This is my latest Claremont Courier column, published May 16.
CHANGING AS THEY STAY THE SAME
It wasn’t there. The building. It wasn’t there anymore.
The building had been there a few days earlier. Or was it the day before? Now, suddenly, all there was was a wall or two and a huge pile of rubble. It looked like there had been a catastrophic earthquake right at that spot. Or an instant, if messy, Greco-Roman ruin.
There had been a fence around Ducey Gym - or what used to be called Ducey Gym - at Claremont McKenna College for quite some time, but it was still a shock a few weeks ago when, turning onto Sixth Street, I saw that the large gymnasium that had been there for decades was gone. Poof!
No more.
History. A memory. A picture.
I knew that the lovely swimming pool at Scripps College where I spent hundreds of happy summer afternoons was also a memory and had been for many years, but it was still weird, if not a shock, when, not long before Ducey Gym disappeared, I ventured onto the northeast portion of the Scripps campus, made my way to where the pool used to be and found myself surrounded by attractive residential units. There was a small water fall, lending to a nice, resort-like vibe, but there was definitely no swimming pool there.
Not only did I know that the pool was long gone, I knew that another swimming pool had been built not far from the site, as part of an impressive athletic facility, with well-groomed fields and a handsome building. Still, seeing this all up close and that the old pool really wasn’t there was a jolt.
It was even more of a jolt when, a few years ago, I saw that the pool at Harvey Mudd College, where I also spent a fair amount of time (especially after the old Scripps pool was closed), was no longer there, replaced by a large building. I’m not even sure when it was gone - it seemed to happen overnight - and I still have a hard time not picturing it, rather than the building, there standing out along Twelfth (now Platt) Street. (Maybe this is because I grew up hearing my father talk about swimming there every day at noon, rain or shine, when he taught there.)
Now the really remarkable thing is that, when I was a very young child, before going to the Harvey Mudd and old Scripps pools, my family would go swimming at a pool at C.M.C - which used to be where Ducey Gym (now) was.
On the same visit when I saw what was where the Scripps pool used to be, it was nice to see that, in another area of the campus, there is still the garden with the wall on which departing graduates have painted messages over the years. Some date back to the 1920's and 1930's.
And it is nice to see that, even with the old pool not there and with the new housing units and the new athletic facilities, Scripps is still arguably the loveliest of the colleges in Claremont, with its gardens and courtyards and Mediterranean architecture. This isn’t to say that, as it is also nice to see, there are plenty of very pleasant spots on the other campuses.
The wall at Scripps with the class messages from the last 80 or so years is a reminder that the colleges are still here, still carrying out their noble mission, still a vital, integral part of Claremont. This weekend, with all the commencement exercises and speeches and proud parents and friends, with another group of students writing on the wall and leaving after spending a critical, enriching part of their lives here in Claremont, is likewise a reminder of this.
As the wall and the graduations show quite eloquently, this is the case even as Ducey Gym has been torn down, even as a major new science building (or complex?) is going up at Pomona College, even as much of the Harvey Mudd College campus is different. Even as dorms change, even as swimming pools and buildings disappear, even as there are areas of the campuses that are unrecognizable or are becoming unrecognizable, whether eventually or over a weekend, students keep coming, and students keep going, with their lives shaped and forever changed by their years here.
These changes tend to be for the better, as with nicer housing or with improved laboratories. No doubt they are a big part of why the students keep coming. No doubt they are a critical factor in the colleges’ mission and renown.
Whether or not they are for the best, these changes are sometimes not easy. I still miss the old Scripps pool with its cozy garden-like setting and mosaics and, as I said, can’t quite believe that the Harvey Mudd pool where my dad swam for decades is gone.
Another change at the colleges which isn’t easy is the retirement of Leonard Pronko after teaching for an incredible 57 years - longer than my life - mostly in the theater department, at Pomona College. This surely isn’t a change for the better, but, as was noted at an event two weeks ago, there is great gratitude that he will still be in Claremont and still with an interest in the theater program at the colleges.
I wrote here in the fall that Mr. Pronko is all but a legend at Pomona College, if not in Claremont. He is best-known for his expertise in and direction of Kabuki productions. For most of my life here in Claremont, I have been aware of his work in the theater department, which began a few years after his arrival at Pomona and which also included many works by European playwrights such as Ibsen and Faydeau. That he will no longer be doing this is, I find, something of a jolt, strange and sad.
But the celebration earlier this month was entirely appropriate, with Mr. Pronko, elegant and eloquent even as he said that demonstrating Kabuki “is too hard on my knees,” in joyful conversation with Thomas Leabhart, another longtime faculty member of the theater department, and Sam Gold, a 2011 Pomona College graduate who was taught and directed by Mr. Pronko and Mr. Leabhart and who has gone on to do theater work all over the world. It was another reminder of the comings and goings that are very much a part of the colleges’ ongoing, vital work.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
God help us
Just because something is a tradition doesn’t make it good. After all, slavery was a tradition. It has been a tradition to not let same-sex couples marry.
Traditions can be downright bad, or they can at least hold us back. Unfortunately, the recent U.S Supreme Court ruling that government meetings can include specifically Christian prayers invoking not only God but “Our Lord Jesus Christ” allows such a tradition to continue. Indeed, in defending this position, Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 majority, stated that such legislative prayer is deeply rooted in our history.
The problem is that, as Justice Elena Kagan pointed out in her dissent, “our public institutions belongs no less to the Buddhist and Hindu than to the Methodist or Episcopalian. And as the Los Angeles Times editorializes, although Kennedy insisted that the ruling doesn’t authorize prayers that “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities,” a “guest chaplain who prays in Jesus’ name at a town meeting doesn’t have to threaten non-Christians with hellfire to make them feel like outsiders.” Things get all the more tricky when a Hindu or a nonbeliever comes to a meeting to seek the aid of their elected representatives.
Here’s another reason why the tradition of legislative prayers aren’t for the best: With a prayer being offered to seek “the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” conservatives can say that they don’t need to help the poor and disenfranchised because Jesus and God will.
Traditions can be downright bad, or they can at least hold us back. Unfortunately, the recent U.S Supreme Court ruling that government meetings can include specifically Christian prayers invoking not only God but “Our Lord Jesus Christ” allows such a tradition to continue. Indeed, in defending this position, Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 majority, stated that such legislative prayer is deeply rooted in our history.
The problem is that, as Justice Elena Kagan pointed out in her dissent, “our public institutions belongs no less to the Buddhist and Hindu than to the Methodist or Episcopalian. And as the Los Angeles Times editorializes, although Kennedy insisted that the ruling doesn’t authorize prayers that “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities,” a “guest chaplain who prays in Jesus’ name at a town meeting doesn’t have to threaten non-Christians with hellfire to make them feel like outsiders.” Things get all the more tricky when a Hindu or a nonbeliever comes to a meeting to seek the aid of their elected representatives.
Here’s another reason why the tradition of legislative prayers aren’t for the best: With a prayer being offered to seek “the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” conservatives can say that they don’t need to help the poor and disenfranchised because Jesus and God will.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Culture of crime
Richard White Piquette was a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy who worked in the Twin County Correctional Facility, the jail in downtown L.A.
Then why did he, according to the Los Angeles Times recently, build an automatic assault rifle? In addition to manufacturing the Noveske Rifleworks N–4 .223-caliber rifle with an eight-inch barrel (never mind that federal law requires that the barrel be at least 16 inches), he possessed a shotgun that had been stolen from the Sheriff’s Department and three assault weapons banned in California. He has plead guilty to all of these.
Excuse me if I’m being terribly naive, but I thought law enforcement officers were supposed to discourage and stop crime, not engage in crime. I thought peace officers were supposed to keep the peace, not disturb it.
The L.A County Sheriff’s Department is well-known for such behavior by its officers and is under investigation by various agencies. Officers have been found to form tattooed cliques or gangs in the jails and beat inmates, harass and intimidate African-American and other minority tenants during Section 8 housing inspections in Lancaster and injure each other in a fight at the department’s Christmas party a few years ago. Piquette’s was the first plea agreement by one of 20 sheriff’s officials charged or indicted since December.
Again, at the risk of being terribly naive, I ask, why is this even an issue? Why are police officers criminals? Police corruption is nothing new, for sure, but it is no less disturbing, no less alarming.
Piquette’s attorney, Ronald Hedding, describes his client as “a good man” and, interestingly enough, adds that he believes that it is common practice for sheriff’s deputies to have weapons like the ones Piquette had. As if by way of explanation, he said, “A lot of these criminals are carrying these types of weapons on the streets.”
Like that makes it all okay. Or are “these criminals” the officers?
I once knew a guy who did a brief stint working for campus security at the colleges here in Claremont, and what he told me about the job really fits here. He said that the people working for the department, even though they were only pseudo officers, “really like putting on their black boots and acting tough.” He said they liked being tough, if not bad, and getting away with it.
Then why did he, according to the Los Angeles Times recently, build an automatic assault rifle? In addition to manufacturing the Noveske Rifleworks N–4 .223-caliber rifle with an eight-inch barrel (never mind that federal law requires that the barrel be at least 16 inches), he possessed a shotgun that had been stolen from the Sheriff’s Department and three assault weapons banned in California. He has plead guilty to all of these.
Excuse me if I’m being terribly naive, but I thought law enforcement officers were supposed to discourage and stop crime, not engage in crime. I thought peace officers were supposed to keep the peace, not disturb it.
The L.A County Sheriff’s Department is well-known for such behavior by its officers and is under investigation by various agencies. Officers have been found to form tattooed cliques or gangs in the jails and beat inmates, harass and intimidate African-American and other minority tenants during Section 8 housing inspections in Lancaster and injure each other in a fight at the department’s Christmas party a few years ago. Piquette’s was the first plea agreement by one of 20 sheriff’s officials charged or indicted since December.
Again, at the risk of being terribly naive, I ask, why is this even an issue? Why are police officers criminals? Police corruption is nothing new, for sure, but it is no less disturbing, no less alarming.
Piquette’s attorney, Ronald Hedding, describes his client as “a good man” and, interestingly enough, adds that he believes that it is common practice for sheriff’s deputies to have weapons like the ones Piquette had. As if by way of explanation, he said, “A lot of these criminals are carrying these types of weapons on the streets.”
Like that makes it all okay. Or are “these criminals” the officers?
I once knew a guy who did a brief stint working for campus security at the colleges here in Claremont, and what he told me about the job really fits here. He said that the people working for the department, even though they were only pseudo officers, “really like putting on their black boots and acting tough.” He said they liked being tough, if not bad, and getting away with it.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Church and state
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is bad enough.
“It’s an opportunity to find other normal people here.”
I suppose it’s nice to think that Mazya, quoted in the Los Angeles Times while at a folk concert, might consider a guy like me, out shirtless in bib overalls and wearing mismatched high-tops with rainbow laces, to be “normal.” But it isn’t so nice that she is implying some of her fellow Jewish citizens in Israel aren’t “normal” because of their beliefs.
As the article explains, Mazya is one of many secular Jewish Israelis who are not happy with ultra-Orthodox laws and regulations. These laws strictly regulate what, if any, theaters, shops and other public places can be open on the Sabbath, the Jewish day of rest. They are enforced especially in such places as Jerusalem, where there are more religious people.
Mazya was speaking in Tel Aviv, where there are far fewer religious people and more bars and clubs. But many people are tired of having to drive there for some fun on Friday evening. At a protest on a recent Friday evening at a shuttered Jerusalem cinema, people chanted, “Wake up, Jerusalem! Nonreligious people are equal too!”
On the other hand, there are people like Daniel Katzenstein, an ultra-Orthodox father of nine who moved to Jerusalem from Brooklyn and who says, “When I see a Jewish person in a car on the Sabbath, it hurts me. Any threat to my lifestyle I am going to protest.”
No doubt Mazya would say he isn’t “normal.” And as the Times continues, “In recent years, crowds of ultra-Orthodox men have burned down bus shelters featuring images of scantily clad women and have sought to stop construction of a mixed-gender swimming pool. When the owners of Café Bezalel, famous for its mimosas, decided to open for Saturday brunch this year, diners were confronted by ultra-Orthodoxy protesters chanting, ‘Shabbat’ - ‘Sabbath.’”
What a mess! It is sad and alarming that Daniel is “hurt” and feels threatened by his fellow Jewish citizens going out drinking and dancing on Friday nights. I feel bad that, if I was a Jewish Israeli, he would probably be seriously offended by my clothing or lack thereof. But it is all the worse when laws not only encourages but enforces his beliefs.
This is the great wisdom of the system of government we have in this country, separating church and state. It always surprises me to hear that America is one of the most religious countries, with many more people attending services than in, say, Europe, where there are magnificent churches everywhere you look. And we do have our spats - sometimes quite bitter ones - over abortion, same-sex marriage and the like, with people being offended, hurt and sometimes worse. But because of the First Amendment, government can’t get involved in religion, and no one belief can be favored or enforced.
Yes, there are people who would love and are trying hard to see this changed, but, God willing, it won’t be.
“It’s an opportunity to find other normal people here.”
I suppose it’s nice to think that Mazya, quoted in the Los Angeles Times while at a folk concert, might consider a guy like me, out shirtless in bib overalls and wearing mismatched high-tops with rainbow laces, to be “normal.” But it isn’t so nice that she is implying some of her fellow Jewish citizens in Israel aren’t “normal” because of their beliefs.
As the article explains, Mazya is one of many secular Jewish Israelis who are not happy with ultra-Orthodox laws and regulations. These laws strictly regulate what, if any, theaters, shops and other public places can be open on the Sabbath, the Jewish day of rest. They are enforced especially in such places as Jerusalem, where there are more religious people.
Mazya was speaking in Tel Aviv, where there are far fewer religious people and more bars and clubs. But many people are tired of having to drive there for some fun on Friday evening. At a protest on a recent Friday evening at a shuttered Jerusalem cinema, people chanted, “Wake up, Jerusalem! Nonreligious people are equal too!”
On the other hand, there are people like Daniel Katzenstein, an ultra-Orthodox father of nine who moved to Jerusalem from Brooklyn and who says, “When I see a Jewish person in a car on the Sabbath, it hurts me. Any threat to my lifestyle I am going to protest.”
No doubt Mazya would say he isn’t “normal.” And as the Times continues, “In recent years, crowds of ultra-Orthodox men have burned down bus shelters featuring images of scantily clad women and have sought to stop construction of a mixed-gender swimming pool. When the owners of Café Bezalel, famous for its mimosas, decided to open for Saturday brunch this year, diners were confronted by ultra-Orthodoxy protesters chanting, ‘Shabbat’ - ‘Sabbath.’”
What a mess! It is sad and alarming that Daniel is “hurt” and feels threatened by his fellow Jewish citizens going out drinking and dancing on Friday nights. I feel bad that, if I was a Jewish Israeli, he would probably be seriously offended by my clothing or lack thereof. But it is all the worse when laws not only encourages but enforces his beliefs.
This is the great wisdom of the system of government we have in this country, separating church and state. It always surprises me to hear that America is one of the most religious countries, with many more people attending services than in, say, Europe, where there are magnificent churches everywhere you look. And we do have our spats - sometimes quite bitter ones - over abortion, same-sex marriage and the like, with people being offended, hurt and sometimes worse. But because of the First Amendment, government can’t get involved in religion, and no one belief can be favored or enforced.
Yes, there are people who would love and are trying hard to see this changed, but, God willing, it won’t be.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
God save us from the NRA - if it isn't too late
Guns in churches are “dangerous, and it’s bad theology.”
This isn’t a line from Mamet or Voltaire or Sartre. It isn’t from Dr. Seuss. This isn’t from a sharp satire of the nature of organized religion or absurdist tale warning of the proliferation of guns.
If only it was.
This is a statement from a spokesman from for Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta, quoted in the Los Angeles Times last week, in reaction to a bill passed by the Georgia legislator that would, among other things, allow licensed gun owners to take weapons into houses of worship if the church allows it, into bars unless the owner objects, into airports up to screening areas and into government buildings except past security checkpoints, as wall as permit schools to arm staff members.
Critics call the bill, officially named the Safe Carry Protection Act, the “guns everywhere bill,” and the National Rifle Association is just fine with that, crowing that its passage is a “historic victory for the Second Amendment.” Governor Nathan Deal, who has an A rating from the NRA and is up for reelection, is expected to sign it, making it go into effect July 1. The bill was also supported by his Democratic opponent, state Senator Jason Carter, who is, of all things, former President Carter’s grandson.
Never mind that police are concerned, with Garden City Police Chief David Lyons saying, “We’re going to go to Hooters now expecting that everybody in there has a gun.” Never mind that “opponents say they shudder at the thought of armed citizens attending city council meetings, at which emotions run high.” (Not to mention bars.)
Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, points out that this bill would make Georgia the 27th state to allow licensed gun owners to take bring weapons into bars. Moreover, after the Connecticut school massacre and other high profile shootings, many states, instead of clamping down on guns, are taking the NRA’s advice and expanding their gun laws. Public support for stricter gun laws dropped to 31% from 38% a year earlier, shortly after the Connecticut school shooting, and Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who has written extensively about the politics surrounding guns, points out that the Georgia legislation “shows how strong the NRA is in some parts of the country. They’ve defeated so many gun laws that ending bans on guns in bars and churches is all that left.”
(It is interesting to note that, while Catholic and Episcopalian bishops appear to be against allowing guns in their churches, “Georgia Baptists,” according to Georgia Baptist Convention public affairs representative Mike Griffin, “are not saying they’re for or against weapons being in churches. What they’re saying is churches should have the right to determine if they choose to have weapons.”)
Meanwhile, there was an article in the Times late last year about how the Columbine High School shootings still cast a shadow 15 years later, with many schools having drills, like those for earthquakes and nuclear attacks, to prepare for gunfire. One mother, Kay Cates, was quoted as saying, “It struck me that this is now just a part of him life. I think about how my children are going to grow up and think this is a normal part of school.” She said this after her 10-year-old son answered her question about what he had done at school one day by answering with a shrug, “We did math. We did reading. We did a lock-down.”
God help us. That is, if God hasn’t been taken in - bought out - by the NRA.
This isn’t a line from Mamet or Voltaire or Sartre. It isn’t from Dr. Seuss. This isn’t from a sharp satire of the nature of organized religion or absurdist tale warning of the proliferation of guns.
If only it was.
This is a statement from a spokesman from for Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta, quoted in the Los Angeles Times last week, in reaction to a bill passed by the Georgia legislator that would, among other things, allow licensed gun owners to take weapons into houses of worship if the church allows it, into bars unless the owner objects, into airports up to screening areas and into government buildings except past security checkpoints, as wall as permit schools to arm staff members.
Critics call the bill, officially named the Safe Carry Protection Act, the “guns everywhere bill,” and the National Rifle Association is just fine with that, crowing that its passage is a “historic victory for the Second Amendment.” Governor Nathan Deal, who has an A rating from the NRA and is up for reelection, is expected to sign it, making it go into effect July 1. The bill was also supported by his Democratic opponent, state Senator Jason Carter, who is, of all things, former President Carter’s grandson.
Never mind that police are concerned, with Garden City Police Chief David Lyons saying, “We’re going to go to Hooters now expecting that everybody in there has a gun.” Never mind that “opponents say they shudder at the thought of armed citizens attending city council meetings, at which emotions run high.” (Not to mention bars.)
Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, points out that this bill would make Georgia the 27th state to allow licensed gun owners to take bring weapons into bars. Moreover, after the Connecticut school massacre and other high profile shootings, many states, instead of clamping down on guns, are taking the NRA’s advice and expanding their gun laws. Public support for stricter gun laws dropped to 31% from 38% a year earlier, shortly after the Connecticut school shooting, and Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who has written extensively about the politics surrounding guns, points out that the Georgia legislation “shows how strong the NRA is in some parts of the country. They’ve defeated so many gun laws that ending bans on guns in bars and churches is all that left.”
(It is interesting to note that, while Catholic and Episcopalian bishops appear to be against allowing guns in their churches, “Georgia Baptists,” according to Georgia Baptist Convention public affairs representative Mike Griffin, “are not saying they’re for or against weapons being in churches. What they’re saying is churches should have the right to determine if they choose to have weapons.”)
Meanwhile, there was an article in the Times late last year about how the Columbine High School shootings still cast a shadow 15 years later, with many schools having drills, like those for earthquakes and nuclear attacks, to prepare for gunfire. One mother, Kay Cates, was quoted as saying, “It struck me that this is now just a part of him life. I think about how my children are going to grow up and think this is a normal part of school.” She said this after her 10-year-old son answered her question about what he had done at school one day by answering with a shrug, “We did math. We did reading. We did a lock-down.”
God help us. That is, if God hasn’t been taken in - bought out - by the NRA.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Park-ed outside
Yes, it is good that Los Angeles will be getting more parks, or parklets, as well as more plazas and bike parking. And it’s great that this will be done relatively quickly, without much of the bureaucracy that can take months and cost a considerable amount, and that each project will have a year-long trial period. Through a program called “People St,” operated through the city’s Department of Transportation, community groups can apply to convert a piece of city street into a parklet, a plaza or bike parking for a year without going through the lengthy and expensive process of getting approval from multiple city departments, a process that often involves hiring an architect and maybe a permit expediter for thousands of dollars. If a project is successful, the community can then work toward making it permanent.
The applicants would provide furnishings and daily maintenance, and the transportation department has preapproved designs and will direct traffic analysis by city staff. Projects approved in the first round can be installed by November - “lightning speed for City Hall,” according to a Los Angeles Times editorial.
The Times all but gushes over the plan, rightfully saying that it will “make L.A more friendly to walkers and bicyclists and...create a more vibrant street culture” and “injects a sense of experimentation and community leadership into the city’s decision-making process.” Concluding with the sentence “It’s too early to declare a new day at City Hall, but this could be a model for L.A, and a good one,” the editorial is titled “Let 100 parklets bloom.”
I totally agree with all this, for sure - I’m all for green spaces and places and processes that promote community, not using cars, etc. - but I’m wondering if these parklets will count as the parks that convicted and registered sexual offenders cannot live near. I’m wondering if this will he used as another way to restrict where these people who have served their time in prison can live and to drive them out of the community (making them more estranged, probably homeless and likelier to commit crime again).
Why didn’t the Times editorial bring this up, especially when the paper had an article a couple years ago about small parks popping up in areas around the city with the explicit purpose of not letting convicted sexual offenders live there? Did the Times, in its understandable enthusiasm, forget this?
The applicants would provide furnishings and daily maintenance, and the transportation department has preapproved designs and will direct traffic analysis by city staff. Projects approved in the first round can be installed by November - “lightning speed for City Hall,” according to a Los Angeles Times editorial.
The Times all but gushes over the plan, rightfully saying that it will “make L.A more friendly to walkers and bicyclists and...create a more vibrant street culture” and “injects a sense of experimentation and community leadership into the city’s decision-making process.” Concluding with the sentence “It’s too early to declare a new day at City Hall, but this could be a model for L.A, and a good one,” the editorial is titled “Let 100 parklets bloom.”
I totally agree with all this, for sure - I’m all for green spaces and places and processes that promote community, not using cars, etc. - but I’m wondering if these parklets will count as the parks that convicted and registered sexual offenders cannot live near. I’m wondering if this will he used as another way to restrict where these people who have served their time in prison can live and to drive them out of the community (making them more estranged, probably homeless and likelier to commit crime again).
Why didn’t the Times editorial bring this up, especially when the paper had an article a couple years ago about small parks popping up in areas around the city with the explicit purpose of not letting convicted sexual offenders live there? Did the Times, in its understandable enthusiasm, forget this?
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
An irresponsible message?
“Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the sheets.”
As funny and clever as it is, I’m not at all sure this is smart advertising.
It is more like a provocation, more like fuel on the flames.
I have to admit that I don’t keep up on a lot of blogs and online chatter, but I’m surprised I haven’t heard an outcry over this ad in Colorado (of all places) promoting Obamacare and featuring a woman showing off her birth control pills and eyeing a man next to her. This ad was mentioned in a recent Los Angeles Times article about the blitz of advertising aimed at getting people - especially young, healthy people - to sign up for the new affordable, often subsidized health insurance before this year’s enrollment deadline at the end of this month.
This ad may attract young, healthy people. It’s fun and sexy and makes health insurance look not only not threatening but pretty attractive. The ad will also, it seems to me, attract the wrath of conservatives who are already riled up enough over the new health insurance law (and who have major institutes in Colorado).
To them, this ad no doubt promotes sex - free sex, sex for fun, sex without responsibility. To the conservatives, this is surely an ad for sex. It is an ad for irresponsibility. What’s more, as the conservatives would see it, it is promoting sex and irresponsibility paid for by the government with public funds.
I have seen this same argument in letters in the paper from people griping about the provision in the new law allowing young people to stay on their parents’ policy until they are 26. As I have written here, they claim that this encourages young people to be irresponsible and even to be “coddled.” There has also been people like Rush Limbaugh saying things like woman who advocate government-funded contraceptives want to be publicly funded whores.
As the whore comment shows, things get particularly touchy and explosive for the conservatives when it comes to sex. They can’t stand the idea of people having sex just for pleasure and fun, for anything other than procreation - and then to be paid for with the pain of child birth and the burden of child-raising (why they’re also against abortion). Indeed, I have long felt that this is why there is considerable anti-gay sentiment among conservatives. To them, gay sex is sex without responsibility. In some corners, there was glee in the early days of AIDS when it was called “the gay plague.” And now, gay marriage and gay adoption is even more confounding and crazy-making for these folks.
The Times article also mentions Luis Garcia, a 23-year-old Santa Ana resident who hasn’t seen any of the ads and only heard from friends that there’s some sort of penalty for not signing up for insurance. He wasn’t aware of any deadline to enroll but, with recently losing his job, says, “I’m interested.”
I want to ask what rock he has been hiding under. I also wonder how many more are like him and hope that these ads reach them. But I’m not sure if the “between the sheets” ad is the right one to do it.
As funny and clever as it is, I’m not at all sure this is smart advertising.
It is more like a provocation, more like fuel on the flames.
I have to admit that I don’t keep up on a lot of blogs and online chatter, but I’m surprised I haven’t heard an outcry over this ad in Colorado (of all places) promoting Obamacare and featuring a woman showing off her birth control pills and eyeing a man next to her. This ad was mentioned in a recent Los Angeles Times article about the blitz of advertising aimed at getting people - especially young, healthy people - to sign up for the new affordable, often subsidized health insurance before this year’s enrollment deadline at the end of this month.
This ad may attract young, healthy people. It’s fun and sexy and makes health insurance look not only not threatening but pretty attractive. The ad will also, it seems to me, attract the wrath of conservatives who are already riled up enough over the new health insurance law (and who have major institutes in Colorado).
To them, this ad no doubt promotes sex - free sex, sex for fun, sex without responsibility. To the conservatives, this is surely an ad for sex. It is an ad for irresponsibility. What’s more, as the conservatives would see it, it is promoting sex and irresponsibility paid for by the government with public funds.
I have seen this same argument in letters in the paper from people griping about the provision in the new law allowing young people to stay on their parents’ policy until they are 26. As I have written here, they claim that this encourages young people to be irresponsible and even to be “coddled.” There has also been people like Rush Limbaugh saying things like woman who advocate government-funded contraceptives want to be publicly funded whores.
As the whore comment shows, things get particularly touchy and explosive for the conservatives when it comes to sex. They can’t stand the idea of people having sex just for pleasure and fun, for anything other than procreation - and then to be paid for with the pain of child birth and the burden of child-raising (why they’re also against abortion). Indeed, I have long felt that this is why there is considerable anti-gay sentiment among conservatives. To them, gay sex is sex without responsibility. In some corners, there was glee in the early days of AIDS when it was called “the gay plague.” And now, gay marriage and gay adoption is even more confounding and crazy-making for these folks.
The Times article also mentions Luis Garcia, a 23-year-old Santa Ana resident who hasn’t seen any of the ads and only heard from friends that there’s some sort of penalty for not signing up for insurance. He wasn’t aware of any deadline to enroll but, with recently losing his job, says, “I’m interested.”
I want to ask what rock he has been hiding under. I also wonder how many more are like him and hope that these ads reach them. But I’m not sure if the “between the sheets” ad is the right one to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)