I guess it doesn't really bother me. The military needs to advertise also, just like car makers, booze makers, pizza makers and so on. It's an easy and effective way to get word out about joining the military, especially when you have 10's of millions of people watching every weekend.
Two questions:Any way it's a recruiting tool. The army doesn't draft in peace time yet it needs fresh bodies in uniforms so thus the hefty advertising to attract recruits. If you don't like the advertising than boy is this the wrong sport for you.
None of that means the military should be paying to have self-serving tributes at sporting events.There's another way to look at it: sports were originally designed as a replacement for war.
For whatever reason we are hardwired for aggression, motivated to take over someone else's territory, and always needing an enemy to vanquish. Football especially mimics warfare.The comparison can seem inappropriate or uncivilized, but it can also be a relatively safe outlet for our violent impulses and civic pride. Otherwise we would simply have used Offut AFB to wipe Madison, Wisconsin off the face of the Earth.
It works a lot better when we're not simultaneously waging real wars with real bloodshed, but that's the general idea.
If it were advertising just like Pepsi, Valentino's, etc. then there wouldn't be a problem. It's paying to militarize the National Anthem and the associated hoopla that's the issue.Seems a bit odd that some are against the government/military "advertising" out country during game, but are fine with Pepsi, Valentinos and Runza humping their wares during games. Yes, it is advertising for recruiting at some level. So what? Call it jingo-ism if you like, but I much prefer ads that support our country than ads geared at random products. And I love Pepsi and Vals....can't stand Runzas though.
The national anthem was written about and for a war. It’s already militarized.If it were advertising just like Pepsi, Valentino's, etc. then there wouldn't be a problem. It's paying to militarize the National Anthem and the associated hoopla that's the issue.
Exactly. There's no reason to militarize it further, especially no reason for the DoD to be paying for it.The national anthem was written about and for a war. It’s already militarized.
OKIf it were advertising just like Pepsi, Valentino's, etc. then there wouldn't be a problem. It's paying to militarize the National Anthem and the associated hoopla that's the issue.
Who said that?Well the worst part is that the military now apparently OWNS the national anthem, and any criticism of the United States suddenly becomes a slap in the face of brave servicemen.
Patriotism is the refuge of cowards, as someone once said.