The Meaning of America and It's History

Grossberg's "Youth and American Identity", and Gordon's "More than Just a Shrine" stresses how America has turned into a universal "melting pot" made up of diverse people and unique cultures . Since post-World War II, Grossberg describes how today's youth generation is a "problematic solution to America's search for identity." In simpler terms, Grossberg believes that a great deal of the world is trying to mold our younger generation to be the next leaders, role-models, and products of the American dream. The question is "How can we be sure this generation will fullfill the American dream?" I'm not sure that Americans know exactly what the American dream really is, but they surely have ideas drawn from history. History class taught me that the American dream is part of achieving manifest destiny. However, in Gordon's piece, certain people such as immigrants did not come from a country where they were able to achieve superiority among other nations, such as the immigrants of Ellis Island. In Gordon's essay, she pays homage to the immigrants of Ellis Island and gives a detailed account of what it was like for them to come to a new place and not seek freedom nor other essential aspects of an "American Dream." Overall, one line from Gordon's work struck me, "And to tell the ghosts what I have always thought: that American history was a very classy party that was not much fun until they arrived, brought the good food, turned up the music, and taught everyone to dance." For me, this statement is true, being raised Italian and growing up in an Itatlian family, with great food, a fun-loving family, and amazing traditions, just as those who are Irish, or German, or any other culture in the world. Were all different and we all bring something new to the world.

Malls and Churches??

Beginning to read John Fiske "Shopping for pleasure: Malls, Power, and Resistence" I was very confused why he was talking about churches and comparing them to malls. I started understanding what I was reading toward the end of the story. I do not see anything wrong with kids just going to the mall to just hangout with their friends and escape from their homes. From my own experience I would do the same. I would go to the mall just to hangout with my friends and just go in stores and look and leave. If i had any money with me I would use it to buy food never to buy anything in a clothing store, electronic store, etc. Saying kids go to malls to start trouble or to get drunk is crazy. My mall is a place where you would never see anyone ever drunk or starting a riot. But i am only able to compare my mall with the story other malls across the nation are completely different from mine. I think the story was a complete waste of time. Kids today don't have any place to go and feel safe and hang out with their friends without getting into trouble by the police just by loitering. I just didn't like the story overrall.

2 in 1

The text "Goths in Tomorrowland" is just really funny to me. I know someone who use to dress somewhat freakish when he was like 13 and he is the biggest sweetheart. Now he's preppy with no piercings and wears American Eagle, it's just a phase. Just because they wear black, have peircings, and listen to heavy metal it doesn't mean their evil and going to cause a corruption or hurt anyone. The topics these authors come up with just amazes me.

In "Shopping for pleasure: Malls, Power and Resistance"I had no idea what Fiske was talking about until the end of the text. I think the text was stupid and a pontless topic. Who cares if kids go to the mall, walk around, socialize and not buy anything. They are mostly young teens who don't have a license and have nothing better to do. I even did it. You have no money so you just browse. Kids don't just go to the mall thinking "Oh I'm going to start a mob today." The whole drinking thing I have never even thought of but I could definately believe it considering how the middle age school kids are nowadays. But just because someone has a bottle in their hand it doesn't mean there drinking! Fiske just completely overexaggerated in this text.

This guy's outside his mind.

Cathedrals and malls? I see no comparison between the two, i've only ever heard a cathedral compared to a sporting venue and that is because people come their to worship their team which makes alot of sense. I wasn't a fan of his twisting malls and everything about htme with the catholic religion and things associated within that. But yeah i have seen some adolescents cause a scene at a mall more than a few times, but not necessarily a mob type scene. Although what does he expect from a bunch of teenagers hangin out at the mall, the mall is somewhat their hangout for their group of friends, typically the ones making the scenes are the ones who can't drive yet and are pretty young and immature. Overall two thumbs way down for this topic of his.

Going to the mall DRUNK?!?!?

"Shopping for Pleasure: Malls, Power, and Resistance" By: John Fiske. Well.. When I started reading this piece I was so confused about comparing shopping malls to churches but I did understand more once I kept reading. Teens go to malls to hang out with friends, get away from their parents or even just for something to do. Fiske made it out to seem that teens go to the mall to start trouble. I know personally I have gone to the mall before to hang out with friends and just look around cause at that time I don't have any money to spend. I think all teens at some point just go to the mall to walk around or socialize but that doesn't mean that they are trying to fight the system. I thought it was very interesting when Fiske stated that teens go to the mall to get drunk. That teens bring there alcohol in water bottles/soda bottles. I have been to the mall many times and have never been drunk or seen any teens getting drunk while there. I think Fiske is taking that issue a little too far! Teens just want to walk around, have fun, maybe buy something, and most times cause no trouble at all.

O dear...

Ok, let me start out by saying I totally agree with Angel! In Fiske's story he jumped around so much, why....there's no reason for it.

I sidagree with hiim when he acusses adolesents of creating a mob scene, does he know that most of the stores in the mall are directed at pre-teens, teens, and young adults? Sometimes I go to the mall and I can walk in and out of stores and an hour later walk out of the mall an hour later with just a shirt! But I didn't creat a scene doing it. Lot's of teens walk around and window shop and when they know they have money they will go back and buy something.
I also don't know anyone who goes to the malls drunk. Why did he even bring that up, where does he come from?
I don't think this iske guy knows anything about anything...well atleast nothing about teens or malls.

Two Birds, One Post

I’m going to make a combined posting of my paper ideas and a response to the Fiske reading because I’m not exactly sure which we were supposed to do.

Honestly, I feel like this paper is going to end up as a giant rant with a few statistics thrown here or there – in kinder, fancier English teacher terms this will be mostly a persuasive writing piece. I’d like to do “Goths in Tommorowland” but I think I would have difficulty finding statistics to support an argument. I think if I used Naomi Klein’s article I would have enough to research, but I agree way too much with her and her position that stating my own opinions on the issue would be redundant. For this paper I’m going to pull out the political card and lean to the right of the fence in order to rip Mike Davis a new one. I know it’s crazy considering I call myself a moderate-liberal, but I think I’ll be able to put together a solid argument by disagreeing with Davis’s article “Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of Urban Space".

As for Fiske’s article: what a pompous critique on the art of mall-ratting.

A long stretch

Many things can be compared to each other. Some are compared by metaphors. In John Fiske's "Shopping for Pleasure: Malls, Power, and Resistance," he makes a long stretch using a metaphor to compare shopping malls with Catholic cathedrals. When he gets in to the story he explains how teenagers and the youth just use the mall as a place to hang out and to get drunk. WHenever I went to the mall I did not see this going on. Yeah there are alot of teenagfers and youth just walking around the mall looking and not buying much, but that is because many of them do not have the money to. I am sure that if the circumstances were different and they had money that the things that they look at that they might buy. I think that the mall is a perfectly acceptable place for teenagers to go to and to get out of the house just to hang out. To me there is no comparison from a mall to a cathedral.

Shopping malls are the new age cathedrals ?

In the beginning of this text Fiske uses the Catholics cathedrals as a metaphor for shopping malls. Saying that shopping, is like a religion and how "the exchange of money becomes a secular equivalent of holy communion". The downfall to this religion is not enough consumption of the product. That is when Fiske looks to adolescents, who flock to the malls but rarely buy anything. He talks about adolescents creating a mob scene, taking up the space at the mall, causing a riot. It is also known that if their is a group or teenagers, then they must have drugs or alcohol...Right? WRONG. While reading this article I could not believe the conclusions this guy jumped to about adolescents. Did it ever occur to him that just maybe teens don't have enough money to buy what they want all the time, and no other place to hang out ? Maybe they just want to get away from their parents for a little while, and the mall seems to be the only place where teenagers today can do just that. Why is it that when a group of teenagers get together, adult get scared ? In most cases teenagers are harmless, and just want a place to have fun, well at least that's how I felt when I went to the mall with my friends.

Fiske...I have no idea what your talking about

I think I have never been this confused in reading an essay or short story. I thought Edgar Allan Poe stories used to be tough to follow, but I think now I've changed my mind. Fiske starts out talking about how shopping malls are like a cult or religion for people, how they are a metaphor in some way to people. Then, he speaks about consumerism and how teens occupy malls in such a powerful way that they are taking over malls. What does all of this mean? He puts to many ideas together at one time, where I have no idea what to think about first. This essay was very difficult for me to follow. However, I understood the last few paragraphs about teens and going to the mall. Most of the time we do go to the mall to socialize with one another. So what? Maybe I'm a teen who works a low paying job where I do not earn enough money to buy new clothes and accessories all the time. Maybe I have to save my money for important investments like helping my parents pay for my phone bill or college tuition, things that actually matter most. I like to walk around the mall and talk, but I'm not a teen who brings alcohol to a mall in a water bottle or soda can. I mean c'mon, who really does that? Anyway, to me this article was not meaningful because I'm not a troubled teen who goes to a mall drunk, or someone who buys expensive clothing to enhance consumerism. I guess I'm just normal.

Whats the point of shopping for pleasure?

As with most of the readings assigned for I struggled to find an opinion or something intelligent to say about it, all this reading about theoretical stuff and intangables, tends to confuse me.

I did gather that the article itself is pretty objective, like "goths in tomarrowland" it brings up the issue of space and shared with different people with different agenda's, but i fail to see the significance of it all. Teens go to the mall whether they have money or not, so what. But no, this Fiske guy thinks there is some kind of subliminal power going on, i dont know what hes talking about. I dont think that unemployed adolecents are going to the mall with the mindset of "I going to fight the system, I'm going to the mall without cash" nor do they walk in a store and think "I gonna stay in here for ten minutes then walk out without buying anything, that will trick the shopkeeper". I Do think teens go to the mall to socialize, eat, or just for something to do.

a thousand and one blogs

its been a long time since i've blogged on the site, so i'll try to get a bunch of them in together. if anyone gets lost, feel free to leave a comment to let me know.

"No Logo" by Naomi Klein and "Hype" by Kalle Lasn

These pieces covered the issues surrounding adverstising, how advertising companies use subversive techniques to capture its market, and how advertising in general effects the public as a whole. Many of these findings came to no surprise to me because I knew most of them that were being used, if not through research then by daily coming and goings of life. We as a public are forced at times to have our physical and mental space invaded...even now as I'm typing this post, there is a constant bombardment (sp?) of advertisements with pop ups. The sad part is, that is the point of advertisement which has evolved into overwhelming the viewer into submitting to the product they're trying to sell. As much as I hate to say it, putting ad's in a bathroom however invasive this is can be really effective. I don't think it should be done because personally I just want some peace and privacy in that situation. It does go to show though that companies are willing to do whatever it takes to keep its market or reach out to a new one. One such example that i could think of was McDonald's who start their market age very early with the Happy Meal. And they're not the only ones, because from a young age we're marketed. It actually frightens me to think what advertising can do to a certain point; I'll just take up my job to make my own decisions instead of letting advertising decide for me.

"Nickel-and-Dimed..." by Ehrenreich and "Pennies and Hour..." by Kernaghan
The sheer insanity of this article kept me rivetted. Though once again, I'm not completely surprised by the result Ehrenreich got when she went to look for work after leaving such a cushy job. In all honesty, it felt to me as though she had a condescending (sp?) tone at first to think that it would actually be easy to find a crap job since she is so over qualified. Speaking from experience it's difficult to find work anywhere that pays decently because there is always someone who, even if they're less than qualified, is more than willing to work for less than the standard pay. I give her kudos though for effort and the fact she did it at all.
On the point that there are plenty of people out there willing to work for far less than standard pay, there is enough proof overseas to demonstrate this well. Children and adults alike are crammed into unsafe conditions for pennies a day in order to have some sort of cash income. Unfortunately with the pay and working conditions, its much more of an uphill climb than most bargin for. It makes me ill to think that some little kid made me a hat for less than a fraction of what I bought it for.
All in all, I feel like hell for buying into the companies that advertise to me constantly, get their products made by poor little kids, and are getting the major cuts of their profit. thanks those sections of reading was a blast...


"Fortress Los Angeles" by Mike Davis and "Goths in Tomorrowland" by Thomas Hine
Goths in Disneyland; the two don't really belong in a sentence either. Let's take something pastel, bright, beautiful, and seemingly perfect and throw in an element of extreme darkness, sadness, and just plain morbidness. Along that note, lets take the homeless in a business district in a city like Los Angeles. The bigger issue here is a case of image. Its a matter of something clean, perfect, and idealized that is supposedly being invaded by that is considered dirty, dark, morbid, and "wrong" by society. For 'Goths' I came to a simple conclusion...who cares about image if these punks are giving you money? If they have no where else to go, let them be weird, but weird in a safe environment. For 'Fortress' my conclusion was, honestly if they want your garbage and refuse, then let them have it. If you don't want them rummaging around in your crap, then donate to charities, or set up a shelter for these people to go! Until you, and I am speaking to the authors, realize that circumstantially speaking these people have no other option to keep on doing what they're doing, I suggest you shut the hell up.

"Shopping for Pleasure" by John Fiske.
I'll make this one simple: this guy has way too much time on his hands and is looking to far into too simple of a subject matter.
Since i can't get away with a one sentence answer, i will continue on my point. True, there are instances, however few and far between where kids have gone to the mall drunk, which completely eludes me as to why. True, kids go to the mall to hang out and NOT BUY ANYTHING. This is because they're kids and kids typically DON'T HAVE JOBS TO EARN MONEY! However, once again they need a safe, controlled area to go and just chill. Now if companies have the opportunity to expose their products to future customers, i don't see a problem here. And the whole thing about the mall being a church, i've heard this metaphor before about malls becoming temples of excess. I've had enough of this metaphor because to an extent it may be true, but for crying out loud its not that bad. there is a world of difference between a church to worship, and a place to buy some khakis or something.
Finally, lets get one fact across here: adults are scared of teenagers. Always have, probably always will for whatever reason. So yeah, enough of that.

Paper Idea
I have no idea what I want to do for this paper, but I am leaning in the general directions of either "Goths in Tomorrowland", or "Nickel-and-Dimed..." for my paper. I'm choosing these particular essays because they seem to be issues I could follow up on very well.
comments or ideas welcome.

An evil city and a judgmental park...depending on your view

First starting to read Mike Davis's "Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of Urban Space" I was getting some what confused going a long with it but then after going back and re-reading it I was able to comprenhend most of it. I thought it was interesting how the city was spending so much money to keep the homeless people from sleeping anywhere. Wouldn't it be cheaper to set up shelter homes and food banks, instead of changing the way the park benches are designed, or installing sprinkler systems in the parks to keep them from sleeping in the parks, and designing special garbage systems to keep them out of their trash. They could have saved so much more money getting them off the streets and into safer places, but they don't seem to care about the people who try so hard to just find shelter from the out door envirnoment. Thomas Hine's "Goths in Tomorrowland" made me think that we judge people way too much. The parents of the kids who live in OC just need a safe place for their children to go and know that they will be safe. Expressing themselves with dressing up in black is the way their clinque is. The sterotypical jock always dresses in jerseys, computer geeks always seem to dress in overalls and have glasses with tape in the center of them and the goths dress in all black and decorate themselves with piercings and sharp objects. Even though Disneyland is labeled "the happiest place on earth" the way someone dresses shouldn't change anyone who sees them in the park. Their not doing anything wrong and don't seem to be physically bothering anyone. Why do people have to complain about them being there. If they had been bothering people physically then there would be a reason to get rid of them. With the changing of generations people, more teens though, are expressing themselves more with the way they dress. People cannont be offended by it since this is america and you have every right to dress the way you want to. I see no problem with having people look goth walking around disneyland as long as they don't come up to me and start bothering me.

LA vs Goths

"Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of Urban Space" By Mike Davis. Alright, I first wanted to start out saying that I was kind of lost when reading this piece. I believe that it was boring but I am still going to attempt to explain what I thought. Davis goes into detail about how the government is giving so much money to Los Angeles for the upperclass to benefit off of. At the same time the rest of Los Angeles society is being forgotten about. Davis says the government is only trying to help out the upperclass and tourist and not doing anything for anyone else. I think the government needs to stop worrying about the buildings and designs and pay a little more attention to the lower class and some of these problems can be helped. "Goths in Tomorrowland" By Thomas Hine. I found this article interesting because I could relate seeing this types of kids in high school and knowing about certain "clicks". I think there are good people within all types. Even though someone dresses like a "goth" doesn't mean they are trouble or bad. I feel that everyone expresses themselves differently and that should be accepted. I do not understand why if you didn't want to go to Disneyland ( a happy place) and be happy and have fun.. then why someone would go there? It ruins the atmosphere when you see someone sitting on a bench with an evil face at such a happy place, but that's just me!

"The mere presence of teenagers threatens us." (Hine)

After reading Hine's "Goths in Tomorrowland", I glanced in the mirror to take a look at myself and thought, do adults really fear teenagers? Could I have an appearance that intimidating to adults? That is crazy to me. If anything, I fear adults, they never fear me. This story made me realize just how paraniod the "older generation" can be. Teenagers should not make someone feel afraid let alone be talked about as if we are criminals. However, I do agree with Hine when she talks about goths, I know some that are good people and I know some that are not. Stereotypes are put on the wrong people today. I could say that I am afraid of old people driving on the road because 70 or more percent of the time old people are terrible drives just as teenagers can be. Most old people you could label "legally blind." Most importantly, I feel sorry for teenagers who wish to be different and to be accepted as different and I do not sympathize with teenagers who purposely try to rebel against society. What is the point in rebelling by the way you act and dress? That only makes a society more corrupt in my opinion.
Within Davis' story concerning Los Angeles and urbanization within cities, these storys are very similar. Those who are desperately trying to urbanization cities are also finding ways to evacuate the poor from society because they fear them, just like adults fear us teenagers. To me, I do not see poor people as a threat. I see them helpless and unknowing of their own self-worth. However, buisness companies throughout Los Angeles do not care about the feelings of others, they only care about making money. This aggrivates the poor, and to me, that is why I see "crazy" homeless people on the subway or park benches in Philly. These people have gone crazy due to society's high demands and beg for money, even are ready to abuse middle-class people in giving them money because they are so angry. Hell, I would be angry to. Altogether, I sympathize with both worlds, the poor and teenage population.

Southern California: Where They’ll Rob from the Poor to Give to the Rich and They’ll Kick You Out of Disneyland for Dressing Like a Hot Topic Cliché

Mike Davis’s “Fortress Los Angeles’ is a detailed account on the disproportionate amount of government money and resources that goes toward helping LA cater to the upper class residents and tourists. It’s pretty despicable how the city government took land away from low-income citizens for development and how their needs were completely ignored.

I really don’t know why it’s so shocking that Disneyland would kick out “Goth” kids. During the 60’s and 70’s it was common practice for them to turn away male customers with long hair. It’s all part of Disney’s reactionary way of preserving nostalgia. The rest of Thomas Hine’s article “Goths in Tommorowland” goes on to explain how much marketing has an affect on adolescents. I found myself agreeing with Hine’s closing statement: “Young people are caught in a paradox. They drive themselves to extremes to create space in which to be themselves. Yet the commercial machine they think they’re escaping is always on their back, ready to sell them something new” (72)

The urban and youth downslide

Mike Davis's article was interesting about the lengths they will go to or not go to with ending homelessness. We all know that in a rich buisness area there would be nice places to eat and shop as well as comfortable park benches to relax on, just as we knew that in poorer areas the benches are almost unbearable to sit on even for a homeless person also with turning the sprinklers on at night to avoid vagrancy. Hine's article begins about goth's invasion of Disneyland but then goes deeper about what type of groups teens are linked to, especially how segregated they are, we all know this from going to high school. I think he was on point when he says we are now more concerned with individualism these days rather than the pre-mtv days.

Goths and Homeless are Rejected

In Thomas Hine's "Goths in Tomorrowland" he describes how there are few safe places where teens are welcome. Disneyland, one of the minority places left, teen goths were beginning to take over. Disneyland's safety was one of the attractions for these goths. Many of the teens had not even been goths when their parents dropped them off at the edge of the parking lot. Rather, they changed into their black and sometimes gender-bending garments, applied their white makeup accented with black eyeliner and gray blush-on (Hine 68). The word "teenager" is in question whether if it is sufficient to encompass all the different teens. The goths that invaded Tomorrowland are examples of another kind of diversity (70). They have become a stereotypical group such as "jocks", "preps", "freaks", "geeks", etc. Teens will go to extremes in order to express themselves and create space for them to be their own person but it is seen that they are only escaping themselves but in reality their is no escaping. In Mike Davis' "Fortress Los Angleles: The Militarization of Urban Space" he explains how Los Angeles tries to keep the underclass out of its city. They attempt this by offering few public lavatories then any other major North American city. Also, there is a lack of outside water sources for drinking or washing. City leaders periodically propose schemes for removing indigents en masse -self consiously adopting the idiom of the cold war, has promoted the "containment" of the homeless in Skid Row (Davis 278). Skid Row is has become probably the most dangerous ten blocks in the world. The police play a major role in the Los Angeles city. They stop visitors to be frisked and the police routinely oreder residents back into their apartments at night. The domestic life is subjected to constant police scrutiny (280).

Time to post another blog....

Okay , so as I was reading Mike Davis's "Fortress Los Angelees : The militarization of urban space, I became very lost. Maybe it's just me but this story was not interesting to me at all! I'm not quite sure at what he was trying to get at, perhaps i'll take a shot at it. So, I understand that he thinks that Los Angeles is not the same, and that it's very much seperated by classes, or people. He also explains how things have changed, he says " Taxes previously targeted for traditional public spaces and recreational facilities havebeen redirected to support corporate redevelopment"...so basically the people are getting help or funding for childrens park, but instead big companies are getting the money. He says that once booming towns/cities are now home to a community of different races living in tenement homes, but " will soon fall to redevelopent's bulldozers."
In the story " Goths in tomorrowland" by Thomas Hine, he writes about teens and how it affects culture. In this story he is mearly talking about the, shall we say " goth era", sure we all know someone who is a " goth" I went to school with many people who dressed in black wore shoes with a 6 in heel, and black eyeliner and white faces seemed to be thier thing. Diseny land is supposed to be for happy people, not people who look angrey or sad. What affect does it have on little children? But according to parents disneyland was a safe place. Adults seem to have a problem with the goth trend even today, they usually just don't want to subject their children to it, I just think they don't understand it. All in al this story was better than the first.

In Mike Davis' article "Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of urban space," he shows that's the Los Angeles governments are privatizing public space and subsiding new exclusive enclaves. The main reason he wrote this was to show how racist the government is towards helping the higher class citizens and leaving the lower class races who live the urban life with nothing to live for. The reason for this is to increase the amount of sites for for tourist and also for their safety. I think in a way its fair, but at the same time cutting off the limits of civilians will only cost the government more trouble because there going to disobey the law even more than they were before. Maybe if they take some of the money their spending on these buildings and help the lower class environments, it will make it easier for them and there will be less problems. In Thomas Heins "Goths In Tomorrowland," he shows the other side of teenagers and how the way they dress affects certain environment. I think teens who dress gothic to go into Disney world should be banned or atleast get in trouble because it is supposed a place of happiness. Teenagers dressing like this are scaring the little ones. Anyone who chooses to dress like that should be sent to a psychiatrist immediately. Why would you do anything to ruin your reputation or make yourself look bad, its just something I never understood.

Wrong doings in the Economy

"...1998 it took, on average nationwide, an hourly wage of $8.89 to afford a one-bedroom apartment." (Ehrenreich 377) How can this be when, in America the mini. wage for employees is $5.15 an hour. Although some employers pay a dollar or two more, this still isnt a wage that many americans can live off of and raise a family with. In the artical Nickel-and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich, she went undercover to "experience poverty" (375) and the hardships of welfare. Through her experiment she found that in the end of one month she had earned $22 of 'left over' money which is less then what she started with and this dosnt include buying clothes or medical supply. In another part of the world, poor women are facing much different working conditions. Women in bangladesh on get paied 1.6 cents for every harvard baseball cap they make. (Hayden and Karnaghn 385) Eventhough, this is a horrable situation for third world countries, if we changed this how would it effect our economie in america? Would raising sweatshop wages also raise prices for everyday products, toys and other sporting goods? Both of these articiles make very good and valid points, but what can we do to save our economy ?

Rock Bottom

"Pennies an Hour and No Way up" made me understand how hard it must be for people in a sweatshop to support themselves and their families. The problem with the sweatshops is terrible, but I also asked myself what would they do if there was no sweatshop. Would they have any work at all? It is a issue which I try to understand but it isn't my position to fix it, the governemnt of that country, of the U.S. and the Companies leaders are the people who should fix the problem with kids as workers and the miniscule wages. It upsets me how there are CEO's and many other leaders of companies who are flying on private jets but don't care about the workers who are making them richer than some small countries. "Nickel-and-Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" already showed me something that I know, it is very hard to get by in America on minimum wage, this is why I'm in college. I don't want that to sound bad but I'm sure the minimum wage workers didn't have a great education and there is nothing the U.S. or we could do to stop this problem, accept preach education and realize there will always be a lower class in our country.

I don't know that I agree

When reading these two stories, which were very interesting, seemed to be a little over the top for me. I was trying to read these stories with an open mind, but found it hard when I got to the end of the story. If you think about it, there are many programs out there where lower class society can get help. For example, mothers or families that don't have enough cash to get the food they need for their family may qualify for WIC http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/ Also, in the story nickel and dimmed the author explains that she had enough money to do what she needed to do with 22$ left over. Although she complained that she wouldn't have enough money to buy medial supplies. The access card http://www.togetherrxaccess.com/en/about_together_rx_access.html services families or individuals that can't always afford their medical needs. Along with those services there are also food pantry's and soup kitchens along with others. I'm sure that if a person looks hard enough they can find people or the government to help them.
I do agree that living on no money or very little is hard. But there may be ways around it, the services may not solve all your problems, but they can help some.

The Bottom Rung

It is interesting how Ehrenreich did a study like thi, with making sacrifices to drop down to a lower class economic lifestyle. She wanted to feel what poverty was like, and answers the question of can you live on minimum wage (6-7 $'s an hour). Her answer is that low wages will not end poverty, she goes on about applications and what they really wanted of her, no jailtime and legally a resident. I notice she gets alittle sarcastic when she says "I have left behind so much...what i miss most is competence". Implying negative things about her co-workers. The article says that it is hte hardest to succed as compared to being and upper, middles class person or even being on welfare. Then you read Kristof and WuDunn's article about how sweatshop workers live on 1$ a day and if they get 2 then they feel blessed. And that sweatshops actually help the economy. Most Americans get the wrong idea about sweatshops, they overall help the people. Yes some of the conditrions are really bad but it means industrial revolution is now incorporated in that country and living standards will be raised. It is just funny to see the articles aside eachother for how 6-7$ a day won't keep you afloat and in East Asia 1-2$ a day is a great income.

"Pennies, Nickels, Dimes" What Can I Buy?

This is a first, but I actually like the longer reading rather than the long one. this time! I enjoyed reading Nickel-and-Dimed because it really put things into perspective for me. Reading how Barbara Ehrenreich took enough pride in her job to just leave her life to experiment what another life would be like was incredible and very courageous. It seems like a scarey task, but it kind of makes me want to do something like that. I think that if people did that, they would realize what the people living in poverty feel liek and live like. It could be a new way of understanding. That might just be what this world needs. This reading provided a lot of good facts and issues. On the other hand when I read Pennies an Hour and No Way Up, I didn't feel as interested. It basically was showing the hardships people face in sweatshops. I think that things will never change because people just don't understand.

Underpaid and Underprivileged

I found Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Nickel-and-Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America”, an account on living at the poverty level in America, to be disturbing. If anything her writing made me feel kind of guilty about how I take my current financial position and education for granted. The hands on a/step into their shoes approach made this piece slightly more authentic than just throwing out statistics.

Tom Hayden’s sweatshop article, “Pennies an Hour and No Way Up”, further reinforced my feelings against the evils of foreign sweatshop labor for American companies. I find it frustrating that our government hasn’t done much lately in order to prevent such exploitation – but then again we live in George W. Bush’s America and it’s been awhile since anyone’s bashed Kathie Lee Gifford.

America is cheap

After reading the "Nickel-and-Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America" by Barbara Ehrenreich, I was able to relate it to myself in a way. I started working at minimum wage and it took me 3 years to actually start making more to live off of. No matter how hard i would work i still couldn't get any more than a few cent raise which wasn't helping me. It was interesting to see how Ehrenreich actually went out into the work force and tried to see if she could live off of minimum wage and live in an up scale place, but she realized she wouldn't be able to afford and upscale place and had to look at places like trailors and such. In Tom Hayden and Charles Kernaghans "Pennies an Hour and No way up" it was interesting to see how lucky some of us are with the way we are paid for the work we do. Someone who spent so much time making a sweater or a type of clothing getting paid only 5cents, to find out that a retail store sells it for 17.99. Its sad to think america has become this. People should get paid right for the amount of time and effort they put in to their work. I really enjoyed reading both pieces as informative to how the american soceity is being ripped off from their work no matter how hard they might work and how much of their time they might put into their work.

Can you Survive?

In Barbara Ehrenreich's article, "Nickel-and-Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America," she lives in the place of an article she wants to write about. I very much disagree with her because i think that just because there are low paying jobs out there, she did not find all the ways of getting help to be able to live on a low wage paying job. I feel that she did not live in the way of a low paying job life for long enough to figure out that there is alot of help out there from different programs. I guess the main reason why I have to disagree with her is because I have lived my whole life seeing my parents make low wages on their jobs and they still seemed to get by, with some bumps along the way. In Kernaghan's "Pennies an Hour and No Way Up," he talks about sweat shops and all the conditions that are involved with them. I think that it is good that people write about these issues, but I think that the fact that they exist is just wrong. There is no reason why a country would have to employ their population on such low wages. I think that Barb should take a look around and see that her experience could have been worse in a different place. Sweat shops may be wrong, but all in all, they help out the american economy and that is why many people do not say much about them.

The American Way

I found Nickels and Dimes very interesting. The author Barbara Ehrenreich acts as an anthropologist towards how poverty feels and the struggles of the everyday lives of the individuals. Ehrenreich shows how devastating it would be to live in poverty and how difficult it is to find a good paying job that can support everyday needs. Many of these people living in poverty chose to live how they live. Eventually they realize where they went wrong and want to change their lifestyle. Most of the time it is to late and they are financially out of contact with further ways to make their life better. Kids growing up in poverty today need to realize anything they want to do is possible. Hard work just has to be put forth. That’s why there are so many people living in poverty today because they've failed to put hard work in to encounter success. On the other hand I found Pennies an hour and no way up also intriguing. It is reverse in other countries the way poverty works. The people out of country work extremely hard for nothing except a couple cents an hour. The US should be ashamed of how greatly they profit off of the workers in sweatshops. In the US people living in poverty sit back and rely on welfare. These citizens to other countries work hard everyday of their life and can't rely on anything. That is where our government is going wrong.

Take a look around you lately?

As seen in Lasn's "Hype," there are more advertisements around us then I could have imagined. For there to be over 12 billion display ads, 3 million radio ads, and 200,000 TV commercials in a day. Around three thousand of them are seen by any given person a day. When you think about it, there are more ads everywhere everyday. Something I would disagree with on advertising being put there, eventhough a lot of people would see it, is advertising on the roofs of schools. Yeah, the schools could make money off of it but school is a place to learn, not to drill ads into students. On the other hand, "No Logo" by Naomi Klein talked about brands, not products. She shows that ads, on the most part do not worry about the product itself, that the consumer will buy the product based on the image that is given off by the ad or product. No matter how much the product costs, cheap or expensive, if someone thinks, or does, need it they will buy it. It helps to portray the product, when the advertisement is seen everywhere.

Wait, what's that you ask?

Oh, that’s just the sound of the American Dream being flushed

So much for the American Dream.  The streets aren’t paved with gold and there certainly aren’t any silver platters, except for the Donald Trumps, George Bushs (ugh), and any of the Kennedys.  I think it’s safe to say that, at one point in our lives, each of us were told that if we worked hard, gave it our best and that if we put our mind to it, we could do anything.  In fact, Nas told us to repeat “If I work hard at it, I'll be where I want to be” but as encouraging as it sounds, sometimes it just doesn’t work out that way.

Rather than simply interview subjects or replicate statistics, Ehrenreich took the time to submit herself to the conditions that so many in America—land of the free shullbit—live in, live with, and live through.  While this wasn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last article written about the paralleling issues, it’s saddening to think…no…to know that in our lifetime this will never change.  Why would they? As long as companies can pay just enough to allow a person to afford bread and water (just enough to keep one alive and make it to work the next day) and pocket millions of dollars, things are going to remain just as they are.  It’s a dog eat dog world and someone always has to be smarter, quicker, richer and this country wasn’t built for everyone to be wealthy. As we know, money begets power, power begets respect and when you have respect there isn’t much you can’t do.

I'm ashamed to be an American sometimes...

After reading "Nickel-and-Dimed" and "Pennies an Hour and No Way Up", I felt ashamed to call myself an American. I live in the richest c0untry in the world, I have everything and more, but somehow I feel ashamed to say so. It's not morally right to make anyone, black or white, indian or chinese, to work a low-wage job just because they are not doctors, lawyers, or at a higher competency in society. How can our government not take a stand against this rational? I was devasted and shocked to read in "Pennies an Hour..." that two billion people in the world make less than two American dollars a day. Some of these people are grown adults while I'm a young teen bagger at a Genuardi's grocery store making five or more dollars then they are. Moreover, I found it interesting that Barbara Ehrenreich chose to live the life of a low-wage worker in her story," Nickel-and-Dimed." Through her article, I could relate to a lot of the things she was talking about while she was a waitress. My first money-paying job was being a busser and a hostess at a small cafe and deli back home. I remember thinking to myself about how badly the waitresses would be treated, how little they were paid for working so hard, sweating in and out of the kitchens, and especially putting up with sexual harrassment from the cooks. I guess what amazed me the most was how beautiful of a people they were despite the working class they came from. Just because your a waitress or a hotel housekeeper does not mean your personality is poor or that someone else is better than you. However, I still wish like Enrenreich says, for these people to come to know what they're really worth and stand up for themselves, they deserve better, much better.

1.6 cents..WHAT? is that possible?

In "Nickel-and-Dimed: on (Not) Getting by in America" I was amazed about how Erenreich conducted an experiment to see what it is like living on wages paid in most service jobs. She wanted to experience poverty and see how it feels to be a long term low waged worker. She lived in a rundown home, struggling to pay rent. She went on many job searches and realized how hard it was to get a job even getting paid six to seven dollars an hour. She could barely survive herself, and she couldn't possibly imagine how single mothers on welfare managed to survive. She realized she'd never be able to hold two jobs, and she couldn't even live off of one job. In the end she realized the low waged workers she had encountered were far too nice and worthy of something than to be paid such low wages. She hopes that they can realize and take appropriate action. I give her a lot of credit for doing this experiment. She is someone well off and now knows hands on what it is like to live in poverty. I know I would never be able to go through with it, lets face it money is sweet and we all love it and we all want more of it, and when we dont have any, were not happy. Maybe were all just spoiled, or lucky? Maybe theres something very wrong with this world? "Pennies an Hour and No Way up" was just very disturbing. It was information I and I'm sure many others are unaware of. A woman works very hard to sew a shirt and earns her ever so rewarding 5 cents and then America goes and sells it for $17.99! I just find it outrageous. It makes me not want to buy things because you don't know where it has come from, the "background" of the object you would like to purchase. I think it's unbelievable and yea are countries rich, but that's just messed up. Somone should do something.

I've Been Branded

First Off, I need to say good title Scott.
Now, I titled my blog "I've Been Branded" because everyday I walk around wearing the name brand clothes that I spend a lot of money on. For some reason Nike, Timberland, Enyce, and many more companies have gotten my attention and tricked me into spending more money than I need to on clothes even though I could find clothes for much less. I've been branded mentally as well because there are certain brands, like reebok and adidas, that I would never even think about buying, which in Naomi Klein's article "No Logo" shows that the company as reached me in what it is trying to do. The companies don't worry about the product one-fourth as much as they do about their "brand". I don't think I'm a walking advertisement but I've heard people say they would never wear a brand-name for that reason. As Kalle Lasn, talks about the obsurd ways of advertising in "Hype" I had to laugh at the actual things people have done. I couldn't believe that a school kid has a different advertisement shaved into his head for everyone else to see, or how a company is trying to get a advertisement to go into orbit. I personally think that advertising is becoming complete bullshit and has ruined much of our cultural landscape in the country. The only problem is the companies aren't going to change and we the consumers will probably see an advertisement for something we like and go out and buy it.

Advertising Sucks

Advertising is everywhere. What else is new? This is not something new to our generation, we've all grown up on the commercials and the snappy signature lines from our favorite fast food place. "Have you had your break today?" I think it's probable that most of us can identify that one as being the McDonalds logo. "Hype" by Kalle Lasn clearly shows the pent up fustration she has had with these ads consuming our daily lives.
"You reach down to pull your golf ball out of the hole and there, at the bottom of the cup, is an as for a brokerage firm. You fill your car with gas, there's an ad on the nozzle. You wait for your bank machine to spit out money and an as pushing GIC's scrolls by in the little window." (Lasn 200)
It doesn't stop there, Kalle goes on for another page about different advertisments. This article is perfectly acceptable in venting her annoyence with advertisers, however, Naomi Klein's article "No Logo" is just unacceptable. The need for a complete history of advertising and branding or a stunning incidence like "Marlboro friday" is not so stunning. We all know about the dark secrets of brand name companies making our clothes or whatever it is that we buy for under 5 cents, and yeh we buy the stuff anyway for absurd amounts of money. This will never change, the need for brand names is too demanding today. Most kids want to be seen wearing the expensive name brand clothing. Most people will pick Pepsi over Weis Coke. The advertising industry will always come up with new different schemes to making us chose their product. Whether it be from making an inhuman object have a personality to the catchy music behind a coffee commercial, we are stuck in the advertising world and that's it. Short and simple fustration is all we need with the brand name advertising world.

Could you live off of making less than $2.00 a day?

Nickel-and-Dimed:On (Not) Getting By in America- I found this piece interesting that Ehrenreich stopped living her life of wealth and money to see what it was like to live off of wages of most service jobs (about 6 or 7 dollars an hour). It was harder than she thought to even find a job, and when she did it did not pay a lot. Ehrenreich did not understand how people on welfare or single mothers can even survive. Ehrenreich completed her study and noted that the people she met were too nice, funny and caring to make such low wages. People in need to stand up for themselves and do something about it!
Pennies an Hour and No Way Up- "Two billion people in the world make less than two American dollars a day" (Hayden, 385) Could you live off of that? I know there is no way I could. After reading this piece I found it interesting what people in such places like Bangladesh and China earned as their wages. Female workers in Bangladesh made 1.6 cents for each cap they sewed. Is that fair? Chinese woman made as low as 12 cents an hour to make 80% of sport goods and toys sold in the US. Is that fair? Hayden and Kernaghan were right when they said something needs to be done to change these facts. The changes need to happen in the US itself!

F*ck advertising

Now that i've got your attention, the article "No Logo" by Naomi Klein gave an insight into the world of brands as opposed to products and how you aren't selling the actual item but an image that it portrays. The brand has to seem appealing to all and necessary in your life, this is what sells no matter how cheaply made the product should be. Not only that you need the image to be seen everywhere, from the bathroom to the bus, it is disgusting, how many times do i need to see the marlboro man through my daily routine. "Hype" by Kalle Lasn makes these points in her writing about how sick she also is of this cramming of images of miracle products down our throats. She also states that we are so enthralled by this marketing that we don't see how absurd it is, and possibly we are blinded by the hype. In closing i agree that it is annoying until you take a step back and finally look at what is going on around you, but by tomorrow

as i turn on the tv and see a beer commercial with countless model girls i'll forget all about how redundant the commercial is.

Advertising Frenzy!

Advertising controls our TV, radios, roadsides, newspapers, and magazines. Today's world is obsessed with the constant competition of brand names. "Hype" by Kalle Lasn and "No Logo" by Naomi Klein both talk about how advertisements are a huge part of our every day lives. Advertisements are "dumped" into North America's collective unconscious in huge amounts each and every day. Lasn` essay more describes the history of advertising and the evolution of the whole ordeal. Both authors make the same point about the way advertising gets into our heads by the constant repetetivness of each ad. No matter which way your eyes look they will come across at least one or more ads in a matter of minutes. Advertising is about hawking products ( Lasn 246). Ads are seen as a way for poeple to buy thier product but in reality most people find advertising to be an annoyance, I know I feel that way. When paying $35 for a little T-shirt that says, for example, Hollister is a ridiculous price, but along with buying that shirt you are now a free advertisment for their company brand which many people do not realize.

The "Brand Wagon"

The corporations of today’s market, perform their market practices very different from over twenty years ago. Before the mid “1980’s, manufacturer’s only focused on the production of goods. But now, the sellers are aware that consumers don’t really believe there are any differences between the products a company sells and its competitors. With this in mind, companies don’t worry about the quality of their product but rather the marketing strategies and image behind their products. Some company’s like Nike, for example, spend over $250 million dollars annually on marketing. But company’s like Nike don’t even manufacture their products but instead have international contractor’s make all their products for them. So the only thing Nike does is work on what is called its “Brand Name”. It has come to the point, that the corporations who have the fewest on payroll but produce the most powerful images, instead of their products, gain the most wealth and recognition. These corporations have also taking their advertising strategies to a whole new level. Not only are their ads confined to the usual places like the billboards and buses, but Corporate America has found new and creative ways to advertise their products to the general public. They have put up ads anywhere your eyes can possibly come to rest from selling billboards on top of public schools so airliners can see them from above to IBM beaming there logo into the clouds above San Francisco.

HyPe & No LoGo...WhAtS ThE DiFfErEnCe!?

It seemed as though both short stories tied right in with each other. In "Hype" by Kalle Lasn, she expressed deeply how advertisements are the main mental pollutions in this world today. We can thank the radio, billboards, and television for most of that. It's said that corporate advertising is the largest single psychological project. But on the other hand in "No Logo" by Naomi Klein, she talked about how corporations became extremely oversized and owned too much, employed too many people, and became weighed down with too many things. There she stated the obvious. In the world today corporations that are successful have to produce brands, not products. That seems out of touch with the good old traditional way. Klein said, "Corporations dont produce products and advertise them, they buy products and brand them." After reading both stories I understood what's really going on out there and how things have changed over the years. What's going to be next?

Have you advertised anything lately?

So if the answer to my question was no...I'm sorry but you are sadly mistaken. Without being to envasivel, what are you wearing today? Are you wearing a shirt that says Abercrombie, American Eagle, or Aeropostale? Did you have coffee this morning from your local coffee house or gas station for that matter? Did the cup say the name of that coffee house, or the brand of coffee? Are you wearing a pair of shoes? are they nike or addidas? If you answered yes to any of these question, you have been advirtising, and you've probably been doing it since you were little. I know that most people who whatch there favorite television show have said more than once " I hate Commercials" who wouldn't they take up almost 15 minutes of your favorite show that you wait every week for! But how many times has a Taco Bell commercial came on at like 8 O'clock at night and you're like " Boy I'm hungry" " O they have a late night drive through" " I could go for some tacos after this show" you actually gave it thought to go out and spend your money on tacos even though you probably have food in your kitchen cabinets that you can have.
"Hype" was a great story it really showed me how big advirtising is. Really, think about it! Everywhere you go, you see something that says " buy me, try me". Right? You're in the car, on the bus, whatching TV, shopping, or eating. Those advirtising people are always out to get more money! Companies have great ways to get you to buy. How about NIKE and the ever popular SWOOSH. Everyone wanted to swoosh at one time. In the Story Hype, she shows that all this advirtings is really just hype. To quote " There is nowhere to run. N oone is exemt and no one will be spared..." Kalle Lasn HYPE pg. 201.

Adveristment

I found both Hype and No-Logo very interesting. No-Logo was a very informative piece that talked about the advertising market in the mid 80's leading to the 90s and how they dealt with problems such as "marlboro friday". It was interesting to see how with the announcement that marlboro was going to cut their prices 20 %. It showed how the different companies dealt with it and how some suffered and eventually fell apart, but how others are still surviving today. With Hype it was very short and to the point. It was interesting to read about how places such as schools would allow adverisers to place their advertisment on the roof of the school just to get a profit from it. I found it funny when they talked about all the places that have advertisments now like in bathrooms but its the honest truth, advertisers will go to get lengths to get their product out their in the publics eye. If you really think about it advertisment is everywhere and there is no stopping it.

Marketing Strategies

In today's society advertisements and brand names have taken over our culture. Corporations spend billions of dollars a year planning out there advertisement strategies. They spend more time on advertising than developing the product they are actually selling. Businesses such as Coke-a-cola, Nike, and Starbucks truly believe that the product they are selling is not just a piece of merchandise but it is "a way of life, attitude, a set of values, a look, and an idea." ( Logo 247). The billions of dollars spent each year have not gone unnoticed. "Everyday an estimated 12 billion display ads, 3 million radio commercials, and more than 200,000 TV commercials are dumped into North America's collective pollution flood. " ( Lasn 199) This type of marketing strategies seem to work on America's youth. Working at a retailer myself, I have noticed that its not the quality of the clothing that makes teens buy them, but the brand they are wearing and how well known it is through out society.

I Hate Advertisments

Advertisment today is more obnoxious then decades ago, when a cute and fuzzy polar bear carried a coke in his hand with a cute fuzzy smile on his face. Today on tv, I feel like all I see is a half-naked girl on the screen singing a terrible song about a new soda called "Fanta." What has gone wrong in corporate societies? I can give you a few answers to this question. Many people are attracted to expensive, rich, and popular materials of society because the stars advocate for these "special" produts. And most people want to be like the stars, so they will go to any extent to be more attractive as them, so they buy these products. I however, cannot tell the different between an "American Eagle" sweater or a "Kmart" sweater or J-lo earings from Ann Klein earrings. Corporations today are making so much money by the brand name. People are attracted to brand names. Unlike myself, many people that I know are dressed head to toe in Holllister, J-Crew, or carrying imitation purses. What is the difference between Hollister, or Target, or even Fashion Bug? I have no idea, to be quite honest. What I do know is that advertising is contagious and it's everywhere. In particular, I could be eating a delicious candy bar, and on the back of the candy bar is an advertisement for a theme park or a sweepstake. I mean c'mon, just let me eat my candy bar. I don't think while I'm dreaming of eating this chocolate at the moment, I'm thinking about riding down a water slide at a theme park at the same time, however I begin to think about that. This is the main idea of advertising, to get people to think about their products or adds to the point where they become attracted to that product or idea. For example, on tv, I watch more commercials then an actual show. From hair products to the best alketzer tabs for your toilets, I end up watching it somehow. These commercials in the end have me mesmorized because of how pointless some of them really are. Furthermore, today you see more stars in commercials on television, such as Jessica Simpson supporting the use of Pro-Active for "amazing" new skin or pro football players and campbell soup. Advertising is everywhere, you just can't escape it! And quite frankly I hate it! I'm sorry!

hype was appropriately titled

Kalle Lasn's highly opinionated piece is just that, hype, with a good amount of paranoia as well. Kalle suggests that advertising is a massive and psychologically damaging expirement. He seems offended that ads are appearing in new creative places, his apocalyptic messege at the end (nowhere to run... now i hear the oscar meyer song) is absurd, get a grip.

I didnt have a problem with the "No Logo" piece it seemed mostly informative, if there was an opinion in there i missed it. That means its probly in this book to make sure I sparked my own opinion on the subject, and my opinion was, and still is, as follows. "If a corporation is big and makes billions of dollars, somebody had to be pretty smart and hard working to get it that way, if they can make money without manufacturing anything and/or by minimizing there production cost, good for them, really they deserve it.

So What Advertisements have you seen today?

Ideas have deveopled in the mid 1980's that have influenced the growth of wealth in multinational corporations. They have strongly impacted the "product" into becomming a "Brand Name." This innocuous idea has made people buy products not because of their good quality but because of it's "Brand Name." It has come to the point in corporations that the ones that have the fewest employees on the payroll but produce the most powerful images instead of products, gain more wealth and recognition. Whatever happened to buying a product because it is high quality? It amazes me for example that a ripped "abercrombie & fitch" pair of jeans costs like $85.00 as opposed to a regular pair of jeans at lets say Khols cost 20 to $30.00. And you know more people are likely to buy the "ripped" ones by abercrombie. I admit the style is trendy but I have never been caught buying them at that price. Why not buy a cheap pair of jeans and rip them yourselves? It's a lot cheaper. Okay well I'm getting off the topic. A lot of these companies are gaining wealth because of the amount of advertisements you see everyday. Everywhere you go there are advertisements, and I haven't really realized that until now. I find it somewhat sad that that's what our world is made up of. Notice that all the male models for Abercrombie & Fitch are somewhat delicious looking, that in a way persuades some males to buy those clothes because ya know maybe they might make you good looking too. But anyway, it's crazy how much advertising there is, like even in the bathrooms, shaved into people's heads, stuck on banana's, dyed logos on eggs, and even in the clouds! Corporations tend to put advertisements everywhere that is viewable for us to see, and that's a lot of places!

Advertisement in America

The Astronomical wealth has grown greatly since with mid-1980s. Industrial economies have increased greatly by producing materials later known as "Name Brand." Rather than buying the better products, people chose to go for the name brand material. Advertising logos has taken all the store keeper material off the shelf while the name brand products are gaining more recognition. These brands have attributed to early cultures and slowly but surely became a great part of what we buy today. Do you know how much money these company's make? It's unreal thinking about how much profit they get off of our stupidity. Major reasons for these brands to be advertised so heavily are the amount of advertisement that’s in are world today. Corporate advertising is the is the largest psychological problem ever undertaken by the human race. 200,000 commercials are displayed in North America daily. That is a great number and part of the reason we learn so much about what is being advertised. Everywhere we go advertisements are around. Corporate American puts advertisements anywhere our eyes are going to be.

Hype vs. No Logo

I first wanted to say I found both articles interesting...
No Logo- This article shows that companies are trying to "win the race" of owning the least, having fewest employees and producing the most powerful images opposed to products. Advertising changed a lot from delivering product news to now a specific brand name. I never really thought about how much consumers go for their favorite brands instead of really thinking about the product. It use to be about designing products but in today's society it is about selling the brand of the product. Crazy to think that we buy something because of the brand it is instead of actually finding the product we like the best!
Hype- "12 billion display ads, 3 million radio commercials, and more than 200,000 TV commercials..." (Lasn, 199) That is crazy! I never thought about how much advertising is in our everyday lives. I found this piece very interesting because it is something that most people don't even think about. It shows advertising is actually a huge part of our everyday lives. I think the best example given was the boy who shaved his hair for different advertisement every few weeks!

Hype & No Logo

Hype i found interesting, It talked about mental pllution, wich i took to mean how we read advertisements every day, the seller puts into our head what they want to think about there product. Lasn talks about all the places that there are bilboards, driving to work, walking down the street, and now even in the bathroom's. It makes you think about how many places there really are bilboards, i never thought about it before i read this article but they really are all over the place.

No Logo, was more drawn out talking about how brand's started, rumors about brand's that were not true got spread around, how advertisement changed, they used to build an image about a product now they build an image around a particular brand name. It talks about how products may go down, then the brands come back. Klein also talks about marlboro Friday , where Marlboro announced they would cut tehre prices 20%.

"Hype" and "No Logo" Response

I'm pretty sure this is due today...

I found the shorter article "Hype" to be very interesting since it had several ties to my “Literacies” paper. I find the whole issue of the psychology behind advertisement to be rather intriguing.

The article "No Logo" seemed to be a giant slap in the face to corporate marketing from the mid-80's to the present. I think Klein's article was a very well thought out analysis of what happened as a result of Marlboro Friday. Her theory of the two different types of brand corporations (the Wal-Marts vs. the Nikes) made a lot of sense. Of course the whole thing is entirely biased since Naomi Klein is renowned for being anti-corporate, but it is hard to ignore the several nuggets of truth presented in her article.