3.7.01
Right Wings Get Clipped
-- OR --
The Shackles of Political-correctness
From bummed cigarettes to crabs, it's tough to take things back. And once something's been immortalized in print, it's damn near impossible. Just ask The Daily Californian. Ever since the UC Berkeley-student-run newspaper published a controversial ad, its editors have been in a state of retraction that would turn Cat Stevens's head.

"Yesterday's edition of The Daily Californian managed to anger more readers than anything the newspaper has printed in years," wrote editor-in-chief, Daniel Hernandez, in the 3/1 edition of The Daily Cal, his proverbial tail tucked between his legs. What's caused all the commotion? Well, the paper printed an ad placed by David Horowitz, editor-in-chief of FrontPage Magazine, the anti-leftist component publication of The Center for the Study of Popular Culture. Entitled, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea-and Racist Too," the full-page ad has been placed in several college newspapers, according to the FrontPage site, and has led to a public outcry against the Daily Cal ad run.

It's no wonder, considering the ad's inflammatory content, which expounds on such points as, "The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination" and "What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?".

Representatives of the local black community have "demanded some form of response from the newspaper, saying that the ad was inaccurate and racist," as noted in The Daily Cal's backwards-bending printed apology. Essentially, the entire Senior Editorial Board has taken the heat, blaming the incident on a "terribly consequential series of missteps and miscommunications." Coincidentally, anonymous Lowbrow Lowdown sources reveal that Procter & Gamble said the same thing about naming its new teen site "Toejam.com."

In his effort to point out that "student editors have almost no contact with anything 'from the ads side,' " Hernandez explains patronizingly, "Editorial content is anything that is originally produced or edited by the student staff. Ad content is anything that a group or individual pays to have placed in the newspaper." Man, the fact that he felt the need to spell this out is depressing. However, in a world where the average American gets his current events news from Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update, and talk show hosts recommend viewing the film, Traffic as an ideal way to research the U.S. war on drugs, it's not surprising.

Hernandez goes on to write something startling: "Some may subscribe to the First Amendment in defending yesterday's ad, but, in my view at least, freedom of speech is compromised when it is bought….And buying space to preach a viewpoint is unfair in that it does not allow an opposing view to directly answer. This is why opinion pages exist."

That's a convenient argument, yet it lacks spine. The application of this "opposing viewpoint" requirement to all advertising in the paper would be infeasible. Hernandez also fails to acknowledge that countless media outlets regularly sell ad space to organizations who are willing to pay to get their messages across to a public audience. Hey, just last month, a national network called Responsible Wealth placed a quarter page ad in the New York Times in support of the Estate Tax (download ad pdf).

Of course all media organizations have the prerogative to employ guidelines in determining the ads they run. And sure, perhaps this sort of commentary is better suited for the editorial page. That's not the point, though. The point is that this newspaper, in its denunciation of the fact that it ran the ad, has acknowledged its own discrimination against certain perspectives, particularly perspectives that aren't politically correct. Ya gotta wonder whether an ad supporting slavery-reparations placed by the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America would have garnered the same response from the editorial staff of The Daily Cal.

I guess the ad-reaction strikes me as hypocritical. I mean, just recently The Daily Cal called Tiffany's comeback college tour opener at UC Berkeley "a crowd-pleasing performance." Now, if that's not an offensive statement that justifies a counter argument, I don't know what is.

Autoerotic Admonition
-- OR --
Contest Kiss-off
Call it "havin' a snog," or "suckin' face," or "tongue-lashing": by any name there's nothin' like a good smoochin' session. Either way, it's a damn pleasant way to pass the time, boost the ol' metabolism and dislodge some dental work. Some folks, however, ain't too keen on witnessing the age-old expression of lust.

That's why, when the Rev. Sebastian Campbell heard about the kiss-a-thon promoted by Bahamas' radio and TV station, ZNS, he knew that mere cries of "Get a room!" would not do. So, he was determined to put an end to the icky lip-smacking.

As featured in the 2/27 Yahoo! News story, the kiss-a-thon was "contested by several dozen newlyweds who hoped to win a car." The good rev admonished the dirty saliva-swappers by commenting that the promotion "has dehumanized our young married couples, reducing them to slaves for material gain at any cost, belittling them to slurpers and dribblers.''

So, what does he want the naughty nibblers to do now that the contest is over? According to the 2/26 Nassau Guardian report, Campbell believes, "ZNS and its allies for this event…have failed the Bahamian public and should apologize."

It's too bad Campbell's campaign against the lung-testing tussle lacked the marketing power that the broadcast station had on its side. As reported by the Guardian, ZNS attracted "thousands in attendance at the Mall for the kissing contest." Campbell lamented the turnout by asserting, "It does not speak highly of 'the mental capacity of our people.' " I dunno, rev, if their brains are in their pants, it sure does.

The uptight Anglican went on to opine that "Kissing…when stripped to its lowest denominator is a sexual act of intimacy, falling just short of the most intense and deepest form of intimacy, we term 'love making'." Tell me about it. I almost got pregnant once by licking a frozen lamppost.

Protest-Lite
-- OR --
Revolutionary Pick-up Line
Just say no…Friends don't let friends drive drunk…You'll shoot yer eye out…Real men don't use porn: these recognizable words of warning have become integrated into the American lexicon. The thing is, sometimes these directives only serve to promote the very things they aim to stop.

Jonah Peretti could tell ya all about it. While perusing Nike's website one day, the 27-year-old grad student got to feelin' political. He decided he'd use the shoemaker's new sneaker-personalization offering, Nike iD, to "make a statement on what he describes as the company's poor labor practices," as reported in a 2/28 Wall Street Journal piece (Nike Gets Traction from Sweatshop Spat by Kathy Chen). That's right. He requested that his customized shoes be stamped with the word "sweatshop."

"Just Screw Yourself," replied Nike reps, albeit much more diplomatically. "According to the e-mail exchanges between Mr. Peretti and Nike, which Nike has verified…. Nike replied that his request contained "inappropriate slang." Well, Peretti wasn't gonna sit back and swallow that sneaker spin. He was gonna take some serious action! So, he sent some emails.

Although his tale, which "has been spread by e-mail around the world," has provided more anti-footwear fodder, it's also pumped-up interest in Nike's iD product. As featured in the Journal coverage, the company's director of global-issues management, Vada Manager, affirms, "Certainly, this has been a more effective marketing campaign than we could have launched on our own." Apparently, email inquiries about the iD item "doubled last week [2/18-2/24] after rising 500% the week before." Manager claims that one-third of the letters expressed interest in ordering the shoes, while the remainder contained "angry comments" or "were from people curious about the dispute with Mr. Peretti."

According to the story, Peretti "hasn't been an active participant" in the "antisweatshop movement" (although unnamed Lowbrow Lowdown sources assure us that he plays one at parties 'cause the Women's Studies undergrad girlies dig it). This begs the question, what was the part-time protester doing on the Nike website in the first place? Surely he wasn't interested in their kick-ass Web graphics and wide array of poverty-promoting product, was he?

In the end, Nike declined Peretti's "sweatshop" request simply because it wasn't interested in defaming its brand name. The labor-sympathizer says, "I knew Nike wouldn't give me the shoes…I ordered them as a challenge to Nike." Peretti continues, "Now I'm sort of in a weird position….Whatever shoes I buy will be a huge political statement." Hmmm…it seems as though Peretti's invented a new form of non-violent protest: the shoe-in.

Kid Pro Quo
-- OR --
Thy Budget Bubbleth Over
A wrinkled layer of aluminum foil was ravaged to reveal a layer of sopping paper towel. Nestled within this makeshift refrigeration system was the primo accompaniment to any field trip lunchtime feast. Yes, it was a can of root-beer, and yes, it was kinda-still cold. Most likely, simple school day pleasures such as these would get the ol' eye-roll of sarcasm from today's ultra-cool youth. After all, for most of 'em, an ice-cold can of sugary sody is just a walk down the corridor and 75 cents away.

Yep…these days, school hallways and cafeterias are alight with the unearthly glow of beverage and snack food vending machines, and in exchange, public school budgets are awash in much-needed, but much-contested cash. "Through contracts with soft drink companies and other vendors, some schools are raising as much as $100,000 a year," reports a 2/26 Washington Post article focusing on Maryland's public schools.

We're talkin' serious quid here, folks. As of last year, $1.75 million guarantees that while in school, Charles County kids have access to Coca-Cola brands alone, for a ten year span. In another 10-year agreement, "Pepsi agreed to pay Montgomery Blair a one-time $100,000 fee in March 1998, along with a minimum $55,000 annual commission, $1,450 annually in promotional materials for the school, five athletic scoreboards and other athletic supplies." Apparently, the real thing is never too far off, with about 30 vending machines placed strategically around the school's premises. Contract stipulations like these could lead anybody who's against the sale of her child's brain-space to consider home schooling, or at least negotiate for a few free cases in exchange for chaperoning that lame class outing to the wax museum.

Despite the dollar draw, not everybody is bubbling with enthusiasm over these carbonated contracts. "Maryland state Sen. Paul G. Pinsky…is sponsoring legislation that would require most soda and snack vending machines to be turned off during the school day." Also, in Maryland and other states, parent- and student-activists are fightin' the pop-power. Besides the ad-factor, many opponents of these agreements believe that public schools should not be in the business of promoting nutritionally-lacking, obesity-enabling snacks and sodas. Just recently, the U.S. Agriculture Department delivered a report to Congress recommending "that all snacks sold in schools meet the federal government's nutritional standards." Anonymous Lowbrow Lowdown sources reveal that the Agriculture Department has also recommended the introduction of hog-tying and line-dancing as a gym electives.

Being the product of private schools, maybe I'm not the best judge of what public schools should do to balance budget considerations with student welfare. However, I'd opine that the answer here lies in moderation. Surely there are contracts that can enable schools to bulk up their budgets without totally sacrificing the integrity of the school environment or educational experience. The moderation thang applies to the students themselves, too. A few sodas a week ain't gonna kill anybody, but the unfortunate reality is that most kids nowadays have grown up slurpin' sugar-laden l'il hugs and artificially-enhanced juice drinks. By now, they're so immune to refined sweets that a bowl of Cocoa Puffs requires a hefty dousing of sugar before it's gobble-worthy. And anyway, if high school aged kids are old enough to flip burgers, drive jalopies and watch blood, guts and naked breasts on the big screen, they're certainly old enough to determine what goes into their mouths.

Just think: These soda sponsorships could be the solution to the contentious school voucher debate! Rather than busting the church/state barrier by subsidizing private and parochial education with government funds, Coke and Pepsi could sponsor individual students. In fact, we should allow all advertisers to bid on the kids! Now that's what I call quality adver-cation.

Banking on the Blank Generation
-- OR --
Cell Phone Subbacultcha
Any package designer worth his blueprints knows that the right outward appearance is everything. However, can a strategically-styled surface always solicit the attention of its target market, regardless of what lies beneath?

Nokia appears to be testing that "looks is everything" theory through its latest line of Xpress-on phone covers. In a blatant attempt at attracting the goth/punk crowd, the cell-skins, designed for use with the Nokia 3310 handset, are adorned in black-on-white "gothic swirls and runic symbols," according to the March issue of MOJO (The Only Way To Be). The magazine is holding a drawing to give away three of the riot-gear accessories.

"With choice of ringing tone and a personalised screen saver, the Nokia 3310 is cutting-edge technology whether you want to start an anarchist rebellion or just phone your friend and say, 'I'm on the bus,' " touts the cheekily-scripted music pub.

Let's just say that, in my experience, in the underground rock 'n' roll/punk/mod scene that exists in New York City today, cell phone=sell out. At the heart of this cell-shun is not necessarily an aversion for technology as much as it is an inherent skepticism of all symbols of wealth or success. Actually, to put it bluntly, if you appear to have a job, and it's not in a record store or an organic restaurant, good luck winning respect from the basement brigade.

I get a real kick outta Nokia's pre-packaged rebellion, though. It's almost so NOT punk that it is, ya know? Hey, it's not too far off the mark when you consider the fact that probably the best known punk band ever, The Sex Pistols, practically had their whole look (torn shirts, safety pins and all) shrink-wrapped, and sent directly to them from NYC's CBGB scene via their manager, Malcolm McLaren. The irony's gotta make you chuckle. Think about it: it seems as though ever since the early days of Christianity, people have taken great pains to prove their anti-pop-culture prowess by flocking to gain acceptance within one underground crowd or another. Essentially, it seems the only way most folks know to express individuality and independence is by modeling themselves after others. Hey, how else could contrived pariahs like James Dean, Marilyn Manson and Pee Wee Herman become such widely-idolized icons?

In the end, there's a good chance that this punk-ploy could win Nokia some sales and possible brand loyalty among a niche audience. The thing is, somethin' tells me that NYC's squatting gutter punks won't be rushing to pick up a new Nokia 3310 any time soon. Then again, most of 'em are just poseurs from the 'burbs anyway. Hmmm...with a punk rock cell phone, li'l Dylan can maintain his anti-authority shtick even while telling Mom and Dad to meet him outside Starbucks on their way back from seeing their lamo Broadway musical. Awww...