the recent skoal tabacco ad: sensitive isn't crying at the movies. it's knowing a bass is nibbling on a jig 15 feet down.

so there, an appeal to a real man. but more specifically a man that chews snuff and goes fishing. stereotypically, a white man. i recently heard complaints that mcdonalds was appealing to low-income black families by adopting their street/casual talk ads like (as pointed out now that i remember these specifics, by maddox, the guy with the best page in the universe or something like that) not using caps, and contracting words, such as "i'm lovin' it!" etc. just realized that everyone that sells something bad for you (or sells anything in general, obviously) is going to target those who buy it most, and therefore those who suffer from it most.

anyway.

a quick realization. so, bush says things like God is on our side and that God wanted him to be president. i just realized that i never, for once, actually thought that he believed what he was saying. i guess i just assumed he was saying it for political reasons or something. if i actually take what he says at face value, and don't try to find hidden possibilities that would give him more credit than he deserves, then, well..


alright.. my morning's 7am wakeup call is akin to a 4 or 5am awakening to you who aren't completely adjusted to getting up at 10 like me. what did i do with all that extra free time? just simply watch the old testament set identical groundworks for eventual late 19th century colonialization, and further, give historical and religious credence to God-leads-the-way aggressive American bravado. and all these BC exterminations re-enacted with 'convincing gravity' as "only the History Channel can."

from abraham to moses to joshua, gideon, debra, king saul through david, the isrealites followed God's plan to enter Canaan, exterminate all breathing creatures, and make the place their own.

the differences: the isrealites were not a rich nation sitting pretty already, like the dutch, portuguese, etc. and were not out-arming their opponents by centuries of technology, like spaniards cannonning indians from their boats. these old testament warriors were out-classed in almost every major skrimish and relied on tactics and strategy. also, another difference, and i don't know what's worse* but the extermination of men, women and children with intentions to settle and conquer a more resourse-rich area was done because religion told the isrealites it was ok and because science told the imperialist powers it was ok. sure, the isrealites weren't already one of the world's strongest nations, but they however had been existing well enough at what the bible calls a desert oasis south of the mountains of canaan for more than 40 years during which time they grew and trained their army.

so those are those connections. and then the idea that those stories set the stage for the holy book that our president abides by, you might think that we've made very little progress, and you might think you know why.


*i feel science in the short run but religion in the long run. science seems like it has the flexibility to learn from its mistakes. but in the short run, relegating another people to lesser based on accepted 'fact' rather than accepted religion seems worse. maybe just because we're used to religion being more prone to passing out prejudices.