It's what men do

There's another billboard on my way to work that baffles me. This one is right before my exit, so when I pass it I'm actually paying more attention to getting off the highway safely, so I had to see it several times before I could put all the words together. It says: "They do cannonballs. They drink VO. It's what men do."

There's a big picture of a bottle of VO on there. What is that? Bourbon? I don't know. And it's possible that I'm completely misunderstanding it, and if I knew what it actually meant, I'd be embarrassed, but "cannonballs?" Like jumping into the pool with your knees pulled up so you make a big splash? Like that? Is that the best they could do? Is that the most defining thing about what makes a man that they could think of?

The only other thing I can think of is that it sounds like some kind of drug thing, but I doubt that's it.

How about: "They fart. They drink VO. It's what men do."

Or: "They watch golf. They drink VO. It's what men do."

And, wait. Is "doing cannonballs" supposed to be stupid? Or daring? How is it supposed to relate to drinking? "Men will do anything. They drink VO, after all."

Billboards are supposed to arrest your attention, I guess, and be something that you'll remember so that you'll buy their product, but I can't say that I think a billboard has ever influenced me to buy anything. There's another one I see on the way downtown put up by a dairy: "KC kids know Roberts rules!" Yeah. Right. It's got a photograph of four boys of about eight or ten years old with their hair all gelled up in spikes holding bottles of milk and yelling. Like any kid would have any idea which dairy his milk came from, or care.

One billboard that I think is kind of cute is a new one this week. It's for the new Mini Cooper. "Once you've had small, you never go back."

Today the guys at work mentioned the Susan Sarandon/Bull Durham debacle where the Baseball Hall of Fame cancelled a screening of Bull Durham because Sarandon had spoken out about the war, and I heard the story on Marketplace on NPR on the way home.

Even discounting the whole "isn't free speech supposed to be one of the abiding values of the American people?" thing, I just don't get it. For instance, whether or not I was incensed by France's decision not to support the United States' position in the war (I wasn't), I thought changing "French fries" to "Freedom fries" was asinine. And I've always found it odd that people cared one way or the other about what celebrities thought about anything in particular. Especially actors, who are always playing a part.

I've never had any trouble separating an actor's characters from the actor himself (or herself); I've never even considered boycotting someone's movies or a product that they advertise because I disagree with their opinions. Actually, I pay so little attention to advertising in general that I can't even think of someone to use as an example. But still.

I also could care less about what an actor does in his personal life--as far as I can tell, it doesn't make them any better or worse as an actor, or make them unable to portray their characters, which is, after all, what actors do. I do personally view musicians slightly differently, or songwriters in particular, I suppose, because they do write their own material, which tends to (I assume) reflect their character a bit more. And I always find them more interesting than actors because, again, they are usually playing themselves, or as much as any of us do.

I'm not sure why we would pay any more attention to the opinions of an actor than we would to the generic "man on the street;" they're no more educated or informed than most of us, but they do have the platform and exposure that gives them access to be heard. And I just thought of this, too: will that same generic "man on the street" start getting fired from his regular job if he expresses an opinion that differs from what other term "patriotic," and if he does, will anyone object? Is it just celebrities or is it all of us?

And one more point--I was reading a site the other day that said, as President Bush did, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists," and that if you didn't agree with, and support, the government, then you were a traitor. The point was made by someone (termed a traitor, of course) that didn't it then follow that if you hadn't agreed with everything a former president did, or any possible future administration, then you were a traitor, too? So did that mean that you had to agree with all government decisions, not just the ones made by your party? Or is it just in this particular case? Certainly something to think about.