Sunday, December 14, 2003

Radio and TV ads: I've noticed that many ads have one thing in common. In a lame attempt to be funny, they use the smart person-dumb person comparison. The dumb one says/does something incredubly, unbelievably stupid. The smart one shows the dumb one the "way," using the product/service being promoted.

This'd all be ok, if not very smart, clever or original, except for one thing: the dumb one is always, ALWAYS a white male. The smart one is usually a woman (his wife), sometimes a kid (his son or daughter), or sometimes it might be a man (his friend) of another race). The entire idea is to get us used to the idea that white men are weak and stupid.

Years ago, up until maybe as recently as fifteen or twenty years ago, they were doing the same thing to women. We all remember the house-bound wives, the sexy, but ditzy girl friends and the simple-minded office girl. Well, I'm sure that wasn't any fun for the woman who wanted to be taken seriously as an attorney, a doctor or a business executive. As I started paying attention to it, I didn't care for it then and I don't care for this turnabout either.

Like it or not, and for reasons unrelated to such superficialities as race and gender, but rather to the way things were as mankind emerged from the Dark Ages of mysticism and feudalism. Men were in charge during those times, and momentum kept it that way for centuries. Mysticism and feudalism were (partially) conquered first and best in Western Europe. Thus, it was Western Europeans who first learned to use their minds to understand reality and to learn to use it.

Men of other races and backgrounds have followed and, at times, led. Women finally got their start, mainly in the twentieth century. They're catching up fast, and rightly so.

None of this makes white men stupid. We're the same as we've always been.

No conspiracy here, but there seems to be a mindset that wants to undo the Age of Reason and return humanity to a new Dark Age. I reject it.

My personal plan is to keep track of those firms who produce and use those kinds of ads and not patronize them.

Col. Hogan

Friday, December 12, 2003

I'm gonna get around to some of the objectivist and libertarian stuff soon, but an interesting thing happened today. I've observed the phenomenon before but a particular event brought it into sharp focus today.

I went over to the Ice Palace in Westminster for a little skate. There weren't very many people skating, mostly kids.

The thing that hit me was that there was a little kid, fully decked out in his pint-sized Detroit Red Wings hockey outfit (sans hockey stick). He was skating very well for a tyke (about five years old). The odd thing: his father, probably just a bit under 30 years of age, was off the ice, often standing in the open doorway shouting instructions to the lad.

My question: why the hell is this dolt standing in the doorway, why isn't he in skates, on the ice, playing with his son? Why is this boy out there by himself while Dad is shivering on the sidelines?

When Jim, my elder son, was about that age, we started skating. I'd skated some as a kid, but I was never very interested nor very good at it. We went to a LA Kings game and somehow we translated that into going skating ourselves. It never occurred to me to put skates on Jim and shove him out on the ice. We both put skates on and learned (relearned, in my case) it together.
We skated regularly for a couple of years and got pretty good. Jim tried hockey, and decided he didn't really like it. I tried it, and decided that I did. Jim just skated in public sessions after that--I think he still does, but not regularly. I played amateur hockey for nearly fifteen years, and skate public sessions pretty regularly to this day.

To the father of that young boy: what the hell is wrong with you? You're missing a great opportunity. Get some skates on and get yourself on the ice--with your son!

Col. Hogan

Monday, December 08, 2003

I sure would like to find more time to write this stuff down.

Col. Hogan