Annoying Ads

I have decided to start a personal campaign to punish brands for irritating consumers with annoying advertising by establishing a personal ban on purchasing their products. The following are now subject to bans, based on how annoyed I am:

Toyota Products:  5 year ban

Mercedes-Benz:  5 year ban

Dominos:  3 year ban

Sprint:  3 year ban

Burger King:  3 year ban

Ford F150:  10 year ban (5 for being annoying, 5 based on principle)

McDonald's:  50 year ban

Jared:  Lifetime Ban

The list will only continue to grow...

A Quick Little Note About the Election

While it is an historic day and one that I am so glad to see, there is a much smaller, but equally astounding, at least in my eyes, feat that was accomplished in one of the corners of America.

New Hampshire, a typically right-leaning libretarian state, re-elected a Democrat as Governer, sent two Democratic Representatives to the House, and replaced a long-tenured Republican Senator with a Democrat. New Hampshire also voted decidedly for Obama (not as big of a deal, the state went to Kerry in '04). In a place that saw Republicans dominate it's State Legislature for 110 years, only to swing to a Democratic majority in 2006; in a state that swooned over John McCain at the mere mention of his name (especially in 2000); in a place where government is often seen as a necessary evil and any sort of divergence from the tried-and-true as scary; the Democracts swept.

Is this a sign of the mentality of New Hampshirites are changing? Perhaps. In my own personal opinion, which may not mean much to anyone except myself, my mom and my girlfriend, it is a sign of how much ultra-conservative, me-first leadership has disparaged a country and it's citizens. This election is a wake-up call to the far right: Your way doesn't work.

I Am an Un-American

I am an Un-American. I live in America. I am a citizen; I was born here. But I'm not a real American.

My value structure and ideas of progress make me an un-American. My willingness to challenge the status quo and demand accountability make me an un-American. My despair of the dirty deeds done, supposedly on my behalf, but without my consent and against my will, make me an un-American. Voicing that despair makes me an un-American.

Desiring change from a system that has done nothing but fail what was once a great country, makes me an un-American. Wanting to restore greatness to a country that used to be the envy of the world makes me an un-American.

Believing that no person is of more importance in the eyes of the government, as outlined in our Declaration of Independence, makes me an un-American. Thinking that a democracy, as outlined by our Founding Fathers, was established to work and benefit the greatest good, not the richest few, makes me an un-American. 

Respecting intelligence and the hard work of both physical and mental laborers makes me an un-American. Not ostracizing those smarter than I am as elitist and snobbish makes me an un-American.

Growing up outside of the south or midwest makes me an un-American. Living in New York City makes me an un-American. 

Using my free time to read, write and learn the truths about the things I don't understand, rather than watching prime-time sitcoms, makes me an un-American.

Being able to look beyond the color of one's skin, as well as the faith a person practices (or doesn't practice) and seeing the obvious credentials that qualify this person, makes me an un-American. Not being duped into believing the disingenuous fear-mongering preached from a pulpit, makes me an un-American.

Being different makes me an un-American.

If these are the things that determine whether someone is a 'real' American, then I'm quite proud to be considered an un-American.

545 People

This is the e-mail, as I received it, that the following post is a response to. I wanted anyone who actually reads my blog (Hi Kate), a chance to better understand what I am discussing. 

"I am not sending this out to anyone to get an argument. These are plain facts, plainly state. Please do not reply to me. If you are willing, send this message to anyone in your address book with an open mind and a desire to do what's best for our country.

Worthy of your time and attention regardless of your Party Affiliation.

545 People

by Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. 

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. (Actually, lobbyists usually do - note from an angry chimp)

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court Justices 545 humans beings out of the 300 million [sic] are directly legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. 

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the Speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq.

If they do not receive social security, but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are the bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees [sic]..

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Again, I would like to note that:

a) The nine Supreme Court Justices are not elected by anyone. A Supreme Court Justice position is a lifelong position. A potential justice is nominated by the President of the United States and approved by a majority vote in the Senate;

b) For some reason, the aforementioned diatribe does not discuss the role of the Vice President of the United States, who is also an elected official. Using this math, the 545 number should actually be 537 (435 Representatives, 100 Senators, One President, One Vice President). The VP holds the deciding vote in the Senate, and because of Dick Cheney, who knows what other shadowy powers that still have yet to surface, among others.

Response to "545 People"

I wrote this in response to en e-mail received regarding the 545 elected federal officials who hold power in this country and how their poor decisions have gotten us into this mess (435 Representatives in the House, 100 in the Senate, 9 Supreme Court Justices (I'm aware they are not elected), and the President (I realize the VP is also elected. I didn't write the original e-mail)). Basically, the e-mail I received outlines how no one forces politicians to listen to lobbyists or to each other and that they each have the ability to make their own decisions. The e-mail will be reproduced in its entirety in a second post. These are my thoughts.

Not trying to argue, but the unfortunate fact is that government and politics are, in some respects, far more complicated than that. I agree with the general notion. Everyone has a choice to do what is right, and far too many of them don't choose correctly (especially with lobbyists and the like). And those poor choices have gotten this country into the mess we are in now. But much like offices, schools, social groups and everything else that have "games" that are played, often referred to as "office politics" and such, politics is a game in and of itself. This is terrifying, especially considering the last eight years, when the game has been run by people who did not make the right choices). This game can also be beneficial. The problem with there being people running the game is that no one is prefect and every person is inherently fallible. This means that mistakes are made when running the game. And unfortunately, everyone, even those not playing the game, have to pay for those mistakes.

So when someone, who does not make the correct choices, at any level of frequency, is running the game, he or she will wield their power and influence over the game to paint the opposition in a negative light to the voting public. And since we, the voting public, have the power to unseat any elected official that we want (in theory), it is in the best interest of said opponent of the "powerful one(s)" to agree rather than be painted in a negative light to their constituents (see entire Bush Presidency, more specifically:  march to war in Iraq, domestic spying, torture, Guantanamo Bay, Extraordinary Rendition, fear-mongering, etc...). And while we may like to think that "our guy" or "our girl" can be trusted to make the correct decision no matter what, there are very few who actually have the, as the e-mail so eloquently put it, gall, to make that decision in the face of an angry public that does not support that choice (see Vermont's legalization of civil unions).

This brings into the mix the whole ideology of an elected official:  Does the public elect the official to always follow the desires of the majority of the public he or she represents; or does the public elect an official trusting that they have the fortitude and knowledge to make the most correct decision regardless of what the public wants? Neither is necessarily wrong and neither philosophy is inherently wrong.

The problems form this arise when, in the first ideology, the public desires something that is actually not in their best interest (Iraq War). The problems also arise when, in the second ideology, the trusted official makes a decision he or she makes believes to be correct, but is actually not in the best interest of the citizenry (Iraq War).

This of course, opens the door to another inherent problem with representing the interests of only a certain area, rather than the public as a whole. A representative from Texas whose district thrives on oil revenues may not want to pass new environmental protections that will benefit the health of the entire citizenry of the east coast. While competition does typically breed excellence, this sort of competition creates local-interest only politicking. One side claims that the other is trying to destroy it. Texas says the east coast is trying to ruin the domestic oil business by forcing retro-fitting and emission controls that will cut into profits. The east coast is saying that Texas and domestic oil don't care about the health and livelihood of the fellow citizens of this country. Typically this sort of politicking results in a stalemate, a bill that no one ends up happy with, or depending on who controls Congress and the White House, one side getting what they want and the other side getting hung out to dry. This is the political system we have set up. 

As an aside, this is how nations end up withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol to reduce pollution in step with the rest of the industrialized nations because the third-world countries that are developing into industrial powers (and stealing all those American jobs) don't have the same guidelines. Protectionism at its best. On this issue, America is trying to keep the Titanic from sinking by grabbing on to one side of the hull and treading water. There's nothing this country can do to stop or slow globalization (except ruin the entire global financial systems, which is what we just did...U-S-A!!!). But I digress.

I guess what I am saying is that on one hand, I'm all for going back to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Amendments and really examining hardcore what is relevant today and what needs to be changed. The people in power have managed to send this country spinning down the toilet, and it seems that right now we're so close to being down the drain completely there isn't a whole lot we can do to save ourselves. On the other hand, everything, everything, everything is ALWAYS more complicated than one things it is. Such as life, I suppose. Please share this with people if you would like. Or don't. Whatever.

As a side note, if America really wanted to get those manufacturing jobs back, it has to do two things:

1) Send union officials from this country to these other regions (Latin America, Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Indonesia, etc...) and have them establish international worker unions so they can organize and demand higher wages and benefits to the point that moving manufacturing bases to foreign countries is no longer cost-effective;

2) Stop using CIA operatives to assassinate local organizers in those regions who are trying to do exactly that, organize unions.

Why would our government, so righteous in trying to keep jobs in America, would be okay with paramilitary units, shady associates of American businesses and CIA operatives (not agents, there is a difference) assassinating union organizers in other countries which, although it may only do a small amount, might bring manufacturing jobs back to America?

1) Businesses that manufacture overseas save ocean-loads of money because they don't have to pay your higher wages and don't have to pay for your expensive benefits. This increases their profit margins, which increases their stock value, which makes a whole lot of rich people richer;

2) Those same businesses and rich people have friends in high places, like in lobbyist offices or as elected officials. And since they also have money, they can make larger donations than you can to campaigns. Without that money, most politicians can't afford to run for office not making excuses, but these are hard decisions for anyone to make);

3) Businesses that save money on manufacturing can charge less money for their products than companies that manufacture in America that pay your higher salaries and expensive benefits. This increased competition drives companies that still have manufacturing bases in America to seek locations outside of America to compete. Businesses that charge less money, but sell more product and have lower expenses, will make higher profits, and their stock value will go up, and a whole lot of rich people will get richer.

But again, I digress.

Pretarded America

Yeah, that's right. I'm calling America, to borrow a term used by the now-seemingly defunct comedian Jim Breuer, Pretarded; that state of stupidity that makes you an absolute moron, but somehow still functional enough to get by on your own. Why has America, or at least part of America, earned this title? Because we have a disturbingly large opposition to taxes, especially when it comes to paying our fair share. 

Of course, it is much easier for me to make this statement as someone who will benefit from the Obama tax plan and not the McCain plan. I happen to fit in that whole under $250,000 a year thing just like the other 95% of America. The thing is, even if I were making $250,000+ a year, I really wouldn't mind paying my fair share. Sure, it might mean I take home a little less bacon every month. And no, I don't like paying taxes. But what we forget is that government is basically a gigantic non-profit organization. Non-profit organizations collect money in whatever way, be it donations or conducting business in their respective industries, pay off all of their overhead and then reinvest the money into the company. That's how government works. It collects taxes, it uses the money to fund programs, and whatever is left over (HA!), pays down debt/gives back in rebates. That's how it works. 

Without taxes, there's no money to pay for programs, no money to pay government employees, no money to pay operating costs. There's no money to pay for anything. Paying taxes sucks something fierce. If I could, I wouldn't pay my taxes (more or less because I don't agree with how the money is being flushed down the toilet, not necessarily because I don't think it's necessary; another story for another day...maybe tomorrow). Taxes are essential. Taxes are what make government function. And whether you believe in big government or small government, whether you believe in no social programs or lots of social programs, no matter how you view the role of government in the every day lives of American people, nothing will function if government doesn't collect taxes. 

Americans have this indiscriminate opposition to paying taxes. I assume it comes from this whole idea during the American Revolution that we should not be taxed without having a say in how much and for what. It has instilled this extremely deep-seeded notion that it is un-American and unpatriotic for a government to collect taxes and for Americans to pay them. Any mention of raising taxes is political suicide in this country, which is ludicrous. Government can't function without taxes. The wealthy, (insert deity) love them, they are often times very hard-working, intelligent individuals or families who have earned everything they have in hopes of providing the best life they possibly can for their families and children. But it does not stir up my sympathies and emotions to hear them complain about being hit with a tax increase, especially on capital gains (to be discussed later). A progressive tax scale is not un-American. Collecting money from the more well-to-do to help feed and provide healthcare and the basic necessities of life to those most in need of assistance is not un-American. I seem to recall there being something on our symbol of freedom resting in the waters below Manhattan about America accepting the tired, poor and hungry of the world because we are a country not concerned with the condition of one's being but of the strength of their character and our proud ability to pick them up from whatever degree of destitution and make them prosperous. We have lost our way. We are failing. The last eight years have shown what not "redistributing the wealth," appropriately, which an awful, inaccurate term for taxation, does for everyone except the wealthiest of the wealthy. Salaries for just about everyone are either stagnant or falling. New jobs have not been created. The list goes on, and for the sake of not being redundant, I will not elaborate on the social and economic troubles facing America because of the neocon administration. 

To tackle some aforementioned things:  Calling taxation the "redistribution of wealth" is misleading and inaccurate. If we were to redistribute wealth, we would take money out of the paychecks of the golden-parachute protected CEOs and, using the number of Obama's campaign, everyone making $250,000 or more, and hand it over to those making less than $250,000 to spend at their discretion. That is not what taxation does. It's never been the purpose of taxation. And if it ever does become that way, I will be one of the first to challenge it in and every way possible. The government does not redistribute wealth. The government collects taxes to pay for operation costs and programs. Are their programs that exclusively benefit the less well-to-do. Absolutely. Some may call me a bleeding-heart liberal. I like to think of myself as simply an independent thinker. In either case, having the government help people out who are having trouble getting by really doesn't bother me. In fact, I think it's fantastic. We should do it more. When the illegal drug trade is as profitable as running a Fortune 1000 company, something is wrong. Intervention is needed. But again, another story for another day. The point is that as part of the social contract, as part of being a citizen of this country, as part of having the opportunity to live here and work here and make your lives and fortunes here, part of all of that is contributing your fair share to the money pot to make sure everything works. Would it be amazing if everyone made lots of money and could equally pay the government? Absolutely. But that's not the case. Different people earn different amounts of money and thus have to pay different amounts. Unfortunate, but that's the way it works. 

This proposal to raise capital gains tax is nowhere near as bad as it sounds. The people that earn capital gains are the people that own stock, options, etc. and that buy and sell real estate. Most, not all, but most of these people invest in real estate and stocks and taking on, to the average person, seemingly unnecessary risks because the money they invest is not money they need to live off of. If the money they invest disappears entirely, no one will be out of their homes or starving. The people earning capital gains typically can afford to pay a little more percentage-wise of their earnings. 

To get back to the point, Americans need to get over themselves in regards to paying taxes. No one likes it, but it is necessary. The time has come, especially at a time when we, as a nation, have eclipsed $10 trillion (that's $10,000,000,000,000+) in debt, for people to start being responsible and paying their fair share. Patriotism in this country stemmed from defiance and service to one's nation. Whether people like it or not, paying taxes is part of that service.

Quick DNC Night 1 Note

Michelle Obama's speech was well-written and well-delivered, but the best of the night that I'm sure no one will talk about was that given by former Republican Congressman Jim Leach. I've never heard the plight of America and what needs to be done to fix it summed up any better. Through historical references, he captured the essence of what politics should be and the disdainful place where it has gone. Here is a man who is the complete picture of what politics should be. He was one of the lone Republican Congressmen who voted against the Iraq War, knowing it would probably cost him his political career, and did it anyway because he knew it was the right thing to do. His was easily one of the best speeches I've ever heard in my young life, and I'm sure most people will not pay an iota of attention to it because of Michelle Obama's. Such is life, I suppose.

Two things I wish I had right now*

a beer

a new job

*Note: items may not appear in order of preference

Women in NYC

I'm surprised there are any left. The less attractive women get ridiculed for being less attractive, and any woman who is mildly to extraordinarily attractive has to deal with varying degrees of sketchy ass mo'fos staring, whistling and in far too many cases, harrassing them as they walk by. Now, I'm not saying that men should not admire the female form. I'm all for admiration and checking out and the like. But there's a degree of disturbing that many a NYC man seems to not comprehend. For example:

Scenario 1: You're walking down the sidewalk and a sexy lady is walking in the opposite direction. Assuming you are attracted to sexy ladies, you give her the once over (in other words, check her out) and then smile (or don't) and go on your way.

Acceptable.

Scenario 2: You're walking down the sidewalk and a sexy lady is walking in the opposite direction. You stop everything that you are doing to stare directly at her as she walks past you. You stare at her face, her rack, her legs, and she walks past you, you stare at her ass. You stare so blatantly that the blind guy across the street notices and feels ashamed to be a man.

Not acceptable.

And no, I'm not making scenario 2 up. I've seen it (minus the blind man part...honestly, he'd never be able to tell). I've also heard guys make unbelievably crass comments to women as they walk by. 10 out of 10 times, the women either ignore him or respond in an unfriendly way, and the man then typically threatens them or call them bitches.

Also not acceptable.

I realize there's a machismo unintellect here. I understand some women are so hot you can't help but check them out. But seriously, do you expect to get a chick's number by calling her "Sweet tits" and telling her you love that sweet ass? Although I suppose the type of guys making those comments typically don't wait for permission to penetrate, if you understand what I mean (they prefer the ol' unconsentual sex strategy, in case you didn't understand). Either way, I'm surprised women here tolerate it. If I had sleazy, creepy, smelly women (or men for that matter), harrassing me and threatening me everywhere I went, I'd probably punch one in the face or stab one something.

The point is: Despite a few anitmomical differences, women are human, too. Sometimes very beautiful humans that will let you see them naked. So maybe we should be a little more respectful.

Not-so-funny blogging at work.

If blogging at work were illegal, and it might be, there are definitely a lot more people that would be in more trouble than I would be.

Once again I reside in self-doubt: Am I good enough to get into advertising and stay there? Once I'm in, if I get in, will I be as successful as I want to be? Am I too lazy to do it? Do I lack the self-discipline and work ethic to make it? Is it possible for me to actually develop an idea that really takes off and impresses the people in a position to hire me? Do I even write that well to begin with?

Then from another angle: Why am I so hell-bent on doing my best work as spec comps in my "student book" so that I can spend the rest of my career being told to "tone it down" or make it less "controversial" by some guy (or girl) whose balls (or ovaries) shriveled up a long time ago and refuses to take any sort of risk whatsoever? Why am I so driven to dive headfirst into a shallow business full of demented politics, a bleak present and an uncertain future? What is really driving me to put myself through all of this? What drives me to become part of a business that most people despise and are considered bizarre if they spend more than 30 seconds a day thinking about?

Maybe all these questions mean I don't belong. Maybe it means I'm normal. I don't really know.

What I do know is that I seem to be a hilarious person (according to several sources), but am an absolute failure when it comes to taking that hilarity and applying it to advertising. I can draw funny pictures. I can tell funny stories. I can make my friends, family and people I barely know laugh out loud. I've even, on occasion, made people laugh so hard they've cried. But for the life of me, I can't bring my funny into advertising. And I don't know why.

Suffice to say, I feel a bit lost. Should I stop all of my "woe is me" bullshit? Yeah, probably. But for right now my heart is a little heavy as I contemplate "giving up the dream," as I have so wonderfully dubbed it. Of course, my dreams still fluctuate like I'm eight years-old, so who really knows what it is I'm giving up. I just hate being called a quitter.

Blogging at Work

Not something I'd normally do. But I'm bored. Sure, I have tons of stuff I could be doing, but I don't wanna do it. Normally I'd just suck it up and do it, but this is way more fun, which is sad because blogging isn't even all that much fun.

The worst part about this work day is that it isn't even close to being over. Coming in at a close second would be the fact that I can't even really get away with covertly working on my portfolio as I have absolutely no privacy. My efforts to type this blog are insanely risky as it is. I'd like to think that if I didn't have this job and for some reason could afford to not have a job, I'd spend my day hard at work perfecting my book so that I can get the job I want; or at least have as productive a day as my good friend who blows through about 3 books a week and isn't nearly as miserable; but alas, I know I'd probably sleep until noon and play video games all afternoon. At least for the first week or so. Then I might mix in some movies I bought and still haven't watched, a day or two of nothing but The Simpsons or The Shield and a random trip to a museum, if I actually managed to get out of the house before 2.

The point is my job consists of coming in and doing the exact same thing every day, which I'm pretty sure couldn't be any more boring and unstimulating. I don't even know if unstimulating is a word, and Lord knows I have enough time to look it up, but I'm not going to. I don't care. The situation isn't helped by the fact that I desperately need to shave my face as it itches worse than a wool hat on a bald head.

It's been about 15 minutes since I started writing this and it feels like an eternity. The Flash won't be able to catch up to me when I bounce outta here at 5.

As a complete aside, there is an ongoing dilemma at the office involving a crazy boss and his excessive ordering of yogurts that no one eats. Thank the Almighty Jebus (or Allah, Buddha, God, Vishnu, Sheeba or whatever deity you may pray to, cuz I don't have one) that I don't work for him. Probably woulda stabbed someone long ago.

I have a new job!

Fooled you! I don't have a new job. 

Part 3 of my randomly posted 'trying-to-get-into-advertising-as-a-writer' blog:

I'm now enrolled in two classes:  a Photoshop class through SVA and another AdHouse class being taught by one of the guys I used to work under at Lowe. Both seem to be going well, although I've only had one AdHouse class and although I left inspired, I soon ended up feeling terrified. It's being conducted in a vastly different way than I'm used to and it seems as though this instructor will be far more harsh and direct and require the utmost of excellence from everyone, which shouldn't be so terrifying, but it is. I should be elated that I'm going to be pushed to perform at my utmost and be forced to use my skills and talents. Instead I'm afraid of failure and disappointing someone that, even if it was only for nine weeks, knows me. Is this normal? I have no clue. I lost all concept of what was a normal thought process when I was 14 or 15 (another story for a different venue). If I succeed, I might actually finish this class with a book good enough to get hired, which is a thrilling thought. If I fail, I may be done for good. And then what? I don't really like being miserable.

In terms of a new job, I don't have one. An opportunity seems to have rolled down the side of a hill and by happenstance landed awkwardly in my lap, but I think it is quickly falling through that hole in middle of legs when I sit cross-legged. I'm still holding out hope though. The whole process has been slow.

Balls.

My Dream (candi)Date

Obama had me at hello. Maybe he didn't get me that easily, but it didn't take long for me to feel good about ignoring my cynicism and disenfranchisement just long enough to cast my primary vote for him. Past politicians haven't been so lucky (or good), especially when they burn you so badly. Do I think the personal lives of politicians should be scrutinized so much that you have to share with the media the color of your colon polyps or explain to Joe Backcountry why you prefer a glass of wine & a mean grilled chicken salad over an Old Milwaukee and eggs marinated in bacon grease with a stick of butter for a side? No, I think that's a bit absurd. But when it surfaces that you've been plugging a 20-something year old hooker in nothing but your business socks (cue Flight of the Conchords) with your Willy Wonka free and clear - while married - you should be shamed out of office; especially if you're dumb enough to get caught. If you're a swinging bachelor and my governor that's tough on crime and corruption, then by all means bang away (provided prostitution is legal in your state of banging). Married - the tally wacker has to stay in the pants, especially when the Mrs. is still hot. However, I have seriously digressed.

Obama swept me off my feet. I can picture it now:  Him struggling to carry me over the threshold - me staring deeply into his inspiring eyes as he goes in for the kiss - then realizing he's a dude and I'm not gay. Here's why he has me questioning my cynicism:  As a young, reasonably educated American voter, I see Congress and the Executive Branch as a bunch of old, rich, out-of-touch fucks who do everything in their power to completely ruin the lives of the people of the US who do not directly participate in government or contribute to their campaigns. This includes Democrats and Republicans:  they're all a bunch of corrupt bastards. Tax cuts for the wealthy and ear marks for billion-dollar plus corporations; corporate welfare that outspends social programs by the 100s of billions, while cutting education, backing out of the Kyoto Protocol and denying climate change; launching preemptive, unjustified wars, getting blown by ugly interns, stealing elections and denying the basic rights of citizenship to protect us from "enemy combatants" who are trying to take away those same rights. It's mind-boggling there hasn't been a violent uprising. Of course, I think politicians have done such an excellent job (with the help of complacent media) to lull us into total and complete apathy, that they can get away with anything (see above); so that when someone, anyone comes along talking about change, its hard not to get swept up in it.

There have been many in the past that have talked about change. But one way or another they've been alienated, discredited or otherwise weeded out by the establishment. But not Obama. He's still around because, so far as we can tell, he's played by the establishment's rules and hasn't had unprotected sex with a $1000/hr hooker or attempted to solicit sex in a Minnesota airport bathroom or launder money in off-shore accounts or receive bribes or send e-mails laced with sexually explicit material to Senate pages or solicit sex from an intern or send 40,000 sexually explicit text messages on his government issued cell phone to a woman on his staff. He's been on the up and up. Perhaps that's why his "change" idea seems so believable. The cynic in me says never trust any politico, they all talk about change. LBJ talked about change and dug us further into Vietnam. Reagan talked about change and shipped billions of dollars to right-wing militants who, when in power, were on every single Human Rights Watch List for carrying out horrible atrocities against dissenters. Reagan's administration and the CIA during his presidency also protected and in some cases, assisted, drug dealers and importers as the said dealers and importers flooded South Central LA with crack cocaine. Spitzer talked about change. They all talk about change. But something always breaks their will and sucks them into the government machine until there is nothing left but a broken spirit and an angry public.

So why am I so taken with Obama?

He seems believable. I don't care if he doesn't like beer. I don't care if he sucks at bowling. I don't care if he hates grits and is a hoighty toighty prissy pants when it comes to food and his social life. He's willing to open up negotiations and explore new avenues beyond trying to kill everyone. Talk may not work. It didn't always work for J Carter. So Obama says if talk doesn't work, he'll kill some fuckers. Okay. Seems reasonable. It's things like this that are winning over my inner cynic. The things he is saying are different. The way he's saying them are different. The resolve in his voice is different. His ideas are different. And to a generation that has grown up with the same shit from both sides failing over and over again, different means good. Because if we try different this time and it fails, we really can't be much worse off than we are right now with the same old shit.

I have gas

No matter what you do, energy costs are going to go up. You tax oil profits, oil companies pass the increase on to consumers. Force energy companies to invest in renewable resources, prices go up. Use more food-based biofuels, prices of energy and food go up. Pass a gas tax, demand and prices go up. The only thing that will drive prices down is greater supply, which ain't gonna happen:  a) it's not worth ruining the environment; b) it's not worth pouring more money into foreign countries; c) companies and countries are making too much money to have any interest in driving prices down. Personally, I think high prices are a blessing in disguise. High prices mean less driving, which means less heat and pollution. High prices force the markets and businesses to adapt or die. This means more energy efficient, "greener" technology:  Cars with increasing gas mileage, fuel cells, renewable non-food based biofuels, hybrids, wind and solar power plants, emission capture and an overall reduction of CO2 and pollutants. Perhaps with all this effort, some of the lakes that have dried up and left people desolate will come back. This isn't about profits and politics anymore, it's about survival. The next great wars will be fought over food and access to clean water. At the rate we're going, we'll run out of both. Desperation and crisis force change. The change that should've started 30 years ago when these problems first arose. Complacency is the nemesis of success, and in this case, survival. It is time to stop taking everything for granted and realize the US is a part of this world, too, and unless we come together as one world to change the course of the future, the Earth will heal itself by getting rid of all of us.

Repetitiveness is MY JOB!

Hearing the same words describe strikingly different products and services in advertising is painfully irritating, especially as a wannabe writer whose now-formerly secret fun activity is finding ways to play around with words. 

I'm sure this issue has come up before and will continue to arise so long as hacks continue to write and ill-advised, uninformed brand managers remained absolutely terrified of taking the slightest risk (not that everyone is a hack or a wuss...but the do exist, or at least that's what the experts tell me). But for fuck's sake:  If I hear "Introducing the..." "...new and improved..." "...fully-equppied..." "...newly redesigned..." or any other vacant, over-used, seemingly useless advertising jargon again, I'm going to smash something and I'm going to smash it good. These words have lost all meaning to me, and I'm worried it's going to start spilling over into my every day life. There are other words in the English language that aren't "introducing" and "new & improved" that will make just as much sense. Hell, at this point I'll take words and phrases that don't even make any sense; at least in that case it will be more interesting than the redundant garbage I hear now. It makes me want to stick a power drill in my ears and pull the trigger so I never have to go through the agony of another meaningless, over-used phrase. Or perhaps I could just change the channel next time, or press the mute button.

I realize I have little, if an standing in the ad world, but my advice to any up-and-coming ad creatives that may be bored enough to happen upon my blog & read it:  Don't use those fucking phrases. They suck.

Wanna-Be Advertising Update

There have been some not-so-recent goings-on in my ongoing efforts to become an advertising dynamo. 

About a week and a half ago, I received an e-mail from a talent scout at a newish agency in St. Louis, asking to speak with me about a possible copywriter position. Upon my absolute elation that someone had actually responded to a portfolio I sent to them (so what if it was in August of 2007), I immediately checked out what life would be like in my new home of St. Louis, Missourah. And as can be expected, St. Louis has the second highest per-capita violent crime rate in the United States of any city with a population above 350,000. "Well", you might say, "at least it's not the first," to which I would gleefully respond, "It was in 2006!" However, I digress from the actual story. 

Being the worldly genius that I am, I respond to the e-mail explaining that I would love to speak with her about a copywriter position, and that not only do I want to speak with her, but that I will call her tomorrow between 2 and 3pm, knowing full-well that I usually take my lunch from about 1:40 to 2:40pm. This leaves me plenty of time chow down on the packed lunch I bring to work every day because I can't afford to pay for my lunch AND smooth talk my way into getting flown down to St. Louis for an interview...or having to turn down an interview because I can't afford to pay for the tickets to fly down and I don't have any sick days. As the talent scout requested, I resubmitted an updated version of my portfolio that night and immediately started becoming anxious. 

Having been completely overwhelmed by the prospect of having a copywriter position at an ad agency, I failed to consider the fact that St. Louis is further west and actually in a different time zone. So the 2 to 3pm St. Louis time that they're expecting me to call is actually 3 to 4pm, the time that I have to be in a meeting that I really can't miss. Fucking sweet. To add to this debacle, I didn't realize this until about an hour and a half before I was thinking I had to call, NYC time. I can't call from my office, so I e-mail the talent scout, letting her know that I have to call earlier than I said due to a time conflict. I'd like to say that this doesn't typically happen, but somehow I manage to absolutely annihilate every meager opportunity that arises. Once again, I do not disappoint. I call early and get her voice mail. I leave a message and never hear from her again.

Four or five months ago I would've been disappointed and discouraged at yet another apparent rejection. I guess I've grown a fairly tough skin, at least in some aspects of the business. It still stings a little when someone trashes my work, but it's not devastating and I can usually brush it off, much like this latest rejection. It happened all summer and fall:  send my book, hear nothing. It's the nature of the beast. I don't get concerned anymore with not hearing back, but with turning someone off to the prospect of hiring me in the future because of the book I submitted in the present, which is why I stopped applying for advertising jobs until I get an amazing portfolio. 

So here I am, absolutely failing at my plan to write about all the things I wanted to write about tonight to maintain my desired craft and obviously not working on my book (although I have made some decent strides as of late with a few ads). Because I'm totally distracted right now by the ad on TV advertising all of the rock music from my high school career that I wouldn't pay money for, I'm going to end this suddenly and with no conclusion whatsoever, and also not spell check it or anything. 

Becoming an Ad Guy #1

I've decided to begin sharing the often frustrating and sometimes mildly exciting aspect of my life that is the collective efforts of trying to break into advertising as a creative. This entry comes almost a year too late, as I really began this effort the day after I graduated last May (2007), but better late than never, I suppose. 

As a quick summary, I graduated college with a dual degree in advertising and political science and a portfolio barely worth wiping a homeless guy's grimy ass with, or at least that's how my former mentor and Sr. Art Director at a NYC ad agency felt. Before I finished college, I was sending work out to alumni and other contacts to get their opinion and permanently damage their impression of my talents and skills with my piss-poor work. I continued this practice after I graduated, working part-time at a faceless fashion retailer and toiling away on my book. I sent countless numbers of e-mails, made numerous phone calls, received many a negative review (with a "that's okay" and "it's a good start" mixed in), and became completely bitter and frustrated. I blamed lots of things, including myself, for my failure to even get anyone to call me back and at least tell me I sucked. I blamed my teachers. I blamed the program I went through. I blamed portfolio schools and people much more skilled than I am. I blamed myself for not working harder. I blamed where I was living. But a funny thing about this business, is that while your environment may have some effect on your ability to think freely, for the most part, the only thing to blame is yourself and your work ethic. In college, I didn't devote nearly enough time to working on my book. Looking back, I don't really blame my past self for doing it, because I was a dual major and all of my other classes were fairly demanding...and because I love beer. Either way, that's what I did and now I have to live with it.

I just finished my first post-college class at a nifty little school called AdHouse, which I'm pretty sure is literally run out of the person's office. There's no campus or established curriculum, but that's not what's important. What is important is that it guaranteed me face-time with an executive creative director and honest feedback from said ECD. We didn't always see eye-to-eye, but it taught me quite a bit about where I am and what I need to do. It's probably going to take months before my book is anywhere close to presentable. I've said this to myself so many times and my book is still no where near ready, but I suppose that's the nature of the beast. A portfolio is never done. Phenomenal work requires constant adjustment and thought and can never be absolutely perfect. 

With my time in between now and my next class, I've been working on my book and getting in touch with those wonderful friends of mine already in the ad biz to check out my stuff to get some direction on where to go next. 

So thus my adventure continues. Hopefully future posts will be far more exciting than this one, and one day soon I won't have to write any more blogs about trying to become an ad guy.

An Awkward Little Thought

Reading history is one of the most depressing things a person can do, because it forces one to realize that for as long as humans have been recording their activities, they have been making the same mistakes over and over again. A perfect example is the current genocide in Darfur:  this is nothing new to the world. The world stood by as the Turks massacred the Armenians; it stood by while Nazi Germany killed millions of Jews, blacks and handicapped persons. The world stood idly by while 800,000+ were slaughtered in Rwanda. And in each case, when all is said and done and people have the chance the wrap their heads around these atrocities, each nation that did nothing has the joy of explaining their inaction over the following decades. Yet, here we are, in the same exact situation, standing idly by once again. What's going to be the excuse this time?

Look What I Did to My Head!

Look what I did! I went from curly-haired scrub to chemo-patient-look-alike in 20 minutes. Sweet.

Apparently something happened and now I'm typing in a different font and I'm too lazy to figure out how to fix it.

On to a more serious note...

I've been having a few conversations with some friends of mine about, gentrification and the projects. It's sort of a relevant issue for me, despite the fact that I'm not actually from the projects, I didn't live in NYC when they were in terrible shape and my background didn't exactly expose me to any projects, dangerous or otherwise (the city I grew up in did have them, as well as several low income neighborhoods, but nothing on the scale of a major city). Where I live now is within close proximity (one block) from housing projects. And while they are not dangerous (I've gone grocery shopping at night in my somewhat fancy work clothes), it's still a new experience (four people got mugged in front of my apartment, one of them received a serious beat down for not cooperating). Of course, there's no way to prove the perpetrators were from the housing projects. For all I know, they could live in the really nice area a few streets up. The point I'm getting at is that for the most part, projects aren't inherently bad in any way, there's just usually a couple rotten apples that cause problems, at least around here. I know that NYC's projects really don't compare to those of D.C., Chicago, Miami, LA and others of notoriety, but there are still some unfriendly neighborhoods. Where I'm going with this is as follows:

Cities like DC are instituting new programs, and from what I understand, NYC has already been doing it for a while, are starting programs where they tear down dilapidated projects, rebuild them into nice low and middle income apartments, and give people vouchers to return. All of those residents with known criminal offenses are given vouchers to move elsewhere, and those who were just living there are invited back. All of this is done to try to mix up the neighborhood, bring in working class people into lower class neighborhoods, and break up perpetual troublemakers, so to speak. In principal, it seems like a good idea, but it doesn't even come close to addressing any of the problems that led to unsavory neighborhoods in the first place. It's just a band-aid to cover up the symptoms.

What's worse, and NYC has a fairly well-known history of doing, it tearing down projects and low-income housing and replacing the buildings with expensive, high-rise apartments. This is great for cleaning up neighborhoods, bringing high-earning and thus high-tax paying residents to the area, as well as raising property values and breaking up criminally active neighborhoods. The problem is, it doesn't solve any problems. It just moves the symptoms of the problem to another area. An example:

A good friend of mine used to live on 112th and Adam Clayton Powell in Harlem. He had a beautiful, large apartment that puts mine to shame. He and his roommates, however, didn't have a TV, so when they ate meals or wanted to kill time, they would sit at the windows and watch the hookers in the neighborhood work the streets, watch dudes smoking roc on the stoops and the like. It wasn't necessarily a dangerous neighborhood (save for the crazy homeless dude that went around trying to cut people's arms off with saws at my friend's subway station...totally coincidental, I hope). I went up there a couple times without incident. However, returning to the neighborhood two years later, one doesn't see pimps, hookers and crackheads (obviously a good thing). One sees nifty shops and high rise apartment buildings (not a bad thing). The problem is, no one came around to do anything about the pimps, hookers and crackheads. They just got forced out and moved into another neighborhood. 

It took hearing Mos Def discuss this at a concert I attended Sunday to make me see how gentrification, while on the surface seems like a good thing to those of us that just want a place to live where there are no worries of being mugged or otherwise accosted by someone, it isn't really a great solution. It brings in tax dollars and obvious revenues for the city. It probably even brings culture and other worldly things. The issue is, it doesn't solve any problems. It just moves the problem. It's even less of a band-aid than rebuilding the projects. But it is a lot more profitable and easier than getting to the root of the problem, which will no doubt be exacerbated by the most recent economic downturn. 

Will we ever end poverty? No, but we can reduce it (in ways that can't really be explained, partially because I just don't know enough about public policy and partially because I don't have the time or space to talk about my ideas...maybe another time). Can we fix the prison system so that people who go in don't come out worse? Yes, we can (see aforementioned reasons why I don't elaborate). It won't be perfect, but it will be better. 

These aren't the only contributing factors, but they are two of the biggest. But again, fixing these problems costs far more money in the immediate future (will probably save more in long run) and is unbelievably difficult to work out and find the right people to run the projects so that they are effective, so it probably won't happen, even if it will save money, lives and improve the quality of life in the entire country. But then again, there's money to be made in misery.

Racist, or my overactive imagination?

I’ve devised a new game solely for this blog entry, called: Racist, or my overactive imagination? ™ In this blog, we take a normal looking piece of mediocre, at best, advertising and determine whether it is blatantly racist, or if I just have an overactive imagination. Somewhere in this entry is the picture. If you can’t see it, look harder. It’s a picture of Maria Sharapova laying in a somewhat seductive pose on a tennis court in paradise, dressed in an all-white, somewhat skimpy tennis uniform. She’s been touched up in Photoshop to the point where her boobs look way bigger than normal and she of course, looks absolutely flawless. The only copy reads: “Keep It Pure,” and there is a K-Swiss logo in the ad, which leads me to believe that it is an ad for K-Swiss tennis shoes.

Now, there are two things inherently wrong with this advertisement: one overtly racist, the other a simple fact of poor execution; both of which were easily preventable by somebody somewhere taking a second and thinking before doing.

Of course, here come the qualifiers: I am not a minority, nor have I talked to any minorities about this ad, so I have that working against me. I’m looking at this ad as a white guy predicting how a minority would react to it knowing what I know about the history of this country and it’s unfair (to put it mildly) treatment of minorities. (As an aside, my people, Italians, were discriminated against in the 40s and 50s, but that’s really no comparison). On the other hand, I am a student of advertising, which gives me some credibility in determining whether this ad should’ve run on the side of a building on Broadway in Manhattan, as is. It’s just not a good idea. Here’s why:

All of these things separately are not a big problem, but when you put them together, bad things can be thought. First, you have a blonde-haired, blue-eyed bombshell of a white woman lying in a sexy pose, dressed in all white, with the line “Keep It Pure,” written to the side of her. Maybe “keep"ing, white and “pure” don’t come together in your mind as anything offensive. Maybe if I did a random poll of people, most would say they see nothing wrong with the ad. Most people would probably tell me they never even noticed the ad, because most people don’t notice ads. The point is, someone working to develop this ad, at some point during the process, should’ve said to him or her self, “Hey, while advertising shouldn’t always be politically correct, this ad is a little dicey in terms of the race issue. Perhaps we should change the copy or something.” That same person should’ve then told someone else, “Hey, while advertising shouldn’t always be politically correct, this ad is a little dicey in terms of the race issue. Perhaps we should change the copy or something.” And then the copy should’ve been changed. Am I making too much out of this? Perhaps. I do have a fairly decent imagination…

The second issue this ad brings up is the fact that it makes no sense. A tennis player like Ms. Sharapova does the exact opposite of keeping the sport of tennis pure (which I’m assuming is the message in the ad, unless it really is the racist message mentioned above, in which case K-Swiss is racist). The fact that Maria Sharapova is supermodel-hot and a celebrity in her own right to the point where paparazzi follow her and people actually care who she dates and the like is not keeping the sport of tennis pure. Perhaps K-Swiss would’ve done better with a less attractive tennis player actually playing tennis, or training to become a better tennis player, or even going with a no-name tennis player to nail home the point that to those that love the game, there is nothing else: no photo shoots or commercials or endorsement deals, just the pure, raw intensity of the game. So kudos to you, K-Swiss, on completely missing the point, and potentially offending just about every non-white person that happens to glance upon your ad. You may have lucked out if the only place that ad ran is on Broadway & W. 31st in Manhattan. Somehow I doubt that’s the case.

Many a wise advertising guru have said that if you’re going to invade someone’s life with a message a person never wanted to hear in the first place, you better make it worth his or her time, lest you will be hated and despised even more for wasting time and space.

The truth of the matter is that is applies to just about everything, at least in terms of media…I think. I can recall several movies I sat through (cough cough, Closer), in which I wanted, neigh demanded my two hours back afterward. It applies to books, albums, art, just about anything that can be construed as portraying a message. Even this blog, as well as the hundreds of thousands of other blogs out there, are held to such scrutiny; which is why I’ve been so apprehensive about writing a blog: who in the hell is going to want to read about what I think on any sort of regular basis besides my mom and my girlfriend? Yet here I am writing my first public blog ever (I wrote a few on MySpace, but my profile is set to private and I think two, maybe three people actually read any of them). I figure at the least it’s a way for me to practice writing, as that is the profession (via advertising) I’m trying to get in to. At best, somehow my blog will become famous and someone will want me to write a book or movie or some crap and I’ll make lots of money and blow it all on fancy electronics and beer. The point is, I’m turning this into my little corner of the Internet and plan on doing my best to not waste your time, loyal reader(s). Feel free to point a laugh.