Just Another Social Commentary

Man, I've been saving this one for too long... Many of the video links on this site don't work any more because it's from 2006. It's basically a commentary on marketing, my arch nemesis.

http://www.slate.com/id/2156187/?GT1=8900#

Maybe you remember the Visa ads when everyone is in sync, smiling, there's music playing, everything is clean, everyone's brain is completely sterilized, credit cards are being charged in time with the music in this completely materialistic and unrealistic world, and then someone attempts to use backed currency, er, I mean cash to buy their product and the whole thing turns to shit? Yes, those ads! In fact, in 2006, when I had the idea to write about this when it was new, I had no idea that those ads would still be viable and used today! This was a stupid commercial back then and it is now. However, it was a window into today's economy. Although the bulk of it comes from sour mortgages, the culture at the time (and probably still today) is that we are living outside our means. Credit makes things slightly faster and easier, but not for the ramifications. This has got to be one of the most infuriating commercials I've ever seen. It's getting me all riled up just thinking about it.

I'm gonna go get some coffee, but coffee I own, not at a Starbucks or Caribou, where I'm likely to use my credit card otherwise fear that the God damned roof will come falling down.

Society's Ills

I was listening to the KQRS Morning Show on my way to work one morning, and I noticed that the radio personalities like to blame poor parenting and poor schooling on why society is becoming less amiable. Tom Bernard, as I've heard him do a few times before, likes to blame hip-hop culture. I have this to say:

I agree that poor parenting and poor schooling are major contributors to society's ills - "A mind is a terrible thing to waste". I don't agree with the statement that a culture based on a music genre is to blame or is even a realistic argument nor should it be blamed for the ways people behave because of their ties with it. Tom Bernard, I'm sure, doesn't listen to any sort of hip hop/rap related music, so he has pigeonholed the subgenre of gangsta rap that resides within the genre as the entire genre, and this is probably the behavior inspired music he disagrees with. Hip hop is a form of rebellion - just like punk and rock are. It is a way to identify oneself and to find oneself. Sure, hip hop, like rock, is not all good music nor does it always portray a good lifestyle. Think of the widely accepted "rock star lifestyle", where men are just as chauvinistic as some top 40 hip hop artists. Not to mention the way some rock stars destroy themselves with drugs and alcohol. And this is no longer realized as a factor affecting the youth of the world?

I sound like one of those ultra-conservative people. Really, I think people should have a mind of their own and if they so happened to be easily brainwashed and choose a mindless path because their favorite musician does it, than that's the way it is.

Hip-hop culture is all how you define it. It's not simply a culture based on one or a few contributions or things, it's based on the entirety of all things defined hip hop. Just because most popular hip-hop culture is shoved in our faces on MTV and BET as a bunch of über-successful individuals who "know how" to spend money and are usually spending it at the red light district, doesn't mean that is the whole culture. This is akin to defining all Americans as war hungry anti-other people. Many people in America have strong ties to their homelands and visit them many times across a given year. Imagine how you would feel if you were hip hop and all the other music genres were all, "Hey, there's hip hop! We'd better stay away, don't wanna fall into that crowd!" I'm sure if they didn't understand you, you'd feel quite upset and alone.

Defining hip hop is dependent upon who's the definer as well. What hip hop means to me, may mean something entirely different to someone else. It's the close minded, "other" perspective, such as that on KQRS, that can sway many a person to dislike hip hop culture. What if you were undecided on what you thought about hip hop? Say you are open minded enough to want to experience a hip hop album, but someone you trust turns the other cheek and spouts off about how bad the music is. You are going to closely consider what they say, because your
trusted source's opinion is deafeningly loud against your open mindedness (maybe). Now I know people aren't going to trust the KQ personalities, right...or would they?

If you listen regularly enough, you may come to warm up to their opinions on other areas. If you find their beliefs on a particular subject to be true after a little real-life research, you may realize that you have much in common. Let's say they bad mouth hip hop because of the misogyny involved in many of the popular songs; you turn on BET and it's right in front of your face. Trust is established and now you may not be so open minded about it.

I read something about Nas's "Hip Hop is Dead", his most recent LP, which has created controversy over what he exactly means by hip hop is dead. Even the artists are telling you not to listen (well, not really, I realize it's more of a statement about the current affairs of rap and hip hop). But this is coming from someone within the industry and he's even telling you that it's bad.

I don't think many people that listen to KQ, listen to hip hop or rap, unlike myself. They probably don't have any interest in it. But maybe subconsciously, a listener never considers it, because the radio personalities are brain washing them with statements that claim hip hop culture is the root of society's ills. But think of what rock n' roll did when it first came into pop culture - it was devil music during a time of conservatism. I think hip hop is the new rock when you consider it in that fashion.

Word.

Why I Don't Like Benches

Why don't I like benches?

My girlfriend and I have been approached on at least two separate occasions by males spreading their word of God the few times we've sat on a bench together. The first time was many years ago on a bench at the Mall of America. This guy about our age just appears, I swear with a light puff of smoke, in front of us.

"Can I tell you about my friend, you may have heard of him?"

Me (happy to oblige): Sure.

"His name is Jesus, blah blah blah, etc."

After his schpiel, I told him that I used to be Christian, but that I no longer believe in those ideals. He didn't push anything and we ended our conversation.

The next incident happened in the tiny college hamlet of Dinkytown. Again, with my girlfriend on a bench between Peik and Folwell Halls, in the "Knoll Area", where barefooted hippies play frisbee and practice disc golf (I love disc golf). The hacky sack rounds perpetuate this area as well. Anyway...a Morman approaches us this time. Well, he doesn't approach us, he walks past us with his friend, then after thinking better of the situation (we were literally just asking to be pounced on), he turns around and says to himself, "Oh yeah!" The he looks coyishly at us and says something about the humor of remembering you have forgotten something. Then, he awkwardly breaks into the God conversation, rendering the lesson I learned above, utterly useless. I couldn't even say, "Not interested." I don't really remember all of what he said, but all I could think of was, Do I look like a polygamist? I mean, I'm sitting here with one girl and you are going to ask me to become some sort of orthodox Morman?! I could only imagine what my girl was thinking. I had to bat this guy away a little because he kept coming, but eventually he bowed out. This particular guy was very obviously socially awkward. I think I would have had a hard time speaking with this gentleman about anything.

I don't like benches, is because I always have looked at the bench as an ideal place to hold a loved one and gaze at the world around us. Now when I see a bench, all I can see is an opportunity to be hassled about zealots. Look, I understand that you are to spread the word of God to people, but don't do it to just any random person, do it after you get to know them a little, ice breaking shouldn't be done with the cross. God shouldn't be the first thing out of your mouth to a complete stranger, because if they haven't heard the word of God or don't know what you are talking about, you are going to make them feel really uneasy, even if you are showing the love and joy of knowing Him on your face.

Urine or You're Out

A friend of mine sent this email to me. My response is below it. I agree with it, but once I started writing, I hadn't considered what was involved in something like this.

URINE TEST

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test..

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their Ass doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state
would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. . Some thing has to change in this country -- and soon!!!!!!!

I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'

My response to the author:

You know, we should talk to our state representatives about this. Emailing is good to garnish fraternity, but if we truly believe in it we should fight for it. I agree with this 100%, however, realize that as the taxpayer, we will have to pay the taxes on those people who want welfare who are required to take the test, because they won't be able to afford it. This is probably more expensive than you think. Also, there's the fact that if you are dependent on drugs, there is a whole psychological process (and sometimes physical) that must be dealt with and broken. Then you would have to pay those fees in taxes. Are you seeing where I'm going with this? If you cut welfare from these people you are hurting their children, not the problem of the parents. As angry as we get about wasting our money, if we truly care about people, and want to help them, then we should, with good sense, pay for this, otherwise it would be like throwing them away. Yes, it may be more expensive to do the drug testing way, but if you break the cycle, and educate these people, hopefully it would eventually go away.

How to Save the World

Years ago in my ecology class in college there was a debate on ways to help save the planet, reduce green house gases/waste, bring people out of poverty, save the rainforest, etc.

I forget the details of many peoples arguments, but I believe it boils down to one simple truth. Population control.

This is a very touchy subject because it is the basis to many a conspiracy theory and a huge human right. The right to bear children, in some cultures and religions is a highly held ideal and to take that away from people could cause widespread pandemonium. But who would you take this right away from? You couldn't take it away immediately all at once everywhere, because the population could plummet and then the human race could be in real trouble. The only way I can see it would be to limit the number of children a couple could have. The problem with this, is how it would be controlled. Most people would frown upon even the idea of this.

This brings forth a series of ramifications depending on the country. In a third world country, for example, it is a good thing to have more children, because the work there is more labor oriented (I would assume) and the more hands you have, say, as a farmer, the easier life would be for the family. If you only had a kid and the father passed away, there would be no way a mother could be caretaker for a child, and work a field all by herself. As highly an idealized situation I just presented, it's just an easy example of how the idea must be fitted per situation, thus it is almost not even a possibility.

I know in many first world countries, our population is declining because of we are aware of things like global warming and the impact we are having on the world. It's not that people in other parts of the world are unaware either, but they probably can't help their situation and need more children. The only reasonable option is to educate everyone. That, I think, we are in the middle of, as we slowly turn into a global society.

So why do I think that overpopulation is the biggest problem? Because it affects every other problem. Fewer people means less need for food. We would slow razing the sea for food, preserving aquatic diversity. The rain forests wouldn't be chopped down for land (poor land, by the way), the hardwoods there wouldn't be used for furniture here, we would preserve the most diverse ecosystem. There are so many things in the rain forest that we don't know about that could or could have saved us from cancer or any other of the myriad of disease for which we have no cure. We would need less space for livestock, less food for livestock. This of the effects of that! Less fertilizers, less need to impregnate our livestock with enzymes and chemicals to speed up their production. I think 10-15% of the world's water is fresh water, most of which is contained in the great lakes of the USA, we would greatly reduce the need for fresh water (think how many people shower everyday, some more than once). Fewer people equal fewer cars, less greenhouse gas emissions, less fuel consumption. I could go on all day with the pluses.

The drawbacks include a possible weaker economy. With less people, there wouldn't be as much money. However, if our money is backed by hard currency, such as silver, gold, etc. then technically, it could only increase in value, as there is only so much precious metal in the world. If a chaotic disease ravaged the remaining population, that could be an issue. However, the good thing about the drawbacks, is you could always deregulate the population control. People are always willing to have sex, let's be honest.

I think I'm a socialist at heart, but I do bear in mind that my idea of socialism is highly idealized. I don't have enough faith in humanity that if the entire world was socialist, there wouldn't be freeloaders:

Rod: Daddy, what do taxes pay for?
Ned: Oh, why, everything! Policemen, trees, sunshine. And let's not forget the folks who just don't feel like working, God bless 'em!

Capitalism just breeds greed, or at least that's what I see, although, at its core, it works very well. Perhaps a new social system is in order? Any ideas?