A heavy dose of truth, humor, and political activism.

Location: Phila, Pennsylvania, United States

Friday, October 13, 2006


In an attempt to draw in more recruiting-age Americans, the U.S. Army is abandoning its current ad-slogan of “An Army of One” in favor of the new “Army Strong”. The new approach (the fruit of a five year, $200 million-a-year contract with a major advertising agency) was announced Monday by Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey. According to Harvey, "Army Strong" will be the centerpiece of a multimedia ad campaign to be launched Nov. 9, timed to coincide with Veterans Day weekend. The new slogan, developed in numerous tests with focus groups and interviews with soldiers, is meant to convey the idea that if you join the Army you will gain physical and emotional strength, as well as strength of character and purpose. In 2005, the Army missed its recruiting target by the widest margin in more than two decades. They bounced back this year to reach their goal of signing up 80,000 new soldiers, in part by offering bigger financial incentives, increasing its cadre of recruiters and making more use of Web sites to reach young people. It also has accepted more applicants with lower-tier scores on aptitude tests. Strange how something like 2,800 U.S. soldiers being killed in a needless war in Iraq (with more dying every day) and increased time on tours of duty will lower those recruitment numbers. If you can’t fool people into joining the military like in the good old days why not just raise the incentives and lower the standards? Pay goes up, IQ goes down. So why not just tailor the Army’s slogan for each demographic of people they are trying to recruit? Stop beating around the bush and just tell people the truth. I came up with a few examples. If any member of the Army recruitment office is reading this, feel free to adopt these slogans as your own.
*For Kids Trying to Pay for College:
“Lose a leg, gain a college education! We’ll pay for college and your new wheel-chair”
*For Low-Income Kids Without Better Prospects:
“Unless you’ve got a jump-shot or can Rap, it’s either Iraq, or prison”
“Body armor is for pussies”
*For Kids Who’s Fathers, Grandfathers, Etc., served in the Military before them:
“If your dad and grandfather jumped off a bridge, you’d do it too, right?” *For Kids who actually feel a sense of duty to the United States:
“Our #1 export is Freedom”
“Tell people you work directly for the President”
*For People who support the Army/GOP because of their religious views:
“Join the Army or the terrorists and homosexuals win”
*For Anyone else Who is Presently Considering Joining the Military:
“Do what you’re told”
“Army Strong, Brain Dead”
The U.S. Army has plans to keep the current level of soldiers in Iraq through 2010, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said Wednesday, a date much later than any Bush administration or Pentagon official has mentioned thus far. Schoomaker cautioned against reading too much into the planning, saying it is easier to pull back forces than to prepare and deploy units at the last minute.
"This is not a prediction that things are going poorly or better," Schoomaker told reporters. "It's just that I have to have enough ammo in the magazine that I can continue to shoot as long as they want us to shoot."
Am I crazy, or did he just compare U.S. soldiers to bullets? Soldiers are people. When you fire a bullet it is most likely going to be destroyed and never recovered. Should we expect the same fate for our soldiers? These military leaders (from Commander in Chief on down) do not see soldiers as humans but as a means to an end. Currently there are 141,000 troops in Iraq, including 120,000 Army soldiers. Schoomaker's comments come less than four weeks before congressional elections, in which the unpopular war in Iraq and the Bush administration's policies there are a major campaign issue. Why does it take this long for all of these campaign issues to come to light? Why weren’t there Democrats and members of the media (and their alleged “liberal bias”) standing up before now and bringing these issues to light? I think the answer is clear. Democrats don’t care about calling the GOP out unless it’s an election year. They don’t care what the GOP is doing to America as much as they care about what the GOP is doing to themselves (and their chances to retain control of the Senate). Until people stand up and demand leadership that actually has the best interest of the public in mind, these men (both on the left and the right) will continue to care about nothing more than their own interests and the interests of big business. Once you start comparing human lives to bullets, it would appear that your common sense of decency is shot.
I was watching television tonight with my wife when a preview for the movie “SAW III” came on. From the previews (and through my powers of assumption) I’m guessing that SAW III is exactly the same as the first two where a bunch of people are “taught” to not take life for granted by committing all sorts of gory, violent acts in order to save their own lives. All three movies were rated R. For those of you with little knowledge of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and their rating system, an R rating means that in order for anyone under the age of 17 to view the movie, they have to be accompanied by a parent or guardian. Basically, if their parents don’t mind them watching it, it’s okay for them to watch it. The rarely used rating of NC-17 means that no one under 17 is permitted to watch the movie, period. NC-17 means that the MPAA has decided it knows what is best for children under 17, regardless of what their parents might think. So why is this rating reserved for movies like “Showgirls” which showcase nudity instead of deplorable violence and gore? Why is it that the MPAA (which I’m not sure serves any real purpose aside from restricting free-speech and promoting religious values) takes the stance that parents can subject their children to as much violence as possible, but under no circumstances should a child be able to see a bunch of naked women? Furthermore, the word “fuck” being used more than once in a movie, automatically gives the movie an R rating, but there are many, many violent horror films that receive a rating of PG-13 (which means parents are strongly cautioned to accompany children under the age of 13).
“Now kids remember, you can see any movie where people are hacked to bits, tortured, eaten, and slaughtered as long as there is no naughty language!”
Come on. If you were being hacked to death by a crazy homicidal super-human killer, don’t you think you might drop the f-bomb a few times? I’d say that’s a perfectly acceptable time to use the word fuck.
“No, stop! Don’t skin me alive! Fudge that hurts! Bloody Heck.”
I don’t have any experience killing anyone, but I’d assume that if you take a large knife (or any other crazy weapon they use to kill people in movies) and use it to hack a woman to death, there’s a pretty good chance one of her breasts is going to pop out. Somehow, in the movies, they manage to kill a whole lot of people without anyone using any “vulgar” language or flashing a little nipple. Dancing on stage at the Super Bowl half-time show can make your breast pop out, but a chainsaw can’t? Please. I’m not saying that we should remove violence from movies; far from it. I’m just wondering how they can justify violence as being healthier for children than cursing or nudity. Personally, I’d rather have my kids walk around the house screaming “show me your fucking titties,” to the babysitter (and having her oblige), then have them becoming numb to killing for the sake of killing. If a parent should be allowed to send their child to a PG-13 rated horror flick where a bunch of people are murdered in graphic fashion, then a parent should be allowed to send their child to see a PG-13 movie where a bunch of girls with Tourettes run around topless. It’s probably only a matter of time before the snacks have a rating system and you have to be a certain age or accompanied by a parent to buy a sugar-filled soda or snack containing trans-fat. I propose we take all the money being wasted on the MPAA and use it to better educate our nation’s children.
That’s all for today folks. Sorry that there was only one post this week. Hopefully next week will prove more fruitful. Life in the Miller household has been a little hectic recently. I’d just like to tell everyone what a trooper my wife is being throughout the entire mourning process. She gets an A+. The rest of you get B’s. You want an A too? Just complete this assignment: share the link to this blog with ten people you know. Is that an easy A or what? Have a great weekend everyone and I’ll see you next week for another edition of the Spoon, Full of Truth.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why aren't you writing professionally? This is really good stuff. I have a brother in Iraq and I'm terrified our Idiot in Chief is going to get him killed. Keep speaking the truth!

October 13, 2006 1:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great blog ! Folks, November is fast approaching and we need to elect a Congress that will stop Bush's craziness. Today 2 leading Republican senators called for a change in our policy in Iraq.If they can see that Bush's policies, if any, are misguided , then it is time to elect a Congress that will rein in Cowboy George. Thanks for the blog .

October 16, 2006 9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Love your blog. I like your thoughts on the movie rating system. Violence = let them see it, sex= forbidden. Sounds alot like the ratings that would apply to the Bush Administration. They would get an R rating for the violence in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and NC17 for Foleygate.

October 16, 2006 3:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home