WHENEVER YOU FIND YOURSELF ON THE SIDE OF THE MAJORITY…

IT’S TIME TO PAUSE AND REFLECT.

While driving home from school this afternoon I found myself literally stopping in the middle of traffic to look at an advertisement by Diesel pasted on a wall at the corner of National and Overland. Although the picture itself was eye-catching, as it depicted a woman standing on a ladder flashing her breasts to a security camera, it was the text that stopped me: “Smart may have the brains, but stupid as the balls.” I started going over the possible implications of this slogan which in summary can be simply put as the encouragement of young people to be stupid. Although the acceptance of stupid behavior has been pushed for by our generation it made me really question what kind of life we’re encouraging young people to lead. I came home to look up the campaign and see if there were anymore ads similar to the one that I saw on the street and came across an entire movement and philosophy that Diesel is heading. After watching the video that Anomoly advertising agency created for Diesel’s “Be Stupid” campaign it became clear to me that Diesel had set out to completely change the connotation of stupid. Although the acts committed in the advertisements images included the epitome of what I would consider “stupid,” such as stopping to take a picture of your vagina while a lion is behind you about to attack, or running around the beach in underwear that reads “burn baby, burn” while feeding a mountain of flaming furniture, Diesel’s advertisements seem to be taking the word stupid and moving it away from it’s popular definition in contemporary society: 1 a : slow of mind : obtuse b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : brutish

We have grown up in a generation that’s been told not to be many things. Don’t be too fat. Don’t be too thin. Don’t be ugly. Don’t be short, hairy, loud. Don’t listen to this and don’t watch that. And most of all, our parents generation has pounded into our heads that the worst of the worst that we can be is stupid. Before shows like Jackass and websites like YouTube where virtually anything flies, being stupid wasn’t okay. It was synonymous with failure as opposed to what it’s now come to be related to: cool. Many of us use this word on a regular basis to describe things like… George W. Bush, the kid at our  18th birthday party who smoked a little too much and tried to jump off of the roof and into the pool (and missed) or television shows like Jersey Shores. I know I can even list some very stupid things that I’ve done in the past that I will refrain from mentioning. And this I think is exactly what Diesel’s campaign is trying to hit on, is the fact that these stupid actions, thoughts and ideas should not be held down by the negative connotation that the word holds to many people, but should be recognized as common occurrences in everyday life. Their campaign seems to focus on the fact that the sentence “Don’t be stupid” is something that has been told to us all of our lives.

“Like balloons, we are filled with hopes and dreams. But. Over time a single sentence creeps into our lives. Don’t be stupid. It’s the crusher of possibility. It’s the worlds greatest deflator. The world is full of smart people. Doing all kind of smart things… That’s smart.
Well, we’re with stupid. Stupid is the relentless pursuit of a regret free life. Smart may have the brains…
but stupid has the balls. The smart might recognize things for how they are. The stupid see things for how they could be. Smart critiques. Stupid creates. The fact is if we didn’t have stupid thoughts wed have no interesting thoughts at all. Smart may have the plans… but stupid has the stories.
Smart may have the authority but stupid has one hell of a hangover. Its not smart to take risks… Its stupid.
To be stupid is to be brave. The stupid isn’t afraid to fail. The stupid know there are worse things than failure… like not even trying.
Smart had one good idea, and that idea was stupid. You can’t outsmart stupid. So don’t even try. Remember only stupid can be truly brilliant. So, BE STUPID“

Avoiding being stupid is something that has been ingrained in our minds and keeps us from asking questions in class for fear of being judged as being stupid. Something that keeps us from arguing with a statement made by someone deemed “smarter” than us for fear of being judged as being stupid. Many of the best inventions were deemed “stupid” or crazy in the beginning, and eventually may have completely changed the world. I applaud Anomaly and Diesel for taking it into their own hands to change how people look at the word, and to change how people should judge each others ventures and ideas. When I looked deeper into Anomaly as an advertising company it became very clear to me where this message was coming from.  They are rooted in the idea that old world advertising companies are broken, tired and out-of-the-know. What people need to become aware of is that, “The traditional approaches are now obsolete. One hundred years of marketing thoughts are gone. Alternative approaches aren’t a novelty. They are all we’ve got left.” And this concept is very clear in the campaign that they created for Diesel. it’s time to start thinking of a different way not only to approach advertising, but a way to comment on life through the outlet of these media images.

On the other hand though, I think that the word stupid can be looked at in two different lights. The ads involve mainly two different kinds of messages: The fact that thoughts can be judged as stupid, and that actions can be judged as stupid. Although actions are always going to stem from a thought, the way that I am differentiating between the two is based on the idea that the actions themselves in these images are more on the side of being just purely dangerous. I completely agree with the statement that “To be stupid is to be brave. The stupid isn’t afraid to fail. The stupid know there are worse things than failure… like not even trying.” I think that this is one of the strongest parts of the campaign, as it encourages youth to take chances, to take risks and not to worry about failure because there’s no way to succeed unless you try. But I also believe that their ads are in a way pushing young people to do these “stupid” things that are downright absurd and unsafe. Although it would be almost impossible for a lot of people to put themselves in the situations shown in the ad’s images it’s overall glorifying the concept that “Smart may have the plans… but stupid has the stories,” and when many of those stories involve dangerous acts it’s clear that the act of embracing a completely stupid life should be taken with a grain of salt, and a large one at that. Unfortunately, as many advertising campaigns these days do, the ads also seem to make their point at the expense of others: the smart kids. What caught my eye when I first drove by one of these posters was the fact that they’re not just helping the stupid kids doing their stupid, revolutionary acts make it into the light, but they’re pushing intelligent ideas and accomplishments in a negative light. “Smart may have the brains… but stupid has the balls. The smart might recognize things for how they are. The stupid see things for how they could be. Smart critiques. Stupid creates.” Who is to say that brains aren’t important, for aren’t the brains those who can eventually figure out how to get stupid out from between a rock and a hard place? Who is to say that critique isn’t necessary when it comes to weeding out the truly “stupid” ideas that people come up with, like pet rocks and movies like “Beverly Hills Chihuahua?” I think that in the end both balance each other out.

Personally, I totally can support one end of Diesel’s campaign. It is encouraging kids to come out of their shell and speak their mind regardless of the outcome. It’s encouraging creativity, spontaneity and uniqueness. It focuses on the fact that in the end everything’s credibility in the world really just depends on how you look at the situation.

“The best beer company in a better world.”

On my way home Sunday night from a friend’s apartment after watching the Superbowl I noticed that I was fighting my way through swerving sedans and confused SUVs making their way around the 405 freeway. Considering how uninterested I really was in the game and had only gone for one thing other than the amazing 7 layer dip, the commercials, the highlight of my afternoon was sitting back and taking in millions of dollars worth of advertising that was for the most part only mildly entertaining. I made a point to really watch all of the commercials and take some notes on what I noticed with regards to what races, genders and ages were portrayed in the ads. Coincidentally something popped into my head while trying to exit the freeway through a pack of people who had been rendered completely incapable of driving sanely: out of all of the alcohol related commercials this year from Anheuser-Busch’s Bud Light and Michelob and the like none of them put any emphasis on drinking responsibly in their ads. Looking back on the notes that I took all of the commercials that were aired involved anything from a house made of beer cans to a whole town constructing a human bridge to get the distributing truck to their stores to some weird auto-tuning sort of “Waaaaaazzzzuuuuup?!” mash-up to a quite a funny LOST parody.

After thinking about the demographic of the Superbowl which includes not only men but women, teens and children you would think that safely consuming alcohol would be the highlight of their ads during a game that is mostly popular in many households based on the party that accompanies the game itself. I would not go as far to say that they were necessarily endorsing harmful or negative drinking habits but they just seemed to completely omit the idea of responsible drinking from any of their messages during the commercials shown Sunday afternoon. If I were a brewing company I would at least try to instill in viewers the idea of safely drinking during the 4 hour long binge-fest that the Superbowl tends to be.

What also caught my attention after looking more in-depth at some of A-B’s advertising techniques was that although none of the commercials during the 2010 Superbowl involved even remotely young people drinking, in the past they have made efforts to gear their advertising towards (of age) young people. I know that there were a lot of college students watching the game today including myself and a bunch of rowdy college kids who had their beer pong table set up in the living room next to the big screen so that they could play pong and watch the game simultaneously (sadly, at the expense of their carpet.) The other night one of those guys also asked me if I wanted a Natty Ice, and my response to him was “Are we a bunch of poor 15 year olds playing beer pong at someone’s house party while their parents are out of town for the weekend?” It’s really clear that although the company makes very clear their stance on drunk driving/underage drinking/binge drinking they’re definitely popular in the university circle. Despite the efforts that they’ve made to encourage safe drinking on college campuses around the US A-B did sort of ruin any sort of credibility they had in the eyes of many when it came to encouraging safe drinking practices in college students after the campaign they pushed last year when they began producing cans with college sports teams logos and colors on them, which many schools took as the encouragement of underage drinking on college campuses. A Texas university looked at the campaign not only in terms of how it would affect the student population’s health and safety but also how it would affect the reputation of the school. I found out last year that some of my friends in sororities and fraternities were not supposed to be obviously toasted or commit any lewd acts while wearing their sorority pins or fraternity hats, and the Texas University looked at the cans as a similar link to their foundation, or more specifically one editorial referred to it as “‘a slick profiting scheme’ that could tarnish the school’s reputation if students misbehave ‘when they hold a LSU colored beer in their hands.’”

After looking more into the practices of A-B it seems like they’re making a lot of headway with regards to environmentally beneficial practices and recycling efforts, so I can’t knock them on all fronts. Even in 1947 they established the August A. Busch Memorial Wildlife Area for preservation and public use of 7,000 acres of natural habitat, and after being named 40th on the Toxic 100 list they have attempted redemption by operating some of their factories on a bio-energy recovery system.

Aside from their efforts to save the world, one recycled beer can at a time, A-B has  founded many programs focused on underage drinking.

“As part of Anheuser-Busch’s underage-drinking prevention efforts, we’ve developed the following initiatives:

• Family Talk About Drinking – Recognizing that parents have the greatest influence on their children’s decisions about drinking, Family Talk encourages open, honest communication between parents and children. Developed by an advisory panel of education, family counseling, child psychology and alcohol treatment professionals, the Family Talk parent guide is available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese. More than 7 million copies have been distributed free to parents and educators by Anheuser-Busch and its nationwide network of distributors. Videos are available in Spanish and English. For more information, visit www.familytalkonline.com.
• Operation ID/We I.D. – Anheuser-Busch and its distributors offer retailers training and a variety of materials that help them check and verify valid I.D.s. These materials include We I.D. signage and stickers at retailers that remind consumers they will be ask to show I.D. before purchasing alcohol; We I.D. cards (available in English, Spanish and Korean) that list tips on how to spot fake IDs; drivers license booklets that feature photos of valid driver’s licenses from all 50 states, U.S. territories and the Canadian provinces; and wristbands that retailers can use to identify customers who have already shown proof of legal age.
• Prevent. Don’t Provide – Research from the 2003 National Academy of Sciences has shown that youth usually obtain alcohol — directly or indirectly — from adults. Our Prevent. Don’t Provide program reminds parents and other adults not to buy alcohol for minors or provide it to them at parties – no matter the occasion. The National Fatherhood Initiative, The International Association of Fire Chiefs and The Association of Junior Leagues International support this campaign. For more information, visit www.preventdontprovide.com.”

In my mind it seems like although it’s funny to watch a 30 second commercial parody of LOST or some wacko running around in a Dorito suit, what’s more commendable and worthy of attention is the fact that any large corporation is making serious efforts to counter any negative light that’s shed on them. A-B is number 40 on the list of 100 companies with high toxic output and and accomplishing a lot with their programs to “go green” and are heading programs to keep kids from illegally and unsafely consuming their products. Personally what would get me more interested in their product would be advertisements that focus on these accomplishments. I understand that a company like A-B doesn’t need to be racking up a crowd since they’ve already got quite the following in many different demographics, but I think that it’s important for things like what they’re doing for the earth and youth to be focused on.

Varoom! Varoom!

As a journalism major I have been very interested in different ways that people respond to unique styles of writing and reporting. One type of journalistic style that I’ve always admired was Gonzo Journalism that writer Hunter S. Thompson first employed. Hunter S. Thompson was an American journalist and author with most of his credit for fame given to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and his time spent at Rolling Stone magazine reporting. Early in his journalistic career Thompson was employed at various newspapers and magazines in Central and South America as a copy boy and stringer. Eventually after his move back to The United States Thomson published The Rum Diary, a national best seller, and Prince Jellyfish, while trying to also publish multiple other short stories that he had little success with. After moving back and forth between The United States and South American Thompson settled for some time in the late 1960s immersing himself in the psychedelic hippie culture of San Francisco and began writing for a Berkeley based underground newspaper, The Spyder.

After his time spent in the bay area Thompson was approached by The Nation to follow the lives of popular outlaw motorcycle gang, the Hell’s Angels. Following the success of his article Thompson was approached by many publishing companies concerning an extended piece about his stay and experiences with the Hell’s Angels, eventually turned into the book published by Random House in 1966 titled Hell’s Angels: The Strange and Terrible Saga of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. As a result of the success of Hell’s Angels, Thompson was able to publish articles for many magazine’s popular during the 1960s such as The New York Times and Pageant. Considering his familiarity with the offbeat San Franciscan culture of the time and in general the newly emerging “Summer of Love” mindset he continued to write based on his experiences with the hippie population surrounding the drug infested 1960’s counterculture. From the late 1960s into the early 1970s Thompson developed an obsession with the death of the American dream as reflected in his accounts of the Democratic Convention in Chicago and the riots that ensued, along with the popularity of the Las Vegas culture and lifestyle, which can all be seen as reflected in Thompson’s Fear and Loathing articles for Rolling Stone, and his novel Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Overflowing from his typical “freak culture” topic in reporting Thompson moved with his family of himself, wife Sandra Conklin Thompson and son Juan Thompson to Aspen, Colorado and developed his campaign under the “Freak Power” ticket for sheriff. In the end he narrowly lost the race but more importantly managed to publish his first Rolling Stone article in 1970 titled “The Battle of Aspen,” all of this leading up to the birth of what Thompson is best known for: the creation of gonzo journalism. His connection with Rolling Stone in the 1970s began with his article “The Battle of Aspen” but was furthered by his writings about the Kentucky Derby where he paired with Ralph Steadman to do a piece on their observations. During their first piece, as it would become the first of many that Thompson and Steadman would collaborate on, Thompson utilized one of the main components of Gonzo journalism: psychedelic drugs. “I’d seen the illustrations that Steadman was doing before he worked with Hunter. He was much more conventional before Hunter got a hold of him… Ralph told me as soon as he got off the airplane Hunter gave him some psilocybin,” quotes friend George Stranahan in the film Gonzo. Thompson had already had many experiences with drugs during his journalistic career, but for this style of writing it was what fueled one of the most unique elements of how his articles were to read- with both factual and fictional elements, and typically flowed more like a novel or story than a direct account of what was going on. Alongside the articles that Thompson was producing that were raw, real, and unedited, his counterpart at the Derby Steadman was producing art that held back just as much as Thompson’s writing- Nothing. “I was a quiet boy… so I guess it was attractive, that kind of raciness. I think the birth of Gonzo happened when the evil came out of me in the drawings,” said Ralph Steadman after his first job with Thompson at the Derby.

The origin of the term Gonzo in relation to Thompson’s style of writing is disputed on today. By most it is believed to have come from the 1960 jazz instrumental recording by James Booker entitled “Gonzo,” Thompson’s favorite song up until 1969. The term Gonzo was used as Cajun slang for “to play unhinged.” During his coverage of Nixon’s 1968 campaign he would play this song repeatedly while writing which drove Boston Globe Magazine reporter Bill Cardoso crazy. When “The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved” was published Cardoso referred to the article as “pure Gonzo!”
Others believe that the term was a corruption of the French Canadian word “gonzeaux”, which means “shining path”, or the Italian “Gonzo” which is a common word for a gullible person, a “sucker”.

“First I realized I was doing something different. A friend of mine wrote me a note and said that the Derby piece was ‘pure gonzo!’ and I went well, if that’s what it was, and I’d thought it was a brutal failure- I’d botched my assignment- … and I got this onslaught of mail, and I was told that I’d made this great breakthrough in journalism. And I thought well Christ, if I’ve made this great breakthrough we’ve got to call it something. So I liked the word Gonzo,” (Hunter S. Thompson)

To Thompson the definition of Gonzo journalism stems from “a style of “reporting” based on William Faulkner’s idea that the best fiction is far more true than journalism.” This style steers away from the factual sense of reporting and turns more toward an anecdotal and crazed feel.

To define what is known as Gonzo journalism many components make up this technique that counter the traditional purpose and style of writing used in most reporting today.

1. A journalist is free to participate in events and circumstances which may themselves be considered newsworthy

When writing his pieces on Hell’s Angels Thompson took a step over the objective journalistic line separating reporter and subject as he traveled with his subjects and interacted with them on a more personal level, in the end accounting something that reflected his personal beliefs about the group and his experiences with them. He bought a motorcycle and rode with the group on many occasions, he was invited by them to parties and eventually was attacked by several members physically in private and publicly on talk shows based on his accounts that leaned towards the stereotypical outlaw, negative tendencies of the group that he’d seen proven to be true.
“In a nation of frightened dullards, there’s always a shortage of outlaws, and those who make the grade are always welcome… It was about this time that my long standing relationship with the Hell’s Angels began to deteriorate. For nearly a year I’d lived in a world that seemed original, it was obvious from the beginning that the menace bore little resemblance to it’s publicized image, later as they attracted more and more attention the mystique was stretched so thin that it finally became transparent.” (Hunter S. Thompson; Hell’s Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga; Random House 1966)

2. Produce a brutally honest or highly subjective journalistic piece based on the real experience of a trained reporter writing from the inside

Much of Thompson’s work done regarding Richard Nixon in 1968 displays subjective journalism as it’s best. As he intensely loathed Nixon and all that he stood for Thompson was the epitome of biased when reporting on campaigns, and his search for “the real Richard Nixon.”

“So it was with a sense of morbid curiosity that I went to New England not long ago to check on ‘the real Richard Nixon.’ Not necessarily the ‘new Nixon,’ or even the newest model of the old ‘new Nixon’, who is known to the press corps as Nixon Mark IV.’ My assignment was the find the man behind all these masks, or maybe to find that there was no mask at all—that Richard Milhous Nixon, at age 55, was neither more nor less than what he appeared to be—a plastic man in a plastic bag, surrounded by hired wizards so cautious as to seem almost plastic themselves… these plastic handlers were chosen this time for their coolness and skill for only one job: to see that Richard Nixon is the next President of the United States.” (Hunter S. Thompson; “Presenting the Richard Nixon Doll”; The Great Shark Hunt: Gonzo Papers Volume 1; Simon and Schuster Paperbacks 1979)

3. Articles are raw and unedited usually including obscene amounts of profanity

The Kentucky Derby “article” that Scanlan’s Monthly received was not an edited, cited, honest account of what had happened at the race that would have been produced by the typical reporter, but was the result of sheer desperation as he was facing a looming deadline and started sending the magazine pages ripped out of his notebook. In the case of many of his articles it is clear that Thompson’s writing was usually full of ramblings, creative punctuation use and language not deemed proper by the English dictionary, but all of this added to the captivating effect that his writings have on the reader.
“Alright you chickenshit wimps! You pansies! When this goddamn light flips green I’m gonna stomp down on this thing and blow every one of you gutless punks off the road!
Right. Challenge the bastards on their own turf. Come screeching up to the crosswalk bucking and skidding with a bottle of rum in one hand and jamming the horn to drown out the music… glazed eyes insanely dilated behind tiny black, gold rimmed greaser shades, screaming gibberish… and genuinely dangerous drunk, reeking of ether and terminal psychosis. Revving the engine up to a terrible high pitched chattering whine, waiting for the light to change…
How often does a chance like that come around? To jangle the bastards right down to the core of their spleens. Old elephants limp off to the hills to die; old Americans go out to the highway and drive themselves to death with huge cars.” (Hunter S. Thompson; “Welcome to Las Vegas: When the Going gets Weird, the Weird Turn Pro”; Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas; Random House 1972)

4. Blends fictional and factual elements; favors style over accuracy

Best put by Thompson himself, “But what was the story? Nobody had bothered to say. So we would have to drum it up on our own. Free Enterprise. The American Dream. Horatio Alger gone mad on drugs in Las Vegas. Do it now: pure Gonzo journalism.” This style of journalism was something that was based on real events in history, but a gonzo journalist’s account was typically skewed, biased, or based on drug-induced opinions and observances of events. In one of Thompson’s most controversial articles that makes reference to 1972 Candidate Edmund Muskie having been on doses of a mysterious drug called “ibogaine” it is apparent that Thompson has traveled outside the bounds of factual and respectful journalism into a realm of storytelling and pranks.

“Not much has been written about The Ibogaine Effect as a serious factor in the Presidential Campaign, but toward the end of the Wisconsin primary race — about a week before the vote — word leaked out that some of Muskie’s top advisors had called in a Brazilian doctor who was said to be treating the candidate with ‘some kind of strange drug’ that nobody in the press corps had ever heard of.
It had been common knowledge for many weeks that Humphrey was using an exotic brand of speed known as Wallot… and it had long been whispered that Muskie was into something very heavy, but it was hard to take the talk seriously until I heard about the appearance of a mysterious Brazilian doctor. That was the key.
I immediately recognized The Ibogaine Effect — from Muskie’s tearful breakdown on the flatbed truck in New Hampshire, the delusions and altered thinking that characterized his campaign in Florida, and finally the condition of ‘total rage’ that gripped him in Wisconsin.” (Hunter S. Thompson; Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72; Grand Central Publishing 1985)

More directly can this be seen in Thompson’s account of his search for the American Dream in Las Vegas Nevada in “Welcome to Las Vegas: When the Going gets Weird, the Weird Turn Pro”:

“We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something like ‘I feel a bit lightheaded; maybe you should drive…’ And suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full of what looked like huge bats, all swooping and screeching and diving around the car, which was going about a hundred miles an hour with the top down on the way to Las Vegas.” (Hunter S. Thompson; “Welcome to Las Vegas: When the Going gets Weird, the Weird Turn Pro”; Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas; Random House 1972)

5. Articles read like a novel, relating to the term also used at times for Gonzo work, creative non-fiction

Thompson’s work during the Gonzo era was very descriptive and included many details and quotations from the events that were not necessarily pertinent to get the story across, but to give more a feel and atmosphere for the reader.
“I got off the plane around midnight and no one spoke as I crossed the dark runway to the terminal. The air was thick and hot, like wandering into a steam bath. Inside, people hugged each other and shook hands… big grins and whoop here and there: ‘By God! You old bastard! Good to see you, boy! Damn good… and I mean it!’” (Hunter S. Thompson; “The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved”; The Great Shark Hunt: Gonzo Papers Volume 1; Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, NY 1979)
The writing was captivating not because of the facts presented but because of the creative writing tone that the work took to immerse the reader in the event in a new and exciting way.

Today the influence of Hunter S. Thompson and his influence on not only journalism but American culture in general can be seen in many different arenas of entertainment and reporting. Working in Gonzo journalism requires hands on experience as the writer researches what they write about. The technique compares to method acting as method actors become their character in everyday life and while filming to have more of a realistic outcome in their performance as they have “lived in the shoes” of their character. Gonzo journalism has influenced the Literary Journalism Program installed at University of California Irvine which gives students and opportunity to partake in stylized and creative writing in the journalistic field. It has also influenced the work of documentary filmmakers such as Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock as they work in this field with heavily biased but creative and informational work. Whether one agrees with the writing style that Thompson used and the stories that he reported on, it is widely accepted that overall Thompson has had a great influence on journalism and pushing the boundaries of what is to be accepted in reporting.

A truly cautionary tale.

“Maybe the whole love thing is just a grown up version of Santa Claus. It’s the myth we’ve been fed since childhood. So we keep buying magazines, and joining clubs, and doing therapy, and watching movies with hip hop songs played over love montages… all in this pathetic attempt to explain why our Love Santa keeps getting caught in the chimney.” (Kate and Leopold, 2001)

I couldn’t let myself believe that Carrie and Big wouldn’t end up together at the end of the 6th season or even the movie. I can’t tell myself that there wasn’t something going on deep down between Holly Golightly and Paul Varjak, regardless of her profession. And even when I saw Youth in Revolt this weekend I couldn’t let myself get up to pee just because I knew that eventually Sheeni would end up passionately taking Nick’s virginity, allowing him to “tickle her belly button from the inside,” sometime within the last 30 minutes of the film. I could, for lack of a better phrase, be known as a love junkie, a sucker for romance and an old fashioned girl who believes that a fairy tale ending is out there for anyone as long as they embrace it. Although this may be naive, especially considering the amount of times I’ve been burned myself, I guess I’ll just have to live with that old saying: fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me three times… I guess I really just have to blindly believe that true love exists out there somewhere.

I recognize that all over the world there are those who never find love, who fall out of love or who actually despise even the thought of “love” and want to set fire to every department store greeting card aisle between Christmas and February 14th, but I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what the deal is with films, television shows and advertisements that touch on what “modern romance” involves… and it’s disheartening. I’ve been told, not only by past boyfriends but also just friends in general, that life is not a piece of cake but rather it truly is a box of chocolates. You never know what you’ll get so assuming that you’re going to always come out the other side of a relationship squeaky clean and happy is unrealistic. Not everyone can end up like Hepburn and Bogart in The African Queen, or Ariel and the prince in The Little Mermaid. Unfortunately we’re forced to “grow up” sometime around puberty, leap into the real world and believe that Disney movies are a fairy tale, and a fairy tale alone. But it seems like these days the images of relationships that the media is portraying goes beyond trying to be realistic and focuses on what’s really going to sell with the kids: broken, unhealthy relationships between teenagers and pop stars that involve drugs, promiscuous sex and creepy-stalker-vampire boyfriends that watch you sleep at night and toy with your emotions like no other. This week in class we talked about the lack of political charge there was lighting the fire for activism in popular music. I tend to disagree with this coming from a circle that has always been somewhat out of the loop with preference but up-to-date on what’s going on in the media (mainly lacking any sort of interest in what the mainstream’s got going down.) But tonight I feel like after doing some research on what seems to be the most popular these days in movies, television and music there’s another field that’s disappointing me with regards to it’s amount of coverage: positive, healthy relationships on the big screen and in print.

Granted, I will admit that high school and college relationships involve all of the aforementioned sex, drugs and promiscuity (minus the vampires) and to quite an exaggerated degree depending on what school you attended. We as a generation have gotten our taste of the wild side in the media with homage paid to Sid and Nancy, Kurt and Courtney and Whitney and Bobby but it’s hard for me to let all of that settle in my gut as the only thing that we should be preaching to the kids. It seems to me like our generation has started to feed off of who is going to tap Miley after her and whatever Jonas brother break up… Or which buffed up, blown out, oiled down guido Snookie is going to engage in coitus with when she gets home from the cleeb Saturday night (the more I read and think about this the more I am put off by MTVs choice in shows that they’ve taken on.) It frightens me that what our mothers and fathers grew up with was Casablanca, Romeo and Juliet (although we did get Claire Danes and DiCaprio), My Fair Lady and Dirty Dancing when we’re getting Gigli, The Real World and Britney versus K. Fed. Yeah, they got Midnight Cowboy, Repulsion and Boogie Nights but creations like that have made their way out of the underground for our generation and made it straight into the mainstream as tabloids plaster information irrelevant to all of our lives (I don’t care how you try to put a spin on how Brad and Angelina’s marital problems relate to your life) and we’re forced to walk the streets of big cities with billboards advertising The Bachelor and Tila Tequila’s search for yet another lover. Love ballads in the mainstream these days don’t go far beyond the likes of the Tip Drill video (although I’m sure sliding a credit card between a woman’s buttcheeks is how Nelly tells all of the girls he loves them) and Lil Wayne’s proclamation to fight for his girl “on the battle field of love.” As much as it may pain me to say this, I applaud you Taylor Swift. Embrace the crazy and youthful love that is a boy from the football team smiling at you from across the cafeteria. Yeah there are better things out there than some steroid shooting 17 year old helmet haired dude but you’ve got to experience those pesky butterflies at some point before we start telling ourselves that being jaded about love, fantasy and romance is okay before even leaving the womb.

I understand the appeal. Hair pulling, nail biting break ups and break downs all accompanied more often than not by big boobs, sculpted pecs and the opportunity to feel like you can focus on someone else’s failing relationship instead of your own. I myself cannot deny that I watched my fair share of Sex and the City while wallowing in bed post-breakup. Cynical women, with failed attempts at love and hilarious stories to boot? Yes please mister, and pass the cookie dough while you’re at it. And I could also be seen raising my hand when people inquire, “Who can tell me what this whole ‘Flavor of Love’ show is all about?” This week on People Magazine’s website it’s apparent that the most read story of the week informed us all that we can exhale because Brad and Angelina are NOT splitting up! Is this really it? Is this really the first thing that people want to read when they stop at a newsstand to buy some entertainment, because I understand that “reality” is boring. We live it everyday. Another suburban couple working 9:00 – 5:00 and hustling kids around town to soccer games and bake sales isn’t what you want to sit down to at the end of a long day when you live that life. But there truly is so much more to life. You’d never be able to guess it though after looking at the the prime time slots for weekly television: Where is the love?
ABC: Desperate Housewives, The Bachelor, Modern Family
Bravo: Millionaire Matchmaker
CW: Gossip Girl
MTV: Teen Mom
Oxygen: Bad Girls Club

I just wish that there was a little more hope these days. I never expected for Duckie and Sam to end up together. I simply ask for a bit more optimism in the media. Maybe just movement away from the obsession with failure, heartbreak and twisted romance and the opportunity for my kids to not have to look back and say “No wonder 99% of my friend’s parents got divorced… they learned it from these pill-poppin’, hoochie skirt-wearin’, husband-hatin’ wives of Orange County!”

Puh-lEaseTA

I cannot tell a lie: I’ve often been the girl in the back of the classroom praying that no one brings up PETA because it’s almost impossible for me to sit and listen in silence to how great they are. I get it, they have a great message and I’m sure great heart’s deep down, but if I’m ever going to fall off of my high horse when it comes to stereotyping it would be with regards to PETA maniacs.

We’ve all been asked many a question by PETA and for me it’s been a tireless, endless barrage of answer after answer that I can never deny but that comes out the same every time: Yes PETA, I love animals… No PETA, I don’t want to see lame cows dragged through their own feces on the way to the slaughterhouse… Yes PETA, of course I can’t imagine what it would be like to be stuffed in a tiny, tiny cage with 25 other chickens who can’t move off of top of each other to relieve themselves.

I get it! I truly, unfortunately get it! I am one of those people who tears up when Feed the Children commercials come on and who used to have to ignore the fact that the steak on my plate wasn’t synthetic material but the flesh of a real live cow. I am moved by all of this on a regular basis so much that at times you could manage to label me a bleeding heart, if things are packaged the right way to hit that nerve! But PETA has pushed me to the edge on many occasions and especially lately I’ve come to realize that their tactics are anything but tasteful or heartbreaking. They’ve taken the ability to shock in the past to great lengths offending many, many different groups in our society, including Catholics and the Jewish community comparing the Holocaust to animal cruelty and showing a not so modest Joanna Krupa covering what she can with a crucifix.
In the 1980s PETA jumped on the sexploitation bandwagon early and started their campaign featuring scantily clad (a.k.a. butt naked) women endorsing the ban of fur use and harvesting. Some of the ads include famous actresses such as Jenna Jameson, Alicia Silverstone and Christy Turlington all proclaiming that they’d “Rather go naked than wear fur!” Well hell yeah they would… and so would I. But I am missing the relevance here. But alas, I am not so naive to believe that all advertising has to make sense, especially when it involves Holly Madison’s breasts hanging in front of your face or a funny phallic symbol (their entry for a condom wrapper contest put on by the NYC Dept of Health.)

They seem to be taking the use of sex in advertising to a whole new level though these days, which unfortunately for them bit them in the ass when trying to get their Veggie Love commercial into a 2009 Super Bowl time slot and they were rejected. I came across the ad the other day that was harping on the fact that the consumption of meat = impotence, self loathing and failure… the consumption of veggies = best sex of your life with multiple women on a daily basis (according to PETA.) I have to say, kudos to then their marketing strategy. Who wants to be impotent when all it means is having to give up Carl’s Jr. 6$ burgers, filet mignon and chili cheese fries? (Umm… the marjority of men watching the Super Bowl feasting on hamburgers, hot dogs and sucking vienna sausages off of toothpicks.) But in America these days who can resist the naked bod of a Victoria’s Secret-esque model rubbing themselves, whether it’s with your hand or a cauliflower?

The attention that PETA seeks PETA gets, but in the past they’ve done it with billboard sized posters of calves being slaughtered, chickens cramped into small pens and veal calves incapable of supporting their own weight. I agree that this was always something that bothered me a bit, just because it’s hard to remove yourself from the images when you know that in one way or another in your life you’ve supported these inhumane acts, voluntarily by consuming these animals after they’ve suffered, or involuntarily by not signing the PETA petition because those harping petitioners annoyed the hell out of you. But I feel like regardless of how a lot of people feel these ads are giving them a sort of attention, but probably not the attention that they want. Getting people to look at the naked women on their television screen or on a billboard will get you some eyes on the ad, but that doesn’t by any means result in them giving up the burgers. I don’t see how legs that go forever and airbrushed cleavage foster the compassion that we’re supposed to feel for veal calves.

I understand that the use of sex in advertising is something that has become all too common in the U.S. of A. today but I think that when it’s linked to something that should be fighting for the exploitation of all living beings to stop, maybe PETA should rethink it’s strategy. I came across an article when doing research for this post questioning whether it’s possible to be a feminist and support PETAs simultaneously after looking at their newfound love for the sexual inuendos and bare skin in their ads. Unfortunately, they’ve gone beyond using naked women to convince men to support the cause and have gone onto attacking the women themselves. An ad from 2000 portrays the unkempt nether-regions of a female model announcing to any questioning women that indeed, “Fur Trim: Unattractive.”  It surprises me, and many more in the feminist community,  that PETA would go to such lengths to gain respect for the animal population at the expense of the female human. I find it ironic that they would support the idea of a clean, shaven, “fur trim free” woman as the only kind that could be deemed attractive or appealing when what we should be supporting is the acceptance and appreciation for all life in any body whether it be furry or not! If the animals they’re trying to save should be allowed to don their fur, then why not the everyday woman? Let’s see some variety and appreciation for the modern woman who comes in all shapes, sizes and races. We’ve seen Angelina’s bare cheeks on far too many occasions so if you’re going to do it then let’s pay homage to the other women out there who are fighting your fight everyday in the real world.

Many women’s take on PETA ads have been focused around the idea that they’re not sexist, but in fact giving women the ability to expose themselves in a positive light for a good cause, considering there’s no sex involved, and the women are on their own terms shedding their fur coats for a good cause. And to a degree I can understand this: Do what you’ve got to do to fight the good fight for the animals that can’t speak up themselves, but come on PETA. What it comes down to for me in the end is not the fact that PETA has used sex, scare tactics and shock factor to get people into the vegetarian sack but the way that they’re taking advantage of the fact that people are going to use the sexist point to fight them, and they know that more often than not they’ll get away with it because the women in the ads are baring their bods for a good cause, and not for sexual purposes. But it’s clear that regardless of the lack of stereotypical pornographic nature of the ads they’re feeding off of the fact that people will look because of the skin shown. One of the most disturbing ads that I found that contradicts any claim by PETA to stand up for their use of women’s bodies as their tool for activism versus a tool for sexual attention, this video of their “State of the Union Undress” showcases Marissa Lewis as she strips down and touches herself quite suggestively giving her speech claiming that “it has always been [PETA's] policy to show people as much as they need to see in order to make them stand at attention.” And indeed… they showed people as much as they needed to see, and then some, as at the end of the video right before the typical PETA clips the woman stripped down to the buff baring breasts, bottom and giving a quaint wave to the cameras. I know that at times it’s shocking to show only the abused monkey and the abandoned kitten in a video calling for activism, but after this video it’s clear that they’re using the bodacious and almost unrealistically beautiful bodies of these actresses and models beforehand based on the fact that people are drawn to any sort of peek under their skirts, whether for a good cause or not.

“This is not about about whether someone should or should not chose a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle. This is not about fur or faux fur. This is about a blatant marketing strategy and the exploitation of women to achieve their desired results.” Elena Centor

Although I agree that the appetite for nudity may surpass the appetite for fruits and veggies in the hearts of many Americans there are other ways to accomplish getting respect for the lives of animals, which what I was pretty sure was PETAs goal all along, sans the naked chicks. It seems a little more important to me that they fight for their cause with articles “Ringling’s Baby Elephants Tied Up and Electro-Shocked by Trainers” being posted above their State of the Union Undress on their websites homepage.

Human Society
ASPCA
FARM

“There’s blood on the streets. Let it see light.”

So I haven’t actually lived in L.A. long and don’t know about all of the hip places to be or fun places to go but I definitely have just found something that I might need to put at the top of my to do list: The LA Gang Tours.

At first when I saw the headline pop up on “LA Weekly‘s” website that read “L.A. Gang Tours: Exploitation or Education?” I was taken aback with a feeling of horror and disbelief as my initial reaction. I have always found the subculture in what journalists and writers often refer to these days as “the ‘hood,” unbelievably intriguing. I myself grew up in Riverside and the closest I got to ever experiencing any gang or ‘hood activity in California was white pride marches in the hallway of my high school or being at my friends houses when meth labs blew up on their block. But outside of the bad experiences I have had I have always had a profound respect for any kind of subculture or underground groups of people that participate in out of the norm cultural practices, whether it was fostered by fear, appreciation for their creative contributions to society or a naive interest in something that I knew I would never be involved with. My eyes have yet to glaze over anytime I’m driving around Los Angeles, taking in all of the colorful graffiti they can. My mind wanders when I think about who in the class has been in a gang themselves, had family members killed because of gang violence or whether it’s something that we’ll even be able to touch on in our discussions. I will admit I’ve been honked at when the light has turned green because I’m so distracted by random tags on the side of a building, and I’ve been captured by t.v. shows about reformed gang members and their stories. Really though, I must say that in my mind the idea of taking a bus through South Central resembling those I’ve seen driving down Sunset with fannypack sporting-camera flash popping-”I <3 L.A.” t-shirt wearing-waving at me while I grub at Carney’s-tourists sounds anything but appealing.

The media has made us fear these areas and has been open more recently with the labeling of gang names on specific crimes. This was not always the case as they believed that it would foster a sense of accomplishment and recognition within any gang as they assumed it was their goal to get a name out in the city as being people to fear. Today putting a name to the face of the crime has been regarded as important though, as it makes the situations more personal, more real and more frightening.

Although at first I was sure that I’d never, ever be one to take this ride offered through what is known by many as one of the sketchiest parts of Southern California I was intrigued by this article. The picture of what I assume is a gang member with his entire head and neck covered in tattoos stands posted alongside the headline and was inviting enough to make me click the link and diverge from what I’d originally come looking for on the website. I found the article by “L.A. Weekly” blogger Dennis Romero discussing his recent trip on the L.A. Gang Tour. One quote that he has from L.A. Times writer Erin Kaplan questions “Who would spend money for a cruise through the toughest and least telegenic parts of L.A. except those who regard such parts as source material for all things urban, i.e., hip, black and cool?” She comments in her opinion piece, “L.A. Gang Tours: Just Ghettotainment?,” that it may cause for people to regard the ‘hood as something to be toured for “titillating” purposes rather than L.A. Gang Tour‘s proposed purpose of education and economic growth. Seeing both sides of the story laid out made me question: Would I actually ever take this tour? And why, or why not?

I think that based on the way that the website is set up for the operation it makes me less inclined to partake in the tour because of the audience it seems to be aimed at. Although it claims to be for the people of the area and not outsiders looking in on the “ghettotainment” that is South Central L.A. on a hairy afternoon, the advertising seems to draw on what Hollywood outsiders want: Paris Hilton’s short residency in the county jail, Fast and the Furious film location of the L.A. river bed and the Hall of Justice Jail where Marilyn Monroe’s autopsy was performed. Oh and not to mention the fact that this educational hayride costs a meager 65$ a pop.

Although I recognize that it does border on exploitation of the people that live in these areas, and showcases something that has always had a negative connotation in our society, at the same time the overall purpose of these tours (according to L.A. Gang Tours as an organization) is:

“The objective is to create jobs for the residents of South Central, Los Angeles; to give profits from the tours back to these areas for economic growth and development, provide job/entrepreneur training, micro-financing opportunities and to specialize in educating people from around the world about the Los Angeles inner city lifestyle, gang involvement and solutions. This project will create opportunities to contribute to the economic health of South Central and the tools needed to access the American market.”

When looking at it in this light it’s clear that it could definitely be beneficial for South Central to allow this to happen in an economic sense. At 65$ a ticket a huge crowd could bring in quite a bit of money, and it in turn creates jobs for people to run the tours, hold down the office and partake in communications between the tours and the resident gangs in the area. They’ve also made a point to have a lot of the people involved with L.A. Gang Tours have connections within the gang circuit in South Central, allowing for the cease-fire agreement to be possible.

“5-10% of the gang population is responsible for 65-70% of all gang violence. LA GANG TOURS has access to the ’5%,’ those who have their fingers on the triggers. The participating gangs in the established gun fire free safety zones have agreed to allow LA GANG TOURS to operate in their areas, given our goals to hire their youth for employment opportunities and offer job and entrepreneurship training programs.

LA GANG TOURS has predetermined routes and times that are honored by each of the participating and opposing gangs. Every effort has been made, from the time of day to departure locations, to ensure a safe, pleasant and enjoyable tour experience.”

I think regardless of the fact that this could be some sort of circus-ride through the lives of impoverished and dangerous territories and real people’s lives it will have a positive effect on the lives of many children in the area. They’re promoting the employment of kids that need to get off of dangerous paths and start out on a new foot, and why not with a group fostering the awareness of where they once came from, but promoting an opportunity for them to succeed outside of that circle.

So in conclusion: after reading more about it, getting to look at it in a couple of different lights and meditating on whether or not it is something I would consider supporting… I think the concept itself is positive. Help the people, bring to light something that many don’t ever get to see up close and personal, or want to see up close and personal, and save some kids lives while you’re doing it. The way that it’s advertised may be a bit contradictory and putting a Hollywood spin on something that might just be a bit too raw in the end for those who partake. But truthfully, I don’t have 65$ to spend on anything right now so I doubt L.A. Gang Tours is going to be what I’m saving up for, and especially not when I could give my friend Manny’s aunt $10 to sit in the backseat of my car and tell me all of the same things the tour guide would.

The C Word

For the last year and I half I resided in Arcata, CA. Although Humboldt County has come to be known for one thing and one thing alone, marijana, it is not the only thing strongly taking root in Northern California’s soil. There is a blossoming DIY (DoItYourself) subculture that is snaking all throughout NorCal, and it has especially been embraced by the Eureka and Arcata areas. When walking around The Plaza in Arcata (downtown and center of student/transient life) passerby is surrounded by shops selling homemade clothing, jewelry, pottery, artwork and furniture. A few months before my departure Arcata hosted the first “Snip and Stitch Craft Extravaganza” on The Plaza that offered homemade men’s and women’s jewelry, purses, baby clothing, glassware, and more. Every Saturday the Farmer’s Market was held downtown with knit hats and bags,  homemade soaps and various homemade jams, hummus and other foods for sale. There was a certain appreciation for the love and spirit that community members put into their homemade items and complete support for any person’s attempt to make a name for themselves in the DIY community. Although it didn’t hold a huge place in the media up in Humboldt the DIY movement has taken great lengths to become well known and respected all across America. Unfortunately the word “craft” has had a negative connotation in the art world, as it harkened on something that was considered to be less serious, respectable, marketable, and less creative than “real” art and design. What most don’t realize though is that this new world of crafting goes beyond (but certainly pays homage to) the macaroni necklace that we made in 3rd grade for Mother’s Day, or the Zine we printed with our buddies junior year of high school. Recently I became aware of the lengths that CraftScotland has been taking to reintroduce craft to the Scotish contemporary culture. This one minute short by CraftScotland has found its way into movie previews and commercials on Scottish television in an attempt to get into people’s heads that there is more to crafting than hot glue and popsicle sticks (although I have to say you can do some amazing things with both of those limited resources!) and to reintroduce Scotland’s community to their strong roots in the art of crafting.
Blogs like Extreme Craft by my former art professor and author of the book 1,000 Ideas for Creative Reuse, Garth Johnson, keeps track of many different creative craft happenings and successes all over the world. The blogspot by Faythe Levine for DIY crafting her amazing film Handmade Nation also documents the roots from which the DIY movement sprung and how to get involved today. And finally Etsy is an online outlet for crafters to sell their work to those who appreciate beautiful handmade jewlery, books, housewares, and everything alike. These sources will give you an inside look at what’s going on below the surface of the commercial art and creative industry.  Personally I can’t help but love the people who partake in this new wave of art, design and culture because it makes everything we put in our body and on our body more personal and uniquely our own. By becoming involved in the DIY community I have had the opportunity to meet women who sewed every stitch and button onto a dress I purchased, or to see how my jewelry is put together or to come face to face with the artist who painted the works that I hang on my bedroom wall. By supporting this team of DIY crafters who enjoy hands-on work we are providing an outlet for them sell themselves and their creative genius through an intimate experience.

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Yesterday on my way to class I was listening to the radio and happened to hear a Taco Bell commercial come on. After the conversation we had in class about the new “healthy” Taco Bell menu that I was completely unaware of I figured that I’d listen closely to see if I could be further informed on how to lose weight by eating low cal Gorditas. Unfortunately what I heard instead was surprisingly offensive and in bad taste on the part of Taco Bell’s media department.

The commercial began with a conversation between what listeners are supposed to believe are two lovers, Maria and her boyfriend. The boyfriend is confessing things to her that he had been untruthful about but states that he could never lie about one of Taco Bell’s various menu items and it’s greatness. At the end of the commercial Maria says with a tone of relief that she’s glad that they can start being truthful with each other and that “[she] wasn’t born Maria” and as her voice drops a few octaves she adds that “[she] was born Marvin.” And in response her boyfriend gurgles a very distinct and disgusted “Ew.”

Being someone who has largely been a part of, in defense of and involved on many different levels with the LGBTQ (LesbianGayBisexualTrangenderQueer) community I found this commercial to be unbelievably offensive and disturbing. Although I am aware of the fact that this statement is pretty cliché, but really people… it’s 2010! I recognize unfortunately that we live in an age and a country where sexuality, sexual orientation and specifically transgenderism are still somewhat taboo topics and still fair game to be ridiculed because of their status as being outside of the norm. But it appalls me that a corporation like Taco Bell takes advantage of the opportunity not only to get inside of our stomachs but our heads as well, and comment on a group of people that are now not only being ridiculed in their daily personal lives but by the media on the radio as well. I feel like regardless of how Taco Bell’s employees may feel about the LGBTQ community, as a company it would be wise for them not to project this image of hatred, prejudice and immaturity through their ads in the media. Taco Bell took advantage of the fact that they are welcomed into people’s personal space (their cars, living rooms, kitchens… wherever your radio is stationed) and made a mockery of these people (who are also their potential customers!) in the LGBTQ world. Our generation has been bombarded with movies like Tootsie, Mrs. Doubtfire, etc. that make a joke out of crossdressing and transgenderism. We also have had the opportunity to give praise to Boys Don’t Cry and TransAmerica that should have made clear that this fraction of our human population is out there and struggling on a daily basis. Commercials like the one aired by Taco Bell has no place in the media as it makes laughing at the lives of transgendered Americans justifiable and fosters a sense of unwelcoming hatred and ignorance.

When first trying to find the transcript or a clipping from the commercial the only link I could find on google was this, some young woman’s “tweet” commenting on how the commercial never failed to make her laugh. This outraged me even more and thankfully after further research I found this blog Pam’s House Blend that comments on the commercial and what GLAAD has done to remedy the situation. The blogger also comments on the fact that although it would be easy to be angry and disgusted with Taco Bell (as I initially was) it is more important to lend a hand in educating these people about why what they aired was offensive and how to avoid such conflicts in the future. Although I’d like to believe that we live in a world where everyone is going to be tolerant and educated about the LGBTQ community, I know that’s unrealistic right now. But I think that it’s also impossible to live life assuming that we’re supposed to just take what’s thrown at us by the media because they are some kind of “be all, end all” of social commentary and opinion. Thanks to teams like GLAAD and watchful members of the community willing to report defamation steps have been taken to further the flow of information about the LGBTQ community and the respect that it deserves, and to take advantage of the upper hand that we have over the media when working as a group.