China update

As our debt increases, Americans are increasingly putting their political and financial fate in China. Right now China is keeping our lifestyle afloat to a certain extent. While many people are losing their jobs and companies continue to struggle, the reason we arent burning and crashing into a cliff is because of our recent "friend" China. Today, China's alliegance to our debt problem seems that much stronger because of this Reuters article.



I wonder how this current relationship will affect future relationships with China. I believe that while it does not empower our nation at the moment, this might instead entice these ideological opposites to become allies. This might be a very good, or a very bad thing depending on how you view a hyperpower squared. If the United States and China worked together in a symbiotic relationship, the two countries might benefit more than ever before.




Regardless of how this friendship turns out for the United States, I think it is a very good move by China to purchase our debt. This will enable China to have a stake in the most influential nation in the world. This might be a little scary for the average American, but this is just standard politics.



This alliegance will affect companies as well as nations around the world. Whether or not a company will prosper from a good China-US relationship. Google might not exactly prosper or even tolerate China's decisions if China tries to control the stream of information going through Google every day. Google is looking to provide the user of their search engine with as much information as possible without any roadblocks.

Companies that could use China's cheap labor force might really prosper from this relationship, because it would make outsourcing to China that much easier. A problem that I could see with China down the road is their violation of human rights, especially when it comes to their own citizens. I would not want to live under a system built upon fear.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/110317/saturday-night-live-china-cold-open

War in the media

After the Hurt Locker won so many Oscars at the Academy Awards, I have been paying more attention to war in the media. I was especially curious to see the reaction of soldiers to the movie itself. In this segment of interviews, the soldiers say they enjoyed the film, but thought that the idea of the main character "going rogue" was not a very realistic or accurate portrayel of people in the armed services. The Army is all about being "An Army of one" and listening to your superiors in order to function effectively as a group, so i can understand why the soldiers did not particularly subscribe to the notion of going rogue in the movie.

The movie and the movie's recent fame does a good job of highlighting the heroic actions of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan today. This self sacrifice needs to be appreciated even if your opinions on the war are negative. I believe that the film also highlighted all the problems that come with war, such as stress and the violence that affects people's lives on a day to day basis. The Hurt Locker really brought the war from the back of our minds to the forefront. I feel that people in America have sort of tuned the war out. It is not a recent development and the negative emotions associated with violence and death is not appealing to anyone. The news still covers the war but I feel like the number of stories decreases by the day.

And yet the reality of the war is still here with us. A British soldier just saved himself and other members of his troup by making an instinctual decision of throwing a live grenade away from the roof they were on.

This man above was a hero today regardless of the reason he was in the situation. The media does not need to repeat this to us, but instead we as people need to become the heros and pressure the politicians in our country to end this war. Maybe we are doing good, but the war piece of it is really bothering me. This difficult situation needs to be resolved so this man doesnt have to pick shrapnel out of his face for the next 4 years.

Nike: Just Do It... with Nike stuff on

Nike is probably the most influential sporting goods company of its time and the way they continue to promote this image is by giving the consumer evidence of their greatness. The best athletes of our time do advertising for Nike. Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods (well he did), and Lance Armstrong all do advertising for Nike. If the best athletes in the world are telling you, a young teenage athlete, to buy their product or work hard in Nike gear, there is a very high chance you will listen to the ads.



Personally I take my sport of hockey very seriously, much like a lot of other teenage athletes in America. The values of hard work and dedication against all odds have been instilled in us since we first started loving our sport. Motivation to become the best is a very powerful driving force in a young athletes life, and looking toward motivational sayings or speaches is a common thing to do if you are an athlete.

Personally, I find a lot of inspiration in Nike's advertisements. The ones with Michael Jordan are the most inspirational.



Here are a couple Jordan commercials long with some Mello commercials.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zSVu76AX3I



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvGDh9dd14o



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wIRTbY5HNM

Nike has also done a great job of transforming Lance Armstrong's personal battle with cancer as a symbol of strength and resilience that can be seen in the brand. Nike wants to be seen as a brand that can help you achieve the impossible and battle even the greatest enemies. By tagging onto Lance's courageous story, Nike builds a courageous brand.

These commercials strike a chord with aspiring athletes, because it highlights the hard work necessary for succeeding. Also they seem to tell the viewer that they too can do it with hard work. Hard work has to be done in the gym. I need gym shoes. Oh why dont I get Nikes.



...

Volkswagen

Volkswagen is a "people's car" and the major way Volkswagen tries to brand itself is by being affordable and reliable. This common man's car plays off the idea that a German product is somehow better engineered than any other countries cars.

Volkswagen likes to talk about this by making fun of Germans by portraying their German engineers and even cars as geeky. In this commercial, Volkswagen portrays their engineer as a crazy German scientist who thinks he knows how to "pimp" someones ride. By giving the young hipster a new VW car, somehow he has pimped the previous car that has been crushed by the VW. These advertisements combat the negative stereotypes some Americans have of Germans by reaffirming them in a funny self scrutinizing way. Apart from the commercials being reasonably funny, the message that they are getting accross is also effective. Having a normal affordable car that is engineered by funny sounding Germans is cool.

This next VW commercial is pointing to an already existing game that involves people punching other people on the shoulder when they see a VW Bug. This commercial really intrigues people because it points out how this game that you might have played as a little kid can be felt again by being around a VW. In the commercial, the people punching another person were comprised of all different age groups, proffesions, and races. By adding some humor into the mix VW makes a commercial that makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside while making them laugh out loud when the little kid punches the grandpa in the genitals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ3wgX2Oruo

The brand isn't trying to sell one specific type of idea to the public, but to identify with consumers enough to entice them to buy. The common man approach seems to be working the best for VW.

Le Oscars

The Oscars, a collision between the most famous people in the world and the logos to match them. The actors who attended the Oscars were scrutinized for their clothing as much as they were for their acting. When Jeff Bridges (whom the media loved) was interviewed on the red carpet, him and his wife were immediately asked "who" were they wearing. This was a very interesting way of asking a question about someone's clothing. It was as if the clothing worn was supposed to match the brand's image. Jeff responded by telling the reporter he was wearing Gucci, he was "all Guccied up", and his wife was wearing some other expensive designer brand. The women were critiqued very seriously on how their dress looked and what that dress was supposed to say. Some dresses were revealing, and the commentators judged whether the amount of revealed skin was "appropriate" or not. Likewise, when some women had fancy and complicated dresses a lot of people watching the Oscars would comment on "how much was too much". Here is Halle Berry in her dress.
The men were not really picked apart like the women were. Mostly because the men did not put as much effort into their appearence and the all wore suites. The men had it easy during the Oscars because they could look much more laid back than the women. George Clooney looked very calm at the Oscars, even though the media and even the other stars were all over him.

Apart from the dresses and Gucci suites, the branding seen at the Oscars lied predominantly in the advertisements. Almost every advertisement was for a clothing, luxury car, or personal hygene product company during the commercial breaks. Every product tried to either strengthen their current luxury brand, or rebrand to give off a luxury vibe. Mercedes Benz was the major luxury car company that I remember advertised during the Oscars. They had a commercial that featured their latest model driving through a city street with chandalliers instead of street lamps. J.C. Penny advertised during the Oscars. J.C. Penny isnt exactly a luxury brand, but in their advertisements they promoted their designer clothing line and the perfumes they sold.

The Oscars makes every average Joe sitting at home feel like they are a part of the clebrity action, which the advertisers fed off of by promoting their brands in a elitest sense. Everyone wants to be part of the club.

Culture Control

Who controls culture? Do the people who create culture own it? My answer is yes. I do not think that J.K. Rowling owns the culture of Harry Potter, because she did not create the culture. J.K. Rowling created Harry Potter. Its that easy. I think it is wrong that J.K. Rowling sued a little girl over fan fiction, because J.K. Rowling does not own fan fiction in my opinion. The fan fiction is an exaggurated version of the Harry Potter story, written by J.K. Rowling online in a non-profit setting. Voldemort approves though.

If the creators of the objects that a culture evolves around owned the culture, the sixties would be owned by a lot of weed and LSD.

I mean seriously, I understand that good original ideas are hard to comeby, but sueing a little girl for fan fiction she created in her spare time with no profits. I would like to point out that writing is the only part of conversation that is censored and critiqued. What if this fan fiction was verbal? What if people attended shows where this girl created fan fiction with her friends and these kids made a profit? Would J.K. Rowling intervene? The question might sound rediculous at first, but it is such a basic point that is rarely examined. Why is writing fan fiction different than saying fan fiction in front of an audience. The same end is achieved, but the only difference is that one is spoken and one is written.

I suppose that the difference between speaking and writing is that writing can be read over and over again and the words on the page are somewhat permanent. With speach, a set of words that is spoken vanishes without a trace once they are said.

Chat Roullete

Chat Roullete is a new fad that has hit the online scene, giving people with a microphone and a video camera to "meet" strangers on the web. This website has been given a lot of attention by the media. Fox News says, "Chatroulette Is 'Predator's Paradise" because of the accessibility of the site and the need for many site users to expose themselves. The picture above was taken from the Fox News article that I embedded, and the man in the picture claimed to be a member of the U.S. Army. He is probably the most normal person on chatroullete.

I have been on chatroullete and half of the people on there are naked men, which is pretty disgusting no matter what way you look at it. However, from my personal experience, there are some interesting people you can meet on chatroullete. When I was on the site I talked to a member of the Armed Services, who was killing time.

As exciting as the site is, I dont think chatroullete is going to be a powerful new media outlet, because it is plagued with perverts and the quality of the conversation is seriously lacking intelligence. The site is purely a spectacle. Now news is actually being spread with people cycling through other video streams and trying to avoid nudity. Also, the platform on which you communicate is always in jeopardy on chatroullete, whereas on facebook you can always refer back to your homepage and post information that will be there more permanently than on chatroullete.

John Stewart did a great piece on chatroullete last night. He examined what the news sources said about chatroullete, and the funny part of the sequence was that the reporters did not realize how many inapropriate conduct is on the site. John Stewart then proceeds to test out chatroullete online himself. He encounters random reporters who act like they do on their professional venues. It is pretty hilarious

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-4-2010/tech-talch---chatroulette