Mcgod like??

Small, Medium, Large, or Supersized; and do you want a side order of two for a dollar apple pies with that? This is the voice of god, at least for some people, other people call it the cashier at McDonalds; and honestly with all the transfat and hype, the lines become so blurred you cannot tell a difference. I think it is funny how we, as a country sing praises, of “Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun” and worship Mc-everything, at the entrance to this heaven, otherwise known as the “Golden Arches”. Build it and they will come, from every corner, every crevice, every nook, and every cranny, people from all over, they will come and bow at it’s tables, giving their tithes and offerings, brining sacrifices of health to the alter of Ray Kroc. We’ll offer you toys in exchange for child’s allegiance to be lifelong Mcfollowers who build their every family moment around a yellow, white, and red striped flag. The only question is, when it’s all said and done, did we really enjoy it, or is that what we have been societally preprogrammed to believe?

The “Golden Arches” has its very own functional identity as an ontological being. If we are referring to McDonald’s it has so many different names it is called and often times is thought of to have the very same function as coke; call it McDonald’s even though you are referring to a different place and when you get to the place you are actually trying to go, you will know the difference. Similarly, the name invokes a hegemonic quality on road trips with family and friends. Someone chimes in saying they are hungry and someone else says, “Well we will just stop at the next McDonald’s available.” Society’s preconceived notion of fast food is McDonald’s.

McDonald’s has created for itself a common place usage, based solely off the active ploys of advertising; everything from overly catchy jingles, to team sponsorship. “Put a smile on, put a smile on, everybody come on, and put a smile on” to Ronald McDonald scholars, Mc D’s intention has been to ensure not only do you as the consumer always see there name, but you as the consumer also see their philanthropic endeavors. I would even go as far as to offer the argument that the Arches only give money to make money, not because they want to, but because they believe it works better inside their company’s business model. When you are god of the fast food industry, with 47 million customers served daily (AP press), you can change the rules of the game to suit your needs however you see fit. Giving does not have to follow the cultural expectation of giving for your fellow man because of his need, McDonald’s proves daily; giving can be another form of making money or just plain advertising.

McDonald’s takes the binary created by just being a hamburger joint or not being a hamburger joint and spins it on its head, making it focus on the fact that as a hamburger joint it can sell frappuccinos , espressos, creating an atmosphere of posh and intellect, while still being just as greasy as is expected for McDonald’s or any burger joint to be. This switch undertaken my McDonald’s was again, not driven by the desire to include many different types of people in the McDonald’s eating experience, it was a successful attempt at creating a market, which would be more focused on getting a just-as-good –as-Starbucks caffeine fix, for the cheaper-than-Starbucks price. But again, when you are god, you can change the dynamic of a culture solely by lowering the price.

Being the god type figure in question always begs the question of motivation and being McDonald’s always gives the answer of worship at the foot of the proverbial monetary ark. McDonald’s every movement, their every stride has been money driven sense inception, to the day Ray Kroc bought the McDonalds out of the business, and it’s all been about the almighty dollar. With this in mind, the question of are we really worshiping to the god of the “Golden Arches” or the Lord of the greenbacks, presided over by a plethora of old, dead white guys? Ultimately, this question becomes the only one; McDonald’s has so drastically continued to blur the lines further and further, eventually we might think our money is heading directly to one of the charities. The greatest difference right now, is when we step to the alter often called the cash register, we actually receive a Mc-something, give it a few more years and McDonalds might start being more than just a food fueling place, who knows with the way their business looks they might even launch a consulting group. But all in all when it’s all said and done, are you really, “bah da bah bah baah, loving it?”

Hey Hey it's offensive... Blackface on Saturday night!

In a land far, far away known as Adelaide, Australia, a small group of five comedians, known as the "Jackson Jive" resurrect an art form which they have been entertaining people with literally since, 1971. The only problem with this little show, the use of Blackface and Afro wigs in the presence of an American artist. Harry Connick Jr. was a guest judge on "Hey, Hey , It's Saturday," when the performance trope came out to perform. With a immediate and visible offense, Connick, rated the performance a zero. His reasoning for doing so was, "If they turned up looking like that in the United States... (at which you hear a low, ow)... It would be like Hey Hey, there's no more show." The rest of the judges went on to rate this a combine score of 8 (out of a possible 30). Blackface? Making fun of the newly deceased Michael Jackson? No pitch whatsoever? You tell me, what you'd rate it.

I think on of the biggest take aways from this performance is the focus on the "American Insult" of Blackface. Let's complicate the issue more; where did the insult of blackface first originate from? Blackface was originally put on by white individuals who were attempting to make fun of blacks,by donning charcoal on their face, and highlighting the features which were distinctly black, such as the lips, actors would then perform outrageous acts, typically with slurred speech and dumb movements to stir laughter from the crowd.

This is the very obvious difference between Australian, or not American audiences, and Harry Connick Jr., or the United States representative present, all of what was done was not necessarily a mockery of blacks as much as it was an attempt to be the Jackson family. In America it would have incited the same type of anger a burning cross does for blacks because there is a direct historical significance tied to this representation, where as in Australia, its something to do, but nothing which there are people who will be upset by this representation. I honestly believe there should be some level of reprieve for individuals with pure intent. I know there is no way to no what the intentions were but I feel like if there is something of significant destruction of aesthetic, especially when it changes from place to place and country to country, there should be some way to educate individuals without putting them down.

You Belong with Me?

In the land of fairies, princes and princesses, and knights in shining armor, there lives a musician by the name of Taylor Swift, who swiftly (pun intended), captures the hearts of ardent little girls, women, young and old, and little boys, whom are too young to know the difference, with her music of Love and Love lost, of boys, and of life; better yet, tales only true to fables. Taylor's approach to life is light, but hopeful, starry eyed, but earth bound, essentially it is willing to embrace the dreamer in all of us, but it constructs very rigid structures, who in their deconstruction, destroy the very fantasy she has created.

Miss Swift implies plenty about the roles of men and women in her music videos, often with males being the inferior of the two sexes. An example of this is in You Belong with Me, the gentleman, says [writes] at the beginning of the video, "I'm tired of Anna." This is his cheer-leading Captain, girlfriend who is apparently only with him because he is a status symbol for her. He continues to put up with her ridiculousness, up until the very end of the video where he finally realizes he loves Swift's character and they kiss and the rest is history. According to Taylor, men are not smart enough to realize when they are being abused. Another example of this is when, Anna is on the sideline at the game flirting with another one of the guys from the football team, the boyfriend walks up after catch the game winning pass- another subset of a fantasy- only to confront Anna about it then and she looks as though she snaps at him, he storms off the field. The most pronounced view is when the guy and Swift are sitting on the bench outside her house waiting for Anna to pull up, when Anna finally gets there he gets in the car and Anna makes out with him in front of Swift not to make out with him, but to send a message to Swift about talking to her ‘man’.

Basically the gist of the fantasy is men don’t know when to walk away from a situation which clearly makes them not an equal. Essentially this entire video is a slam to the male perception of life. Swift, attempts to create a cute love story, but what she really is creating is a complicated construction of the male structure. Men, only pay attention to cheerleaders, who drive red sports cars, and are the most sought after in the school. And although initially Swift opts out of the social construct of blond headed women being the object of men’s fascinations, she throws it back in at the end when presenting herself as the end all catch. She also makes a heavy assumption with going to what looks to be prom that night. She assumes he wants out of current relationship, she assumes, he wants to be more than friends, and she assumes, he is not just trying to make Anna jealous.

Swift creates all of these fantasized, story book scenarios, but loosely backs them up and places them all on the head of men to be the scapegoat. Her basic message is men are stupid, or at least not smart enough to know when to leave, all they are looking for is an ego stoke, not a legitimate relationship, and that men bounce from girl to girl to girl, based off what they have been treated like previously. Swift’s simple story becomes extremely complex in its attempt to create all of these fantasies. She does not give the option for men to opt out of any of these binaries, to cut across the grass instead of staying on the socially acceptable, sidewalk.

So, for all those little ones who do not quite understand the opposite sex and are still in the run and hide stage of having a boyfriend or girlfriend, I hope they don’t use Taylor Swift as a guide to telling them what is or is not acceptable, because most little boys will grow up and be very independent men and most little girls, will not actually being pompous and arrogant, so the fantasy of having the dependent boy leave the bossy girl, may just not happen.

Serena Williams... what shall we do with you?

Yesterday, at the US Open, the world watched as Tennis extraordinaire, Serena Williams, not only played hard, but yelled hard too. For those of you unfamiliar with this story you can find it right here on youtube, or here on ESPN.

This little stunt told the public several things, one- I can't handle my emotions when I'm in potentially steamy situations, two- I need to understand the power of my passion before I handle the situation.

I am a firm believer in leaving it all on the field, the court, or whatever, but there is a line that has to be drawn at the point where my feelings begin to overpower me. I liken this situation to watching people who are dog walking, especially when the dogs are HUGE! Often times you wonder who is walking whom, the dog walking the person, or the person walking the dog. Although the dog may be very powerful, proper discipline can bring him inline and allow for his master to walk his dog-not the other way around. I feel these scenarios are very similar. If you are as passionate as Serena Williams or Lagarrette Blout (Oregon's now suspended former running back) about what you are playing for, I can understand fully that emotions will fly high; I wholly expect that to happen, but it's understanding the power and magnitude of your emotions that will humble you and keep you from having a display of ill-willed passion, which could lose you the game- Williams- or get you suspended for the season-Blout.
Now, both of these two athletes have come back and apologized accordingly for the misconduct they showed on the court and the field, but they have lost the respect of hundreds, or in Williams case, even thousands of fans, solely because of the response in the moment. This is something which occurs multiple times a week between peers and friends. You could be in physical Education at school in the third grade and go and punch a kid or (in the case of my girlfriend's summer camp) kick a kid in the nuts.

This is one of those binaries which we are taught from a younger age; that we should be as passionate about whatever and do whatever it takes to ensure that passion is seen through and through. We don't learn how to understand our emotions in a more sub-grouped fashion. We believe that if we're not gung-ho about everything we do to the point we're willing to fight for it, than we're not passionate, not really. This is where we are wrong. What if we flipped the script and change our societal position and said at the point where we need to fight about something, our passion, our emotions, our excitement is getting the best of us and we should probably step back and reassess. What if we looked at our emotions and instead of being completely distraught or crazy about something we're passionate about, what if we had a gray area, where we could be extremely passionate, but realize we need to stay grounded and not blow up if something doesn't go our way? Opting out of the binary of being all or nothing, might actually save more than just your career, it might actually save your life one day.

But the question lies in the hands of each person; are you a binary, only on or off, black or white; or are you better than that- do you have built-in gray? I challenge you to reassess.