Charlie Sheen vs The Troops

Recently, while logged onto Facebook, I saw this status update featured on a friend's profile, almost assuredly a repost of someone else's original post many reposts ago:


"Charlie Sheen, 47, is all over the news because he's a celebrity drug addict and a self-centered egomaniac. Meanwhile, Andrew Wilfahrt, 31, Brian Taboda, 21, Rudolph Hizon, 22, Chauncy Mays, 25, David Fahey Jr., 23, and Christopher Gould, 25, are soldiers who gave their lives this past week with no media mention. Please honor them by posting this as your status for a little while."


Now, how can one find fault with such a seemingly noble post that apparently keeps things in perspective for us superficial Americans? Well, those who know me well know that I'm just the man for the job.


The post, rather than honoring the deceased soldiers, trivializes their sacrifice by using their deaths to make an obvious point about the media's fascination with celebrity. As a result, the focus shifts from the six who tragically lost their lives for an increasingly muddled cause to the allegedly profound insight of the poster. The poster, in making a point of how our society is distracted by celebrity, ironically distracts us from focusing on the deceased soldiers. It's significant that, of all the responses to the post, not one comment lamented the deaths of the soldiers and the pain and anguish their loved ones must have been going through. In fact, all the responses were overwhelmingly trivial, an inevitable response to triviality.


It's imposible to discern the motivation behind the original poster. A skeptic might claim the poster was either attempting to show how insightful and thoughtful they are, awaiting applause for their wonderfulness. Perhaps the poster did it for the pleasure of knowing that something they posted would be unthinkingly reposted by many. Or, possibly, the poster did it to feel good about themselves, being too busy to write a letter to their local congressman or congresswoman articulating disapproval of the shoddy treatment to which soldiers, veterans, and military widows are subjected as a matter of policy. Or, a combination of the three.


On the hypothetical possibility that the poster TRULY wanted to honor the deceased soldiers rather than make an obvious comment on society, this is what should have been stated: "Andrew Wilfahrt, 31, Brian Taboda, 21, Rudolph Hizon, 22, Chauncy Mays, 25, David Fahey Jr., 23, and Christopher Gould, 25, are soldiers who gave their lives this past week. Please honor them by posting this as your status for a little while." This post, instead of making the point for the reader, challenges the reader to come to their own conclusions (if any) and hones their focus where it should be, on the dead soldiers. The post, stripped of the pretensions of the original author, becomes more poignant and is much more likely to keep the troops and their families in our thoughts and prayers. It worked for me.