Who is the army really advertizing to?

In class, we had a discussion about comercials on TV during certain sports events and other events where the media takes advantage of races and ethnicities to advertize to. One advertizement that really sticks out to me is the "Army of One" comercial trying to recruit people to the army. One thing I have always noticed is that the comercials are always of young people, and promnently young black and hispanic men. Rarely you will see a woman or a white person on the screen. This made me think about what is really being advertized on our army recruitment ads. For one thing, it is a well know judgement that most people who live in the ghetto are black. It is also a common judgement that most black families are from low incomes, and do not aim for college. This, I think, is a main reason that the army comercials on TV, target young African American boys who are in need of extra money to get to college and a career, for that matter. The comericals for An Army of One, are about a young black man who talks with his parents about joining the army. I think this is really wrong . One, I think the army should not target kids from low income families, just becasue they don't have a lot of money. Most kids don't have any idea what they are signing up for in the first place, because the comercials they see are about people running and looking very brave and heroic. They don't see the blood and death and pain that really happens inside the army. Secondly, I think that the army is trying to take advantage of a situation in their favor. They are targeting kids of a single ethnicity becasue of a jugement that African Americans are poor and have nowhere to go, but to the army. So how strong, is army strong?

Erasing Memory: Changing History?

The other day in class, we talked about the idea of a person possibly being able to erase a single memory by just taking a pill. This pill would not necessarily erase the full memory, but would lesson or take away the emotional attachment to that particular memory. I fully and completely object to this idea. Like I said in class, erasing emotion and memories could distroy memories of event in history, such as genocides and the holocust. Without emotion, we have no idea what happened and how badly peopke were effected. Also, someone mentioned about how if someone was suffering from shell shock from a war, wouldn't "The pill" erase the bad memories from the war and help them and their family? And if a woman was raped as a child, wouldn't it be better if she could just swallow the memory away forever? I believe this issue is much deeper than just yes and no. For one thing, if this pill did eventually go onto the market, what would the message be to all the rapeists in the world? "Oh, I can rape whoever I want because they will just take that pill and they won't remember it!" Or what would it say to all the war generals or future presidents? They would just say "We can send everyone to war now! They can swallow the pill and won't remember this later in their lives. They won't remember the pain." The pill would just be an excuse to get rid of other people's pain for personal gain. Another point is that what happens if everyone can get a hold of this pill? What if people abused it to erase little memories they didn't like, such as a break-up, or a bad grade. I think this pill would be easily abused by everyone. And what would happen if we all took this pill? Would we suddenly be in a perfect eutopia? Would everythinmg be perfect with no pain in the world? Would mom's suddenly say to their kids, "Oh sweetheart, did u lose your soccer game? Take this pill, you won't feel sad anymore!" What are we trying to accomplish by doing that? Pain is normal, its human, its natural!!! (Sorry teachers) but shit happens. Its part of our everyday lives. Its what makes us...us!

Why were we attacked?

After our discussion last week about the 9/11 attacks, I have been thinking over and over again about why in the world we were attacked in the first place. Why the twin towers? Why New York? And more importantly, why so much hate? I don't think anyone really knows the exact reason. In class, someone brought up the point that it all depends on viewpoints. According to (most) americans, the people who ordered the attacks were evil human beings with such a hate twoard the USA, that they were willing to kill thousands of innocent humans without a second thought. But according to them, they might be completing some sort of religious deed, and in the name of their God, they are doing good by killing Americans. But that still doesn't make any sense to me. Why would they come here and cause such distruction? Was it jealousy? Were they jealous of our society? Were they mad at our political decisions? Or was it, in fact, just a religous factor? I would love to hear any feedback or ideas from you guys.

The News and apperance??

In class, we had an intersesing discussion about how people's appearance has become a major factor in deciding who is on the news and who anchors are. It used to be that all anchors were middle aged white men with english and journalism degrees, but today, it seems that even if an anchor is terrible or rude (AKA Nancy Grace), it only matters if they are good looking and camera friendly. Today, people like the presidents press secretary, have become sudden celebrities. People on CNN shows such as Glen Beck, Anderson Cooper 360, and Robbin and Company are all beautiful and flawless people that all have their own time on the news. Our discussion made me really think about what goes on behind the scenes of hireing anyone for a job. I admit, it is easier to watch someone that is good looking, but should looks be the only deciding factor in hiring newscasters, and anyone that is on TV for that matter? If you read my blog, what do you think about our journalists today becoming celebs?

Pictured Left To Right: Robbin and Company, Anderson Cooper 360, Nancy Grace