Armed Condescension

Lately, I have felt like we are being barraged by Army recruitment commercials. I don't know if it is similar nation-wide, or if it's just that the Army sees Central MO as their personal breeding ground. Either way, I am becoming sick of seeing them. My distaste for our country's use of our armed forces and for violence in general definitely plays a role in my weariness for these commercials. However, most of it is the commercials themselves and the messages within.

One such commercial shows a group of friends hanging out and talking at someone's home. As they talk and laugh, an old friend walks in wearing army attire and makes some comment about how they're doing the same old thing to get their attention. After quick happy greetings, they talk with him about what the armed forces have him doing, asking things like, "so, they got you jumping out of planes?". He replies that no, he's working with computers. The friends look surprised and ask "couldn't you do that here?" The next scene is a mental flashback showing some moment in time when he is working with computers in a rushed atmosphere that is made to feel important, like he has the fate of the world in his hands. Then things flash back to the scene with the friends and he replies that he couldn't do it here. However, his reply is filled with such condescension and sarcasm that I cannot even begin to illustrate it with words. What is the message I get from this commercial? What you do is only important if you do it for the army, and you are less of a person, a deadbeat perhaps, if you choose not to join the army.

Another commercial that bothers me portrays a black family. In it a son comes to his mother quite excited, telling her that he has found a way to pay for college. The mother looks quite concerned at this moment. The son goes on to explain that he has fully researched this opportunity, and describes it as though it is the best, most exciting, and apparently safest thing around(this is how I interpret the commercial, though it isn't actually said). And the message from this commercial is...? Basically, this one says the only way poor minorities can pay for school is to join the army. I have a response to this commercial. I believe MoveOn.org or some other organization willing to should create a commercial of their own. This commercial should portray a rich family with Bush and "support our troops" signs, magnets, and stickers everywhere. Their son walks in, excited, talking about a new opportunity. It may be difficult to believe he's doing it to pay for school, so maybe he thinks of it as a fraternity or something. In response his parents are adamant that their people (those with money) do not do such things; that's for the poor and minorities. The ending message would be something like "support the war? Join the army." Hopefully, the organization that would choose to do this commercial hopefully has skilled writers for such things who could work with this premise to create a commercial that gets the message across before causing blinding fury, as I'm sure my initial description would if turned into a commercial.

Now, before I end this, I want to make one thing clear. I support and respect the troops. I know it was not their fault they are being used to kill innocent people for a unknown objective. I also believe it is the army's right to advertise, as can any other organization. However, I ask that they be more respectful of those of us who have chosen a life of non-violence as civilians. We are important, too. I also ask that the army work toward being an equal opportunity recruiter. Sure, your hook works better with those who cannot pay for college, but shouldn't the family with the big house draped in American flags be an easy sell, too?

It's Vacation Time, Baby; Vacation!

I would like to take a minute to say a couple of things to "President" Bush (who, I am sure, checks my blog daily looking for new entries, because I am, after all, an American Citizen who deserves my leader's attention, right?):

I am quite confused (not to mention bothered, infuriated, etc.) by the things going on right now. At this moment, the one most prominent on my mind is vacation. You see, a lot has been said lately about your current 5-week vacation, Mr. Bush. I believe that, before the current leave, the report was that you had taken off about a year for vacation out of the last four. If we were to add on to that the time spent away from work to campaign to keep the job for a few more years, you've been away for awhile. Not to mention the fact that you are on vacation while thousands of Americans are fighting and dying in a war. I have a couple of points of view on this subject I would like to share.

#1: You have taken a lot of vacation time from your duties as President. The duty of the President is to answer to the American Citizens, to work in out interest. In the work place known by the rest of us, our duty is to answer to our boss, to work in the interest of our boss and their company. You see, Mr. President, you work for us. As made clear by the polls, we disapprove of you and frankly, are quite bothered by the amount of time you spend away from work. Therefore, we no longer have a need for your services, as we can find a much more qualified person to fill your shoes. Yes, Mr. Bush, you are being fired. If HR (the Senate) does not complete the firing process, they too will be fired.

Since it's not that easy, here's the other point of view.

#2: President Bush, you have taken quite a bit of vacation time during your time in office. I have been told that you have taken the equivalent of one year's vacation over the last four years. Mr. President, I just want you to know that I am in support of your decision to take so much time for yourself. However, I feel that you are being a bit of a hypocrite. To resolve this, I ask you to do one favor for me. Please, push our government to pass a law giving us, no, guaranteeing us, the ability to take vacation for the equivalent of three months out of the year. You see, sir, here in the working world, we are working 50 or more hours per week. On top of that, the compassionate conservative individuals leading our companies tell us that we are not working enough hours. We do get vacation, but it ranges from 2 to 4 weeks out of the year and can only be taken within small windows or else it is lost forever. Therefore, one of two things must happen. Either we are guaranteed time off as taken by our President, or our President starts working like the people he represents. It's your decision (since you don't want to let us decide how things work).

The Greatest American

Have you been keeping up with The Greatest American on Sundays? I really haven't, though my wife and I look it up from time to time on AOL just to see who has been chosen thus far and maybe make a quick vote. I must question whether or not people in our country are thinking rationally. It seems like we, as a nation, have little to no long-term memory; no ability to consider things of the past as relevant to our current lifestyle. Granted, I know that not everyone falls in this boat; it is a generalization, and in general, we are way too narcissistic. I say this because we seem too focused on what is current, and it comes out in these top countdown lists. I've seen it in other lists where the voters are the general public and Brittany Spears ends up being considered a better artist and more important to music than the Beatles. Seriously. Stop and think rationally for just a moment, people.

The reason for this rant is the top 25 on the Greatest American list. It included people like George W Bush, Lance Armstrong, and Billy Graham. Well-known individuals in our current society. However, what great things have they done as Americans that benefit us as a nation and possibly the world? Susan B Anthony wasn't in the top 25. Bush, Armstrong, & Graham haven't done anything equivalent to getting women the right to vote. Jonas Salk wasn't up there. They haven't created a vaccine saving thousands of people from paralysis or death. Harriet Tubman wasn't in the top 25. They haven't saved thousands of Americans from slavery and death. I know that my examples are a little off, because things like slavery do not (to my knowledge) occur in our country today. Nonetheless, thinking rationally, does one really think that in 50 years our nation will still be praising how Bush "bravely" sent thousands of Americans to die and gave us and extra $200 back on our taxes? I would like to say that we will still know about and teach about Susan B Anthony. At least, I thought it was important that women got the right to vote...

The Infallibility of the Closed Mind

I was watching Trading Spouses on Fox(?) the other night. I don't watch it regularly, but have caught some episodes here and there. It is actually an interesting show, giving us an intimate peek into the inner workings of families different from our own. In case you haven't seen or heard of it, they take two families with seemingly opposite ideals and ways of life and switch either the mothers or the fathers for a week.

I would think it would be an interesting situation: you spend a week someplace new with some new people and you get to experience their life a little and get to show them your life a little. In the end, you get $50,000 for doing it. Not bad...actually, it sounds fun. If I had children (they seem to only choose families with children, which is understandable), I would probably sign up. I wouldn't be chosen though, because I wouldn't make for interesting TV.

There is one thing this show makes clear, though (at least to those who pay attention). What it makes clear is the fact that a large part of our society incredibly closed-minded. In fact, most, if not all, of the closed-minded individuals their way of life and their ideals are the only way, end of story. Why? What makes one person's lifestyle the best thing for everyone? Why must they force it on everyone? It seems that so many people come on that show determined that they are going to change the way the other family lives. Some try to force others to go to church and prayer groups, while others try to force families to become vegan. Let the child drink soda: if his parents let him drink it and you come in for a week trying to force him to quit, do you think you'll make a positive impression on his life? No. These people are given a wonderful opportunity to share their culture (and it is amazing how many cultural differences there are throughout our nation) and experience another, but instead they turn into missionaries.

This current episode seems to be the most interesting yet, with the vegan woman joining a Cajun family in Louisiana. She seems unwilling to take in any of their incredibly rich culture; instead choosing to complain about their cruelty to animals, the fact that they eat meat and little vegetables, and attempt to force them to eat healthier. It's sad: she has a good message, but goes too extreme. Everything is best in moderation; when you go too far, you annoy people and they become less interested in your side than they were before you began speaking.

Well, that was a bit of a rant that didn't really follow a logical path. Therefore, in summary: be open-minded, don't force your ways on others, and appreciate the opportunities to share your lifestyle with others in exchange for a taste of their lifestyle. Also, a tip for being open-minded: always assume you are being closed-minded and that you can work a little harder to be open minded. Doing that makes it harder (though not impossible) to fall into the trap of closing our mind and assuming ourselves to be infallible.

It's 2005, not 1865

So, have you heard about the latest resolution from the Senate? Our senate, in the year 2005, has finally passed a resolution to formally apologize for the lynchings of African Americans that occurred up to the 1960's and for not making lynching a federal crime sooner. Better late than never, I guess.

But wait, it gets "better"!

Not all senators co-sponsored the bill. Some senators (approx 20) actually refused to sign this bill for fear that they would not receive the votes pro-lynching racists when re-election rolls around. There is an effort on blogs such as Daily Kos to identify these Senators who feel that receiving racist votes are more important than apologizing for allowing the deaths of innocent Americans. The senate even voted on this late at night so a roll call vote would not be required and those not in support of the measure could be hidden. Those individuals need to be identified and held responsible. Why would any reasonable person not support such a resolution? Perhaps these people aren't reasonable...all the more reason not to allow them to be re-elected.

Unless these individuals have a good reason for not signing (hospitalized, held captive by the evil monkeys in their closet), they are making clear to the voting public that they care more about 'political points' and making niche groups happy than doing what is best for our country. Therefore, those who did not support this measure should not be re-elected at any cost.