Today in Tomfoolery

I often rail about higher education and how it disservices students and is really a business first and a place to get educated second.  I also know a thing or two about publicity stunts.  My belief is that some undergraduate degrees are useless largely because they require advanced study to be applicable in a line of work.  So, along come this guy who graduated from Purdue with a degree in Science (one of those degrees that often requires advanced study to be applicable) and chooses to try to sell said degree on ebay.  While this attempt could be construed as innovative, it also has the possibility to make future employers stay away.  Here's a guy who is so dissatisfied with something that is his fault (and perhaps the economy/job market), not Purdue's who believes that his degree is completely worthless and takes to the Internet to try to publicize that.  The link could be made that he might do that to an employer when things don't go his way. I'm just saying...

Rip out the Front Page: Breaking News! Journalism isn't Neutral Says Professor

I mean, really?  Did we really need someone to tell us that the "news" we receive isn't neutral? Despite the claims of shows and networks to have "No Bias, No Bull" and be "Fair and Balanced" the opposite is true. This goes for both right and left media.  As Pierre Bourdieu tells us in his fantastic book On Television

"It explains why real information, analysis, in-depth interviews, expert discussions, and serious documentaries lose out to pure entertainment and, in particular, mindless talk show chatter between 'approved' and interchangeable speakers."

When Rhetoric Fails

We have evolved (or devolved) into a society where rhetoric and soundbites rule the day.  And we also largely, get our soundbites from media outlets that support our ideas and ideals and regurgitate those soundbites to people who ideologically share our beliefs.  It's a great opportunity for us to feel smart and well-read.  But it's when you are challenged by someone who is your ideological opposite that problems tend to arise. 

Who's Can We Blame for Being Fat? Certainly Not Ourselves

This is another fantastic editorial about the argument that we "haven't got time to cook."  When in fact, we do have time to cook, we just chose to use that time doing other things that are "more important" to us.    The same can be true for those of us (myself included) who don't work out (or at least don't do so regularly).  Certainly part of the problem is that the media helps to validate us by constantly telling us that we don't have time to cook and food companies use a products "convenience" as a way to market products to us that help to make not making time to cook much easier for us. 

PSA: More Than One Source Needed to Develop a Political Position

I never really care what political bent one has, all I ask is that you REALLY know what your positions are and be able to stand by them when asked to elaborate on your "talking point." That is not the case in this video and it shows why we have such a politically uninformed populace in the United States. Certainly FOX News is not the only culprit, CNN and MSNBC are guilty as well (While Hilary Clinton should have exited the presidential race earlier, I think the overwhelming pressure came from 24-hour news stations like CNN and MSNBC).

KFC Doubles Down on Calories?

This is not for the faint of stats, but it makes for an interesting read.

"...the Double Down is indeed quite unhealthy, but some other sandwiches are just as bad. The Burger King Chicken Tendercrisp (1.00 DDs), which has less cholesterol but more fat and sodium, is comparably unhealthy to the Double Down on balance. The chicken ranch sandwiches from Sonic (0.94 DDs) and Jack-in-the-Box (0.98 DDs) are close. And surprisingly, some sandwiches from "fast casual" restaurants that have a reputation for healthy food do even worse. Panera's Chipotle Chicken checks in at 1.49 DD's -- it has almost 50 percent more bad stuff than the Double Down -- and Boston Market's Chicken Carver at 1.14. So do some products that stretch the definition of "sandwich". A chicken burrito from Chipotle with rice, black beans, cheese and corn salsa will cost you 1.16 Double Downs: load it up with sour cream, guacamole, and picante salsa as well and you're up to 1.69. A pack of five McDonald's Chicken Selects with a side of ranch sauce is worth 1.23 Double Downs."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/double-down-by-numbers-unhealthiest.html

The Politics of Activism

Justice John Paul Stevens pending retirement from the Supreme Court has been met with a collective yawn by most Americans.  But his retirement offers a great opportunity to examine how the judicial system, an entity that is supposed to be free of politics, tells us more about party affiliation than we like to admit.  In recent history (particularly during the Bush II administration) we heard a lot about so-called activist judges.  But when we deconstruct the term "activist judge" all it really means is someone who disagrees with our position. 

Health Care Reform Post Script

My head is still reeling from watching C-SPAN for most of the day yesterday and watching the "debate" unfold about health care reform. What I think became abundantly clear over the weekend (and arguably through the whole debate process) is not just a difference in ideology, largely going along party lines, and not just the suspicion that we have elected a bunch of 3 year olds to represent us (could they have been less mature) or that our political process is really a time drainer (did it really take all day to get to the vote when largely no one was moved to change their vote by debates, but rather by deals).

Rather, a real socio-economic ideological rift was exposed. I believe health care reform isn't really about access to health care as much it's about the classic American battle between the haves and the have nots. Those who have, want to keep things they way they are because "they work hard for their money and don't want to give it away to those lazy ne'er do wells who only want government handouts." Those who have not, just want access to healthcare for themselves and their family members.

This was crystallized this morning when I went on Facebook and a "friend" invoke the old Reagan line about "the welfare queen" and how she lives on the southside of Chicago (which implies that she's black) and gets $150,000 per year from the government through handouts and use of her four assumed names. Sure, there may be "welfare queens" who do abuse the system and I in no way condone their behavior, but there are also hardworking people who simply cannot afford health care coverage. There are also hardworking people with life threatening diseases who are either uninsurable or are forced to keep jobs for fear of not being able to get coverage from a new employer.

For those who opposed (and still oppose) healthcare reform, I'd be interested to see how they feel about "socialized" medicine and government handouts if they lose their jobs. Or when (and if) they reach age 65 and want to take advantage of "socialized" medicine in the form of Medicare and/or Medicaid.

Perhaps I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't mind paying a little more in taxes to ensure that all American citizens have access to adequate health care. The racial and sexuality-based epithets that were thrown around over the weekend illuminated how important and necessary this reform really is. If it wasn't people would not have been so passionate about it. It wouldn't have been so divisive. This legislation has a 50/50 chance of failing. But if it fails, at least we know that we tried to fix a broken system.

American Caterwauling

"This... is American Caterwauling" should be the way Ryan Seacrest introduces American Idol.

What's become clear to me is that I watch American Idol for vastly different reasons than the producers of the show intend (in a nod to Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding). I like the show and watch, but it's not because I am looking for the next great artist, but because it is so ingrained in our pop culture sensibility that to not watch is to cut yourself off from the "water cooler sessions" the following morning. With the exception of Kelly Clarkson, Fantasia Barrino (which I bought and promptly sold at a used music store), Jennifer Hudson and Allison Iraheta, I've not purchased music from any other American Idol winner/finalist. The singers I like (and whose CDs I have purchased) all have one thing in common: they are belters.

I'll tackle the last point first. I like a good belter as much as the next gay, but American Idol has suffered from the desire to applaud singers who employ what I call vocal pyrotechnics. (I know, the argument could be made that Jennifer Hudson was given the boot relatively early, but Fantasia, another belter, went on to win the competition in one of the most mismatched American Idol finals in history). When a singer can hit a "glory note" that is reason for us to applaud him or her -- foregoing any sense of nuance related to singing. When someone sits and sings a slow song, it's deemed "sleepy" by the judges. But when someone like Season 9 contestant Siobhan Magnus hits notes, we stand up, cheer and take notice.

siobhan 12 @ Yahoo! Video

I admit, Siobhan delivered a WTF moment for me last night and we collectively forgot about most of the contestants who came before (or after) her because we have been trained to focus on things like, "wow, did you hear that note?" "he has a great falsetto," etc. rather than that was a really solid vocal. It seems that we want/expect "good singing" to be loud and long. In other words, can you hit a note and then make it last until we think you are within seconds of passing out from air deprivation? The thing most of us remember from Mariah Carey's early career is her ability to hit the "dog whistle" note, not that she is really a great singer and interpreter of music.

Whose Fat is it Anyway?

I've listened to the debate over childhood obesity with interest. I've been interested because I am conflicted about how I really feel about the solutions that have been posited about "curing" childhood obesity.

My immediate "go to" is that parents need to take responsibility for what their children are putting into their mouths (and bodies) most of the time. Sure, kids are going to eat junk at school (and trade away or throw away the healthy options packed in their lunches), but parents can control what their children eat for breakfast and dinner. Parents also have the ability to limit what food they bring into the home because they buy it. I know that the counter argument here is that parents are busy and more homes than ever are run either by a single parent or two working parents. I grew up with two working parents as well. And you know what they did? On Sunday, they cooked for the whole week. That's what refrigerators and freezers are for. That's not to say that we didn't have junk food and fast food, but it was eaten in moderation. But we also were forced to go outside and play, which got us doing some kind of physical activity rather than sitting in front of a computer or game console for hours on end.

In other words, the media (and the Obama administration) are making the food manufacturers the evil bandit in this scenario. Which is not to say that the food manufacturers don't have some culpability but the last time I checked we were free to make choices about the foods that we eat. That was one of the thrusts behind giving more information on food labels (including fast food), so that we had the information about what we were putting into our bodies and could make decisions based on those labels. But the bottom line is that Coke, Frito Lay, McDonald's and all the other businesses that make junk food are publicly traded companies. If we stop buying, they stop making because they're all about making money and making their shareholders happy.

Taxing us into allegedly not wanting to purchase fattier foods is a lame idea as well. While it may have an impact, my hypothesis is that it'll largely affect lower income people who perhaps won't be able to afford to buy these fattier foods. So, we'll have a slew of higher income level obese people? What does that really help? But as we have seen with cigarettes, higher prices/taxes haven't really stopped people from smoking. In Chicago, when the tax on cigarettes was raised, many smokers drove to Indiana to "stock up" where the tax on cigarettes was not as high.

I think the real solution is to make healthier eating more affordable and accessible. I am grateful that I can afford to make healthier eating decisions, but I pay for the decision I make. Whenever I go to a healthier grocery store like Trader Joe's, Sprouts, or Central Market, I pay more. A bag of fruit is oftentimes more expensive than a bag of chips. A gallon of water is often the same price as a 2-liter of soda. The price of ground turkey escalates as the amount of fat decreases, which is more expensive than buying ground chuck or ground beef. A bag of almonds (with their anticarcinogen properties) is more expensive than a bag of candy. Trader Joe's, Sprouts, Central Market and other health food stores are often located in the tonier neighborhoods and communities -- and for good reason. The residents of those tonier parts of town can afford to shop there while if a person with less economic resources wants to shop there, there are the added costs of travel as well as the physical expense of buying the food. So, for many, it's cost prohibitive. That is not to say that the Dominick's, Randall's, Jewel's and Kroger's of the world don't offer healthier eating choices. But the fact is, it'll cost more. So, let's focus on that disparity and perhaps when healthier eating choices are more affordable, then people will chose that as an option more frequently than they do now.

Fiscal Responsibility vs The Poor

Today, the Senate voted not to pass a bill that would have provided 500,000 temporary jobs to youth in America as well as a $1.3 billion extension of enhanced subsidies for poor families with children. Essentially citing the need for more fiscal responsibility/deficit reduction, the John Kerry/Patty Murray amendment failed to pass with the needed 60 votes. There are many problems that I have with the failure to pass this bill, but what I think is most important to note is my belief that this is classism disguised as principle.

My belief is that the modern Republican party (and quite honestly the modern Democratic party) doesn't care about the underclass in America. Certainly a lot of their opposition also has to do with a general disdain for the Obama administration but I think it's easier for politicians to find a fake, yet logical-sounding reason (i.e. fiscal responsibility) to mask what they are really feeling (i.e. a disdain for all things poor).

This bill , if passed, would have impacted politicians or their families and friends in no way, shape or form. Their well-heeled friends and family have the connections to ensure that their children have summer jobs (ones that pay more than minimum wage).

The bill would have also provided subsidies for vulnerable families with children via the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Again, not a constituent who truly matters to politicians. These families are not going to financially contribute to their next campaign and conventional wisdom says that poor people don't vote anyway or vote against their best interest.

I don't know the solution to our broken American political system. I do know that even as a middle class person, I don't feel like my interests are always reflected by the people I have voted for who are supposed to represent them. Part of the problem is that the people who run for public office are already wealthy enough such that they can afford to take time off from their jobs without pay (assuming they are not already politicians) to campaign and they are connected enough with well-heeled folk to gather donations. These people are theoretically wealthy enough already that they can't possibly really understand what it is like for Americans to live day-to-day. Maybe when we have a political system where money doesn't rule the day (which will likely never happen) we'll start to get people in office who represent the real Joe and Jane Q. Public.

Tiger Woods: Celebrity Endorsement Counterpoint

According to Chris Rojek, one of the reasons that the concept of celebrity has increased recently is because of the commodification of everyday life. And Tiger Woods, in addition to his status as a world class golfer, has also become a world class commodity -- that is, until it was revealed that he has had a number of extramarital affairs. According to some of his sponsors including Accenture, Gatorade and AT&T, this "lapse of judgment," "violation of his marriage," "battle with sex addiction," or whatever one wants to call it, has tarnished his once pristine, monogamously married image as a marketing gimmick. And as such, they have chosen to sever ties with him as a celebrity endorser.

Maybe I am among the minority of people who don't buy a product simply based on a celebrity endorsement, but marketing expert Robert Grede believes that it is still a great way to attract attention, create excitement for products, and build awareness among prospects and customers. So, perhaps those companies who have dropped Tiger Woods are not necessarily damning him and his actions per se as much as positioning [insert company name here] as a company that stands up for "traditional family values" and "the institution of marriage."

But while some, like Laura Kipnis assert that marriage is an equal-opportunity oppressor, trapping men and women in a life of drudgery, emotional anesthesia, and a tug-of-war struggle to balance vastly different needs, others believe marriage is an institution that needs to be preserved and protected (especially from the gays). These opposing positions largely support a Western ideology. Watch maker, Tag Heuer is continuing its use of Tiger Woods in its advertising, particularly in China, where the number of mistresses one has increases street cred.

But what really should be the test is whether anyone was less likely to drink Gatorade (or prohibit their children from doing so) simply because Tiger Woods, adulterer extraordinaire, endorses the product. Did it really come down to the fact that these companies were not seeing the return on investment from the Tiger Woods endorsement deal and this scandal provided an easy way out? After all, our culture is all about consumption and businesses are all about making money.

Joseph Stack, Politics and Celebrity

Celebrity is a crazy and arbitrary thing. Joseph Stack entered a realm of celebrity today when he crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin. Before today, the public at large knew nothing about Slack. His six-page suicide note details a man who has railed against big, corrupt government and taxation for nearly 30 years. His act has spurred (as of this writing) 10 Facebook groups, many of which position him as a hero.

But Slack offers an opportunity to look at the creation of celebrity. To paraphrase Chris Rojek, transgression is a tried and true route to acquire celebrity and Joseph Stack has become an overnight notorious celebrity-- at least for the short term. What appears to be a solo act of frustration with taxation has been co-opted into a treatise on all that is wrong with the way taxes and government work in our country. And many people, myself included, believe that there is something wrong with the way our government is run, but I believe it often boils down to the idea that as Americans we are lured by the concept of politician as celebrity, not who will do the best job per se.

Television forever changed the way we elect public officials. The overarching complaint most people had with Al Gore during his run as president was that he wasn't charismatic. What does that really have to do with whether or not he would be a good, effective leader? Barack Obama is certainly smart and charismatic but the jury is still out on how his presidency will be remembered. We've never had a truly unattractive president since the dawn of the TV age and we've also never had an obese president (although some of the Clinton Big Mac years got very close). So, in effect, we vote for the most popular one, who also sometimes happens to be the one with whom we'd most like to have a beer.

In a week, we will have forgotten all about this incident (if it even takes that long) but for now, Joseph Stack has become a celebrity and the face for the Tea Party movement to signify all that is wrong with government as people, particularly small business owners, decry the injustice of being "taxed twice." And we will continue to vote for the one who is most attractive and charismatic while continuing to get the same result while expecting something different -- which coincidentally is the definition of insanity.

The Super Bowl as a Family Event

According to Evin Daly, founder and CEO of Child AbuseWatch, "The Super Bowl is a family-oriented show." And for the sake of this piece, I'll allow that statement to go uncontested. So, if the Super Bowl is a family event (as we learned when Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake conspired to flash us a little boob), and we want to protect our children from spontaneous nudity, why don't we want to also protect said children from the violence of the game, overt sexuality and beer ads?

Let's first tackle (no pun intended) the violence on the Super Bowl. One could assert that the game itself is violent and I would agree with that, but the violence associated with the Super Bowl extends to its ads. As cleverly shown in this montage, the ads promote violence and oftentimes outside of the context of any kind of sport.



My argument is not that The Super Bowl is bad or evil or too violent, rather it's a matter of consistency. If children are allegedly unharmed by the violence portrayed in Super Bowl ads, then they are not going to be harmed by the violence in ads on a day-to-day basis.

Now, on to the overt displays of sexuality and the moral outcry that ensued after the infamous "wardrobe malfunction." First, as an adult male who watched the Super Bowl and halftime show, I didn't even know what I saw until after all the pandemonium erupted over a bare breast on television. How was glimpsing what we, at the time thought was Janet's breast any different than watching cheerleaders or the ladies from Victoria's Secret ads? And how would that be any different from showing an ad for a gay dating website?

And lastly, we have beer ads. While no one would consider me to be a prude, the ads promote drinking, which of course our children should be protected from.



Or should they? We never hear any brouhaha over beer ads, or Victoria Secret ads, or violence on the Super Bowl. So, remind me again why we raise a stink about a little boob or this morning why even the sleepy halftime show featuring The (Geriatric) Who is getting flack (because of the 2003 admission by lead guitarist Pete Townshend that he had downloaded sex photos of children onto his computer).

Erving Goffman and AT&T

If we are to believe The Supreme Court, corporations should be treated as individuals. So, this post looks at AT&T as an individual as they refused to extend FMLA benefits to one of their employees to take care of his ailing same sex partner. Because the man could get no traction with AT&T, even after sending an attorney-written letter and being told "that the company isn’t granting leave under FMLA because neither federal nor state law recognizes his domestic partner," he chose to take his story to the media. as a sidebar, AT&T is consistently ranked high by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for it's favorable treatment of GLBT employees.

After the media got hold of the story, miraculously, AT&T changed their tune issuing the statement: "AT&T regrets that there has been confusion over the administration of family leave with respect to registered domestic partners. AT&T has taken steps to ensure that FMLA is extended to employees with registered domestic partners for the purpose of caring for the partner, regardless of the state in which the employee resides. AT&T has a long history of inclusiveness and we embrace and celebrate diversity of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation in our workforce."

So, to get to my initial thought about how Erving Goffman fits into this story, this is pure Goffman-esque impression management. Goffman, a theorist whose work has been applied to sociology, cultural studies, media studies and a host of other disciplines, believes that life is a stage, and developed the dramaturgical approach. Goffman believes that people have to make an acceptable show of whatever they are doing. He also makes a distinction between the backstage (where actions are carried out that are hidden from the audience) and the frontstage (where the performance or action happens).

I think AT&T experienced a disconnect from their backstage and frontstage performances. It appears, at least on the surface, that AT&T didn't really believe in supporting their LGBT employees. Rather, they thought it would make for a good frontstage performance to publicly support their LGBT employees. The disconnect occurred when they were asked to again perform the role of a company that supports its LGBT employees on the frontstage. They initially didn't do it because the backstage preparation was inadequate for the role at hand.

The moral of the story is that corporations need to fully inhabit their role and ensure that they have adequately prepared backstage before it's showtime and you're called on to make us believe your frontstage performance.