Rub This on Your Face To Feel Better About Yourself

"Proactive" used to be a seldom used word that meant taking care of problems before they arise.  Now if you google the term the first result is for the company Proactiv, makers of multiple products that all do the exact same thing: treat acne.  If you've ever watched late night TV you've been assaulted with Proactiv long-form commercials featuring mostly B-list actresses (and Adam Levine) and testimonials from regular jack-offs like yourself.  They play them relentlessly during late-night TV because that's when all the acne-having uglies are at home watching TV, but you've probably seen them during the day or evening too, because Proactiv is nothing if not persistent about making you feel bad about yourself.

Almost every Proactiv commercial follows the same basic formula.  A celebrity tells you "I know I'm widely regarded as a standard of beauty that you can only dream about achieving, but even I sometimes get pimples and can feel insecure about myself.  But it's ok, because I just use Proactiv instead of dealing with my unhealthy self-esteem problems."  This is followed by a friendly voice-over explaining the scientific and medical workings of the "new" Proactiv (every single Proactiv commercial describes their product as a new product) while a cartoon graphic shows acne disappearing and pores being cleaned by their "secret" "advanced micro-crystal medicine."  User testimonials about how Proactiv changed people from losers to confident popular people will then play while of course showing before and after pictures with a disclaimer saying "results will vary."  Almost all of these commercials end the same way as a basic infomercial ends: by telling you the products are worth so much more than what you'll pay if you call within some set time limit, because you don't just need to buy their product, you need to buy it right now.

The basic format of these commercials is insulting, but even worse are the actual user testimonials which seem to have been heavily edited to ensure they're as vapid and meaningless as possible.  One commercial features the line "you put it on and it just feels like it's making those blackheads come out, just like pow pow pow." which basically sums up what Proactiv thinks of the average intelligence of its customers.  That same commercial actually describes the product using the term "miracle gel," which should automatically raise all sorts of red flags the same way that any snake-oil salesman claiming to have a miracle product does.  Another commercial trying to sell a special brush that somehow applies their miracle product in a way that's more miraculous claims that "This isn't just any brush, it's the only one from the doctors at Proactiv," or in other words, "this isn't just any brush, it's the only one made by the people we employ!"

But if all that talk of doctors and product value are too much for you, don't worry, because Proactiv actually makes an almost identical product that's targeted at a much more impressionable and less knowledgeable audience: teenagers.  X Out is "the world's first wash-in treatment" which seems to imply that it's a different type of product than Proactiv despite being and doing the exact same thing.  Commercials for this product are completely devoid of any kind of meaningful information, revealing that the makers of Proactiv think selling their product to children is like shooting fish in a barrel.  They feature lines like "You can feel it working with a blast of icy cool," followed by clear-faced teens saying things like "like a WOOSH of wind," and "it's just, SCHHH, AHHH."  The ads always end by saying that unlike most legitimate products, it's not sold in a store so call now and order to get free products.

The main problem with these commercials is that it tells you it's not OK to have any sort of skin blemishes.  Sure, everyone gets them, even B-list celebrities, but if you want to be confident and successful you need this product to get rid of them, and you need a steady supply of it because you're not actually preventing future blemishes the way the word "proactive" suggests, you're just getting rid of already existing ones.  They put themselves forward as a company that's helping people overcome their self-esteem issues, but what they really do is prey on those insecurities by offering the simple solution of "just be better looking."  The way they present the products in their commercials makes it very clear that the makers of Proactiv only care about selling as many products as possible to the most impressionable and unintelligent audience they can find.  If you need any more proof that Proactiv truly believes that beauty and happiness are only skin deep, look no further than this simple internet ad:

This Valentine's, Consider a Hooker

Recently I was scrolling through my Facebook "newsfeed" (feed trough) looking for some mindless feel-good stories, when a story about a prostitution sting caught my eye because it's much more interesting than your stupid kids and pets.  It struck me as odd that prostitution stings designed to catch would-be customers rather than those running the prostitution rings still take place.  In fact, it's startling to think that we live in a society which any number of sexual acts between consenting adults are perfectly fine, but as soon as there's any mention of money everyone involved becomes a criminal.

Opponents of prostitution argue that it leads to the abuse and sometimes even slavery of the sex workers, which is obviously a very serious and valid complaint.  However, keeping prostitution illegal does not solve that problem, it intensifies it.  By keeping it a criminal activity, we force prostitutes to associate with pimps rather than legitimate business owners, we give them no legal recourse if abused or cheated, and we give society another excuse to not care about their well-being.  The way we handle prostitution right now is equivalent to trying to prevent abuse of racing greyhounds by arresting everyone involved, including the responsible owners, the dogs themselves, and anyone who shows up to place a bet.

Of course there's also the moral "argument" that prostitution and is a degenerate activity which destroys families and communities.  You know, just like gambling.  This line of thought is so puritanical that it was the basic argument used by the Temperance movement to pass prohibition.  We live in a world in which hundreds of websites, dozens of apps, and most bars exist for the express purpose of finding people to have relatively anonymous sex with.  If your will is really so weak that you'd devolve into a life of debauchery simply because the option is suddenly available, then you may as well start enforcing burkas.

The United States has a multi-billion dollar industry that revolves around just watching other people have sex; the amount of revenue they could bring in with legalized prostitution is astronomical.  They could regulate the industry to significantly reduce STD transmission, abuse, payment disputes, ensure that registered sex workers stay within designated areas instead of just walking the street.  Legalizing prostitution would also take money out of the hands of criminal organizations and prevent treating otherwise productive members of society like criminals for engaging in a consensual recreational activity.

There isn't a single good reason to continue enforcing our current prostitution laws.  Every dollar spent by our police on stings to arrest customers or close down brothels is an affront to your rights as a consenting adult.  This Valentine's Day, consider a hooker and tell your legislators that you're sick of the current system generally screwing everybody.

Worst City Title in the US

I recently came across this article through a Facebook friend about an Oklahoma City police officer being charged with three dozen counts of sexual assault.  It's obviously a very troubling story but not exactly what I want to talk about here.  While I do hope for all victims of abuse of any kind to receive justice, what I couldn't stop focusing on was the picture in the article, which I've reproduced here. (picture credit to Paul L. McCord Jr. [I think.  The original article just gives that name with a link to a Flickr page.  Although that's more credit than the writer, Mr. or Ms. "Feminist Newswire" received])

It took me a while to wrap my head around this picture because I wasn't aware that Oklahoma City refers to itself as "The City of Oklahoma City," which, let's be honest with ourselves, is completely insane.  I stared at the text in this photo for a while trying to make sense of it, because surely, I thought, no one would do that.  Instead this poorly designed logo (note the weird spacing)  must be meant to be read like "The City of Oklahoma: City Police," or even "The City of Oklahoma City Police" with no breaks or pauses in a misguided attempt at seeming protective while really just being ominously possessive.  Somehow worse than that is the actual answer: Oklahoma City is the city equivalent of a person who talks in third person.

If you go the extra mile and add the state to the end you have "The City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma," (capital city of the state of Oklahoma) which can easily be said with just the two words: "Oklahoma City."  It needs no further explanation.  It's literally smack dab in the middle of Oklahoma, and unlike what you probably think of when you hear "Oklahoma," it's a city.  If you had never heard of it before there are still two assumptions you would have made upon hearing of Oklahoma City: 1) it is a city 2) it is in Oklahoma.  But still, just in case you didn't figure it out, Oklahoma City would like to remind you that it is a city.

Further investigations into this matter show that there is no Town of Oklahoma City, no Oklahoma City County, (the county the city is in is actually called [surprise] Oklahoma County) no People's Republic of Oklahoma City, no State of Oklahoma and Oklahoma City Plantations, and as far as I can tell there are no celestial bodies of any kind named Oklahoma City (although who knows what's really out there?).  There are no other places, concepts or entities of any kind with which Oklahoma City can possibly be confused, so why are they doubling down on the citys (sic) like they're pieces of fried chicken that are somehow the healthiest parts of the sandwich they're in?

To be fair to Oklahoma City, they are still the number one city in the US if you rank cities by the number of times they call themselves a city.  Even New York sticks to at most just New York City or the City of New York, but never both at the same time, so in that regard they beat what is largely considered the greatest city in the world.  Congratulations.  Now that that's been said they can finally stop overcompensating and stick to being one city at a time.

Magic!

Some authors are very good at explaining the workings of their magical systems, others are good at leaving an impression of a very powerful force that is not fully understood even by those who dare to use it, and others are just downright terrible at providing any insight as to what the hell is going on.  That's why I've composed these categories to give fans a better understanding of how the most common magic systems work in fantasy literature.  They're by no means official or set in stone as the only types of magic which are effectively used, in fact, they're not even mutually exclusive.  Hopefully there will be more categories to come as I continue to expand my fantasy repertoire, but for now I give you the four categories of fantasy magic.

Like For Like Magic
This is a type of magic usually associated more with darker worlds or characters.  It requires sacrifice or payment to accomplish.  This can be through the methods more traditionally associated with sacrifice, or simply through conversion of materials or forces into other materials or forces.  For instance, alchemy or magics involving consumption of particular ingredients (potions, tonics, etc).  This may also apply to magics drawn from a source if the source has limited power.  For example, a magic stone or talisman infused with power which is channeled until consumed.  Of course, this category also includes demonic pacts, bargaining or trading something for power, whether it be physical, emotional, or spiritual.

Magic of Will
Magic that is determined by the mental strength of the user.  This is the most classically associated form of magic, and is often found in high fantasy.  Whenever magic is an art that requires studying and practice to apply it is generally magic that is determined by the will of the user.  A novice will never be as adept in any of these schools of magic as an expert unless they are meant to be some sort of prodigy.  This could also include forms of magic which are powered through divine sources, in other words, magics which are temporarily granted to the highly devout based on the strength of their conviction.  A priest or cleric whose powers may no longer work if they were to stop believing, or whose powers may be granted by a different benefactor if they were to convert, though these users may also be considered magical by association depending on the circumstances.

Innate Magic
This is magic that is best thought of in terms of an inherited trait.  Much like some people are born more athletic than others, some may be born with higher aptitude for magic than others.  It may be something that can be balanced out by practice, knowledge, and experience, but this type of magic is largely defined by its users potential at birth, whether this be an inherited genetic trait or random selection.  A great example of this would be the Aes Sedai in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series.  While even the weakest Aes Sedai are able to train and learn how to better use their power, they will never be able to draw in as much of the power as those born with stronger gifts.  In some cases this may even be a racial distinction, eg. all elves are born magic users, some humans, and no dwarves.

Magic By Association
Usually the worst kind of magic.  This is when the magic user themselves does not possess any particular ability for magic, but may wield an item that allows them access to it.  A staff that allows its wielder to ignite fires is a magical staff, but the person who uses it is only magical by association.  Even cases where a character is in an event that triggers powers they otherwise would not have had.  In some cases, the magical item/area/event may only be accessible by some, due to any of the things mentioned above, but until they can use magic without its aid they are not generally considered to be magical.

Consume Some Knowledge

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, children with strong reading comprehension skills.  I return briefly to the real world today after an extended stay in my preferred fantasy realms to attempt to dissuade you from your rampant consumerism.  I know it's been done a million times before in a million different ways, but I'd like to do it through promoting a different set of values which can replace the emptiness of body image and ownership obsessions.  I'm here today to tell you why intelligence and strong, self-realized ethical values are vastly superior.

So here it is:  You are not your possessions.  The clothes you wear, cars you drive, homes that you don't really own are not a part of you.  Not even your effortless weight loss, miraculous hair growth, or discreet penis length increase is you.  You're not who you vote for, or how many Facebook friends you have.  There is only one thing which can accurately be labeled as "you," and that is your mind.

Your personality, your experiences, and how you interact with the world around you is what defines you.  You could be the richest most attractive person in the world and still be a terrible person.  In fact, most of the richest and most attractive people are also the worst people.  When all is said and done, your money and your possessions and your physical image will be gone, but the person you were will still live on.  That's what a legacy is.

Kings, queens, presidents, and dictators are ultimately judged in the same light as poor, nameless peasants: for their actions.  The only difference is the level of influence each life has, but influence is not always measured in power, wealth, and fame.  Every one of us is shaped by those that came before, be they our teachers, family, or communities, we our all constantly pushed and pulled in all directions by countless influences.  Some are naturally stronger than others.  Family supersedes most influences, especially early in life, and we live in an age of tremendous monetary, media, and societal influences, but strongest, most lasting influences are those of free thought and self-realization.

If society were to collapse overnight and it was left to a handful of survivors to rebuild the world, the civilizations that their efforts would create would bear little resemblance to ours.  Except in one aspect: their principles of science, logic, reason, and discovery would be nearly identical to our own if left unchecked.  These are things which cannot truly be forgotten because they are not truly taught, they are discovered, invented, innovated.  The sun will set tomorrow for the same reason it set yesterday, and if this reason is ever forgotten, it can be rediscovered.

But if we all do our parts there's no need for society to crumble.  This isn't done through supporting your local economies through consumerism, it's achievable simply by being ethical and passing this idea along.  And I don't mean ethical in a religious or governmental sense.  I mean the strong kind of ethics that come from seeing a good deed have a good effect on a person.  The type of ethics which come from feeling bad and not wanting others to feel the same.  No threats of damnation, imprisonment, or even death can replace these ethics if properly passed along.  Nothing can take away your ability to do a good deed, to see it's effect, and to feel it in your heart, just as nothing can stop the force of discovery and progress.  These things can only be halted for a time, for they are universal.

So where are your efforts in life truly best spent?  In building knowledge, character, empathy, and understanding, and then passing these things along to others.  If you put your time to these, people will remember you and how you affected their lives and they will do the same.  Your legacy could burn bright then fade out, or consume the lives of others, but the best legacies are those which spark in others and lead them to their own understanding.  This is the unstoppable force greater than economy and government combined.

The Joker's Guide to Speeding (And Not Getting Caught)

I'd like to preface this piece by clearly stating that I do not encourage or condone any illegal activities, no matter how entertaining or well-planned such attempts may be.  I would like to note that I also do not condone many senseless driving laws which are designed to protect us from ourselves while hindering the effectiveness of our preferred mode of transportation, all while generating revenue for the state.  That being said, buckle up.  Not because you have to, but because you'd be stupid not to.

Pace, Don't Race

Whether you're in a hurry to get somewhere, simply impatient, or just an adrenaline junkie, the quickest way to get caught speeding is to be the fastest person on the road.  Understand that police have to set priorities when pulling people over, which is why you can usually cruise past highway speed traps at 75 mph or under without worry.  The best method of making sure that you're not the one who's going to get pulled over is using what I call a Speed Decoy.  The way this works is simple: stay in the far left lane of the highway at a comfortable 70-75 mph until someone impatient comes up behind you.  You'll know they're really itching to pass you when they start tailgating and drifting to the right to check their chances of getting around you in the other lane.  Either allow them to do this or cede the lane to them.  Once they're in front of you they should start accelerating, which is perfect.  Just get in behind them and allow them to get a good distance ahead of you before you match their speed.  You want to make sure you don't lose sight of them though, because if they take another lane and slow down or get off the highway entirely without you realizing it then you're suddenly the one going the fastest, which makes you fair game.  As long as there's space between you and you don't lose sight of them, you can go as fast as they are without worrying about being caught by a speed trap.  The only downside to this is you do still have to watch out for cops already in the flow of traffic who will run radar or attempt to match your speed behind you or on the sides.

Radar Detectors

Possibly the most useful tool you can legally keep in your car (in most states anyway) to avoid being pulled over.  Obviously it's not a fool proof system, which is unfortunate because fool proof is exactly what you need against most cops, but it definitely negates a powerful tool used in the "war on speeding."  Radar is one of the few things which will guarantee that you have to pay a ticket.  It's almost never knocked down in court, unlike when your speed is estimated, which are easier to contend.  If you don't have a radar detector visible when you're pulled over cops will inevitably write on your ticket that they got your speed using radar, whether or not they actually did.  If you have one visible when you're pulled over and they didn't really run radar, they'll either be forced to write that they only estimated your speed, or just give you a warning so they don't have to show up to court when you contest it. (Always contest your tickets no matter how fast you were going.  If they don't show up to court the judge will usually dismiss it.)    They're more likely to show for court if radar was used because it's practically a guarantee for them, but if they estimated your speed you have a much better chance of winning your appeal because you can argue human error.  After all, they don't exactly stick their lead detectives on traffic duty.


Trucker Tell

Trucks and other commercial vehicles can be your best friends on the road if you're trying to speed but unsure as to the amount of police on the road.  When you're first deciding whether or not it's "safe" to speed on any particular highway, find some trucks.  If the trucks you find are speeding, than there probably aren't many cops about.  The theory behind this is that truckers are actually in communication with each other while on the road, so they know where the speed traps are set up or if there's a high volume of cops out on any given day/night.  They also have a job which requires them to travel from one place to another quickly and efficiently, which means that paying fines and losing their licenses are not options for them.  Truckers are just like you and me in that they want to spend as little time as possible on the road, but their livelihoods are also at risk when they're speeding, so if you see them exceeding the speed limit, chances are there's very little risk involved.

Don't Be An Ass

This should apply to just about all facets of life, but I'll narrow it down a bit for the purposes of this article.  Don't be that guy who goes 60 mph in the fast lane, or the one tailgating everyone in the exit lane.  Don't use the cars in the other lanes to box people out when they try to pass you.  Don't tailgate or purposefully slow down when you're being tailgated.  Don't throw your trash out the windows.  Don't switch lanes at the last possible second to take your exit.  Don't switch lanes when you see someone coming up fast behind you in that lane, just wait till they've passed.  Don't do your makeup, eat, or text while you're driving.  Don't write things on the windows/windshields of your car.  ( I don't care how close to finished with high school you are, the world doesn't need to know and you don't need the extra distractions and reduced visibility)  Don't honk your horn at traffic, it doesn't magically move the cars in front of you.  And don't mouth off to the police officer when he pulls you over.  "Yes, sir" "No, sir" and "I don't know, officer" are the best words that can come out of your mouth if you don't want a ticket; the phrase "My taxes pay your salary" never works.

Censorship

I've posted about censorship before, In fact I've written a much more substantial essay on my dislike of censorship. But I sit here tonight to write this much shorter post because, believe it or not, in this age of information and "reason," censorship is still abundant for the worst reasons imaginable.

At the time I'm typing this, it's 1 AM and Zack and Miri Make a Porno is airing on Comedy Central. While not even close to my favorite movie, (or even my favorite Kevin Smith movie) I decided to sit and watch for a few minutes while I make myself a late night snack. In the 3-5 minutes I watched I couldn't help but think "Why even bother airing this?" not because the movie was pretty bad, (it is) but because half the dialogue is censored, and entire shots are edited or removed. Of course, I wasn't surprised by this, just disturbed by the amount that censorship has integrated itself into our media.

The entire idea behind censorship stems from the idea that the edited content may be inappropriate for some viewers, an idea that's usually conveyed in the form of some shrill bitch yelling something along the lines of "think of the children!" But at 1 AM on a Sunday night (Monday morning?) any children watching Comedy Central should be removed from the care of their parents. Anyone else who might have managed to stumble across this content only to be offended at such crass concepts as cursing and sex can simply change the channel, or better yet, remove themselves entirely from society so they need not be offended ever again.

The disgusting thing about censorship is that it's a sanctioned form of selfishness. It's selfish to think that the rest of the world shares the same values that you do, and that they should therefore be restricted to only those values. It's selfish to think that just because you don't want to hear something, no one should be able to hear it. And having a consensus on what should and should not be censored doesn't make it any better. It's essentially the same as our country deciding that heavy metal music is a bad element in our society and then banning it entirely because some parents are too uninvolved in their children's lives to keep them from listening to it. Another analogy would be the plot from Footloose.

It's a shame that such a large section of our population doesn't understand this concept simply because they agree with what's being censored. You can show hookers who have been dead for years being dissected on the examination table in a primetime law enforcement drama, but God forbid those same viewers have to see breasts, ass, or listen to a swear word. Maybe when the FCC finally realizes that everything is offensive to someone, all those people will understand what assholes they've been for so many years. Until then, let your kids watch all the CSI and NCIS they can get, seeing dead bodies and violence depicted all over the place never messed a kid up, right? The rest of us will be enjoying internet pornography, because they don't give a shit if it offends someone.

Accessibility Denied

As people around the world continue to spend even increasingly more time on the internet despite complaints about never having time for proper meals or those kid things that won't shutup, I think we've reached a point where we can wave goodbye to the training wheels of password reset security questions. We've all encountered these, (if you haven't it's probably because you still use "password" or "default") they're the annoying, totally insignificant questions that websites will force you to answer in order to reset your password. And if forgetting your password doesn't automatically put you in a bad mood, answering "security" questions that anyone with a computer (ie anyone who encounters said questions) can look up in fewer than 10 seconds will definitely put you over the edge.

The problem with security questions is every single aspect of them. First of all, they're always questions that just about anyone can figure out after a quick Google search, or better yet, just by scoping your Facebook. The list of questions you can pick from always includes "What was your first pet's name?" "What was your first girlfriend/boyfriend's name?" "When did you graduate from high school?" "What is your mother's maiden name?" The people who came up with the questions seem to think that these are sure to stump anyone who's not the actual account holder, but in reality they're about as secure as using your birthday for your ATM PIN. If you want some questions that only the user can answer correctly, try "Which STDs do you test positive for?" "Where do you go to be by yourself and cry until you pass out?" "How many hookers have you been with?" "If you could get away with murdering one person, who would it be?" "What's the most embarrassing thing you ever did that no one noticed even though it felt like everyone in the world caught you?" The information that people use for security questions is so worthless that we give it out to massive corporations so they can use it to advertise to us.

The second problem with security questions is that unlike your password selection process, you're never asked to confirm the answers to your security questions in case you make a typo. In fact, the answers you give are virtually never verified or checked out in any way at all. If you answer "Electric blue" for your year of graduation and "2007" for your favorite color, the system could not care less. So when you go through the bullshit process of resetting a password months or years later, you're left shaking your computer monitor in a fit of rage yelling "I know when I graduated better than you, you stupid fucking robot!" To top that one off, some systems will actually make the security questions case-sensitive, meaning that you know have to think back to a year ago when you breezed through the entire process just so you could set up a one time payment for some online pornography, and wonder "Did I capitalize the H and S in high school? Did I put a space in between them or did I leave it as highschool? Why didn't I just answer 'Electric Blue' to every question?" I've seen sites that use case-sensitive security questions for passwords that don't require numbers or special characters. I've also seen sites that require you to pick a new set of security questions every few months, but never ask you to change the actual password. There's something very wrong about having a more secure system for the place where you enter your mother's maiden name than the one where you regularly enter a password. It defies logic to such a degree that I would not be surprised if it eventually caused our computers to rise up and enslave humanity, their compassionless Steven Hawking voices screaming "WHAT HOSPITAL WERE YOU BORN IN?" as they shove a rapidly spinning buzzsaw in your face before you can answer. (Saw blades are going to be the next big computer innovation, just wait till Apple listens to their customer complaints about how an iPhone can't be used as a survival tool.)

What bothers me most about security questions is what a complete waste of everyone's time they are. Once you've spent a half hour trying to recall every punctuation mark and use of the shift key and you finally get to reset your password, it's never right there in front of you. Instead you'll get sent an email with a link to reset your password. Meaning that after all that needless frustration the final step is going to be about a thousand times more secure than all of the security questions combined because you'll actually have to enter another password to get to it (presumably your email password is different than the one you forgot, otherwise you're screwed). Why not just cut out the middleman and have a single security question that reads "What is your email password?" When you get right down to it, anyone who's trying to hack into one of your online accounts but can't get past your security questions, isn't someone you need to worry about. It's like having a floodlight with a motion sensor as your home security system: Maybe it keeps the really stupid criminals out, but everyone else is just going to go around.

Why We Hate To Drive

The United States of America is made up of about 300 million citizens, around 70 million of which are registered car owners. The ability to drive is a privilege we grant to 16 year old girls, 100 year old men, and just about everyone else in between. The automobile is undoubtedly one of the most widely used and recognized inventions in Western culture, but despite the exhilaration of rapidly moving tons of metal, glass, and cheap vinyl seat covers down a pathway of suffocating tar that will outlast us all by generations, all fueled by the power of small, calculated explosions, we consider driving a chore. Sure it's great those first few years you're allowed to drive, but the main reason this excitement wears off quickly isn't due to lack of novelty or the amount of upkeep vehicles require. The real reason every American learns to hate driving is because we just can't stand those other 70 million American drivers.

Personally, I'm at an age where I still enjoy driving. Despite being strapped in to a rusting steel cage with the potential to explode at any second as I hurtle along at speeds which would easily kill me if my velocity were to suddenly change, something about driving just makes me feel free. Like a bird flying away from all of it's problems if that bird had the power to end itself and anything near it at a moment's notice. Unfortunately, this feeling of euphoria wears off after about 5 to 10 minutes when I inevitably encounter another driver who I assume must have a license, but who clearly has no idea how to properly operate a motor vehicle.

The problem with allowing teenagers and old people to drive is that unlike most other elements of our society, there are no special roads where we can place them so we can encounter them as little as possible. They're on the same roads as us, at the same times. They're those people going too slow when they're ahead of you, too fast when they're behind you, and merging lanes into your car from every other direction. But it's not just the under and overly experienced drivers who make the driving experience miserable for everyone, it is my opinion as a disgruntled citizen that nearly every single American fails at at least one facet of driving.

Poor Design
I'm going to start with this one because it's not about the drivers. Poor planning and design in road infrastructure is the kind of thing that pisses off all driver around the world. There's a joke in the book Good Omens, by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman that some highway in England is not just terribly designed, but actually a source of power for the Devil, designed to make anyone who drives on it hateful. I think there's some truth to this joke when applied to all roads and highways, because at their worst they make us hate each other, but the best they can ever be is a depressing, lifeless strip of pavement from one place to another. There's a reason absolutely everyone who drives hates road work and detours, and it's because we just want to get where we're going, swiftly and efficiently. On a related note, three way stops are a travesty to this very idea. I have never encountered a three way stop without wondering why it wasn't designed as a two way stop with one way still moving, or the other way around. It's not just three way stops and detours either, there are a number of just awful design flaws that litter our roads, as if there was no planning whatsoever before the pavement was laid down. I don't know if this is a cross country experience or just here in New England, but aerial shots of our city streets look like an especially messy game of pickup sticks.

Drive Throughs
As an American citizen, if I had to pick any single concept to sum up American culture and society, I would have to go with the "Drive Thru." Long before my time the Drive Through was the Drive In, a place where greasy ancient man would take his woman and his brightly painted boxy car to spend a lovely evening with both of them. It was an idea evocative of a different time in American history, a time when the world was still young and people did not yet have places to be. Now we have the Drive Through, a narrow strip of pavement with an awning where not a single party involved enjoys being.

Americans absolutely abuse the Drive Through. They are so widely used in our society that stores that don't already have a Drive Through should start converting their parking lots into queues to attract business. We not only have Drive Throughs at fast food places, but also at coffee shops, pharmacies, and wedding chapels in Las Vegas (not even kidding). Sit-in chain restaurants in America offer a service where they'll bring the food to your car if you'll just get the hell out. If there were Drive Through pet shops children across America would own a McPuppy (made from Grade D parts).

"What's the problem?" you may ask while reading this on your smart phone as you wait in a Drive Through for your food, "Drive Throughs are convenient." Are they really? What's convenient about waiting for 10 minutes for a few items off the dollar menu because the guy in front of you ordered $40 worth of fried food as his way of taking the family out. Inside the building they have a way of serving multiple people at the same time, not that they need to, all the customers are in the Drive Through line, waiting for the person in front of them to be served, not for their food to be ready. But anyway, the problem with Drive Throughs in general is twofold: it caters to laziness and leads to incompetence. I've had the unfortunate experience of working at multiple fast food restaurants, so when I say that Drive Throughs cater to laziness I mean it literally. If a customer at the counter and one in the Drive Through order the same sandwich and there's only one left, guess who gets it? Regardless of who ordered it first, the guy in the Drive Through gets it, because otherwise he's holding up the rest of the line. So the customer who took the time to park their car, turn it off so that it wouldn't continue wasting a widely used and rapidly dwindling resource, walk inside, and order their food through a face-to-face interaction with an employee can wait. When I say that Drive Throughs lead to incompetence, I mean that


Cops
What's more dangerous than going 10-20 mph over the speed limit? Having to watch out for police. Police arresting drunk drivers are ensuring public safety. Police issuing tickets for exceeding the speed limit but not driving recklessly, are generating funds. Obviously it's a different matter for reckless drivers who are actually endangering the people around them, but when I'm going 10-20 mph over the speed limit I'm no more of a threat to those around me than anyone going 10-20 mph under the speed limit. In fact, on the highway, a larger vehicle going the speed limit has the potential to do far more damage than my small car going slightly faster than the speed limit. Speed limits, seatbelt laws, laws restricting teenage driving, and many other traffic laws exist only because policy makers look at the average American citizen as a liability. These laws exist because they think we can't take care of ourselves without them. They think that if they take the training wheels off we'll hurt ourselves, so they've told the police to hold our hands instead of doing real police work like apprehending criminals. This mentality applies to everything in our society, it's the reason all our commercials have disclaimers saying "don't do this, and don't sue us when you do."

Turn Signals
Use them. Granted they're not always necessary, if you're in a left turn only lane and you don't have the blinker on it's probably not going to confuse the people around you. In some cases turn signals are more of a courtesy to other drivers than anything else. If I see you turn yours on properly I'll anticipate your slowing down for the turn. In some cases this will let me get around you easier because I know you're turning and not just stopping because you're an awful driver. On the highway though turn signals are pretty important. When a lot of vehicles are loosely packed into a small area, moving quickly, and all jockeying for position, knowing where the cars around you are headed is pretty useful information.

Your Massively Over-Sized Vehicle, You Ass
For some reason we still seem to like big cars in America. Everywhere I look the road is packed with monstrous SUVs and trucks, and I do mean everywhere I look because it's impossible to see around them. I don't really care about how inefficient these vehicles are in terms of fuel usage, it irks at me but it's the least of my concerns in the matter. My problem with these monster truck looking cars is that everyone driving one is boldly stating that they're willing to sacrifice the safety of everyone around them for the safety of those inside the vehicle. Trucks are functional by nature for the most part. Those driving them generally own them because they are transporting large quantities of whatever frequently, or that's the idea behind them at least. What sells SUVs though is not this same quality despite the name Sports Utility Vehicle. What sells SUVs is the idea that they are safer than regular sized cars.

Now to be fair, when crashed into regular cars SUVs generally come out on top, which technically makes them safer. It's safer for whoever's inside the SUV because their car is going to both deal and receive a whole lot more damage than regular sized cars. When you hear a news story about a car crashing through the wall of a building and the driver walking away from the crash with minor injuries it's because they were driving an SUV. This is not at all a good thing. Because SUV owners know they'll be better off in a crash, they tend to drive more recklessly than those in regular sized cars. A life-threatening crash for a regular sized car is just an expensive repair for an SUV, so SUV owners feel they can take more risks. Unfortunaetly for us car drivers, we are forced to let these gigantic assholes get away with cutting us off, blocking traffic, and swerving into our lanes. The only alternatives are to get a real shitty Volvo that you don't care about or join the club of douchebag SUV owners.

Speeding/Being Too Slow
I'm all for speeding, but you can't just go as fast as your car can everywhere you go, you're supposed to have some sort of judgement based on the situation. When you're doing 60 in a school zone, you make all of us look bad. Also there's a time and a place for obeying the speed limit, but the far left lane of any highway is never that place. That lane is for winners only.

Cellphones
Put. Your cellphone. Away. You don't need it right now. If your social or business life were that important you'd have a chauffeur, but you don't because you're just a regular person. You remember that whole thing about cops having to take care of you because you're too irresponsible to do it yourself? Well they have laws against texting while driving now, because people are actually that stupid.

Right On Red
The Right On Red is not just a great driving law, its arguably the greatest driving law. If for some reason you don't know what I'm talking about, Right On Red is the law that allows you to treat red lights like stop signs if you're making a right turn. Sadly, not everyone knows to take advantage of this awesome law, and so they sit at the light until it turns green, pissing off everyone behind them.

The Pittsburgh Left
When a red light turns green, anyone taking a left at the intersection is supposed to yield to traffic coming straight at them from the other direction. The Pittsburgh Left is when that asshole going left is just too impatient and cuts off the other lane of traffic. If a driver is lucky he can get away with the Pittsburgh Left with only a horn honking and shouted curses, if he's unlucky it's a crash in the middle of the intersection which at the very least holds up everyone nearby.

Littering
What, you have room for a thousand sticky pennies in your cupholder but not an empty cup? Also your car almost certainly has ashtrays.

Driving Like A Wimp
You don't need your highbeams on all the time. You don't need to go 10 mph below the speed limit because it's raining a little. Your car will not fall apart when you hit a bump or pothole. Turns can be taken at more than 5 mph (unless you're in an SUV, they roll over). Red lights mean stop, yellow does not.

Bumper Stickers
You know what makes being stuck in traffic even more unbearable? Having nothing to look at except the political beliefs of the person in front of you. Seriously, no one cares who you plan on voting for in this election, and anyone who might be influenced to vote similarly simply by seeing your bumper sticker should have their right to vote revoked. We also don't care about how well your kids are doing in school, what you brake for, whether you buy local groceries, (great job by the way, you're really saving the world by buying produce that doesn't have to be shipped around as much and then parading this fact around on the back of your gigantic SUV while you wait in line at McDonald's) or your ignorance about evolution.

Vanity Plates
They're like bumper stickers except there isn't enough room for you to even attempt to put anything original or intelligent. Vanity plates are almost exactly the same as the vapid things you can find on twitter; they're all desperate cries for attention to make the user feel slightly better about themselves for a moment, but really everyone just hates them and wishes they weren't following these self-absorbed assholes.

Learn To Yield
Yield: Verb used with objects; to give up or over; relinquish or resign
When you see a yield sign it means you are supposed to give up your right of way to any on-coming traffic. It doesn't mean "stop," it doesn't mean "ignore this sign and keep driving," it means "let the other guy go if there is one, but keep going if there isn't." When I'm driving down the highway and I'm in the right hand lane for whatever reason, it's not my job to get out of your way as you get off the on ramp. It's your job not to hit me. If that means waiting a bit extra, deal with it, I have the right of way. If you come to a yield sign and you see no on-coming traffic, keep it moving, there is no one else to give your right of way to. Learn it.

Inching Forward
Seriously people, where do you think you're going? That red light's not changing just because the front of your car's now hanging out into the intersection. I've been living in the city for almost a year now, and I'm still amazed at how many I see just inch forward into oncoming traffic until they can go. I've been forced to stop for people who's method of turning left onto a busy street is to pull forward until they're blocking both lanes of traffic and can go. The worst part is that everytime I see this I want to speed up and slam my car into them so that they'll maybe learn a lesson, but most of those people are in SUVs.

Drill, Faster, Drill!

One of my facebook ads right now is "Gas Prices Are Too Damn High," an organization dedicated to domestic drilling in order to reduce American dependency on foreign oil (and almost certainly to increase profits for American oil companies since someone is paying for the facebook ads) another is for buying a Prius, which is such a contradiction that I can't even get into it right now. What I do want to get into is the false dichotomy of gas prices and American drilling. Oil companies (and shady organizations like this who don't openly say who's funding them) want you to think that the solution to high American gas prices is to lower foreign dependency on oil. Your options, as they tell you, are to ravage our own territory by drilling everywhere there could potentially be oil, or continue to let gas prices rise. In reality though, no matter how much American oil we find, gas prices will ultimately rise since gasoline has to be refined from fossil fuels which take thousands of years to create in the first place. Since our rate of oil consumption is far greater than that of oil creation, more drilling can only hope to postpone the inevitability of our completely depleting supplies of fossil fuels.

While I'm a firm believer in delaying inevitable problems for as long as possible, the pragmatist in me just looks for ways in which these problems can be avoided entirely. In this situation the answer is pretty obvious: what if we didn't have to depend on fossil fuels, whether domestic or foreign? Wouldn't it be great if we could utilize some sort of renewable source of energy rather than draining one which is so outrageously slow to replenish? Wouldn't it be ironic if the very winds we build shelters against could power the heating systems used inside those walls? Wouldn't it be amazing if we could somehow store the energy produced by the sun so that we could use it in the most overwhelming darkness? We are able to do these things, and with little to no detriment to the environments we live in. In fact, the only people negatively impacted by the decreased use and supply of fossil fuels are those who profit from them.

If you were to walk in to any building which meets American structural standards, would you be able to identify their power source without inspection of their utilities? The heat and lighting in a room powered by solar, tidal, nuclear, or wind energy is no different from that powered by oil, the only people who would know the difference are the owners and those providing the power. At this point, most rational thinkers may ask "Well if there's no noticeable difference in the quality of output between mediums, and such a large difference in the availability, why would anyone seek to maintain a clearly unsustainable process?" The answer to this is incredibly simple: because while oil companies have almost no control over the availability of oil, they have even less over that of renewable energy sources.

Oil companies can't produce oil. They can't create oil in laboratories, and despite what they want us to think, they can't magically just find new sources of oil indefinitely. What they can do is drill absolutely everywhere in an effort to find oil. Of course, the chances of just finding a profitable source of oil from digging in a random location are incredibly slim, or else we wouldn't have any sort of energy crisis at all. As we continue to use oil as our primary source of energy without the option of creating any more, it becomes a much scarcer resource, and therefore harder for oil companies to find. This is exactly why gas prices continue to rise. We are currently drilling for oil more than ever, and have better methods of deciding where to drill, but consumer demand for oil continues to increase while our world's supply only decreases as we use it. Now I'm no business expert, but the kind of exclusivity created by these supply and demand factors allows the sellers to raise prices. Allowing for domestic drilling may well open a number of new sources of oil, temporarily decreasing gas prices, but ultimately we would deplete these sources as we have others, leaving others in the same positions we are in now but without the possibility of further procrastination. So for oil companies, the choices are cut profits by maintaining consistent prices regardless of supply and demand factors, hope to maintain profits by continuously raising prices as supply continues to drop while demand raises, postpone inevitable declines in revenue due to supply and demand factors by finding new sources and therefore temporarily maintaining a supply, or produce energy from renewable sources so that their supply can always meet the consumer demand.

Unfortunately, most oil companies have chosen the third option since it means maintaining profits for now. Some have chosen to invest in renewable energy in the hopes that they can somehow make it as profitable as oil has been, but it never will be because making raw petroleum into an energy source requires so much more specialization than it does to harness renewable sources. First, it has to be found. Unlike wind, water, and sun, oil isn't abundant and unused. The geologists and other specialists who are hired by oil companies to determine where best to dig have to be trained, as do the hundreds of people who operate the equipment used to drill and regulate the output of oil. On top of that, oil has to refined before we can use it "efficiently." This forces oil companies to set up places whose only purposes are to turn raw petroleum into products suitable to burn for energy. In comparison to these factors, transportation of petroleum or already refined products is almost as nonexistent as oil companies' ability to produce more oil. The reason this specialization actually works (at least temporarily) for these companies, is that they can keep the whole process out of the hands of their consumers.

Compared to supplying a household with energy from petroleum based sources, doing so with renewable sources is amazingly simpler. With just a small initial investment, most American businesses could outfit themselves with instruments meant to collect and convert renewable energy sources into usable and sustainable energy. Oil companies don't want to invest in renewable energy sources because even though they would be able to keep profiting after we've completely exhausted oil sources, the profits would be so much less than what they make now in the face of such a crisis. Instead they've chosen to act as if they can solve this problem through procrastination, calling on American consumers to support them in their complete lack of responsibility. The only way American citizens can change this approach to renewable energy sources is to make oil less profitable, and the only real way to do that is to lower the demand for it while some supply still exists. If we were all to stop buying oil and petroleum based products, the oil companies would have no choices but to find some other way to profit or just give up. The sad truth behind every oil company is that while they fuel us, we fuel them, and they're not going to break this cycle as long as they can profit from it.

Recycling PSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7g7Ou7vx-Y

For my final project I chose to make another public service announcement, though both the style and subject matter of this one are very different from the last. This PSA is about recycling which, as a more widely recognized and less life-threatening issue than pharmaceutical abuse, deserved an entirely different kind of commercial. I ended up using clips from various iconic movies and TV shows involving garbage in an attempt to create a lighthearted feeling of responsibility. Recycling is already an issue that many people care deeply about, so instead of trying to shock viewers with the realistically abysmal amount of things we waste every day, I decided to create more of a friendly reminder that recycling is something important that everyone can take part in.

The visuals used in this commercial are, with the exception of the Star Wars clips, all from comedies. It starts out with a brief scene from Futurama, an almost instantly recognizable show to many American viewers, in which the crew is on a giant pile of 20th century trash which was launched into space. Whether or not the viewer knows the original context of the clip, the basic concepts are all pretty much laid out: they're in space, on a pile of trash, and it's 20th century trash. Viewers who are familiar with Futurama might take away more meaning from this clip than nonviewers, though, because they would know that the show is set in the year 3000, and in that context, when Fry calls the trash a “glorious monument,” it's not much of a metaphor. They might immediately take away the implied meaning that our trash will be here long after we are gone, but for those who are not viewers of Futurama, many of the other visuals used also include this meaning in some sense.

As well as being mostly comedy, most of the video clips I used were also set in the future. The most obvious examples of this are the Futurama and Star Wars scenes, but the garbage avalanche scenes are from the movie Idiocracy, in which the solution to waste management continued to be dumping for another 500 years. Even the Simpsons clip at the end has a futuristic feel to it since the waste depicted is a bright green river of nuclear waste through which Radioactive Man floats in a Flash-looking costume. The only exception to this theme is the clip from 30 Rock, which is set in the present, although Tina Fey's cry of “Mortality!” as plastic bags are blown into a tree can be seen as a less explicit version of the idea expressed by the first clip's memorial comment: our trash will outlive us.

I chose to use mostly future oriented clips because recycling and waste management aren't really the kinds of issues that can be once-and-for-all resolved. Even if we managed to reduce our waste as much as possible, we would have to continue doing so in the future also, or the same problems will continue to arise. By using future oriented visuals of trash this idea that there is no quick fix is very subtlety implied, and the feeling of responsibility is also included through the idea of working towards a better future.

Besides being mostly future oriented comedy, most of the clips used in this commercial are also easily recognized. The original Star Wars Trilogy is of course, one of the most widely known series of movies ever created, and the white Storm Trooper armor seen in the clips used is immediately evocative of the trilogy even to those who wouldn’t recognize Luke, Hans, and Leia. Both the Futurama and Simpsons visuals are easily recognizable due to their well-known animation styles, the Simpsons especially since they’ve been a part of pop culture for almost a quarter of a century. By using iconic visuals viewers should be able to identify more easily with the scenes shown, even though they are fictional and set in the distant future.

Earlier I mentioned that the attempted tone of the commercial was one of “lighthearted responsibility,” which may sound like an oxymoron, but is certainly the easiest kind of responsibility to bear. The entire reason satire exists is to bring attention to important subject manner in a non-threatening way. As Freud so dryly puts it in his Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious,
“If [any] speech is given such a marked appearance of logic which, on careful examination, is recognizable as being only an appearance, the truth behind it is that the joke declares the [speaker] to be in the right; the thought does not venture to do so seriously... It is only this employment of sophistry for the disguised representation of truth that gives it the character of a joke.” (128)

In other words, we recognize satire as humor because it appeals to our ideas of what is right by asserting the opposite. For already widely known subjects like recycling, comedy can be an especially useful tool in reinforcing basic ideas to which the viewer has already been repeatedly exposed.

While comedy can be helpful in making responsibility easier to bear, it can also have the drawback of being easily dismissible after the initial thought has passed. To make up for this, I reinforced the idea of responsibility through the Radiohead song, “Just.” This song's chorus repeats the phrase “you do it to yourself,” which may be a little harsh since many people are trying, but we could all be doing more and this song makes the commercial as a whole emphasize individual effort. When combined with the future oriented visuals, the overall effect should be to foster a feeling of worthwhile responsibility.

Of course, just about every individual piece used to create the commercial has to be taken out of its original context to be given the pro-recycling meaning. The exception to this might be the Futurama clips, since they were from an episode criticizing 20th century waste management procedures. The Star Wars movies were not about recycling, and a (entirely hypothetical) case could be made against recycling if one were to assume that the Death Star was only built with a trash compactor because of their own inefficient recycling program. The garbage avalanche clips from Idiocracy are only slightly out of context because the movie asserts the mountains of trash as more of a policy (or lack thereof) problem than one of individual effort. The episode of “30 Rock” from which the trash bag clip came isn't our trash outliving us, but about the futility of trying to remain in control of a world dominated by chaos. Of course the song used almost certainly wasn't about recycling, though it can be interpreted any number of ways. In each of these cases I have assigned new meaning to these pieces of the commercial by placing them in different contexts than they were created under.



Works Cited

“A Big Piece of Garbage.” Futurama. Twentieth Century Fox. 11 May, 1999. Television.

“Everything Sunny All the Time Always.” 30 Rock. NBC. 28 April, 2011. Television.

Freud, Sigmund. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1960. Print.

Judge, Mike, dir. Idiocracy. Twentieth Century Fox, 2006. Film

Lucas, George, dir. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Twentieth Century Fox, 1977. Film.

“Radioactive Man.” The Simpsons. Twentieth Century Fox. 24 September, 1994. Television.

Ask Your Doctor About You PSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgw892-ZwBA

For my visual rhetoric creative midterm project I have chosen to make a public service announcement urging people to have actual conversations with their doctors instead of simply asking for a drug they've seen advertised on TV. The only visual components I chose to use for this PSA were attention grabbing red slides with thick black text for high contrast and easy reading. I considered using still images in addition to the text, but decided that this might distract the viewer from the real highlights of the commercial which are the text and the sound. There are a total of 14 different slides, though most of them are only 1 word different than the ones before and after. I chose to set up the visual portion like this mostly because I feel that this simplistic method of conveying my message compliments what is itself a simple message (Ask your doctor about you), but also because this is my first time using any movie editing software and this method resembled an advanced powerpoint type format. Every audio clip featured in this video is direct from a U.S. Pharmaceutical commercial which has been broadcast on TV in the past 10 years, and it was a simple process to add these sounds to the still images I had created.

While setting up the visual component was easy, designing it was a little more difficult. To begin, I watched about an hour of pharmaceutical commercials online to establish some things they had in common. I ended up finding 4 common themes* that exist in almost all of them, and a fifth which is in most of the ads of a particular type (possible fatalities appear in a large number of pharmaceuticals designed to alleviate symptoms of psychological disorders), but due to time constraints I only sampled clips regarding 3 themes: talking to your doctor, side effects, and possible fatalities. The two that I did not use were an establishment of symptoms (many of which could be caused by a wide range of disorders) and product superiority (ie “#1 doctor recommended,” “the only prescription which treats/proven to treat...” etc). I didn't use these common pharmaceutical advertisement themes due to time constraints with my own commercial, but also because of the five I established, they are the only ones which are designed by the pharmaceutical companies to sell the product, while the others are what they absolutely need to say.

First of all, since what I have focused on in this commercial is prescription drugs rather than over-the-counter or illegal drugs, I have chosen to rely rather heavily on the morality of doctors in general. The argument may be made that pharmaceutical lobbying in not just government but in healthcare practices and doctors' offices is the real problem, since they are paid to hand out prescriptions for certain drugs and not others, but that's certainly not an issue I have the power to affect through rhetoric. Instead, I am assuming that all doctors faithfully uphold the Hippocratic Oath, and that the burden is therefore on the American public to seek, at the very least, a basic understanding of their own medical conditions. That is why the first focus of my commercial is on the common theme of “ask your doctor.”

To legally obtain prescription drugs, you must go through your doctor. This is why pharmaceutical companies lobby in healthcare practices and tell you to talk to your doctor about their product. They list a long list of symptoms and a product which they say will alleviate them, and ask you to do the work of bringing these subjects up to your doctor, and the bribe the doctors to recommend their brand because it would be a shame to do all that work and lose the money to a generic brand. All of this, though, starts with the viewer, whose unprofessional diagnosis already comes with a cure in mind. By asking my own viewers to talk to a doctor about themselves, I hope to shift doctor-patient conversations from patient demands towards doctors' recommendations. Again, this places a strong emphasis on the individuals involved in the doctor-patient relationship; it is not meant to change how direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising operates, but how we respond to it individually.

The second focus of my commercial is “side effects.” This is a part of pharmaceutical advertising which they are legally required to include in their commercials, and it's always the part they want to finish quickly. This portion of their commercials is best known for rushing through a list of everything from headaches to internal bleeding, and doing it all in a cheery voice while images of puppies and happy couples flash by. My commercial does just the opposite; there are no happy images but there are also no horrible side effects. The idea here is that having an actual conversation with your doctor may not bring you that puppy, beautiful wife, or perfect lawn, but it could bring you piece of mind. In both the first and second portions of my commercial, the audio tracks are meant to remind the audience of the prevalence of pharmaceutical advertisements by placing the soothing voices out of context.

The third part of my commercial is the most serious one. This uses a statistic which I gained from a Fox News story, but which they gained from the CDC. Fox goes on to say that there are more annual deaths from prescription drugs than from heroin and cocaine use combined in the U.S. And that the prescription drug overdose rate is four times higher than it was a decade ago (Fox News). The message on the two slides used in this portion is clear: thousands of people die every year from prescription drugs but no one dies from having a straightforward conversation with their doctor. These slides and the final one are accompanied by seven audio segments from real pharmaceutical commercials explaining that their product may lead directly to the user's death through heart attack, stroke, coma, or suicide.

The final slide shown is a repetition of the overall message of the commercial. The possible fatality audio plays through this slide to reinforce the necessity of the message. What viewers should understand from this commercial is that prescription drugs are dangerous and should not be taken unless absolutely necessary as dictated by a doctor with a full understanding of the patient's condition.

* As an interesting side note, I found that many non-prescription pharmaceuticals were fond of boasting about how many doses they required to be effective. This was mostly in terms of “1 a day” “half as many as the leading brand” “lasts twice as long as the leading brand” and so on.


Sources:

“Abilify for Depression Ad.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsqJju3ePJU

“Celebrex Ad.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GvYI4VdVEI

“Cymbalta TV Ad (2005)” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JkKzVKnR7w

“Detrol LA.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVF2ek95Ltw

Fox News. “Surge in Accidental Prescription Drug Deaths. ”http://video.foxnews.com/v/1253221053001/surge-in-accidental-prescription-drug-deaths/

“Lunesta You Can't Stop Thinking? Suicide By Butterflies! (American Commercial FAIL)” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRUVkZ7DKlc

“Prozac TV Ad – Let the Sun Shine In.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p5NzaRcAgY

“Real Valtrex Commercial.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iLTfG75s6g

“Restasis Ad (2009)” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUIyE_q7SAo

Words Are More Than Just Ideas

As I write this, I have just finished unpacking a collection of books left behind by my grandparents from their passing earlier this year. Despite the generational gap between us, much of what I found myself placing on bookshelves were things I have read before. Classic works of fiction such as Treasure Island, 20,000 Leagues, a collection of Sherlock Holmes stories, Frankenstein, and The Wind in the Willows, greeted me as old friends, as did the poetry of Robert Frost and Longfellow. While I already have digital copies of most of these on my Nook, I found that holding the old, printed copies was evocative of a whole different set of emotions and memories than those gained through simply reading the stories themselves.

For a great deal of human history, the written word has been the only way to be sure that your words would be heard by future generations. We may credit an unknown man named Homer for the creation of some of the greatest and most renowned stories ever told, but most historians agree that each bard would tell the stories differently, while keeping only the major points the same. One can only imagine how many stories and oral traditions have been forgotten over the ages simply because they were not written down. While we may never know who the man William Shakespeare was, or even if he was the definitive author of all the works attributed to him, the words he wrote have been copied, reprinted, read, and even re-imagined by countless people. While we may consider the availability of such well-known texts trivial, many societies, both historical and modern day, have used censorship to deny writings to their people.

I consider myself a fairly modern person; I grew up in a house filled with computers, (both working and in pieces) I was born into a world where we can communicate and share information with each other effortlessly, and I dream of a day when mankind can do the same on other worlds. I believe that the ease with which we can share and access information is one of the defining aspects of my generation, and that such availability, if properly used, is beneficial to all those involved. Seldom do I enjoy looking back at our own history, content instead to keep looking forward, but as I flipped through their delicate pages, I could not help but wonder at the history contained in the books themselves.

By far the oldest of all the books I recently unpacked was the collection of Longfellow poems, which was printed in Cambridge in 1882. It was an odd feeling to hold in one hand a thing which was created more than a century before my own birth, odder still to imagine how many people had held the very same book. How many had been touched by the words, or even just the illustrations within, and how many of them carried this influence with them to share with others? When was it first read with the assistance of an electric light? When was it first transported by an automobile? Even sitting on a shelf in a single room for all that time, how many memories long ago forgotten might it have seen? I can't speak for the book's history any more than it can, but I do know that simply by being there it has more history than any digital copy ever could. While I love my Nook for allowing me to carry an entire library around with me wherever I go, I seriously doubt that one day my grandchildren will also gaze at its screen.

I often find it hard to imagine a world without the technology that we take for granted every day. As I said, I look forward to the future; I prefer to imagine a further evolutions and applications of the things we are just beginning to understand now. At the same time though, it scares me to think that one day, not long from now, there will come a time when all books are considered relics such as the Longfellow now sitting on a shelf in my room. Will our own histories be typed, written, or simply forgotten? Might a future society look at the practice of printing words on paper as we look at hieroglyphs on stone tablets: not just obsolete, but barbaric? What will we leave behind for them to remember us by?

If these words are found years, decades, or even centuries from now, may they be in some way physical and not just pixels on a screen.

R.I.P. Charles and Anne Reid

Rape Continues to Plague the Congo

This is an article I wrote for the Torch, published March 25, 2010.

For over ten years a war has raged in the Democratic Republic of Congo, affecting the lives of everyone in the area. The Congolese army, militias comprised of disgruntled citizens, and groups of foreign-backed rebels, some of which fled to the Congo after participating in the 1994 Rwandan genocides, are all attempting to control mining areas in the eastern Congo where they hope to unearth gold, copper, tin, tungsten, and coltan, all minerals used in electronic devices. Despite the high body count in this seemingly endless conflict, those in the greatest danger are the Congolese women, who are constantly raped and brutalized by soldiers on every side of this war.

Whenever one of the armed groups enters a village in the Congo, they terrorize the community by raping the women and killing anyone who speaks out against this. In 2008, the UN estimated that over 200,000 women had been raped in the Congo since the conflict’s start. The majority of the “women” raped were between the ages of 12 and 14 years old. Dr. Denis Mukwege, the director of Panzi Hospital in the eastern Congo, says that he treated literally thousands of rape victims over the past 10 years, the oldest of which was 75, the youngest a startling 3 years old.

In the Congo, rape has very little to do with personal pleasure or even boredom. In this conflict rape has replaced looting as a means of traumatizing entire communities, causing families to break apart and move elsewhere. It is a psychological weapon so effective that few dare to fight back or hold their ground. Some communities are so terrorized by the groups committing these heinous acts that they are forced to provide for their oppressors; offering whatever is available to make them leave. Many women are killed, abducted, or brutalized and sent back to convey a message of terror after being raped.

On March 9, in celebration of International Women’s Day, the Office of Community Service and Partnerships on campus organized a viewing of director Lisa F. Jackson’s documentary “The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo.” This winner of the Sundance Film Festival’s Special Jury Prize is an incredibly powerful piece, giving a detailed look into the lives of survivors of rape. It was filmed in 2007 on location in the Congo, with the support of UN peacekeeping troops and contains interviews with not only rape survivors but also UN officials, Congolese troops, local authorities in the Congo, and even some of those committing the rapes. The movie describes the war in the Congo so vividly that it is impossible to not try to end the conflict after viewing it.

In 2005, about 17,000 UN troops were deployed to the Congo, bringing with them a temporary peace and the first democratic election to be held in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 40 years. The United Nation’s ultimate goal is to end the fighting between all parties in the Congo, ushering in a permanent peace and settling disputes regarding mining rights. In July of 2008 the UN succeeded in mediating a ceasefire between leaders of some of the rebel forces and the newly elected Congolese leaders. This ceasefire was far from an end to the war, however, lasting less than a year before conflict once again surged.

While the fighting continues, the UN hopes to bring the Congolese people some sense of security by regulating the Congolese army, who until recently had been participating in the rape as much as forces they fought against. In 2006, Congo’s parliament passed laws criminalizing rape and initializing a “zero-tolerance” campaign for all forces involved in the war. Despite the efforts of both the Congolese government and the UN, which maintains its largest peacekeeping force in Congo, reports of rape continue to pour in on a daily basis and the death toll of this ongoing war is estimated to be about 5 and a half million.

Since the UN’s peacekeeping efforts are failing, other methods of undermining this war are in effect. In 2008 the Congolese government with the support of the German government launched an effort to map coltan mines and create a unique chemical mark on the legitimate mines. Similar to the Kimberley Process, which allows consumers to purchase conflict-free diamonds, this technique will eventually allow governments and corporations to track the coltan that is illegally exported from the Congo. Currently companies that produce electronics face a lot of criticism for purchasing minerals that finance the war in the Congo, but as long as they continue to make a profit they will continue using these conflict minerals.

As a consumer, you can make a difference by sending a message to these companies telling them that you refuse to buy from them unless they develop conflict-free versions of their products. Electronics companies such as Motorola, Apple, Microsoft, HP, Samsung, Dell, Nintendo, IBM, Cannon, LG, Samsung, Blackberry, and Toshiba all use conflict minerals in their electronics and will continue to do so as long as they can make a profit selling them to customers who don’t know any better or just don’t care. Through the basic laws of supply and demand, which determine the availability of all consumer goods, we can influence the products which appear in our market. In this case, demanding electronics made with conflict-free materials not only benefits women and civilians in the Congo, but also forces these companies to act in an ethically superior manner by considering the lives of others before their own profits.

Until these corporations decide to take responsibility for the harm their products cause there are other ways we can make conflict less profitable for them. Increase awareness of the situation in the Congo. Too many people are entirely ignorant of the suffering their electronics cause daily. Recycle your electronics. Many of the components found in our computers, cell phones, IPods, and TVs can be reused to make new electronic products. Recycling your electronics when you no longer need them or they break is the socially, economically, and environmentally responsible thing to do.

For more information on the war in the Congo and what you can do to stop it, visit raisehopeforcongo.org. To view UMASS Dartmouth’s copy of “The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo,” ask about it at the Women’s Resource Center. It is also important to tell your senators and representatives that you support legislation requiring corporations to manufacture conflict-free electronics.