Sprint woes -- part 2

Once again, I am bothered by Sprint's campaign for fighting AIDS. I noted in an earlier post* that Sprint's big push was that by purchasing a new phone, a small portion of the money would go to AIDS relief in Africa. What I failed to mention, though it is barely subsidiary, was that it troubled me because the ad was given during the week of Valentine's Day--as if that day made people more apt to give in a "loving" way.**

The new ad, which I encountered a couple of days ago, struck me even deeper than the last because they tried to bolster the ethical justification of buying a phone in order to help dying individuals. The controlling statement for this new commercial is: "The power to do the right thing." The implied logic of this statement is what struck me. The implication is quite obvious (in light of the whole commercial): doing the right thing is the right thing only when the one doing the right thing benefits in some way. According to this logic: helping people in Africa is the right thing to do only if we get something out of it--in this case, a new phone.

Just in case this sounds a bit exaggerated: look at how the whole presentation is given. More than 90% of the commercial is about the features of the phone, how it will benefit our lives, and--quite simply--how cool the phone is because it's a sleek red color. This better than 90% is focused entirely on the consumer and why they should purchase this new phone. As a kind of "Oh, by the way"; the part about Sprint donating $17 to fight AIDS is tacked on at the end of the presentation. My question would be: how would the people in Africa feel if they knew that they were helped only because people in America bought a new phone; and that only a portion of the money was given to them? That's not doing the right thing.

The last time I checked, doing the right thing did not involve wanting to know what rewards could be received from doing the right thing. If doing the right thing is determined by what one gets out of it, then (to me) that's not doing the right thing--that's doing the right thing under false pretenses. "When you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. . . . When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they [both] have their reward in full." (Matthew 6.2, 5--emphasis added).

Until we get rid of the mentality of "What's in it for me?", doing the right thing will never truly be doing the right thing. Doing the right thing is the right thing because it is the right thing to do--no other reason.

______________________________________

*It's two down from this one.
**That may be the case. If it is, that is a different blog for a different time.

more laziness spotted

Upon leaving the gym* this morning, I was walking toward my car when I spotted an individual who was driving an SUV that was by far too big for them to be driving. The only reason I spotted them was because they almost hit me and didn't show any concern about whether or not they did. (I just happened to have a front space in the parking lot--I got lucky when I pulled in this morning). I got in, unloaded what was in my hands, put the keys in the ignition, and started the car. It was somewhat chilly this morning, so I decided to sit for a moment and let the car warm up a bit before leaving.

Just then, I noticed some headlights behind me--it was the same SUV who almost hit me. This person had pulled into a spot that was behind me and to my right--only a couple of spots further from the door of the gym. I hate to admit it, but my first thought was: "I bet this person is going to take this spot once I leave." To test my theory, I back out and began to leave the lot--all the while checking to see what this person would do. Sure enough: the moment I was clear of the space, they made their way into the now vacant spot. From the moment I got into my car to the moment when they pulled into the space I vacated; the whole process took about 3 minutes.

I was not ashamed of my second thought: "That person is flat out lazy." Why was I so harsh? They were going to the gym! If this person was not willing to walk a few extra steps because they have a spot that is further away; why even bother going to the gym? If this person was in that much of a hurry that they have to have the closer space; then their desire to be expedient was futile because they wasted "valuable" time waiting on me to leave. During the three minutes it took me to leave the parking lot, they could have parked in the back of the lot and walked in (heaven forbid, they get some exercise) before I left.

A word to the person driving the SUV: if you're going to the gym, it's not going to kill you to walk a little further--in fact, it may do some extra good. :-)

______________________________________

* For those of you who actually read this and are keeping track: a few posts ago, I noted that I canceled my gym membership. The reason I re-joined is twofold: 1) my wife and I are able to take advantage of a deal offered through my school, which means we can work out together--something the two of us wanted to do ever since we got married. And 2) I also enjoy working out with my great friend George. (Yes, I go to the gym twice . . . once in the morning with George [to do weights] and once in the evening when Jenn gets off work [to do the treadmill]).

Sprint woes -- part 1

I was recently troubled by a new Sprint commercial where the ("Office Space") host announced an new offer. If we, the consumer, were to buy the new Red Motorazr phone; the proceeds from the purchase would go to help fight AIDS in Africa. (The details of this offer can be found here). The desire to help fight AIDS in a country where the disease is certainly in epidemic proportions is not what bothers me. What bothers me is the way in which the whole spiel is given.

First, Ron Livingston (i.e., the host of the commercial) enters the frame with a rather somber look on his face; and in a similar somber tone, he informs us that Sprint has decided to help fight AIDS in Africa with a percentage of their sales. Then, in an overly excited tone (and a quick switch of the background), Ron tells us that we can get a cool new Red phone when we decide to help Sprint in this fight. Then, the scene returns to its original solemnity and Ron finishes the commercial with a troubling statement: "Just in case the saving lives part wasn't enough."*

So, if I understand this campaign correctly: I have to buy an advanced piece of technology for my own enjoyment (for $59) in order to make sure $17 goes to help people in a technologically depraved country (or, countries) who are suffering from one of the more horrifying diseases. If that's the case, then we as a people are not helping to the full extent of our abilities. Not only that, but we are not truly making a sacrifice in order to make sure another person is not placed in a shallow grave. If it was a true sacrifice, then all $59 (or more--heaven forbid) would go to help fight AIDS.** We don't need a new phone. They need to live. And if, according to Sprint's website, the proceeds from this campaign have helped over 12,000 people in Africa; imagine how many more would have been helped had the whole amount been given.

__________________________________________________

* Or something like that. . .I'm doing this from memory.
** This brings to mind the contrasting mentalities of Cain and Abel; and we all know how that story ended.