BREAKING NEWS: Non-Conformist Misses Barbeque

Former POW Bowe Bergdahl has been plastered all over the news for the past few days. Earlier this week, it came out that Obama had traded five Taliban members for Bergdahl, who had been a captive for the past five years. 

When the information was first released to the public, everyone went "yayy!!" because he was (as far as we know) the last known American captive of the Taliban. But then his fellow platoon members started coming out about how much they didn't like him. Some are now arguing that Bergdahl is a deserter who is responsible for the deaths of the men who searched for him.

Perhaps his most heinous crime, however, is that he didn't go out with the guys. 

According to The New York Times, "Platoon members said Sergeant Bergdahl, of Hailey, Idaho, was known as bookish and filled with romantic notions that some found odd." 

"He wouldn’t drink beer or eat barbecue and hang out with the other 20-year-olds," said one of his comrades.

And everyone knows, of course, that every non-conformist is a traitor. God forbid that an off-duty soldier chooses to read rather than drink beer. 

This doesn't paint a pretty picture of his platoon members. They have zero tolerence for bookish guys, and are quick to use his personality as evidence of his lack of patriotism.

Do you think that not drinking beers with the guys is a sign of a traitor? 

Faking Cultural Literacy

I recently read an article in the New York Times called Faking Cultural Literacy. The author expressed concerns about the growing tendency to express opinions and take sides without knowing much about the subject matter, be it movies, books, or presidential candidates.

Everyone does it. During the last presidental election, for example, I had a little game of asking someone which candidate they liked better. This was the typical exchange:

Me: Obama or Romney?
Them: Obama, baby!
Me: What do you like about him?
Them: Uh, um, he's a democrat and stuff?
Me: Yup, that's Barack. What do you think about his policies?
Them: Um... Wow, republicans suck! Die, Romney! 

At this point in my blog, I wanted to insert a quote by someone smart and preferably famous. So I googled for about 10 seconds and came up with this quote by Alexander Pope, found on Goodreads:

“A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.”

I have next to no idea who Alexander Pope is. I think he wrote or said something about erring and being human, but- Oh, he wrote that in An Essay on Criticism. Wow, I love that!

So why are we under this pressure to come across as knowledgeable about our culture? Being culturally literate is a status symbol. It makes people think that you're intelligent and cultured. And it's easier than ever to fake it. Go scan the headlines of the New York Times to get the latest news on Putin being the reincarnation of Hitler, and maybe check out the Joss Whedon version of Much Ado About Nothing on Netflix so you can join the school Shakespeare club.

Do you ever find yourself faking knowledge? Is it a dangerous thing? 

Purebred Dogs As a Status Symbol

I rarely see mutts in Winnetka. Almost every dog I see is purebred, and before the village decided that it is unacceptable to let dogs play in the park across the street, I would see various dog breeds running around at any given time. Golden Retrievers and Labradors are especially plentiful in the area.

So majestic. So aristocratic. Wow.

I've always wondered why so many people buy purebred dogs despite their tendency towards inbred diseases. Bernese Mountain Dogs, for example, are particularly prone to cancer, and yet one of my close friends had no qualms about buying three in a row. 

Not only are purebreds prone to illnesses, but they also cost a fortune. Some of the more popular breeds can cost >$1000, not including medical costs and the inevitable damage to electrical cords. 

The only explanation I can think of for the popularity of purebred dogs in rich neighborhoods is that they serve as a status symbol. If you can afford a purebred dog, then you're most likely well-to-do. When someone sees someone else with the same type of dog as them, they become part of this imaginary club and feel an immediate kinship. When I learned that one of my friends has a King Cocker Spaniel, I immediately blurted out, "No way, I have a Welsh Springer Spaniel!" and we proceeded to gush about our privleged pets.

This idea of purebreds as a status symbol even appears in The Great Gatsby. The late Myrtle had no knowledge of dog breeds, so when she and Tom stopped on the side of the road to look at some puppies, she made the social blunder of asking for a 'police dog' and then accepting a mutt, identified as an airedale by the seller, which "undoubtedly [had] an airedale concerned in it somewhere though its feet were startlingly white" (32). Evidently, Myrtle would never have made it in Winnetka.

Do you think that purebred dogs are a sign of class?

Abuse is NOT Gender Exclusive

Most people I meet seem to assume that domestic abuse afflicts only women. When I see phone numbers for domestic abuse hot lines, they're aimed towards women. Everyone seems to forget, however, that the roles of abuser and abusee can be reversed.

In a heterosexual relationship, men are generally considered to be the bigger and stronger one in the relationship. The thought of a woman winning a battle of brute strength is repugnant to most men. It's this trail of logic that has resulted in under-reporting of domestic abuse cases. On their info page on domestic violence against men, Mayo Clinic states:

"Because men are traditionally thought to be physically stronger than women, you might be less likely to report domestic violence in your heterosexual relationship due to embarrassment."

Whenever I make a statement along these lines, nearly everyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm anti-feminist. IN NO WAY am I anti-feminist, but I'm not going to ignore the huge bias against men when this topic is discussed. The 'Getting Help' page on the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence website does not use the word 'men' a single time. But abuse is not gender exclusive.

Do you think that abuse against men is a serious issue? 

Dove's "Real Beauty" Campaign

I recently read an article called Sorry, Dove: I'm not buying your brand of female empowerment, written by Stassia Edwards for The Week. The article comments on the new Dove video, "Patches", which is part of their Real Beauty campaign.

Dove has been advertising "Real Beauty" since 2004. The idea of the campaign is that women are beautiful the way that they are, and they shouldn't let beauty companies or mass media tell them otherwise. 

While I agree that women (and men!) shouldn't let mass media and advertisements influence their body image, I think that the whole Dove campaign is hypocracy at its finest. Everyone seems to forget that Dove is a beauty company. 

Let's look at the picture to the left, for example. Wow, that heavily airbrushed woman has real curves! Don't let people put insult your body, you're beautiful the way you are! Don't let corporate media bring down your self-esteem! Don't be afraid to show your body, no matter the shape or size! Buy our skin-firming anti-cellulite soaps and lotions! 

Okay, so it's not exactly out of the ordinary for commercials to be misleading or even outright lie. But Dove's ads are outright deceitful. In the words of Edwards, they "foster the belief that its products are more than just cosmetic, that they somehow enhance an inner beauty that exists in a place untouchable by beauty products." 

The big reason that the campaign has been so ridiculously successful is because it makes women think that by buying Dove, they're somehow contributing to feminism, because if I had to pick two words to encompass the entire feminist movement, they'd be 'female empowerment.' And Dove is allllll about money female empowerment.

What do you think about the whole Real Beauty campaign? Is it well meaning or is it a marketing ploy?

Theoretical Equals Factual

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 2 months, you've probably heard about the whole 'Russia Invades Crimea' thing. Dozens of newspaper articles have reported on the numerous deaths resulting from the conflict, and some conservative politicians (coughJOHN MCCAINcough) have seized the opportunity to hold Obama accountable.

The problem is that we don't know as much about the facts as we think we do. According to this article from Newsmax, 

Details of the fighting remain sketchy. A statement from the administration of the eastern Donetsk region indicated the security officer may have been killed between Slaviansk and the nearby town of Artemivsk. Putting the number of wounded at nine, it said "an armed confrontation" was going on in the area.

Reading this, I couldn't help but think of a passage from Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five. Set in WWII, the novel tells the tale of Billy Pilgrim and his experience in the Dresden bombings. At this point in the book, Billy is enlisted as a Chaplain's assistant and playing on his little organ when an umpire appeared to inform the congregation of the war's current status. 

"There were umpires everywhere, men who said who was winning or losing the theoretical battle, who was alive and who was dead. 

The umpire had comical news. The congregation had been theoretically spotted from the air by a theoretical enemy. They were all theoretically dead now. The theoretical corpses laughed and ate a hearty noontime meal."

It seems a bit strange that real life news reports are so similar to a novel that is a satire. Americans have a tendency to jump to conclusions before we have all the facts. The news that a theoretical security officer was theoretically killed is good enough to cement our opinions about the ongoing conflict.