our parliaments and courts of law, our great universities with their spirit of restless inquiry.

And there is science, perhaps the greatest of all our achievements, because nowhere else on earth did it appear. China, India, the Muslim world, all had fine cities and systems of law, architecture and painting, poetry and prose, religion and philosophy. None of them ever accomplished what began in northwest Europe in the later 17th century, though: a scientific revolution. Thoughtful men and women came together in learned societies to compare notes on their observations of the natural world, to test their ideas in experiments, and in reasoned argument against the ideas of others, and to publish their results in learned journals. A body of common knowledge gradually accumulated. Patterns were observed, laws discerned and stated.

(...snip...)

Gino Segrè’s book — and, of course, hundreds like it (I have, ahem, dabbled myself) brings to us a feeling for what the scientific endeavor is like, and how painfully its triumphs are won, with what sweat and tears. Our scientific theories are the crowning adornments of our civilization, towering monuments of intellectual effort, built from untold millions of hours of observation, measurement, classification, discussion, and deliberation. This is quite apart from their wonderful utility — from the light, heat, and mobility they give us, the drugs and the gadgets and the media. (A “thank you” wouldn’t go amiss.) Simply as intellectual constructs, our well-established scientific theories are awe-inspiring.

And now here is Ben Stein, sneering and scoffing at Darwin, a man who spent decades observing and pondering the natural world — that world Stein glimpses through the window of his automobile now and then, when he’s not chattering into his cell phone. Stein claims to be doing it in the name of an alternative theory of the origin of species: Yet no such alternative theory has ever been presented, nor is one presented in the movie, nor even hinted at. There is only a gaggle of fools and fraudsters, gaping and pointing like Apaches on seeing their first locomotive: “Look! It moves! There must be a ghost inside making it move!”

The “intelligent design” hoax is not merely non-science, nor even merely anti-science; it is anti-civilization. It is an appeal to barbarism, to the sensibilities of those Apaches, made by people who lack the imaginative power to know the horrors of true barbarism. (A thing that cannot be said of Darwin. See Chapter X of Voyage of the Beagle.)

(...snip...)

For shame, Ben Stein, for shame. Stand up for your civilization, man! and all its glories. The barbarians are at the gate, as they always have been. Come man the defenses with us, leaving the liars and fools to their lies and folly.
Ben Stein is an educated - very well-educated - man, and in many ways, a wise one; I had the pleasure of reading his Ben Stein's Diary for several years in The American Spectator, and whether you agreed with him on everything or not (I didn't), you could not deny that there was a powerful intellect at work.

Then to see him prostituting himself in the service of "intelligent design"... I would be less startled if I heard a mule suddenly bray in my living room. I would be less startled to see James Randi write a column in praise of dowsing.

And no less disappointed.
 
BPSCG said:
Then to see him prostituting himself in the service of "intelligent design"... I would be less startled if I heard a mule suddenly bray in my living room. I would be less startled to see James Randi write a column in praise of dowsing.

And no less disappointed.
You'd be disappointed if you heard a mule bray in your living room?
 
I first heard about this movie when I saw a poster in a movie theater. I had no idea what it was about but from the poster (and at the time my very high opinion of Mr. Stein) I assumed it was a documentary critical of the degredation of our educational system in the US and almost decided to see it just on that.

Wow!!!!, would I have been in for a rude awakening.:jaw-dropp
 

Back
Top Bottom