Looking For A Few Good Crusaders

As we all know, advertising is filled with content other than the product or service being sold. A car commercial on TV may have sexy young people, cool computer graphics, and trendy music in it.

It doesn't tell you shit about the car, really. You see maybe three seconds of the car. That ad is selling you a lifestyle, and associating that lifestyle with the car.

Images and words in an ad can bring up uncomfortable or unpleasant motivations using double meanings. Ads regularly suggest, indirectly, that not desiring the product can associate you with impotents, aging, poverty, meanness, or death. You're denying your four-year-old your love when you don't buy Pillsbury Cookie Dough and bake it with him.

Okay, let's look at the Air Force slogans.

On its surface, "No One Comes Close" states the well-earned pride of an elite military force with training honed to perfection.

The double meaning, though, evokes one of the chief ways the Air Force found recruits before September 11th: it cast itself as the service with the lowest mortality. If you're in the Air Force these days, you're usually in a plane, bombing villages from thousands of feet up. No one, literally, comes close. You'll be safe.

Likewise, "Cross Into The Blue" suggests the blue Air Force uniform and planes in a blue sky.

But you've got to take into account that the Air Force changed this slogan after September 11th, to reflect the circumstances of the war it was beginning to fight.

To many Muslim opponents of this war, the Air Force truly must be a "Cross into the blue;" that is, a crusade. Now, the Air Force is openly recruiting crusaders.

The war sure looks like an Air Force crusade. Thus far, it's mostly an air war. There are a few troops on the ground, but the majority of the campaigns are bombing raids from airplanes too high up for anybody to hit. In Afghanistan, like in Iraq, the Air Force acts like the hand of a capricious god, killing civilians by chance.

Those who doubt that the U.S. is going to war against Islam don't consider that even Pervez Musharraf, the military dictator of Pakistan and the most valuable "coalition" ally of the United States, has pressured the U.S. to stop operations during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. We're likely to ignore him.

We're stepping up the war on every Islam-related front. Next, we're in the Phillipines fighting Abu Sayyaf, a group known for beheading American tourists (and, maybe, a few spies). We'll be in Brazil fighting the Party of God. We'll disrupt the private hawallah banks, and with them, the ordinary lives of millions of people in the U.S., Europe and the Middle East. We'll dry up the funding of Hamas, and with it the funding of social services for thousands in Palestine.

All of these acts may be designed to fight terrorists, crucial for our national security.

But, how do they look to the outside? And, more importantly, how do they look to potential Air Force recruits, the kind of people who shoot targets of Arabs at shooting ranges and on their computer screens?

	At least they aren't promoting homosexuality now (none / 0) (#3)
	by bc on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 09:36:06 AM PST

	Back in the 80's, they were, using songs by the disgraceful group 'The Village People' in US Navy recruitment adverts. Hughes and his band mates were surprised when their single "In the Navy" was used as a recruiting campaign anthem for the US Navy and Naval Reserves. With the full support of the War Department, Hughes and his band mates were taped performing aboard a US Navy Destroyer as part of the recruitment campaign, the footage and the hit song being used in television ads for the recruiting drive until the Pentagon demanded that the ads be dropped in light of The Village People's public image as a pro-homosexual group. It would seem that, if what you say is true, the armed services are considerably more Christian now than they used to be, which is to be applauded. ♥, bc.

	then only Christians applaud with you (none / 0) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 09:14:08 PM PST

	I as a non-Christian (I am a Jewish) I am utterly sick and tired of some of the Christian crap being shoved down my throat. I very much respect both Catholic and Protestant Christians who respect my religion. I am however, tired of hearing how we must return to "Christian Values" in America. I respect anyone, no matter what religion that gives praise to [their] God. The Constitution fully protects freedom of religion and calls for separation of church and state. People like Pat Robertson will try to convince stupid people it's not in there but it is. Here's an example of stupidity spread by him and people like him: "When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218. This pretty much sums up Pat's political philosophy. Unfortunately for him, what he espouses here is blatantly unconstitutional, as Article VI, Section 3 states: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." "There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." --Pat Robertson, November 1993 during an address to the American Center for Law and Justice Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This simply wouldn't work if there wasn't a separation of church and state. A theocracy would inevitably violate the First Amendment. Separation of church and state is the only way to insure that freedom of religion is kept

	Surely one of the greatest achievements of the US (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 01:18:08 PM PST

	Is the creation of the secular state and the intention that all religions be treated equally before the law. That achievement is threatened as much by protestant conservatives who want to make the US a backward theocracy through the back door, as by Islamist fundamentalists who, let it be remembered, are not only responsible for terrorism against the West but want to force all Muslims to follow _their_ deeply unpleasant Conservative agenda. (in Iran they've just been beating women senseless for celebrating a victory by the national football team...go figure) Conservative Islam and conservative protestantism are both opposed to the modern world. As other posters rightly point out, this appeals to inadequate young men who want an excuse for aggressive behaviour and who want to be able to force young women to do what they want because they don't have the character, the kindness or the imagination to form good relationships with them. If this is a crusade, it needs to be against all the forces of backwardness. And some of them are not brown and mad: they are white and mad, and may even get to advise presidents.

	indeed (none / 0) (#31)
	by cp on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 11:41:39 PM PST

	the Pentagon demanded that the ads be dropped in light of The Village People's public image as a pro-homosexual group. Indeed, the Village People raised homosexualism to a level of professionalism rarely seen before or since.

	This piece is based upon the flawed premise that (5.00 / 2) (#4)
	by Mint Waltman on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 10:42:11 AM PST

	...there is an escalation in the War on Islam- implying that there was ever a time since the crusades in which the War on Islam has halted or at least calmed. State-sponsered military action against the Islaminists may have abated over the past 600 years or so, but we Christians have been fighting a God-sponsered war over that period of time. We may not have tanks or bombs or whatever, but we have something even more powerful. We preach outside of mosques and bazaars in ethnic neighborhoods, gaining fresh conscripts for God's Army everyday. That this is news to you wimpy college liberal types is no suprise to me. We've been fighting the good fight, the fight that provides you with the luxury to blaspheme, or push a radical homosexual agenda through the public school system with virtually no recognition- in this life at least. It's a dirty, filthy war that you've never heard of, but we'll continue to fight it until the enemy is vanquished. You may now return to your woman's studies coursework...

	God's Army can kiss my arse! (none / 0) (#7)
	by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 11:35:26 AM PST

	"God-sponsered" war? First of all, it's sponsored...if you're going to make offensive super conservative right wing remarks, at least take the time to spell correctly. Your piece is based on the flawed premise that anything can be sponsored by god. I'll give you this: If Yaweh gets off his supposed white-robed ass and comes down here and causes some kind of miracle telling Christians that they are right and the rest are wrong then I'll convert immediately and join your little army. Unfortunately, nothing like that will ever happen. The whole god thing is still up in the air and can be debated ad infinitum. That said, there cannot be a god-sponsored war in the world as it stands now. Sure, people like you and good old Dubya can get up there and invoke Yaweh but that's just using psychological constructs. And us "wimpy liberal college types" are well aware of the fact that there are freaks like you everywhere around the world trying to convert people who already have their own religion. The thing I really don't understand it two-fold: 1)How the hell do you people have so much time on your hands? and 2)How can you claim to live a "Christian" life while not loving your neighbor enough to leave him the fuck alone while he's praying on his little carpet? I don't expect anything coherent back, cause I suspect you could probably condone the killing of abortion providers to "save lives". PFFFFFTTTTTTTT!

	God sponsoring war (none / 0) (#8)
	by Yossarian on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 11:53:18 AM PST

	`If Yaweh gets off his supposed white-robed ass and comes down here and causes some kind of miracle telling Christians that they are right and the rest are wrong` But God has performed such miracles - repeatedly throughout the course of human history! Just look in the Bible - it's there for anyone to read! `How the hell do you people have so much time on your hands?` There is always time to spread the word of the Lord :)

	Yossarian? (none / 0) (#11)
	by tkatchev on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 12:54:55 PM PST

	That's a Jewish last name, is it not? -- Peace and much love...

	It's from Heller's Catch-22 (none / 0) (#12)
	by Adam Rightmann on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:09:40 PM PST

	a book mocking US involvement in Vietnam, although it allegedly takes place in WWII. Apparently it was a huge hit with the various boat people fleeing Vietnam after the Godless Communists (no offense tkatchev) took over South Vietnam. Nothing like humor mocking the war to defend your freedom while Malaysian pirates rape your 13 year old daughter. A. Rightmann

	Right. Teach your grandma to suck eggs, why not... (none / 0) (#13)
	by tkatchev on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:20:45 PM PST

	I am fully aware. (Actually, Joseph Heller is Jewish, and seeing as Catch-22 is in many ways an autobiographical work...) -- Peace and much love...

	Kneel before my insight, puny weblog poster (none / 0) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 03:47:04 PM PST

	The name Yossarian is supposedly Assyrian, if I recall Catch-22 correctly. The character despite his Assyrian heritage, often refers to himself as being an Armenian. This is a reference to the works of Fresno dwelling Armenian and author, William Saroyan. I never actually picked that up when I read Catch-22, since, like most people born since the late sixties, I am almost completely unfamiliar with the work of Saroyan, despite his influence on Heller and several other authors (he merits a mention in "On the Road", as well). Heller gave the game away in "Closing Time", when Yossarian mentions a long forgotten urge to write like Saroyan, and laments the fact that Saroyan has been forgotten by America. Aren't I a clever little tosser?

	Perhaps, but. (none / 0) (#16)
	by RobotSlave on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:28:24 PM PST

	Had you greater wit than a reptile, more patience than a vole, and exposure to half the books that the average american teenager has read, then you would know the greater significance of the name. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Me thinks thou asketh to much (none / 0) (#10)
	by Dexter Descarte on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 12:37:16 PM PST

	How can you claim to live a "Christian" life while not loving your neighbor enough to leave him the fuck alone while he's praying on his little carpet? Come now my Discordian friend, the true measure of a 'good Christian' is the ability to look at something white and fervently believe it is black. Otherwise how could anyone claiming to follow a man who said "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. " join in a war of any sort? As the good Mr. Ambrose Bierce put it when he defined Christian; One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin. Old Ambrose was a wise man, as all true Cynics are (may I reccomend Ecclesiastes to those looking for a good biblical Cynic as well as the best poetry in that book; 8:15 is especialy cool). I dreamed I stood upon a hill, and, lo! The godly multitudes walked to and fro Beneath, in Sabbath garments fitly clad, With pious mien, appropriately sad, While all the church bells made a solemn din -- A fire-alarm to those who lived in sin. Then saw I gazing thoughtfully below, With tranquil face, upon that holy show A tall, spare figure in a robe of white, Whose eyes diffused a melancholy light. "God keep you, stranger," I exclaimed. "You are No doubt (your habit shows it) from afar; And yet I entertain the hope that you, Like these good people, are a Christian too." He raised his eyes and with a look so stern It made me with a thousand blushes burn Replied -- his manner with disdain was spiced: "What! I a Christian? No, indeed! I'm Christ." -G.J.

	your bluff has been called (none / 0) (#24)
	by philipm on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 06:36:36 PM PST

	I AM GOD. Now, do you believe, sinner? --philipm

	Horribly sorry... (none / 0) (#14)
	by tkatchev on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:22:13 PM PST

	I mean "...was Jewish...", of course. With all due respect. :(( -- Peace and much love...

	mea culpa (none / 0) (#15)
	by Adam Rightmann on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:26:44 PM PST

	I was not aware of how far Jewish-American works satirizing the Great Patriotic War would have penetrated into Russia. A. Rightmann

	1961 (none / 0) (#56)
	by doofus on Mon Nov 12th, 2001 at 09:14:41 AM PST

	I guess I thought that "Catch 22" was first published in the subject year, which was a few years before the US involvement in Vietnam (or at least a few years before the US had enough of an involvement that US citizens noticed, eh?). Although I do concede that it eventually was seen as an examination and condemnation of war as ludricrous circus. But then again, I may be wrong.

	only a forked tongue devil could speak out of both (none / 0) (#17)
	by Mint Waltman on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 01:53:48 PM PST

	.. sides of his mouth as you do. If Yaweh gets off his supposed white-robed ass and comes down here and causes some kind of miracle telling Christians that they are right and the rest are wrong then I'll convert immediately and join your little army. Unfortunately, nothing like that will ever happen. That will never happen simply because God is not a bearded old man who lounges around on clouds, hanging out with angels. Sure, people like you and good old Dubya can get up there and invoke Yaweh but that's just using psychological constructs. Using psycological constructs? You mean like you just did with your 'Yaweh sits around in white robes' arguement? It's okay for you to use them, but not anyone else? By the way, I don't see George W. Bush as suffeciently pious to lump myself in with. He's little more than a reformed party-boy who saw in God a supposed 'get out of jail free card.' Plus he's a Southern Baptist. How can you claim to live a "Christian" life while not loving your neighbor enough to leave him the fuck alone while he's praying on his little carpet? It is precisely because I love my neighbor that I preach to him. If I hated him would I try to save his soul? Surely not. It's odd how you calim that I am intolerant of other's religions while you lambast me for my religious views. You are a very conflicted individual who would benifit greatly from prayer and ministry. If you care to add your phone number to your next post I'd be glad to call you and pray with you over the phone.

	Fork this. (none / 0) (#19)
	by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 02:46:31 PM PST

	Ok. Excuse me for being intolerant. However, as I understand it, Christians should leave people of other faith alone. Full disclosure of course. I am an atheist. I came to this conclusion after much long thought and research into various faiths (I was raised Episcopalian). Love thy neighbor to me does not mean "If he's not exactly your religion, convert him" it means "love him even if he does not believe your way" I'm so tired of so-called Christians preaching hellfire to those who do not believe. I fully respect your right to believe whatever you want, so in terms of tolerance, I am more tolerant than you. I'm definitely not trying to convince you to give up Christ and believe in nothing. However, I should give a plug to Eris for posterity and for shits and giggles. The problem I see is this: Christians should be preaching love and tolerance for diverse opinions. Yet, so many seem to have missed the point and think that they are the only ones. As an atheist, I tend to lump all theists together. If there is a god, which I don't think there is (not afraid of hell, so don't bother threatening me with it) I bet god (be he/she/it or whatever could care less about which specific way you worship just as long as you have faith. Too bad this so-called god has allowed so many horrible things to happen or I might have faith in something other than synchronicity and myself. PFFFFFTTTTTTTT!

	'tolerance for diverse opinions' (5.00 / 1) (#25)
	by nathan on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 06:57:59 PM PST

	G. K. Chesterton said, "The purpose of an open mind, like an open mouth, is to close it again on something solid." Look, I'm genuinely sorry if your religious neighbours "harsh your buzz, dude," and they probably are very ignorant - lots of American[1] Christians have a very impoverished understanding of the faith they claim to espouse. Maybe if you didn't spend all your time worrying about how stupid they were, you'd spend a little on careful reflection, and realize that you are not necessarily sufficient unto yourself. I invite you to notice that the people who're making the world more Hellish from minute to minute are those who are the most confident that they know it all. I'm referring, of course, to the Godless beasts in government who worship only power. And I'm no more sympathetic to them just because they claim to be Baptists. Evil people are attracted to the Church precisely because it's there they can most directly undermine the work of the most splendid, loving people in the history of the world. [1] I'm assuming American, because of your shoutout to Eris. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	*sigh* (none / 0) (#18)
	by momocrome on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 02:43:49 PM PST

	pity you're wasting such an excellent nickname in the service of such pedestrian and/or sophomoric outrage. At least pretend to be more sophisticated than this. "If Yaweh gets off his supposed white-robed ass and comes down here" my ass. What about the Wheel? What about the Tao? These concepts are reconcilable with religion and science both. The character Hagbard Celine would be able to translate the Xtian into Secular-Mystical jargon and respond with an in telligent rebuttal. You, on the other hand, merely grind out the same secular doubts any fourteen year old girl might scrawl in her diary. Get A Clue! You'll have to do better than this if you want to make it around here...

	All your expectations are belong to us. (none / 0) (#20)
	by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 02:57:38 PM PST

	I'm so sorry...truly. Obviously you have mistaken me for the character Hagbard Celine. I am not. There is this concept of the online "handle". Personally, I don't change who I am when I right online. I just chose a name I like. Get over yourself. I'll try to care about your standards. PFFFTTTTTT

	believe me (none / 0) (#21)
	by momocrome on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 03:06:06 PM PST

	in no way whatsoever have I 'mistaken' you for the popular character Hagbard Celine. Was that supposed to be sarcasm? Meanwhile, if you don't want to evoke the character or the concepts of the work he appears in, why do you use this nickname? It seems a most inconsiderate ruse to evoke such an exotic, sophisticated character and then proceed to argue from a simple-minded and utterly commonplace position. Finally, shall I 'Get over myself' (which I take to mean 'dispense with my issues regarding your choice of nickname') or shall I expect you to 'take care about my standards' and abandon your nick (or otherwise attempt to represent the character authentically)?

	Blatant trolling like this is boring and a turnoff (3.00 / 2) (#28)
	by FreemoreJohnson on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 09:46:24 PM PST

	This is the sort of response that the editors of this place ought to delete as obviously a violation of your so called anti-trolling policy. But if you did that, I'd guess you would have to delete half the messages around here.

	Troll? No. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
	by Logical Analysis on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 10:35:01 PM PST

	Don't you think Christians use the Internet? Mr. Waltman is just expressing his honest opinion.

	Troll. No other way. (none / 0) (#58)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 06:05:40 AM PST

	Don't you think Christians use the Internet? Mr. Waltman is just expressing his honest opinion. Of course they do, but they don't link to these sort of sites unless they're trolling.

	You're the one who linked to them. (none / 0) (#59)
	by Mint Waltman on Fri Nov 16th, 2001 at 08:18:36 AM PST

	That must mean that you are trolling. I've never linked to those sites, with the exception of Christianity.com, and I would never link to landoverbaptist.org. Nobody wants your trolls here.

	Why does this not suprise me? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
	by Mint Waltman on Sat Nov 10th, 2001 at 06:25:21 PM PST

	Another anti-Christian post on adequacy? Say it ain't so. This just goes to show (and I'm sure several other adequacy readers are already aware of this) that it's quite dangerous to be a Christian these days. For some reason it's okay to attack our belief system because you consider yourself 'enlightened.' Sounds more like close-mindedness to me. How can discussing Christian doctrine be considered trolling? Do you define trolling as whenever someone posts opinions you disagree with and can't rebut? I'm glad the editors are wise enough to stay clear of entering into the 'trolling McArthyism'* you propose in order to suppress unpopular opinions. *the author would like to note that Mr. McArthy was a fine patriot, things just got a little nuts towards the end

	Half right (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 11:29:06 PM PST

	While Mr. Waltman's post is right on about the need to spread the word about God's love (especially to our non-Christian bretheren), I feel it must be pointed out that the use of idolatrous imagery such as that of the cross is an insult to God's true message. I think that at times like these, in which we find our brothers and sisters indulging in primitive totem-worship: flying flags, and pasting patriotic imagery everywhere like primitive fetishes to ward off the evil eye, we should take extra special effort to remind ourselves that our only true salvation lies in embracing Christand his true message. All this hatred, warfare, and cross-worshipping, flag-idolating behavior will only lead us down the devil's path.

	Does this mean.... (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 11:01:41 AM PST

	that if I join the army, I get to help sack Byzantium before marching on Jerusalem?

	Why do you ask? (none / 0) (#6)
	by Mendax Veritas on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 11:14:08 AM PST

	Are you looking forward to all the raping and pillaging?

	"Cross". (1.00 / 1) (#9)
	by tkatchev on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 12:07:00 PM PST

	"Cross", as in -- "death". You know, "tombstone", "bodybag", "cemetery". Have fun in Afghan. -- Peace and much love...

	looking to hard (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 04:04:03 PM PST

	"Cross into the blue" Yes, the religious references are SO clear "Fly the friendly skies" This obviously has something to do with Marijuana Maybe Cross Walk should be changed too. This must mean that only Christians may cross the street.

	words (none / 0) (#23)
	by philipm on Fri Nov 9th, 2001 at 06:34:11 PM PST

	dude, take a breather and think, words come from somwehre you know. Not only is a cross walk for christian people it also represents Christ's walk carrying the cross. --philipm