Future Forecast: Hate Crimes on the Rise; the Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Poorer, and the Black Man Gets Screwed

Why cant you just shoot the damn Mexicans??
Lou Dobbs really, really Hates Mexicans
Apparently, Lou Dobbs isn't the only one that hates Mexicans...
Are all illegal immigrants Mexican?

What we have here is a national crisis. Illegal immigration and the ineffective laws in place to "prevent" it from happening are fueling a frenzy in the United States. There are multiple issues at stake; the prevalence of frightening intolerance among Americans toward all hispanics, as exhibited above, is just one of the many...

Outside of the obvious racism that exists, not just toward illegal immigrants (many of whom come from other countries, not just Mexico), but toward a majority of hispanic people, there is the issue of the relationship between race and class in America.

This is interesting. I think what may end up happening (even more so than already) is a huge class divide between white Americans and hispanics. There will be a proliferation of clubs similar in nature to the DAR who are trying to keep "American" history alive (read: white history), but what may end up happening is an extreme nationalism that occurred in a situation similar to Nazi Germany. Not that I am in any way, shape, or form making light of the plight of the Jews or trying to be a Nazi sympathizer, but the Nazi Germans were trying to protect their country from being overrun by people they felt jeopardized the success of their country. Right or wrong, this was a mind-set that was pervasive enough that German citizens allowed the Nazi soldiers to commence with the extermination of millions of innocent people.

In no way do I think that legal Mexican immigrants (or any legal immigrants for that matter) should be barred from entering this country, but if things keep going the way they are now with illegal immigrants, there is going to be an even greater hostility toward all minorities (except for blacks) that I think will escalate into violence and greater class divisions. It's entirely possible that the black culture will view the emerging hispanic majority as a threat to their chances of "equality" or success within American (read: white) society. I guarantee that the black community is going to suffer greatly because the hispanic community is taking over the jobs that both blacks and whites refuse to do. The white community has always been in the majority as far as the normative functions of society are concerned, and the hispanic community will be the actual majority in the country. This leaves the black wo/man in a very precarious situation.

In addition, I have recently seen statistics that white upper and middle class people are not reproducing at the rate that lower class minorities are. This influx of illegal working-class immigrants will only increase the number of people in the working class, and result not in the spread of wealth, but in the extreme concentration of wealth among certain demographics (white, educated people that already come from wealthy families). If the democrats think that the majority of this country's wealth is too concentrated now, just keep letting uneducated illegal immigrants into the country. Illegal immigration only serves to make our nation's poor poorer and promote class divisions.

This relationship between race and class has the potential to evolve into a system similar to that of castes in India. I predict in 20 years, our society will look something like this:

Top Socio-economic bracket: White, educated, American-born people

Upper-middle bracket: Black and Asian American-born, educated people

Middle bracket: Other American-born educated minorities, excluding Muslims and Hispanics

Lower-middle bracket: Hispanic American-born, educated people

Lower-class bracket: Hispanic American-born, uneducated people; Muslim American-born, educated people

Lowest bracket: Muslim, American-born, uneducated people; other non-American born minorities.


This is frightening, and the potential for racially-motivated or class-motivated hatred will grow even greater as there grows a misunderstanding and intolerance to other races and nationalities as a result of the poorly-handled issue of illegal immigration.

Is it Smited, Smitten, Smote, or Smut? A Conversation Between Two Atheists and Two Christians

Preface: Hessie, a noted atheist, mocks Jesus by striking a crucifixion pose

E: Yeah, that was like, one day of his life…

Hessie: That’s right, for the rest of it, he was a carpenter...he made cabinets

Housewife: She’s never even seen a Bible

E: She only knows what she reads on atheist Web sites…She saw one, near your book, in Barnes and Noble…

Hessie: Yeah, I have. I have one. It says, Bible, by God. And on the back, it says, About the author.

E: God was born in 1976 in Madison, Wisconsin…

Hessie: God is a teacher, counselor, philosopher…some other crap…

Hank: He was a carpenter

Housewife: That was his son, Jesus

Hank: He was a part time DJ, that radio station, KGOD

Hessie:…his timeless classic, The Bible, has been enjoyed by millions…

Hank: Other works include The Hunt for Red October, Bible 2: Electric Boogaloo, and Tuesdays with Morrie

Hank: I heard he was the ghostwriter of the Koran…

Housewife: That was a myth

Housewife: I wonder how the New Testament was received when it came out…

Hessie: Now guys, I know what they always say about sequels, but really, this one…

Housewife: The Dead Sea Scrolls however, were originally rejected from the publisher. In addition, they were really disappointed with the translation in the King James version. Add in some stuff about homosexuals…and slavery. It will appeal to the American audience

Hank: What’s America?

Hessie: Yeah, homosexuals, and dinosaurs, they’re gonna have questions about that…

Hank: Jonah saw a dinosaur, or something. Maybe it was Job. I don’t know, starts with a J…

Hessie: CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAARLIE…..

E: Can someone stop her?

Housewife: You say that like any of us have control over her…

Hank hits Hessie with bottle, rumble ensues

Ron Paul: What kind of fuckery is this?

Apparently, everyone is buzzing about Ron Paul. And everyone is talking about how no one knows who Ron Paul is. There is a glutton of blog posts regarding this mystery candidate, which in sum, say basically this: "Oh my god, who is Ron Paul?"

Out of the five of us, only Hank knew about this guy who is basically a dark fly on a dark horse. Here's how the conversation went:

Hessie: "Search technorati to see what people are posting about."

Technorati Site: Number one search: Ron Paul

e: "Who the hell is Ron Paul?"

Hank: "You know, he's a presidential candidate --"

Housewife & Hessie: "Right...you don't know..."

Housewife: "Is that like Sean Paul?"

Hessie: "Ron-da Paul. Number One. Champion...We-be-burnin'-and-some-other-words-you-know..."

Hank: "Look it up, look it up! You know, he's the guy Bill Maher called 'RuPaul.' Or something. I don't know, I wasn't really paying attention...So anyway, Taboo, it's a 1980s porn --"

Hessie: "You watched it without me?!"

Ok, it was a short conversation, just like all of the blog posts about Ron-da Paul. Short. Because no one knows any other information about him other than that no one knows anything about him. Ron-da Paul and Chris Dodd. The most talked about people that no one talks about.

This Conversation Brought to You By the Makers of…

Setting: A diner, lunchtime, two women seated facing each other at a table

Woman 1: “Have you read anything interesting lately?”

Woman 2: “Well, actually” (pulls out The Book of Mormon)

Are you kidding me? This commercial is for real? I feel like I’m watching a scene from the movie The Truman Show. We’re commercializing religion now? (Okay, okay, stupid question)

Not that I’m surprised, but I was just a little thrown by how blatantly obvious the dialogue was. Understandably, personal testimony is an integral part of religion, especially in evangelical faiths, but I was waiting for an announcer to come on in the background and say, “This money-back guarantee on your eternal salvation won’t last for long, so call now! And if you call in the next five minutes, we’ll throw in The Book of Job, absolutely free! That’s a value of almost two souls for just three easy payments of $19.99, with free shipping and handling!”

Granted, this commercial was in a late-night line-up on The WB, in the same commercial break for a singles text-to-flirt phone company (why in the world would I want people I don’t even know text messaging me obscene messages? I can only imagine how those text messages are composed, like bad personalized license plates strung together to make some kind of provocative proposition: R U FREE 2NITE QTΠ?).

“I just feel so much more peaceful now,” continued the second woman, in her testimony about the wonders of The Book of Mormon.

I have a few suggestions about additional dialogue for this commercial:

“I just feel so much more peaceful now and I’m sleeping so much better too…”

“I just feel so much more peaceful now and my clothes fit better too…”

“I just feel so much more peaceful now and I’ve saved a bunch of money on my car insurance…”

“I just feel so much more peaceful now thanks to just 30 minutes a day with the Bowflex”

“I just feel so much more peaceful now and I’m not just the CEO, I’m also a client”

“I just feel so much more peaceful now, BAM! (Close up on Emeril)”

“I just feel so much more peaceful now; side effects may include dry mouth, upset stomach, or diarrhea. The Book of Mormon should not be used by pregnant or lactating women…”

“I just feel so much more peaceful now; results not typical in all cases”

As campy late-night television commercials go, this advertisement might as well have employed Sally Struthers to ask viewers, “Do you wanna make more money?”

-e

Some of us are just meant to be housewives - A Correction to the Rebuttal to the Rebuttal

What, like opera is so much better? Scroll up, I’ve included a little opera in my analysis. You know, the phantom of. Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Ok, you ignoramus, The Phantom of the Opera is NOT an opera. It’s a musical. Set in an opera house. That’s about as far as the connection to opera goes. Confused by titles much? Your lackadaisical approach to information processing must be why you’re just a housewife. Let’s apply your laissez-faire attitude to reading to titles of other cultural artifacts:

The Sound of Music - While this may indeed seem deceiving, this is actually a musical and not several notes strung together that causes characters to say, “What is that sound? Is it music?”

All That Jazz - Oddly, again, a musical, not having anything to do with Miles or Coltrane…

Pocket Massage for Stress Relief - As I’m sure you’ve easily surmised, this is a pocket-sized book about yoga massage techniques.

Mugglenet.com's What Will Happen in Harry Potter 7: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Falls in Love and How Will the Adventure Finally End – Here’s a wonderful example of a text whose title needs a little more than just a cursory reading. Don’t get excited; this book is not, in fact, the seventh book in the Harry Potter series. It wasn’t even written by J.K. Rowling; it was written by some people with way to much time on their hands.

Now, my dear retro housewife, I hope you see the dangers of living your existence as an individual of such low cognition.

-e

Love Songs...or not: A response to the retro housewife

After reading the retro housewife’s discussion of creepy love song lyrics, I was thrown into a fit of procrastination. So, here’s my contribution:

Natural Woman, Aretha Franklin
“When my soul was in the lost-and-found
You came along to claim it”

-What is the deal with all of this soul swapping? 1 soul per person people. Unless you make your friends refer to you as the Prince of Darkness, or you only answer to Beelzebub, Lucifer, or Angel of the Bottomless Pit of Revelation, KNOCK IT OFF! How many souls can one person use? It’s like owning multiple cars. You can only drive one at a time. Let’s look at this from a conservationist angle…

Ok, so a quick review of songs about souls:

12 Stones “Soulfire” -Does it burn when you pee? This is what happens when your slutty soul gets around.

2Pac “Lost Souls” -Lost? Someone needs to go question Jessie McCartney in this matter…

Abyssos “Worthless Soul for Sale?” -I know someone who’s in the market…

Accept “Don’t Go Stealing My Soul Away” -A warning to Jessie McCartney

Afu-ra “Soul Assassination” -What happens when you won’t give Jessie McCartney your soul

Agathocles “Save Your Soul” -(From Jessie McCartney)

Alchemist “Soul Return” -The Ballad of a Break-up with Jessie McCartney

All Together Separate “Camouflage Soul” -To hide it from Jessie McCartney

Anacrusis “My soul’s affliction” -aka. Jessie McCartney

Angie Stone “Soul Insurance” -Does this cover encounters with Jessie McCartney?

And as far as this In Your Eyes bullshit, the only thing I want in my eyes is my contacts. How can you possibly say this is a great love song?? Sure, it sounds sweet, but really, let’s take a closer at the lyrics:

“I want to touch the light
the heat I see in your eyes”

- If your finger even comes remotely close to my eye, we’re gonna step. As far as the heat in my eyes, it’s a balmy 37 degrees Celsius, just like yours. Poke out your own eye. If you want to tell me you love me, be a real man, ball up, and say the words. What is it with men and the “L word”? You can’t tell me you love me so instead, you write a song about poking me in the eye????

Wanna see what a real love song is like?

“I wanna get you in the back seat windows up
That's the way you like to fuck, clogged up fog alert
Rip the pants and rip the shirt, ruff sex make it hurt”

-Nothing says true love like violence against women under the guise of sex. I like it rough just as much as the next person, but there’s a difference between rug burn and a bruised cervix (or a knife wound). You get my point. And what’s with the ripped pants? Do you know how much these jeans cost? AND the shirt? What the hell am I going to wear after sex when we stop at a gas station for some post-coital Krispy Kremes (aka. more condoms) and I buy you an Icee because you forgot your wallet?

-e

Drinking From a Fire Hose: The Brainwashing of America’s Youth

DISCLAIMER: Ok, this one's kinda long, but by now,
we should be used to e's angry rambling, right?
Their grandparents fought in World War II and traveled with the USO; this generation fights aliens with X-Box controllers. Their parents fought in Vietnam or staged sit-ins to protest a cause; this generations’ version of a “sit-in” is a Real World marathon. Their older brothers and sisters went to concerts in the ‘90s to free Tibet; this generation tuned into Live 8 online because Bono was cool. For the past 200 years, America’s social development has been moved forward by the efforts of 10 generations. We are now standing at a crossroads, waiting for the present generation of youth to make their decision: whether to help out or chill out.

It can be argued that this generation of American youth is in danger of leaving a legacy of minimal contribution to society. I am fully aware of the counter-arguments that can be presented in contrast to my position. I’ll take a minute to indulge White (1957):

A noted commentator was speaking. His intent audience nodded their heads in assent as he made on point after another that struck home. “Our youth,” he said, “now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority. They show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

The impassioned speaker was not a Dr. Wertham frightening the wits out of the Parent-Teachers Association of Scarsdale with his oversimplified message that comic books are turning American children into psychological cripples. Although the speaker’s words were as timely as many of the criticisms of mass culture in America, he had never visited this country. In fact, he never left his native Greece. For our speaker, as you now may have guessed, was Socrates, and the period was the Fifth Century, B.C.”

Ok, I understand. It’s a social convention to bitch about how the current generation will be responsible for the degradation of society. But hear me out here; the extent of social activism among this generation is the Lance Armstrong bracelet. And what could be a better use of a dollar than letting everyone know you’re trendy because you contributed to charity? Fortunately for charity, it has become fashionable to be a humanitarian. Everyone from celebrities to college sororities has a philanthropic cause. Unfortunately, the depth of actual concern for society among current youth is questionable. Community service has evolved into a résumé builder for law school, and civic duty is equated with a conscious effort not to wear spandex in public. Thankfully, social activism isn’t completely dead among this generation; just ask any group of teens how they feel about the fate of peer-to-peer file sharing. Young people everywhere are engaging in their own form of civil disobedience with the assistance of illegal file sharing programs. They apparently believe that, like speech, music should be free. Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that America’s youth has shirked personal accountability and any responsibility to society in favor of catching the latest episode of My Super Sweet Sixteen.

Shunning individualism, today’s youth have joined a socially accepted cult that worships at the “10-spot” on MTV. The ultimate goal is to reach “group actualization” by eliminating personal idiosyncrasies in order to fit one of the archetypes represented by their favorite Real World character (militant black man, flamboyant homosexual, innocent-but-eventually-slutty Southern girl…). One cannot completely undervalue the contributions to society that the MTV generation has made; they have created an over-exposed icon out of an heiress with a homemade sex flick and have fully explored the possibilities of reality television to the point of beating a dead genre. The role models of the MTV generation are not great scholars, revolutionaries or leaders; they are television characters. Pick up the latest edition of Cosmo Girl and you will find it filled with opportunities to take quizzes to discern which Friend or character on Sex and the City you most resemble. Never mind that the target readership for such magazines is not old enough to smoke cigarettes or buy alcohol, much less compete with the bedpost notches of the fictional Samantha Jones. Even when actual people serve as role models for our youth, the messages they convey are questionable. With serial bride Jenny from the Block as an idol for young women everywhere, it’s remarkable that certain contingents think legalizing gay matrimony would jeopardize the institution of marriage.

The thoughts of America’s youth are about as profound as a toaster strudel, but then, can you blame them? We’ve got 13-year-old “Cosmo Girls” running around in mascara and micro-minis, and sixth-grade boys doing more than simply fantasizing about sleeping with their teachers. Who has time to adopt a cause when they are busy trying to be a sex symbol? With the help of historical role models, it seems that previous generations of youths have found a cause for which to take a stand – civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, environmental rights – yet the current generation of young adults is content to be consumed with “celebreality.” Just walk into a Starbucks and you will find teenage discussion centering on the latest TomKat gossip, information on Jen’s recovery from Brad, and inside tips on how to achieve the weight class of your favorite Olsen twin. Celebrity gossip is the new form of “current events,” facilitated by an array of tabloids and fashion magazines. If they take an interest in “real” current events at all, The Daily Show, a news satire, serves as this generation’s primary news source.

It is far too simple to blame your local young person for the degradation of society. Every effect has a cause. I find that the Spice Girls make a convenient target. With the rise in success of the Spice Girls came the concept of “Grrrl Power,” which subsequently evolved into the new accepted brand of feminism. With this new feminism came the right to create your own spice title, consisting of “Something Spice,” and the ability to demand that if someone wanted to be your lover, they had to get with your friends. How is it possible that this isn’t responsible for the destruction of subsequent generations? A female Menudo-esque group, the post-Milli Vanilli success of the Spice Girls influenced and motivated successive generations of no-talent musical artists, such as the Backstreet Boys, N*Sync, Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. Without these five “Spice-y” women recruited by a casting call in Great Britain, our American culture might have missed the opportunity to make cultural icons out of people like Kevin Federline.

The true reality is that over a century’s worth of momentum from the Industrial Revolution through the civil rights movement has stalled with the MTV generation. It would seem the media proliferation that occurred at the end of the twentieth century would have only encouraged the spread of ideas, rather than promote the spread of one mindset. Therein lies the biggest problem. As amusing as it may be to point out the vapid nature of the young adult demographic, a fair amount of their thought processes have been shaped by their constant exposure to the media. The producers of MTV and FOX News have decided what the priorities of this generation should be, and no one has stepped out of android mode to question the dominant ideology. Whether critics want to label Madonna, the Spice Girls or Paris Hilton as deviant forces within society, the fact is, they’ve all been made cultural icons by our media. This generation has immediate access to knowledge like no other generation has had, and the ability to utilize technology in a way their parents don’t understand.

In terms of information, teens today are virtually drinking from a fire hose. Thanks to the promulgation of technology, young adults are perpetually bombarded by media messages, especially those encouraging behaviors unsuitable for their age group. The portrayal of teenagers on television is never age-appropriate; alcohol consumption is glorified and characters are often shown engaging in sexual activity at an age when their hormones haven’t even kicked in. Childish innocence is disdainful and many adults recognize that kids are “growing up faster than they used to.” Naïveté is associated with prudish ignorance and young people are trying to be “sophisticated” and “mature.”

Teenagers gauge acceptable behavior by the reality they construct from the popular culture messages they receive. All of their peers may not be drinking and having sex, but their exposure to the media makes it seem that way. Little girls want to bare their midriffs and emulate Christina Aguilera, without any understanding of the message they are communicating. While a hiked-up T-shirt and low-slug pants pose no imminent threat to society, it symbolizes the reality that no one actively questions concepts that are being passed as conventionally accepted standards.

I’m not suggesting a direct-media-effects theory, where watching one episode of Law & Order causes violent tendencies, but there is no denying that ideas continually reinforced in several media will have an eventual impact on the receivers of the messages. Today’s youth is being willingly brainwashed by the dominant media agenda. While society awaits this generation’s decision on their preferred level of social activism, it is interesting to consider which prospect might be worse: the idea that America’s youth might screw things up, or the possibility that they can be willed to not care.

-e

This Month’s Headline: “Paris Hilton Wins Nobel Prize for Economic Greatness"

Vanity Fair has recently run several articles on the state of America’s youth and the decline in social activism. Digging through some of my back issues of VF, I found a Fall 2005 issue where they featured Paris Hilton on their front cover. The article accompanying Hilton’s spread in VF, speaks very highly of her, praising her for qualities like her compassion, new-found domesticity, and above all, her intelligence. Defenders of Paris Hilton proclaim that she is not merely famous for being famous, “she has a fragrance, too.”

No. I’m sorry, succeeding in a capitalistic economy does not a smart girl make. Call her powerful, call her fortunate, call her destined for fame; none of these equates with “smart.” Yes, Hilton has succeeded in hocking some perfume and some books; let’s not give her the title of the modern-day Andrew Carnegie just yet.

It is indeed true that the icon of Paris Hilton is merely a product of our society. Hilton cannot be blamed for the degradation of American youth. Do you know who can? Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair and every other credible medium; the kind that would attack US Weekly on one page while touting a cover story similar to “Jen tells all!” In the spirit of journalistic genius, my favorite quote defending Hilton’s intellect in the VF article reads as such: “I was like, Wow. Here’s a girl at her perfume launch party, there’s all these people here, and she was on.”

Then I was like, Dude. And she was like, Way. And I was like, Yeah. Give me a break.

Vanity Fair even included a quotation from noted postmodern feminist author Namoi Wolf, to add some "legitimacy" to their claims. "She's like, as semiotics would say, an empty signifier, so you can project absolutely anything onto her, which is the perfect situation for branding." Oh, shut the hell up, Naomi. You don't even know what you are talking about. Besides your ridiculous use of a Communication Theory in an article for the popular press in an attempt to sound academic, even the most pedestrian individual (Nicky Hilton?) would disagree with you. Paris Hilton, is in no way, an empty signifier. Her signified meaning is sex and sexuality. Sex sells. That's why she's "perfect for branding," you dipshit.

Side note: In an edition of The New Yorker that came out the same month as her Vanity Fair comment, Wolf espouses her anti-porn sentiments. How can you then, turn around and commend Paris Hilton in Vanity Fair? Someone's a publicity whore...At least stick to the same story for one month before you change your mind. Some activist. I'm glad she's not championing any of my causes.

(Plus, the only thing empty about Paris Hilton is most likely her head.)

Enough about Paris though. What this boils down to is a dominant ideology being perpetuated by a mainstream medium that runs Louis Vuitton ads and claims to target a readership of above average sophistication.

Here are just a few sample stories titles from recent Vanity Fair covers:

“The Bitter Battle over the Jimmy Choo Shoe Empire” - okay, not only is this a completely ridiculous use of alliteration that sounds all too eerily like Dr. Seuss, it’s about FUCKING SHOES! Don’t pretend like we’re discussing something even slightly more relevant like the Waltons and the fate of a company that employs a large majority of lower-income workers world-wide, this is shoes! No economical impact whatsoever!

“How Elle Macpherson went from Bikini Queen to Lingerie Mogul!” - note the exclamation point, added by Vanity Fair. Is this supposed to denote surprise? Excitement? Amazement? I feel none of those things when I read that title. It’s Elle Macpherson! Write about how Rosie O'Donnell has people clamoring over her new successful line of lingerie, and then we’ll talk.

"Has Tom Cruise Lost his Marbles?" - in a word, "Yes." Let's move on.

“Can the King of Silicon Valley find Happiness on the World’s Longest Yacht?” – do I even have to go there on this one? This headline just makes me angry and gives me the urge to shout “WHY THE HELL DO I CARE?!”

“The Battle for Harry’s Bar” – what the hell is the deal with all these battles? First Jimmy Choo and now Harry’s Bar? Are they hoping that as readers skim their cover, they will come away with the impression that Vanity Fair has a reporter writing from Iraq? At least they did away with the alliteration this time. Somebody probably got fired.

Vanity Fair, before you attempt to look upon society from your ivory tower with disdain and the desire to point fingers for its’ degradation, maybe you should take a good, long look at what you are contributing to the mess.

-e

Jesus Christ

So, my initial observation regarding the American obsession with God (Jesus Christ, in particular) comes after an indirect reminder about the Christmas season, when once again, the “Holiday Tree v. Christmas Tree” debate rages and FOX News airs its 20,000 segments on “The Liberal Attack on Christmas” (Can I qualify the rest of this article by stating that prior to graduate school, I was a Capitalist Christian Republican Princess?). So, I’m vaguely aware, thanks to Bill O’Reilly, that someone (liberals), somewhere (everywhere, apparently), is trying to keep me from wishing “Merry Christmas” to the cashier at the grocery store. Interestingly enough, I’ve never had a crazy liberal come slap me in the face while I’m standing in line at Winn Dixie, but according to O’Reilly, it could happen. Thanks to O’Reilly and my grandmother, I am fully aware of the war on Christmas.

(My grandmother recently learned how to use email. The only email I ever get from my grandmother, however, comes in the form of “Fwd:Fwd:Fwd: God Loves You, Forward this to 20 people in the next 10 minutes or you hate God.” So yes, my grandmother has also informed me that liberals are waging a war on Christmas.)

So, I’ve been looking for evidence of “The War on Christmas” (is that like “The War on Terror”? There’s an opportunity for digression…). This past Christmas, TBS played the movie “A Christmas Story” for 24 hours straight. Radio stations started playing Christmas songs on Thanksgiving Day. And like every year, the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade ended with Santa Claus, to kick off the Christmas season. Wow, it must be tough to live in a society that is so hostile when it comes to celebrating the birth of Jesus!

It seems like it’s not so much Jesus that we are concerned about liberals attacking, it’s our beloved commercialization of the holiday to which we’ve become so attached. We have draped our enthusiasm for acquiring things with the veil of “Santa Claus.” So, we line our children up in malls to sit on a stranger’s lap and demand things they don’t need, so on Christmas morning they can be ungrateful brats because they didn’t get what they asked for? And, this relates to our Lord Jesus because…? – Hey, you’re attacking CHRISTMAS when you ask such questions! Liberal bastard!

-e

Why Men Are Like Dogs

(DISCLAIMER: This post applies to no man in particular, and yet, all men.
I say this in the spirit of love, and yet, at times, slight frustration).

I just got off of the phone with a friend who had a few complaints regarding her boyfriend. Now let me preface this by saying that her boyfriend is wonderful; she loves him very, very deeply. He’s kind and considerate; passionate and loving, but all of this said, he’s still a man. You can only expect so much from them. In their defense, we’re crazy, so they don’t always process exactly what we want. It’s like getting a new puppy. They are cute, cuddly, and adorable, and full of potential to be your best friend; you just have to train them first. You can’t just buy a puppy and start yelling at it to roll over; you have to teach them what that means. You also have to demonstrate that they will get a reward when they do.

Dog ex.: Roll over = get doggie treat

Man ex.: Remember my birthday = get laid

It’s really that simple. You just have to condition men in the same way that you condition dogs. (Sounds like I need to read up on Pavlov to make the perfect boyfriend) Dogs aren’t born knowing how to roll over. It’s not in their nature to live in houses and have to discern where they can and can’t shit; we do this to them. If we’re going to make them shit outside, we’re going to have to be tolerant when they mess up. It’s the same way with men: they aren’t born with any inherent knowledge about women, and it’s unnatural to ask them to understand things like monogamy, calling to check in at night, and putting the toilet seat down. So we have to train them.

The following is a selection from a puppy and dog obedience training site. Notice that if you insert “your boyfriend” or “your man” in the place of “your dog,” the selection still makes sense…

Obedience Training is one of the best things you can do for your dog or puppy man ... and yourself. Obedience training doesn't solve all behavior problems, but it is the foundation for solving just about any problem. Training opens up a line of communication between you and your dog man. Effective communication is necessary to instruct your dog man about what you want him to do. You can teach him anything from 'stay' (don't bolt out the door) to 'sit' (don't jump up on the visitors) to 'off' (don't chew the furniture). These are potential problems with men as well…

Dogs men are social animals and without proper training, they will behave like animals. They will soil your house, destroy your belongings, bark excessively, dig holes in your yard, fight other dogs men and even bite you. Seriously. They will. Nearly all behavior problems are perfectly normal canine male activities that occur at the wrong time or place or are directed at the wrong thing. For example, the dog man will eliminate on the carpet instead of outside; the dog man will bark all night long instead of just when a stranger is prowling around outside; or the dog man will chew furniture instead of his own toys. Ok, at least the last one has some truth. The key to preventing or treating behavior problems is learning to teach the dog man to redirect his natural behavior to outlets that are acceptable in the domestic setting. Brilliant.

Obedience training is also an easy way to establish the social hierarchy. When your dog man obeys a simple request of 'come here, sit,' he is showing compliance and respect for you. It is NOT necessary to establish yourself as top dog or leader of the pack by using extreme measures such as the so-called alpha roll-over. You CAN teach your dog man his subordinate role by teaching him to show submission to you in a paw raise (shake hands), roll over or hand lick (give a kiss). Most dogs men love performing these tricks (obedience commands) for you which also pleasantly acknowledge that you are in charge.

See? This primer on how to train a dog can work brilliantly when applied to men as well…I have a feeling this is just the first in a series of many posts regarding this theory…

-e

Want to Keep Your Man? Slut It Up!

I know you like me (I know you like me)
I know you do (I know you do)
Thats why whenever I come around
She's all over you (she's all over you)
I know you want it (I know you want it)
It's easy to see (it's easy to see)
And in the back of your mind
I know you should be home with me (babe)

[refrain:]
Don't cha wish your girlfriend was hot like me?
Don't cha wish your girlfriend was a freak like me?
Don't cha, Don't cha
Don't cha wish your girlfriend was raw like me?
Don't cha wish your girlfriend was fun like me?
Don't cha, Don't cha

-lyrics to Don’t Cha, by The Pussycat Dolls

The song Don’t Cha, by The Pussycat Dolls, has been generally received as a grrrl power anthem among women and perceived as a positive proclamation of female sexuality. I would like to contest this point and state that this song is no different from other cultural messages which oppress women by threatening that men will never like them if they are not constantly striving to fight for male attention. This song is sung by women and may sound like the message is aimed at men, but in reality, the message of this song is directed as a warning to all women with a male significant other. The message is this:

Hey ladies, your man thinks you are boring...I'm sure you're sweet, but you know the kind of girl who makes out with other girls at bars so guys think she's sexy? The "Hot" "Raw" "Fun" "Freak"? Yeah, you're about to lose your boyfriend to her. Better run out, buy a Cosmo, memorize all of their Tantric Sex positions and put on some cellulite cream, or else he's leaving your ass.

These types of cultural messages are nothing new, unfortunately, and this type of scare tactic has been used for years to keep women in line with the dominant ideology. It seems that the general thought is, “Maybe if we keep women busy thinking about men, they won’t realize they’re still really oppressed” (In much the same way that members of the black community are disillusioned by the dominant ideology, whose logic is, “Maybe if we keep black people focused on material wealth (dubs) and the gangsta lifestyle, they won’t realize they’re still oppressed”). Now that these messages are being produced and eagerly consumed by women, the grrrl power movement has degenerated into a hegemonic mess. Don’t Cha reminds me of another song with the same message, which was just presented in a more blatant way: Burt Bacharach and Hal David’s Wives and Lovers, sung by Frank Sinatra, Jack Jones, and Dionne Warwick.

Hey! Little Girl
Comb your hair, fix your makeup
Soon he will open the door
Don't think because there's a ring on your finger
You needn't try anymore

For wives should always be lovers too
Run to his arms the moment he comes home to you
I'm warning you...

Day after day
There are girls at the office
And men will always be men
Don't send him off with your hair still in curlers
You may not see him again

At least this song is honest with its “shape up or ship out, ladies” message. Don’t Cha just encourages the “liberated women wear Playboy bunny thongs” mentality. In the end, women are enthusiastically objectifying themselves in the name of sexual revolution and liberation, which ends up looking like this:



This is sexual liberation? This is what Gloria Steinem and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and all the others were working for? A chance for women to parade around, scantily clad as objects of lust and have sex with whomever they please? Damn the patriarchy for oppressing us for so long! We'll show them! We'll have sex with random men without committment, see how those bastards handle that! Ha! No amount of subjugation will take away my right to wear a miniskirt, or let my thong hang out of my jeans, or wear a push-up bra. I'm a liberated woman; here are my breasts on parade! That's fucking feminism!

(In the decades since we got the vote, we've come a long damn way toward equality.)

On top of the oppressive message this song sends to women, it encourages all women to view other women as a threat. This song causes women to look at other women and ask themselves “Is she the one that’s going to steal my boyfriend?” This mentality keeps women from joining together in a sisterhood to combat the dominant ideology. The Pussycat Dolls cannot bear all the blame, however, as other songs with the same message come to mind, such as 20 Fingers’ Boom! I F***ed Your Boyfriend, Lesley Gore’s It’s My Party, and Ashlee Simpson’s I Didn’t Steal Your Boyfriend (he just left you for me on his own accord).

So, to wrap it up, I’ll leave you with a math equation:


Oppressive patriarchal ideals


+

Self-objectification and
Hegemonic Messages


=

Real Life Desperate Housewives and
Crappy Television

Shut the Hell Up About Your Sweet Tea: An Open Letter to the Account Executive in Charge of McDonald’s Advertising

Jim Ferguson
McDonald’s Corp. Creative Consultant
Executive Vice President, DDB Chicago
DDB Chicago
200 East Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312.552.6000

Mr. Ferguson,
I am writing to express my disgust with your most recent attempts at creativity as an account executive at DDB Chicago. The account to which I am specifically referring is that of the McDonald’s Corporation. To be honest, whenever I see a television commercial or billboard that is a part of the “Mickey D’s Sweet Tea” campaign, I am overcome with the urge to vomit. I understand that you have extensive qualifications in the advertising industry, but I interned for a summer at an advertising agency in Atlanta, and I took a senior-level promotion strategies class while I was an undergraduate in college. Also, I am a seasoned consumer of television content, so I think I know a thing or two when it comes to advertising.

I’ll give it to you straight: advertisements for McDonald’s sweet tea are lame, especially in the South, a region famed for their affinity for the beverage. These advertisements are ill-conceived for a multitude of reasons, a few of which I will expound upon below:

First, consumers associate McDonald’s with food items such as hamburgers, french fries, chicken nuggets with questionable chicken content, and occasionally, the McRib sandwich. I’ll even concede that there may be some individuals that specifically think of McDonald’s brand when it comes to sweets (the McFlurry) and healthy eating (even though the salads are the most fattening thing on the menu, the parfaits are full of sugar and I never really got the whole “fruit buzz” campaign – but that’s another letter in and of itself). But tea? That logic is along the same line as expecting consumers to come to McDonald’s because they want a Diet Coke. If I want a Diet Coke, I’ll go to the store, or the gas station, or Burger King. I won’t go to Taco Bell, because they serve Pepsi products, but you get my point. It is thrilling that McDonald’s serves Coke products that I can order when I’m getting my hamburger and fries, but I promise you, I will never be sitting in my house thinking, “I’m thirsty for a Diet Coke. I think I’ll go to McDonald’s.”

Just as you would leave the Coke promotions up to the Coca-Cola Company, why don’t you let Lipton handle the marketing for tea? Are the tea leaves that are used to brew McDonald’s tea McDonald’s-brand leaves? Is there a significant reason why consumers should drink McDonald’s sweet tea instead of Celestial Seasonings? Does the target demographic for McDonald’s brand include tea aficionados? If not, what is the purpose of trying to create an association between the McDonald’s brand and a generic beverage?

Now that we’ve discussed the flawed logic for the general campaign, let’s take a closer look at the commercial using the grandmother who is secretly serving her family McDonald’s sweet tea rather than brewing her own. Not only is the idea that a grandmother would deceive her family morally repugnant, the archetypal grandmother would never fake any cuisine she serves to her family. I am not aware of whether this campaign is strictly regional or nationwide, but I do know it is being run in the South. As a Southern woman, I’m mildly insulted. Have you ever visited the South, Jim? It’s true, we do like our sweet tea, but it’s the home-brewed kind with lots of sugar. We’ll drink tea at a restaurant and do so happily, but let’s not pretend that restaurant-brewed tea passes for the real thing. This commercial could only be worse if you had somehow rewritten the famous “two-all-beef-patties” jingle and made it about sweet tea.

The professor that taught my promotional strategies class in college instructed us to begin an evaluation of an ad campaign by completing the statement, “This would make a good advertisement if…” So here’s the statement that begins my evaluation of “Mickey D’s Sweet Tea”: “This would make a good advertisement if consumers made food choices based on the quality of tea available at the establishment in question.”

Do you really think the gastrointestinal preferences of fast food patrons are going to be dictated by the choice of tea at an eating establishment? DDB Chicago should focus on helping McDonald’s win the Big Mac v. Whopper debate using a campaign that will also manage to help kids forget that the McDonald’s mascot is a creepy clown.

I understand that ego can sometimes get in the way of clearly evaluating one’s own work, but hopefully, my insight can be instrumental in stopping the pain that is generally associated with viewing any elements of this campaign. I’m in the process of pursuing my master’s degree in Communication, but considering your dire creative situation, I could be persuaded to make time for some freelance creative consulting on the side. Feel free to contact me via email or by phone for further assistance.

Best wishes in future creative endeavors.

e

Writer Profile: e

In the United States, the Witness Protection Program was established by the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, which in turn sets out the manner in which the U.S. Attorney General may provide for the relocation and protection of a witness or potential witness of the federal government, or for a state government in an official proceeding concerning organized crime or other serious offenses.

Witness protection is the process in which witnesses, such as those who testify in criminal trials, are protected against intimidation before their testimony or criminal retaliation after. The U.S. Federal Government both relocates and gives new identities to witnesses who risk their lives by giving testimony as well as providing financial and employment aid. To help avoid discovery, witnesses are expected to sever all ties with former acquaintances. According to the agency, "No program participant following security guidelines has ever been harmed while under the active protection of the Marshals Service"; however, all of the witnesses who were harmed had either failed to fully comply, often at times contacting old acquaintances, or had already left the program.

As a result, the only information available regarding our third female writer is that she is a former Mafia princess who writes solely under the name “e”. In order to protect the innocent, no further information can be disclosed.