Blogging Promiscuity

When it comes to blogging, I am not afraid to say that I’ve been around the block a few times. In my time in the blogosphere, I have tried no fewer than four different blogging sites to establish myself. From my first feeble attempts at Xanga to my best and most formal intentions on WordPress, I have explored the major blogging communities in search of what network suits me best. In a story much like Goldilocks and her famed run in with the three bears, my blogosphere explorations have taken me through many extremes to find a home here on Blogger, which is, in my opinion, the most accessible and functional of the major blogging outlets.

My first brush with blogging came in my freshman year of high school. As we were all transitioning from being carefree big kids to self-aware and angsty teenagers, the trend of Xanga came into vogue. Xanga, the predecessor of Facebook and Twitter and all the other social networking sites that high schoolers and even middle schoolers are hooked into, was essentially just an online diary. Amongst my friends, our usernames were mostly Dashboard Confessional or Something Corporate song lyrics and the content of our posts were highly dramatic and personal; this was blogging before we fully understood that the world could see everything we were writing, so we were uninhibited. And in the contest to gain followers and e-props, no personal stories or embarrassing moments were safe from being exposed on Xanga. Many a catfight was had via those comment boxes, long before anti-someone Facebook groups and poking sprees were even a twinkly in Mark Zuckerberg’s eye. Alas, as with many of the trends of early high school, Xanga was simply a flash in the pan. Gone from our lives as quickly as it came, like MySpace I abandoned my Xanga and the self-indulgent, angst-ridden posting that came with it. My Xanga is still floating out in cyberspace somewhere, a relic of my first embarrassing attempt at blogging.

I did not re-enter the blogosphere for another five years. During my sophomore year of college, when I realized that I wanted writing to be a part of my life and hopefully my career, I decided to relaunch my blog persona. Long gone were the days of posting winter formal dramas and cafeteria hijinx—this time I was determined to start a serious, hard-hitting blog that would express my sophisticated views on music, politics, and literature. I wanted a blog format that would reflect this very grown up approach, and after researching the options in front of me I made the educated choice of WordPress. WordPress seemed to be the most refined of the options; it is a no-frills blogging site for adults who want to discuss their high-minded opinions and philosophies in Helvetica. I created my blog one lazy spring afternoon and spent the rest of the evening writing a post entitled “My Rules for Living;” clearly this blog was serious business, and no frivolity like what I had posted on my Xanga half a decade ago (“What a child I was!” I thought to myself) would suffice. Thoroughly satisfied with my beginning, I published the post. However, I had written myself a bit of a manifest that set a very lofty tone for my site. How could I follow up a post that purported to outline my outlook on life? I got too trigger-shy about to what to post next, intimidating myself out of ever posting again. Looking stupid on a WordPress seemed about the most humiliating thing I could do—not because I feared the community of bloggers it attracted, as they all seem like lovely people, but because the seriousness and sophistication of its atmosphere made me too scared to say something idiotic. And so, as I abandoned the Xanga, I left my WordPress blog to wash away into the annals of cyberspace.

Wanting to try again in a more informal setting, at the suggestion of a friend of mine from high school I signed up for a Tumblr. I pared down my Rules for Living, renamed them something much less manifesto sounding, and recycled it as my first post. Then, I started “Tumbling.” Now, the Tumblr community can be a little scary. In a completely different way than WordPress it is highly intimidating; rather than maintaining an air of superiority discourages stupidity and sometimes even posting, Tumblr is a haven for the passionately and illogically obsessed. The community of the “Tumblr famous” is dominated by high school students with an inexplicable amount of time to devote to curating blogs devoted to anything from a literary movement to a single TV show coupling. At any given time my dashboard could be covered with trolls arguing over the latest Glee relationship, the wedding of William and Kate, the religious undertones of Harry Potter, and just about any divisive or cult-inducing topic you could think of. The majority of the posts are reblogged photos, videos, and short quotes rather than thoughtful and original text-driven entries, but when people do create something of their own (a song, a short story, a photo edit) they protect it rabidly and troll after anyone who steals it without credit; in a twisted way that exists amidst torrent links and megaupload files, Tumblr may be the last place that rightful authorship is protected by the masses.

Unlike my Xanga and my WordPress, I still use my Tumblr. As bizarre of a blogging community as it actually is, it offers me the chance to discover beautiful photography, vent my pop culture obsessions, and even discover new music on a constantly self-renewing basis. However, Tumblr was not the proper forum for my true blog. And then I turned to the most popular site, Blogger, and I have never looked back. Blogger is popular for a reason; it offers simple yet highly customizable formatting options, an extensive community of bloggers, and an atmosphere that, because of its site diversity, doesn’t feel stuffy. If Xanga was too emotional, WordPress was too formal, and Tumblr was too crazy, then Blogger is just right.

Hey, can I get some kind of compensation for all my advertising?

A Necessary Name Change

When the full list of this year’s TIME 100 Most Influential People was released, I was among many who were surprised by several of the entries on the list. Perhaps most surprising is the inclusion of several members of young Hollywood, newcomers to fame let alone power over people. I have never paid much attention to this superlative before, but after considering whom TIME selects for the honor ever year it seems like the list is due for a name change. Influential implies that these 100 people sway us to change our lives or ways of thinking, which many of the listed do not necessarily do. Rather than calling it the 100 Most Influential People, it would be more appropriate to call it the 100 Most Reflective People.

Now, reflective is not intended to describe the mental activities of the entrants; “most reflective” is not to insinuate that they are the most pensive people who have spent a year pondering the universe and all that has happened in it. Rather, instead of influential, what many of the controversial listees are is reflective of the moment in time that is 2011. They hold up a mirror, flattering or otherwise, to our culture, politics, and beliefs as they are at a specific moment in time and show what matters to us.

Blake Lively, sandwiched in between talk show host Joe Scarborough and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was by far the most baffling person on the list. The 23 year old actress is most notable for her current role as rich free-spirit Serena van der Woodsen on Gossip Girl and her upcoming role as aerospace heiress Carol Ferris in Green Lantern, she does not belong on a list that includes those whose “ideas spark dialogue and dissent and sometimes even revolution;” it is doubtful that her opinion on North African politics inspired any of the rioters in Gadafi’s streets or even the Tweeters flooding them with support. But Blake Lively is highly reflective of what is going on in 2011. As Serena van der Woodsen, she reflects the larger controversy over the decadent, hypersexual, hard-partying depictions of teens in pop culture that are becoming more common as real-life teens are pushing the boundaries of debauchery and self-indulgence. As Carol Ferris, she reflects the resurgence of Golden Age superheroes and their gritty origin stories in 21st century Hollywood and greater pop culture. Blake Lively may not influence anyone to take political action or spark debate over anything more than her ever-changing hair color, but she is most definitely a mirror of our current cultural climate.

Less controversial but still surprising was the inclusion of 20-year-old Chris Colfer, known exclusively for his portrayal of Kurt Hummel on the television show Glee. Colfer won the 2011 Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor in his role on a television show that draws in upwards of 20 million viewers weekly, but that is not why he is reflective or even influential of this moment in time. It is his portrayal of his openly gay character who endures vicious bullying with true-to-life vulnerability, fear, pride, and resilient spirit that makes him almost universally relatable—across age, gender, sexual orientation, whatever—that makes Chris Colfer important. The respect with which Colfer treats the role he has been given, a role that he himself lived, makes him not only a great actor but a great public voice against the epidemics of gay-bashing, cyber-bullying, and teen suicide sweeping his show’s key demographics. He accepts the position of role model as easily as he accepted the role of Kurt Hummel, and he fulfills both duties skillfully. Chris Colfer is a mirror for the slowly opening issues of teen sexuality and violence, issues that were previously brushed under the rug rather than addressed publicly and healthily. He is certainly influential, as many teens have written to him expressing their gratitude that his character inspired them and saved their life, but more than that Chris Colfer is reflective of the world we live in now.

Others on the list who are more reflective than influential are British actor Colin Firth, fashion designer/director Tom Ford, Canadian singer Justin Bieber, Korean singer Rain, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, First Lady Michelle Obama, and Speaker of the House John Boehner. Whether it is the growing American emphasis on education, the concerning rise of far-right politics, or the globalization of pop culture, they are all representative of the year 2011 as much, if not more so, as they are affective in it. Thus, should TIME continue to select such a varied list of artists, politicians, and media darlings of all kinds, it should adapt the title of its list to show what it really enumerates: mirrors of our time, those who reflect who we are and what we care about it.

I Applaud Your Lady Balls, Ladies

In front of millions of viewers on The Oprah Winfrey Show last week, celebrated Saturday Night Live cast member broke one of the oldest rules of common courtesy: she spoke ill of the dead. The dead and beloved, to be exact.

In a stinging reflection on the days in which she was best known as “Jane, you ignorant slut” and for ripping open her blouse on Weekend Update, Curtin had this to say about fellow cast member, writer, and her constant foil, John Belushi:

“They [female writers] were working against John, who said women are just fundamentally not funny. So you'd go to a table read, and if a woman writer had written a piece for John, he would not read it in his full voice. He felt as though it was his duty to sabotage pieces written by women.”

What followed the comments was awkward to say the least; Chevy Chase attempted to defend the dearly departed comedian while Curtin held firm in her assertions. But there to save the day from turning into musings on misogyny in the 1970s, as she is there to save many a tragedy with a touch of comedy, was Wonder Woman Tina Fey. Consider this part two of my Feyism manifesto.

Tina Fey is hilarious, and this is a fact. She can work the funny bone from just about any angle, be it political, maternal, physical, nerdy, or Bieber-related, and she does it without being spiteful; her wit has some mysterious warmth that allows even those it pokes fun at to get in on the joke, as evidenced by the appearances of both John McCain and Sarah Palin herself on the 2008 election editions of SNL in which Fey impersonated (or, depending on how you look at it, mocked) the female vice-presidential candidate. But Tina Fey can do all of this because she has an audible voice in comedy, a voice that she and the comediennes before her fought hard for. Women have had a notoriously hard time achieving gender-equal success in comedy—Jane Curtin is certainly not the first to point this out. In Bossypants, Fey herself admits that even her beloved Second City had a hard time accepting that women could be funny by themselves, and she understands the working definition of Hollywood to be, “a woman who keeps talking even after nobody wants to fuck her anymore.” The atmosphere for women in comedy seems to range from lukewarm to hostile, especially as bromances and stoner flicks rule the box office.

Understanding this, it seems like a woman looking to succeed in comedy would have two options: 1) Accept that she will only get jobs writing niche “girl funny” and commit to a life of period jokes, or 2) Accept that the only marketable type of funny is “guy funny” and commit to a life of penis jokes. Tina Fey did neither and, despite the obstacles abound, has achieved undeniable success and is our current Queen/Gender-Blind Master of Comedy. She became the first female head writer of SNL ever in 1999, was part of the first all-female hosting duo of Weekend Update in 2004, and, perhaps most significantly, wrote Mean Girls.

Pictured: Victoria Gotti The film that changed the face of comedy

Mean Girls is more than just the last good movie Lindsay Lohan may ever make, it was an experiment in the appeal of female-driven comedy. With a cast led by five young women and Tina Fey herself, the movie explored the perils of teenage girlhood with a hilarious bent. That may not be anything new, but the response to it was; Mean Girls was immediately #1 at the box office and drew in an audience of all gender and age demographics, a feat for a comedy written and starring women. Because of Tina Fey’s inexplicable genius, the movie appealed to a diverse base beyond high school girls and became a lasting part of our cultural zeitgeist even seven years later. No one would argue that the message of the movie was female empowerment, but its success did newly empower women in Hollywood. With Mean Girls, Tina Fey proved that female-driven comedies could be bankable and broad in their appeal, and it is because of this that we get movies like Baby Mama and Bridesmaids in which women are more than just nagging girlfriends or spunky little sisters of comedic leading men. The increasing diversity of the comedy landscape is something we owe to Tina Fey and all the other women writers/actors/directors/stand-ups who were willing to push beyond personal success and toward changing the game itself.

One of these women who deserve special mention is Amy Poehler, Tina Fey’s intellectual and comedic equal. They both started at Second City, made up the all-female Weekend Update anchor team, went on to star in their own female-led quirky sitcoms, and do the best political impersonations SNL has ever seen. I wish I could explain why my natural affinity is more for Tina Fey—perhaps it’s the fact that we both wear glasses and have brown rather than “yellow” hair—but Amy Poehler is just as fantastic and integral in what I call the lady balls of comedy movement. Other members of note, though certainly not the only ones: the late great Gilda Radner, Jane Curtin, Aubrey Plaza, Paula Pell, Kristin Wiig, Rachel Dratch, Jane Lynch, Amy Sedaris, and Chelsea Handler.

To end, a quote from Amy Poehler on what her work means to her. I think that, besides giving women equal opportunity in comedy, this is the main goal of the work all these ballsy women do:

“I get worried for young girls sometimes; I want them to feel that they can be sassy and full and weird and geeky and smart and independent, and not so withered and shriveled.”

I Practice Tina Fey-ism

I mentioned Bossypants in passing in my last post, but it deserves a full one of it's own; I am not the least bit embarrassed to say that I spent 100 days counting down to its release and that it was totally worth it.

Those have to be Alec Baldwin's arms, right?

Actually, it's not so much the book as the woman behind it that I'm choosing to write about. I am truly in awe of Tina Fey, and am inspired by her in so many ways: her humor, her creativity, her bravery, her diverse talents, her career path. Seeing her brilliance is what convinced me to try my hand at screenwriting, and I owe to her all the fun I'm having while trying and trying again to follow in her footsteps. To sum up how I feel about the woman, if I could handpick a person to be the older sister I always wanted but never had, it would hands-down be Tina Fey.


I'm not the only one who feels this way, either; Donald Glover, now a writer/comedian/actor/rapper in possession of my devotion and his own illustrious career, raps in The Last:

And this next part sounds like nonsense/But I swear to God Tina Fey gave me confidence/Taught me everything that's good comes from honesty/Everybody's got a voice, you've just gotta follow it/She's a role model, sh*t

His deep admiration of Tina Fey is more justifiable, considering she actually handpicked him to write for 30 Rock while he was still an undergrad at NYU, but it's nice to know that my fanaticism is both shared and grounded in some reality.


But rather than rambling on about the fabulousness of Fey, I'll share with you some of her brilliance so she can speak for herself. Without further ado, an excerpt from Bossypants by Tina Fey:


The Mother's Prayer for Its Daughter

First, Lord: No tattoos. May neither Chinese symbol for truth nor Winnie-the-Pooh holding the FSU logo stain her tender haunches.

May she be Beautiful but not Damaged, for it’s the Damage that draws the creepy soccer coach’s eye, not the Beauty.

When the Crystal Meth is offered, may she remember the parents who cut her grapes in half And stick with Beer.

Guide her, protect her when crossing the street, stepping onto boats, swimming in the ocean, swimming in pools, walking near pools, standing on the subway platform, crossing 86th Street, stepping off of boats, using mall restrooms, getting on and off escalators, driving on country roads while arguing, leaning on large windows, walking in parking lots, riding Ferris wheels, roller-coasters, log flumes, or anything called “Hell Drop,” “Tower of Torture,” or “The Death Spiral Rock ‘N Zero G Roll featuring Aerosmith,” and standing on any kind of balcony ever, anywhere, at any age.

Lead her away from Acting but not all the way to Finance. Something where she can make her own hours but still feel intellectually fulfilled and get outside sometimes And not have to wear high heels. What would that be, Lord? Architecture? Midwifery? Golf course design? I’m asking You, because if I knew, I’d be doing it, Youdammit.

May she play the Drums to the fiery rhythm of her Own Heart with the sinewy strength of her Own Arms, so she need Not Lie With Drummers.

Grant her a Rough Patch from twelve to seventeen.Let her draw horses and be interested in Barbies for much too long, For childhood is short – a Tiger Flower blooming Magenta for one day – And adulthood is long and dry-humping in cars will wait.

O Lord, break the Internet forever, that she may be spared the misspelled invective of her peers And the online marketing campaign for Rape Hostel V: Girls Just Wanna Get Stabbed.

And when she one day turns on me and calls me a Bitch in front of Hollister, Give me the strength, Lord, to yank her directly into a cab in front of her friends, For I will not have that Shit. I will not have it.

And should she choose to be a Mother one day, be my eyes, Lord, that I may see her, lying on a blanket on the floor at 4:50 A.M., all-at-once exhausted, bored, and in love with the little creature whose poop is leaking up its back. “My mother did this for me once,” she will realize as she cleans feces off her baby’s neck. “My mother did this for me.” And the delayed gratitude will wash over her as it does each generation and she will make a Mental Note to call me. And she will forget. But I’ll know, because I peeped it with Your God eyes.

Amen.

Online source: http://melodygodfred.com/2011/04/15/a-mothers-prayer-for-its-child-by-tina-fey/ 

Now please do yourself the colossal favor of BUYING THIS BOOK. Preferably from a Borders so that I'm not out of a job.

Excuse me, HOW many books?

I was flipping through Slate online today--though I suppose "flipping" wouldn't be the correct term, as it's a website, so I better say browsing--and I stumbled upon an interview with author Adam Goodheart. Goodheart wrote 1861, which covers the beginning of the Civil War. As you would expect of a historical writer, the man is very well informed about the war between the states, but the interviewer brought up a very interesting point:

Slate: I recently heard Yale Professor David Blight say that there have been more books published on the Civil War than there have been days since the Civil War ended—more than 70,000 of them. Why does the world need another one?

Goodheart: Another figure is that there have been more Civil War books published than there were soldiers at the battle of Bull Run. But I feel like the Civil War is one of those great stories that can just keep being visited and revisited. It's famously been compared to the Iliad and the Odyssey, in that there's a new way to narrate it in each generation.

I should note that the bolding of the text was my addition, because holy cow who would've thunk it? I think some people would call it overkill, which is what the interviewer was clearly insinuating, but I have to agree with Goodheart. It says something about our natural curiosity that we continue to explore such an important event for so long and from so many different angles. I'm sure that each book has something different about it, something that makes it a worthwhile investigation into one of the most devastating periods in our nation's history. The magnitude of the study of the Civil War shows not we want to learn not only about history, but more importantly from history; we are smart enough to try and learn from mistakes--not only our own, but those made by generations before us. We should celebrate the relentless pursuit of understanding, especially when it's of something that ripped people apart and changed the course of (at least American) history. 


Go ahead and call me a sap for believing in the thirst for knowledge rather than the thirst for author fees, but I'm happy in my idealistic camp. Maybe I'll pick up 1861 after finishing Bossypants. After all, I've already read April 1865; I should try and collect one for every year. 

The French Burqa Ban

Former President George W. Bush suffered a serious loss this week, and no, it wasn’t his excellent golf handicap or his beautiful Crawford ranch. In a humiliating defeat, Bush lost the title of most-perceived Islamophobic Western leader. Adding insult to injury, he lost it to Nicolas Sarkozy.

Last Monday the visages découverts, or open faces, law came into effect in France. If you take the headlines at face value, the law is a means of persecuting Muslim women by banning the burqa and the niqab, face-covering veils worn in accordance with cultural-religious tradition by about 2000 women, in all public places. The French government thought it was sneaky enough not to make this ban explicit and targeted; on paper, visages découverts prohibits anything that obscures the full face from view. So then whom else does it affect? Bank robbers? Beekeepers? Batman? Clearly this law not-so-subtly targets Muslim women who wear a niqab, especially when considering that it includes heavier fines and prison time for anyone who forces someone out in public with an offending face covering—a common accusation tossed at the husbands and other male family members of observing women. Who knew politically correct ambiguity could be so prejudicially clear?

Pictured: Kenza Drider, 32, was detained for wearing her niqab in front of the Notre Dame Cathedral.

The government claims this is all for security reasons, so that threatening individuals cannot cover their faces in order to gain entrance somewhere they do not belong or to evade pursuing authorities. Every time I hear this, I can’t help but think of Sex and the City 2 when Carrie Bradshaw and Co. borrow burqas from fashionable Muslim women to escape an angry mob in Abu Dhabi—an angry mob chasing them down the streets after Samantha infuriates them by wearing shorts and carrying condoms. Are heavily stereotyped American movies where the French officials are finding their information about the nefarious uses of the burqa? It seems ridiculous to suggest that a bank robber, terrorist, or any other criminal would try to get away with that; many women who choose to wear the burqa say they would willingly reveal their face to an official who asked politely for identification purposes. It shouldn’t take discriminatory legislation for law enforcement to be suspicious of anyone adamantly refusing to show their face in relevant security circumstances.

Popular speculation is that Sarkozy pushed the law into effect to satisfy the far-right (read: anti-immigration and hyper-nationalist) French, particularly those belonging to the National Front Party. By banning all face-covering veils, Sarkozy has found a palatable way to outlaw a visible Islamic tradition and force assimilation. This isn’t the first attempt at homogenization sanctioned by the French government; a 2004 law banned niqabs as well as hijabs in public schools. However, the ban was not limited to forms of Muslim religious expression; it outlawed all religious wardrobe choices, including skullcaps and crosses. At least then it was equal opportunity religious repression in the name of nationalism, and not something as clearly Islamophobic as visages découvertes.

The press has jumped at the chance to criticize the Islamophobia inherent in the law; one op-ed ran with the title “France’s burqa ban: Has Europe forgotten the gas chambers?” However, sensationalism aside, visages découvertes seems to aim more at national identity building than persecution. Sarkozy crossed a line with this one, but it was a misguided effort at creating a unified France rather than a blatant attack on Islam. It probably seemed particularly convenient to target the niqab to placate the vicious far-right, but the motives lie in something less bigamous. Sarkozy didn’t outlaw veils because he thinks every woman in a niqab is a suicide bomber, but that sure is what it looks like. The French president and all of France appear religiously intolerant and oppressive, and appearance means a lot in international relations. The perception that France is anti-Muslim has created a backlash in Turkey and will certainly cause further problems. Beyond the reputation-damaging nature of the legislation, it should go without saying that it is essentially wrong to restrict religious freedom that does no harm to others. The law certainly needs to be repealed, and the French government needs to find some other less offensive and repressive way to unite its citizenry; punishing women for or restricting them from wearing their traditional religious or cultural dress with drive people apart, not bring them together.

But for now, citizens of France, don't plan on rocking a mask for Halloween.

A Working Vacation

Japan is bordering on nuclear meltdown, Gadafi is slaughtering his citizens in Libya, and Charlie Sheen has launched a violent torpedo of truth stateside. As the world burns around him, Obama went on Spring Break 2011.

Well, that’s what his critics would like you to think. To them, the President wasted his time relaxing on the Brazilian beaches and drinking Chilean wine during his diplomatic trip to Central and South America when he should have been seated in the Oval Office saving the world. But Obama was right not to cancel his tour of the Southern cone, despite recent world events; to do so would have been a slap in the face to a region that is historically slighted but presently vital.

It's not as if Obama's trip prevented him from doing what was in our national interest during the situations in Asia and North Africa. In regards to Libya, from the moment the President touched down in Brazil he was involved in briefings, meetings, and conference calls with Washington making decisions about US military action. In fact, strategy meetings on Libya were both the first and last things Obama did in South America. People seem to forget that we live in a highly interconnected world, one in which the President could conduct his necessary business from anywhere. Secure connections to DC were established whenever Obama was on the ground in Brazil, Chile, or El Salvador, and while most of us watch re-runs of sitcoms while we sit through cramped plane rides, he has an entire mobile command center at his fingertips midair in Air Force One. Even in the middle of a state dinner in Chile he was receiving updates about the US fighter jet crash in Libya. Obama is famously our most technology addicted President (remember all the articles about giving up his precious Blackberry when he first entered office?), and, like a teenager waiting for gossip during a family dinner, distance was not going to get in the way of doing what needed to be done.

All of the technology Obama has to communicate with is public knowledge, so it seems like those criticizing the trip south are more opposed to the symbolic disappearance of Our President from Washington, DC during a time of international crisis. Yes, it is still a bit disturbing to think that, while our soldiers are prepping for air strikes in Libya and risking nuclear exposure in Japan, Obama was posing for family snapshots under Cristo Redentor; again, not because he was inactive about the global crises, but because it looks as if he bailed when the going got tough. But for those so concerned about perception, consider what it would have looked like if Obama had cancelled the trip.

The journey took Obama first to Brazil, a state that both the US and the rest of the world acknowledge to be important in the very near future. It is the largest economy in South America and still growing, it will host the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janiero, and it has a huge oil reserve that presents an alternative to exorbitant Middle Eastern petrol prices; it's nominal membership in the Big Four/BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries alone announces its global growth and importance in the coming years. To cancel his visits with the newly elected, first female President Dilma Rousseff would have been disrespectful to a nation that we cannot afford to disrespect--especially as, like the rest of Latin America, it forms stronger ties to China.

Obama then travelled to Chile, where a US president met one-on-one with a Chilean president in Chile for the first time in over two decades. The last time was when Bush senior visited in 1990, to visit with the then-newly inaugurated President Lagos--the first elected Chilean head of state since the US-supported coup that put military tyrant and human rights abuser Augusto Pinochet in power for 17 years. In the time since that last visit, the US has become a huge consumer of Chilean exports, particularly agricultural products such as fruit and wine, and Chile has become the most economically competitive state in its region, even joining the OECD. Plus, just over a year ago Chile experienced an 8.8 earthquake (coming in just under the 9.0 in Japan) and has barely skipped a beat during its recovery. As with Brazil, to slight Chile by canceling his meetings with President Piñera would have been a symbolic backhand in the face of a state the holds rising economic power in our immediate vicinity.

The last leg of the trip was somewhat randomly to El Salvador, but again this is a nation that has symbolic if not material gravitas for the US. The small Central American state is important as more workers migrate to the US and illegal drug activity is pushed south of Mexico, but also because it is controlled by a leftist and Marxist-guerilla backed president that wants to build a strong relationship with the US; President Funes felt that Obama's planned visit was validation of his state's importance and his domestically criticized pro-Washington stance. To cancel would have been to turn back on a state that has gone out on an unprecedented limb to warm to the US despite being far-leftist.

Each of the states that Obama visited hold measurable and emblematic importance to US relations, particularly when it comes to economic and political alliance; securing pan-American agendas that include US interests such as oil, free trade, and democracy is rightfully so a priority of this administration. Plus, one of the blessings of our technology addicted world is this: President Obama can save the world from anywhere.

Don't Forget About Latin America

President Obama has caught some serious flack for his visit to South America this week, mostly by those saying that he should be focused on the current disasters in Libya and Japan. While these tragedies obviously deserve Obama's attention, it's ludicrous to say he should have cancelled his long-awaited trip South. Rick Sanchez wrote a fantastic piece for The Huffington Post on the necessity of the trip; explaining it's importance, he says:

Going to Latin America isn't a party, it doesn't interfere with your [Obama's] duties, and it's not about job creation. It's about far more than that. Going to Latin America is the work of the president, important and essential work, and it's in our national and strategic interest.

It's about treating Latin America as equal partners, something you, President Obama, promised at the Summit of the Americas in 2009. It's about cultivating a stronger relationship with this part of the world and sending a message to Latin America, as well as Latino-Americans here at home, about their importance in the global economy as well as national and international politics.

He touches on what America has not been doing for the past, oh, let's say six decades--the North American reluctance to deal with their neighbors down below. Hopefully this trip will be exactly what Sanchez calls it, an opportunity to reforge relations with our natural geographical allies and diplomatic partners. Of course, the trip is just getting underway so who knows. But even though there's a lot going on outside of our hemisphere, we'll be watching.

Guys, he looked REALLY hard. 

And in other Latin American news, Hugo Chavez says capitalism wiped out life on Mars.

Wyclef Jean: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy...Sort Of

About a week ago I talked about Wyclef Jean as an example of political activism run rampant in rap music, specifically mentioning his track "If I Was President." A sampling of the lyrics if you please:

If I was President, I'd get elected on Friday,

Assassinated on Saturday, buried on Sunday.  

Well, I suppose life imitates art.

Last Saturday night, Wyclef Jean was shot during Haiti's presidential elections. No, he was not elected president the day before and he did not die; the shot was actually to the hand, and whether or not it was actually a bullet is still sketchy. But still, a little eerie.

 

Tell Me What You Want From Me

Following in the footsteps of music executive Steve Stoute, I am writing a letter to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences regarding the 2011 Grammys. The letter is seven words, short and sweet:

To Whom It May Concern:
What more do you want from Eminem?

Last month, Eminem was nominated for 10 Grammy awards for Recovery, his album chronicling the struggles of a man just recently emerged from the cycle of domestic violence and drug abuse that fueled his violent lyrical career for a decade, and in every category that did not explicitly contain “rap” in the title he lost. This was not the first slight to Eminem, whose 2000 Album of the Year loss to the reemergence of Steely Dan is often cited as one of the most heinous Grammy snubs ever; the Eminem case and the omission of rapper Guru from the obituary reel are the most recent indicators of an out-of-touch academy that has passed on the works of rap powerhouses Jay-Z, Kanye West, Public Enemy, and Dr. Dre in any category not limited to their genre. The pattern begs the question: Does NARSA, and by extension the community of the musical elite, accept rap music as valid? They don’t, but they should. The Grammy Academy needs to stop turning its back on the most creative genre of our generation and accept that rap is an enduring art form that will long outlast the critics who consider it all to be the misogynistic or sadistic dregs of jazz and soul; rap will continue as an important part of cultural expression facilitating social consciousness, political activism, and poetry.

Rap has many merits that qualify it as a valuable form of cultural expression, from the innovative uses of sampling and remixing to the creation of new beats, but most fascinating is its often-ignored lyrical depth. Yes, there is a significant percentage of rap music that is, to put it nicely, shallow; critics are quick to jump on the lower content of the genre: easy women, fancy cars, recreational drug use, and violence (gang, domestic, police—the list is extensive). They turn a blind eye to the diverse lyricism of rap and choose to focus on themes that, in a truly demented way, are just perversions of our purest national obsession: The American Dream. To say that these are definitive of a category as broad as rap, or its even broader parent hip-hop, is recklessly metonymic.

Since its inception, rap has had a decidedly socio-economic bent. Whether under- or overtones in an overall track, the themes of poverty, crime, and racial conflict are represented throughout the last three decades of rhymes. The ways in which these themes are addressed has evolved as rappers have taken a different position in society, but they always reflect the unfortunate realities of the haves and the have-nots. In 1982, Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five released “The Message,” commenting on the issues of debt, education, prostitution, inflation, and unemployment in just seven minutes; The Notorious B.I.G. spun a similar tale with a happier ending in 1994’s rags-to-riches track “Juicy,” and Jay-Z picked up where that left off chronicling the perils of fame in 2001’s “Heart of the City.” And even off of Eminem’s Recovery there is the “Love The Way You Lie,” a wrenching duet with survivor Rihanna that exposed the inner-workings of an abusive relationship in a more real way than a psychology textbook ever could. Social awareness is a huge cornerstone of rap content. Admittedly, not every track is socially conscious; songs like “No Hands” and “Look At Me Now,” while catchy, are more about boasting about sexual prowess than acknowledging the dangers of promiscuity. But this is exactly the point, that rap is a diverse genre that churns out a significant amount of culturally relevant and artistically important work.

Rap is also infused with politics, making it a viable artistic expression of a moment or movement. Artists such as Common involved themselves in social and political campaigns, while others are figureheads for political movements like “the ghetto’s populist prince” Tupac. Again, not every work of politically inclined rap is a winner; for every brilliant call to vote like Wyclef Jean’s “If I Were President,” there is a misguided effort like Young Jeezy’s “My President.” But the message persists in making rap part of our political history, another primary source in our analysis of the century. Internationally, rap has really taken off as a mechanism for idea diffusion and political change. Lyricist El Général spit the anthem for protesters in his native Tunisia, while secretive rapper Ibn Thabit did the same for Libya; less incendiary sociopolitical leanings also pop up in the music of UK rapper Plan B and French-Senegalese rapper MC Solaar.

But even if rap was as hollow and meaningless as some have claimed, there is no denying the sheer beauty of (some of) it. As I’ve qualified everything thus far, this is not a blanket statement for all rap; some lyrics are vapid, ill conceived, and just grammatically incorrect. But others are modern-day poetry made for mass consumption and more readily consumed by our attention-challenged generation. Single line pop-culture quips by popular artists such as Kanye West (“Mayonnaise colored Benz, I push Miracle Whips”) are matched by indie rappers like Childish Gambino (“I move real quick like Nestle/Let me make it clear for a second like Pepsi”), elaborate metaphors are spun (such as the life of hip hop in Common’s “Used to Love H.E.R.”), and creative imagery is used to avoid censors. It is poetry to a beat, and the artistry behind the best rappers’ lyrics overrule objections based on their bedfellows’ lesser ones. It is through this lyricism, so poetic and socially relevant, that rap captures important moments in time through cultural expression that needs to be recognized for what it truly is—good music.

And For All That...

After all the writing I just did on the importance and prevalence of American media, the film that dominated the Oscars was made by a British director, written by a British playwright, and acted by a largely British (the one exception being an Australian) cast. Oh well.

That being said, if you haven't seen The King's Speech, you should. It truly was fantastic. Also, congratulations to all the winners from last night and to James Franco for further convincing us all that Pineapple Express was semi-biographical.

Who Could Forget This One?

Writing about the supposedly looming Chinese threat to America reminded me of this absolutely ridiculous commercial aired during the 2010 midterm elections. I'm not sure who saw it outside of California, but I laughed out loud every time it came on. I find it ridiculous not because I doubt the future importance of China or its inevitable rise to great power status, but because of its borderline racism in vilifying the Chinese professor.

Who says we have to be enemies? China can be a great power without taking over or destroying America.  This is the kind of propaganda that should be left OUT of American media if we hope to use it to shape global interests.

Survival of the Hit-est

The United States has enjoyed a considerable amount of time in the sun; the international system we live in was constructed around American interests for and by the US and its allies. As the US abandoned its century-plus of isolationism in the Great War, the old European empires fell away after World War II, and the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of the 20^th century, the United States transitioned from a self-imposed loner in global politics to the defining player in them. For the past 60 years, both as the Western capitalist hegemon in the bipolarity of the Cold War and as the unipolar hegemon since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United States wrote the world’s history as it created its own. However, several international relations theorists firmly believe that the last 20 years have been a fluke, and that the US will fall from graceful hegemony and unipolarity will give way to a new, un-American world order; chief among them is Immanuel Wallerstein, who has actually been arguing this theory since the 1980s. As Wallerstein said in 2002, the American declinists believe that,

“there is little doubt that the United States will continue to decline as a decisive force in world affairs over the next decade. The real question is not whether U.S. hegemony is waning but whether the United States can devise a way to descend gracefully, with minimum damage to the world, and to itself.”

Wallerstein is joined by Robert Pape, who wrote in Foreign Policy in January 2009 that

“America is in unprecedented decline. The self-inflicted wounds of the Iraq War, growing government debt, increasingly negative current account balances and other internal economic weaknesses have cost the United States real power in today's world of rapidly spreading knowledge and technology. If present trends continue, we will look back at the Bush administration years as the death knell for American hegemony.”

Clearly their viewpoint is rather bleak, and it would be nice to chalk it up to the impractical pessimism of lonely scholars confined to their studies. But there is a nerve-racking amount of data that seems to support their claims, especially when you look at American power in comparison to the growing strength of China. Whereas the US has dominated the world market since it emerged from the Great Depression and World War II, China is now, in the words of the UN Secretary-General, “the world’s fastest growing economy” while we lag in a recession that shows few signs of turning up. And who could forget the well-publicized Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests performed by the OECD in 2009? The tests, which compared subject skill levels in states with compulsory education, showed American 15-year-olds lagging in 25^th, 17^th, and 14^th places in math, science, and reading, respectively; students in Shanghai, who were counted as representative of the entire People’s Republic of China, garnered 1^st place in all three categories. And as we seem to slip behind economically and socially, our political influence in the international system shows signs of wavering as well; while the Washington consensus reigned supreme over our neighbor to the south from the 1980s to the early 21^st century, Mexico has been following suit with the other Latin American nations in tightening their relations with China. It is looking more and more like Gideon Rachman was correct when he wrote so poetically in Foreign Policy magazine that

“Americans can be forgiven if they greet talk of a new challenge from China as just another case of the boy who cried wolf. But a frequently overlooked fact about that fable is that the boy was eventually proved right. The wolf did arrive -- and China is the wolf.”

However, as with any theory, there is an equally vocal opposition to the declinists. This group, the American primacists, argues that the status quo is maintainable and that the US is no way being forced out of its hegemony. They all have their reasons; theorists Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth claim in their book World Out of Balance that the US is so powerful that it now operates outside any kind of traditional international system, while Josef Joffe credits the American provision of public goods and global band-wagoning for enduring unipolarity and default power status. Still others, led by Joseph Nye, argue that, even if traditional indicators of power are wavering, the US can maintain its world power status via soft power—“when one country gets other countries to want what it wants” through cultural and ideological allure.

If primacy and declinism are on the opposite ends of a spectrum, I sit just shy of the primacists; while I doubt the US is in danger of collapsing and causing chaos in the international system, I also cannot say with any certainty that the US will always be #1 with a bullet. I do believe that the United States will remain a great power, mostly because of our unmatched soft power in the international system. Even when other states disagree with us politically, our enduring “cultural attractiveness” ensures not just our survival but also our success. In fact, one of our main insurances against decline is the long-standing global appeal and mass consumption of American pop culture; as long as the US puts wildly successful movies, music, and television out into the world market, which it is doing at an increasing rate, its interests will be protected by pop-cultural allies in the international system.

Now, I see how this concept could sound trivial. International relations is such a complicated game of reputations, power plays, intelligence, and perceptions that box office receipts and top 40 hits should have no role in the field—but they do. When Joseph Nye first defined the concept of soft or co-optive power, he called it, “the ability of a country to structure a situation so that other countries develop preferences or define their interests in ways consistent with their own. This power tends to arise from such resources as cultural and ideological attraction.” He elaborated, “If a culture [is] attractive, others will more willingly follow.”American culture is certainly one, of not the, most attractive culture in the world; I don’t mean to say that ours is vastly superior to any others, simply that it is more popular globally. And American culture is not just made up of what we might call ‘high’ and enduring culture—the classic literature of Twain and Fitzgerald, the paintings of Rockwell, and the like—but also the mass media that makes up pop zeitgeist. American superstars are one of our biggest exports, and they make up a big part of our national identity. The idea of Hollywood and ‘making it big’ are deeply ingrained in our national consciousness, so much so that from pre-school many of us want to be actresses and even into adulthood we can enroll in rock star camps for the weekend. It’s just another iteration of the American Dream, but one that has taken hold both at home and abroad. The attractiveness of our culture is driven by to popularity of our mass media—namely music, movies, and television—because it is so easily accessible from anywhere.The attractiveness of our culture is driven by to popularity of our mass media—namely music, movies, and television—because it is so easily accessible from anywhere. When people become invested the US for entertainment value, they become more tied to our cultural products and thus us as a nation.

Nye recognized the importance of pop culture tailor-made for mass consumption; he noted, “A country that stands astride popular channels of communication has more opportunities to get its messages across and to affect the preferences of others.” So popular media has a dual purpose: not only does it tie foreign countries to American cultural exports, but it also creates opportunities to spread ideologies. For instance, when you sympathize with a TV character and their personal plight, you start to identify with their beliefs and become invested in maintaining their way of life, even if its in a fictional universe; the global audience of Friends attached to their favorite New Yorkers, and likely feel somewhat connected to the continuance of their fabulous and supposedly-normal New York City lives. Knowing this, shows that depict supposedly typical American lifestyles have the opportunity to export American ideologies with varying levels of subtlety. This is a particularly helpful thing to understand when you realize that even countries that in no way line up ideologically with the US and are even sometimes painted as enemies consume our media; decades ago Nye used the fact that “Nicaraguan television broadcast American shows even while the government fought American-backed guerillas,” but the trend continues today as girls in Saudi Arabia download torrent files of Grey's Anatomy. Our pop culture, as defined by our overseas blockbusters, hit television shows, and international top 40 music, is both an important component of our national identity and the grease on the wheels of cooperation with other states that consume our media as voraciously as we do.


However, for the argument to hold up, our culture must still be the undeniable favorite even as our traditional means of power rise and fall. If our political fades, should it not follow that our movies, music, and televisions would not longer be voted most popular? Fortunately for us, no. Despite the fact that no one wants to fight a war along side us, they still download American music on iTunes. There have been 28 artists and groups who released singles that sold more than 5 million copies in the last decade, and 21 of them were American born-and-bred performers; out of the seven who were not, five—Justin Bieber (Canada), Shakira (Colombia), Leona Lewis (UK), Rihanna (Barbados) and Avril Lavigne (Canada)—produced their singles through US record labels. The remaining two are Thelma Aoyama and Utada Hikaru, both Japanese pop performers. Even as the US lost political approval following the invasion of Iraq, American music held strong in the international market; in the summer of 2002 St. Louis rapper Nelly, Detroit rapper Eminem, and New York rappers Fat Joe and P. Diddy dominated the music charts, while in the summer 2009 New York singer-songwriter (and insane performance artist) Lady Gaga and the LA-based Black Eyed Peas had two hits a piece in the worldwide top 10. And the all-time highest selling global single is an American cultural standard; over 50 million people own the song "White Christmas" by Bing Crosby.


American television, while not necessarily dominating domestic programming in other countries, still has a popular presence overseas. Friends ran for all 10 of its seasons in the UK, regularly drawing in as many viewers as original British programming, and is still currently in syndication just like it is in the states. The lives of 6 New Yorkers at Central Perk also continues to run in non-western countries, including Australia, New Zealand, India and Pakistan. Desperate Housewives, despite losing some its popularity here, became part of the cultural consciousness in Australia and the United Kingdom—so much so that it was referenced by name in the British drama Skins. Other popular American programs, such as How I Met Your Mother, Castle, and ER, have also gained a following when broadcast overseas; in fact, the US shows Glee and Friends hold four of the top ten most-watched episodes on the British youth-oriented channel E4. And that doesn’t even take into account the influence American television has on foreign original programming; much of our domestic reality programming, including So You Think You Can Dance and The Amazing Race, have both their American originals and foreign iterations broadcast worldwide; Fox’s dance competition has been recreated in 16 countries including Israel and South Africa, while CBS’s global scavenger hunt has eight different adaptations ranging from Latin America to China.


But where continued American pop culture hegemony is most astonishing is in the film industry. When Nye wrote in the fall of 1990, the world was at the height of the Washington consensus period and, while US films only constituted 6-7% of all made internationally, they still got 50% of screen time; the dominance has continued into this century, even as the US is looked upon less favorably by foreign nations. For the week ending February 13, 2011, 41 out of 53 reporting countries had Hollywood movies like Tangled and No Strings Attached atop their box office charts. The American #1s were displaced in the remaining 12 only by films native to those countries in which they had the biggest receipts; no other country had any exported movies reach the highest grossing position. And the popularity of American movies is actually increasing to the point that Hollywood-distributed movies are significantly more overseas than they are stateside. Take, for instance, the Toy Story franchise: in 1999, Toy Story 2 made 49.3% of its $485 million internationally, and in 2010, Toy Story 3 made a whopping 61% of its $1.06 billion gross internationally. Considering Avatar, which made over $2 billion and 72.7% of its profit outside of the US, and The Dark Knight, which made $468.5 million at foreign box offices, it is clear that American cinema is still internationally popular, to say the very least.


These pop media exports are so salient overseas that it would be hard to argue that the United States will fall from great power status any time soon. As Nye implied, the exposure to American culture created by foreign consumption increases indentifiability with us as a nation and invests external populations in our success. If the US were to suffer some kind of powerful shock that thrust it out of hegemony or into instability, its unlikely that our films, music, and television would still be produced and exported at the break neck speed they are now; if the country is struggling to reorganize and figure out a new place in the international system, as other fallen great powers such as the Roman Empire or the Soviet Union had to, Hollywood and all its pop culture exports would likely fall by the wayside. As long as the United States survives, there will still be the sequels, spin-offs, and greatest hits albums that foreign populations are much more invested in than they ever were in our politics. 


The continued popularity of our media culture can be used greatly to our advantage. We are, in the words of Nye, "astride popular channels of communication" that we should use to reinforce United States culture overseas. There is a fine line between subtlety and propaganda, but it would smart for Hollywood to underscore its products with American ideology. That is not to say that our all television shows need to look like The Andy Griffith Show or that Lady Gaga should produce a dance remix of "God Bless America,"; creativity and diversity are the reasons our media is so well-received worldwide, and we cannot lose that. Rather, as they often do already, producers could focus on themes like democracy, overcoming adversity, and tolerance--elements of the American experiment that are now our American dream. Everything does not need to be set in the heartland of the good ol' US of A to reinforce the belief in these concepts that prop up the United States; the Star Wars franchise, a new American classic, is set in a galaxy far far away but still manages to propagate the dangers of an evil dictator, intergalactic species tolerance, and pushing past disadvantages like losing an arm. And since the 70s we have seen our justice system glorified in Law & Order (whose format was sold and adapted to the UK, Russia, and France), our women heralded in "California Girls" by Katy Perry (winner of the MTV Europe Best Video Award) and our military prowess, well, glorified in Inglourious Basterds (which grossed $23.5 million in Germany alone). Even cultural products that seek to expose the dark side, like the Bourne trilogy or Syriana, show off the silver lining of the United States by showing there are still 'real' Americans fighting for the founding ideas that their country sometimes turns its back on. Those movies do not pit anyone against us or inspire anti-American sentiment; it's actually the opposite, because it shows we are willing to be self-critical and recognize their shortcomings. The decision-makers in our media, or at least those interested in the United States hegemony that guarantees their giant paycheck and limited taxes, should continue to produce work that ever-so-subtly highlights the wonders of American living and promotes US interests. 


This is not to say that pop cultural hegemony is all it takes to maintain great power status. To return to what I conceded earlier, international relations is a complicated game and no one factor can determine who holds the all the cards. It is just one element of soft power, which includes long-built political reputation and identifiable ideology, and traditional 'hard' power is still relevant. Military and economic forces play equally if not more important roles in writing history. However, pop culture is an important facilitator of international influence because it makes the dominating material power of the United States an easier pill for other countries to swallow. As long as American media creates the universal language of pop culture and maintains its global attractiveness, the US will have outlets for ensuring its success by tying others to its ideologies and investing others in the survival of its culture. As we shape global tastes, we can shape global interests. 

Scraping Up Ads by the Skins of Their Teeth

Pictured: The Biggest Threat to American Youth and Ad Sales.

There has been a lot of controversy in the last month over MTV’s Skins. The show, one of many in a long line of British television shows adapted for an American audience, very graphically depicts the hedonistic lifestyle of eight fictional high school students as they party with pills, struggle with mental illness, and sleep with each other—and, in one case, their teachers. Skins has garnered the unwanted attention of the Parents Television Council, who accuse MTV and its parent company Viacom of engaging in child pornography with its young actors. In a statement released to the press, the PTC said to Congress:

Furthermore, we urge you in the strongest possible terms to compel the Attorney General to mount an investigation by the Department of Justice into whether the production of ‘Skins’ has violated federal law meant to protect minors from exploitation.

Having the Parents Television Council on your back is dangerous in the world of television, but not because the viewing public really pays attention to their many protests of network impropriety; past outcries include a constant barrage against Gossip Girl and Family Guy, still highly successful shows despite the wagging fingers. Where the PTC can really hurt Skins, especially because it airs on a cable-only network, is with advertisers. Companies understand the threat of a backlash from angry, disposable-income-having parents, and they won’t buy ad time on a show that is being so publicly flagellated by the Parents Television Council; the groups has been attacking advertisers who run their spots during the show, criticisms bound to get back to consuming parents via action alerts (like this one) and media attention. The PTC is aware of the power it holds over spending parents, as illustrated in a menacing statement released by its President Tim Winters immediately following the first airing of Skins, in which he said: 

Every single advertiser who sponsored the premiere episode of ‘Skins’ is not only endorsing, but glorifying teen drug and alcohol abuse, not to mention a plethora of baseless sexual content. The following companies and brand names can rest assured that they will be hearing from PTC about their decision to sponsor the program: Schick Hydro, H&R Block, L’Oreal, Subway, Foot Locker, Orbit chewing gum and Extra chewing gum. We sincerely hope these advertisers will agree that the content in ‘Skins’ is harmful to their corporate image.

Since the initial airing of the pilot, seven major brands—GM, H&R Block, Proactiv, Subway, Schick, Wrigley’s, and Taco Bell—have pulled their advertisements from the Skins scheduling block. 

Now, I understand that, as a brand, you’ll do anything you can to avoid the PTC breathing down your neck or denouncing you to its constituency. I personally have no problem with the show and am a devotee of the British original, so I was a bit surprised at the massive controversy the show created amongst parents and businesses; but, once I took into account the considerable influence of the Parents Television Council, as well as the controversy the show initially caused in the UK, I understand why brands would not buy ad space during Skins. However, I am still shocked that these companies waited until after the pilot aired, after they had secured the time initially, to pull their ads. As responsible advertisers, shouldn’t they have known seen what was coming?

It’s not as if they can argue that they had no idea what risqué content their ads would be running next to. For one, before the show even hit the US airwaves the PTC was crying foul, naming it “the most dangerous television show for children that we have ever seen” Secondly, there has to be some way they could have gotten their hands on a copy of the pilot episode to screen it for content unbecoming of family-friendly businesses; if the Parents Television Council had an advance copy, I’m sure Taco Bell could have gotten one, too. Also, the show is rated TV-MA. So there were three clear signals coming in before the pilot aired that, hey, maybe Skins isn’t the show for you to place ads in if you don’t want hard-partying teens buying your products or being associated with your brand.

But even if, for some strange and incomprehensible reason, the companies couldn’t get advance warning to remove their Five Dollar Foot-long and DoubleMint ads from Skins commercial breaks, they had one obvious resource to clue them in to the content of the show: four seasons of the British original. MTV’s incarnation of Skins doesn’t stray far from the E4 version; in fact, the US pilot was essentially a shot-for-shot, line-for-line remake of its UK counterpart. The only major changes I noticed were the adjustment of slang terms that would get lost in translation in the US. In fact, the experience was a little unsettling; I heard the lines that I had so often heard on the E4 version, expecting them to come out in a British accent. It also threw me off that all the curse words were bleeped out of the show, but other than that the shows were nearly identical. American Tony Stonem manipulated his best friends, cursed at teachers, called his girlfriend “Nips,” and bough marijuana in his introductory episode just as British Tony Stonem did in Bristol. If the companies had taken the time to simply look at the source material, they would have known exactly what they were about to slap their branding on.

My personal theory is that these companies fully knew what they were getting into, but agreed to run their advertisements during the show and being aware that there were two positive outcomes: (1) the show would be wildly popular and their advertisements would reach the disposable income demographics of teens and young adults, or (2) the show would be denounced by the PTC and, once they removed their advertisements, they would be celebrated as heroic bastions of responsible business practices. Well, number 2 is exactly what happened. In the past month, for every advertiser that has pulled out of Skins, the PTC has released a statement applauding their morality. So, unsurprisingly, the businesses made the financially foolproof decision to run their advertisements regardless of the show’s content and find the positive consequence either way; its not that they have a problem with the story lines of teen promiscuity and drug use, but rather that they want the publicity that comes from being in the PTC’s good graces.

Now, this could really screw over Skins; as they lose major advertisers, it’s hard to replace them with the parental watchdog ever-looming. But at the same time, the show gains a certain amount of cache, especially among the targeted teen demographic, for being so controversial; as someone who was very recently a teenager, if my parents tried hard to shield me from something I fought even harder to see it. It boils down to the clichéd concept that all press is good press, and this kind of press will certainly draw in a curious teen audience.

However, even if MTV’s Skins can pick up a huge teen following, if it loses all its advertisers it cannot stay on the air. I really doubt the show will last past the first season, which is already in the can, so if you have been enjoying it I suggest you instead Netflix the original series. The first two seasons are so much better than the American remake, as is often the case, and you can catch early glimpses of Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire) and the fantastic Nicholas Hoult (up next playing the Beast in X-Men: First Class). Plus, this way you can just avoid advertisements all together.