Rules are for Idiots

Yesterday, I visited the Arlington Cemetery outside of Washington, DC. I was there for a class I am taking and we were to meet at the Women In Military Service for America Memorial (a great piece of architecture, btw) at 1:30. I arrived at the Cemetary at 1:10 and since you must pay to park, decided to idle in front of the gate to give me some extra time. I was fully conscious of any cars behind me that also wanted to park, but there was also a second gate for cars to gain access to the parking garage. Well, during this time, a 'security guard' (portly, of course) strolls up to my car and tells me the due to the 'droves' of cars that come into the garage, I need to move immediately. I look behind me and there are no cars in sight. I tell him I understand I would need to move if a car was behind me, yet he insists I need to move to keep the area open. Obviously, this makes no sense. This guy is merely following rules set up by whatever system is in charge of the Arlington Cemetery and not even thinking about the common sense application of said rules. So, instead of arguing with the rules robot, I enter the gate and get my ticket.

Later, as I was leaving the monument and heading back to the garage, I walk down the sidewalk and turn down a road that would be quick access to the garage. About 2/3 of the way down this road before I hit the next sidewalk, I hear "HEY, HEY!" I turn to see another security guard pointing at me, telling me I cannot walk down that way. Instead, I have to use the designated pedestrian walk. He is ignoring the fact that I am almost to the next sidewalk, and it would actually take more time to walk back the way I came to use the 'appropriate' walkway. I understand this is for my safety, since cars would be driving down the road and I was not on a real sidewalk. But at that time, and for the whole time I was walking, no cars passed me and none were in sight. Yet, because of the 'rules' established, I had to revert and comply. Again, no common sense was applied.

I think this is the main reason why police and security guards get so disrespected. Yes, it is their job to enforce the laws of whatever system they are representing, but often the rules they are enforcing create more conflict than needed. When these situations arise where the rules or laws conflict with pure common sense, then the offender will take it out on the enforcer, despite the system being to blame.

I also understand that in this age of litigation, where any infraction can result in some sort of lawsuit, the enforcers of these rules have been guided to make sure strict application of those rules be administered. If for some reason they don't, and something unfortunate were to happen, they would be the ones to blame because the rules were not followed. In order to keep their job, they have to follow the rules of enforcing the rules. It's just sad that these enforcers have to deny common sense for fear of causing their employer to be sued. In fact, the legal system is the biggest proponent of ignoring common sense and only living by rules. Just look at the example of having to put a written warning of "Caution, Contents may be hot" on a cup of coffee, the antithesis of application of common sense.

Beyond the fact that our legal system is a crock of shit, I guess my biggest beef is that these rules being enforced are assuming that I, as the common patron, am an idiot. I am obviously not smart enough to realize other cars might want to use the entry gate to park, so a rule needs to be in place to keep me from blocking their entrance. I am also not smart enough to realize that a road is used by cars and if I stand in that road when I car comes by, I could get hit and injured. I am not intelligent or capable enough to move myself out of the way on my own volition. The example above is even worse since I had to put myself in even more 'danger' in order to comply with the rule being enforced.

Yes, for the most part, rules are there for our own protection and are a necessity for keeping society safe and functional. I would think that we can all agree that anarchy, or no rules at all, just would not work in a world of almost 7 billion individuals. But there needs to be an allowance for questioning the rules that govern us. If a rule or law is in obvious contradiction with common sense or is counter-intuitive to given situation, then why should that rule be applied? My only conclusion is that rules must be applied in a general fashion to protect the whole of society and since there are those that are not as smart as others, rules must conform to the lowest common denominator. Hence, rules are designed for idiots.

Education Motivation

If you haven't heard, the US isn't the best country when it comes to education. In fact, of the major industrialized nations, it isn't even in the top 10. It ranks 18th of 36. 18th. For a country that is the 'envy' of other nations and the embodies the ideals of the modern world, this is a sad, sad fact. This fact is not overlooked by the people and their government. Every administration has had policies to try to ameliorate the education situation in America. Initiatives have been created, regulations worked and re-worked and even some out-of-the-box thinking has been tried. Yet, we continue to see a less than adequate result. So what is the real problem?

To start, I would like to point out that such ideas as smaller classrooms, benchmark testing, test-based school rewards, socio-economic integration and even healthier lunches are all great ideas that could benefit the student, but have each yet to show any real significance in beneficial change. What each of these ideas do is attempt to attack the problem of education from the outside in. They adjust factors of the environment of the student instead of addressing the students themselves. What I mean by this is that the real issue with the education of our students today is the motivation for those to students to educate themselves.

This idea was written about by Robert J. Samuelson in a recent issue of Newsweek and I could not agree more. I feel like the fundamental problem with the education in our country lies purely on the students' shoulders. If necessary, you can also transfer blame from the student to the parents, as it is really the parents' job to instill the value of education to their children. If not for parents, then whoever can be considered a peer or mentor or guardian of said student holds the responsibility. The teachers themselves can share some of this burden, but as they are often just another adult to the kids, the real motivation for motivation will come from the family. The student needs to understand (and the earlier the better) that education is an invaluable element in the sum of their success as an adult.

It is easy to understand how critical motivation can be to a high school student, but you may ask, how can the motivation of a 6 year old toward education be taken as a serious issue? In this case, look at it more as an issue of respect and obedience. At this young age, it can be impressed upon the student that what they are doing is a very important thing and that the more time they spend learning and listening, the more likely they will be happier and successful in the future. Yes, this sounds very idealistic, but it is the kind of values that need to be imprinted on a child's mind to keep that motivation going.

What is troubling is the proliferation of distractions from this truth. Sure, there are the obvious examples of rock stars, reality-tv 'stars' (Teen Mom?) and plenty of stories of rags-to-riches that can catch the eye of the naive student offering diversions from the path of education. However, the bigger difficulty is convincing these students that this education that is so necessary is something that will have to be worked for and will not come easy. In the era of microsecond internet searches, immediate response and instant gratification, it is becoming more and more challenging to instill the value of years and years of the educational process. To me, this is the largest obstacle to overcome that hinders the students' motivation. Why work hard at something for the future when you can be satisfied now? Why keep doing that homework when you have 'much better' things you could be doing?

I could easily go into depth about all the different factors that can deter a student from wanting to continue, but the important thing to recognize is that the solution lies more in addressing these aspects than with the teachers. Yes, every school needs better quality teachers. Yes, they need more resources and funding and more attention to special individual needs. But what every student needs is the reassurance that all this hard work is going to pay off in the end. They need to be encouraged when they get frustrated or hit a bump in the road. They need to be shown that there is no easy way out, that there is a larger picture to be aware of. Granted, this is not an easy task. Parents and teachers must work together while students also have to realize what is at stake. Keep finding the external education solutions as well, but keep in mind the most important factor: the students themselves.

Tom Brady should keep his day job

Recently, Comcast has come out with a marketing campaign for their new 'Xfinity' cable service with an emphasis on all the NFL action it brings to the table. This is a great idea for them, as the 2010 NFL season is about to kick off and the majority of Americans cannot get enough of things football. The marketing people also decided to have a major NFL star be the face of their campaign. Unfortunately, ol' Peyton Manning already had enough endorsements to do. So Comcast got the other popular white QB, Tom Brady to do the job. We all know Tom Brady is liked by the ladies for his manly features and butthole chin (Ok, those who like his face wouldn't call it that). He has also done some acting before, appearing on Saturday Night Live and many other commercials. On paper, it sounds like a great choice.

As an avid consumer of media, I often get to witness an overlap of commercials between television and radio (and print and digital, etc, etc). The aforementioned advertisement with Mr. Brady runs on both my local cable service as well as my local radio stations and its constant running is why I decided to bring this issue up. Both the tv and radio versions are basically the same commercial, with the dialogue being the focal point. This is where the trouble starts. Whoever was Tom's acting coach the day they shot the advertisement must have been hungover, didn't care or just didn't exist. The result is an ad that sounds like a high school drama student reading right off a poorly written script. There are attempts by the 2-time super bowl MVP to change inflection and pacing so it sounds like he's having an actual conversation with the interested client, but most of the dialogue comes up short. Every time I hear this ad played, my first instinct is to change the channel or station, just so I don't have to witness more of the train wreck (anti-rubbernecking?). The television version is even worse, as it looks like Brady needs his joints to be oiled or something. Nothing is more noticeable to me than awkward hand placement.

I know Tom Brady's selling points are not his acting chops. I know most people don't care how an NFL player says words. They could also care less if he looks like a total stiff in a suit in front of a camera. But why put him in this situation? Why not just let real actors say the script while Tom looks nice in the background. I'm sure the ad wizards expected him to do a bit better given his previous 'acting' experience, but about the time they went for the twentieth take, perhaps a rewrite would be in order. For me, I would rather have a well executed advertisement than a pile of doodoo with some famous glitter sprinkled on top. This is especially true if that same ad is going to be played on the radio. If you still need Tom's magical voice somewhere on that radio ad, work around his skills. Use humor to get by his inability. Do something besides a clumsy reading that almost comes off as soliloquy.

Personally, I am not a Brady fan, but I don't really have anything against somebody marketing themselves. He was probably offered a briefcase full of money and just went with it. I blame it more on the heads of the advertising department for putting me through the atrocity of the commercial. Using a famous face to sell you product is almost always a good idea, but when that face becomes more distraction than promotion, you lose all of that advantage. Now I mentally picture Tom Brady talking like a robot in his huddles during games. It's funny, but not in a way that benefits the NFL or Comcast.

This is how it is done well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzToNo7A-94