Inspiring Corporate America to
Recognize Social Responsibility

The biggest issue influencing this year's election (according to the American public in exit polls) was values. Apparently, George W. Bush represents the "traditional" values in which the majority of America believes. Ironically, the top rated television shows are programs that do not reflect these same values.

=> Corporate America's Response:
"In interviews, representatives of the four big broadcast networks as well as Hollywood production studios said the nightly television ratings bore little relation to the message apparently sent by a significant percentage of voters...And that means the election will have little impact on which shows they decide to put on television, these executives say...with "Desperate Housewives" and "C.S.I." leading the ratings, television shows are far more likely to keep pumping from the deep well of murder, mayhem and sexual transgression than seek diversion along the straight and narrow path...As much as network entertainment executives believe in taking note of trends, the rating figures from Nielsen Media Research remain their bible." (New York Times)

=> Society's Response:
"The choices of viewers, whether in Los Angeles or Salt Lake City, New York or Birmingham, Ala., are remarkably similar. 'They tell you more about creative values than anything that's in the political zeitgeist,' said Dana Walden, the president of one of the largest production studios, Twentieth Century Fox Television, which produces shows like 'The Simpsons' and 'N.Y.P.D. Blue.' 'It's those values that are striking a chord with the American people,' Ms. Walden said. So if it is true that the public's electoral choices are a cry for more morally driven programming, the network executives ask, why are so many people, even in the markets surrounding the Bush bastions Atlanta and Salt Lake City, watching a sex-drenched television drama?" (New York Times)

=> Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary:
This paradox immediately captured my attention. Are the ratings flawed or are most Americans two-faced? Do most Americans just pretend to cherish traditional values on the outside, and then embroil themselves in "sin"-ematography behind closed doors?

If the election exit polls hold water, the networks should deliver programs that represent what the public is asking for in society. I don't think anyone disagrees that there is too much violence on television these days, especially compared to previously top rated programming such as The Brady Bunch, I Love Lucy, and others. Yet, obviously society has evolved, and our streams of entertainment reflect that evolution (for better or for worse). However, who ultimately determines the change - the voting public or the advertising revenue hungry networks? This may indeed be a case where Corporate America cannot solely be blamed, as the American public is sending very mixed messages.

Perhaps it is time to come up with a better rating system than Nielsen. There may not currently be enough demographic data acquired in the system to accurately capture the value of such ratings, and perhaps the scope of survey is not expansive enough. If so, then the networks are doing their customers (that is both the advertisers and the viewing public) a disservice, as money is spent on ads that are not reaching the desired audience, and "value degenerating" programs are not targeting the true desires of the audience. Unfortunately, I doubt that this is the case, as I tend to believe that the majority of Americans who put "W" back in the White House are also living vicariously on the Fox network's "Temptation Island."

We, as Americans, need to reexamine if we truly are the change we want to see. Otherwise, we should be more honest in the choices we make, as the messages and images invading our living rooms influence our lives on a daily basis as much as, if not more than, anything going on in Washington.

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
TV (True Values)

People have been complaining about the quality of television since its inception. What appeals to the most is often the lowest common denominator. I agree, a more complex survey should be done to find out who watches what. I recently read that the Fox Network was rated as having the most offensive material and are also the largest contributor to the Republican Party. Is that a coincidence? I quit watching TV when I turned 40. Life seemed to precious to waste another minute in front of the television. I started reading more and doing a lot more things that I always wanted to do in the past, but never had the tools. I guess I'm not really qualified to judge this issue, but it does fascinate me.
(50 year old semi-retired from technology industry from Illinois USA)

I love getting your newsletters, and look forward to them each month. I do think that 90% of the time you're "right on the money" with your views. As for America's "true values", I think that most people lie to themselves. They think that as long as they don't participate in "MAJOR" unsavory activities such as theft, murder, adultery, public lewd behavior etc. Then watching, or indirectly condoning those activities are OK. Here's my take on this theory. I'm an entertainer. As such I perform fronting my own dance band. While there are certainly couples who love the slow rich love songs, and will dance during them, I only have to play the first notes of one of the long popular dance/rap songs such as "Da Butt, or "Back That A-- Up", or one of the other one's that invoke lewd behavior and the floor fills up with 40 to yes 50 or even 60 year old women and a few men dancing like a Girls Gone Wild Video. It's really something to see. These cultured ladies are bumping and grinding, taking off their clothes what ever hits them. And I'm not talking about being in a bar, my events are private parties at major hotels, casinos, etc. These same people revert back to their upstanding postures once the music has stopped and the party is over. Most that I talk to after the performance deny doing anything of the sort, or claim that what they were doing is somehow different or less lewd then what the other couples or dancers were doing. It never fails to amaze me at how we disassociate fun activities and behavior from daily life activities and behavior. I don't believe we see ourselves as anything other than what we tell ourselves we are. So there are two standards Americans live by. What we "SAY" we believe in and live by. And How we "BEHAVE" in our pursuit of enjoyment. Some think you're talking "apples and oranges". I'm not so sure.
( 40 year old entertainer from Louisiana USA)

You must remember that the red states and blue states each have a large proportion of opposites and the TV ratings include them. What people watch on TV and how they live their lives are not always the same. Sex and violence are very exciting ingredients to watch. Kerry was also a poor candidate and Edwards was just another smooth talker. Personal injury lawyer. He is the reason we don’t have the Flu vaccine. He sued the manufacturer, won $30 million, which was more than the profits were on making the vaccine for 5 years so another great victory for the Trial Lawyers who own the Democratic party.

I think we are all two faced. I love the saying that us men want a lady in the kitchen and a whore in the bedroom. The Walton's were big when I was a kid, but today they would get little or no rating. We love the guilty pleasures and the murder shows.
(40 year old photographer from New York USA)

Uh, hello? Looks like the writer for the New York Times didn't bother to look at the county-by-county vote counts for the Atlanta area. "Bastion" is not an appropriate word. Atlanta's central urban counties (Fulton, DeKalb) went very "blue" for Kerry, not surprising as in Georgia's 5th congressional district democrat John Lewis was re-elected unopposed and the politically lobotomized 4th congressional district returned Cynthia McKinney to its congressional seat after having finally deposed her two years before (which at the time her father loudly, on TV, blamed on "the Jews"). Surely suburban counties in the metro-Atlanta area did go "red" for Bush, but is the newspaper commentary above based on mere ignorance or on the New York Times' continuing hatred of Atlanta and the American south in general? Perhaps there is a clue here about differences between the values expressed by the electorate and the combined "entertainment" and "news" media, both TV and print. Is it any surprise that much of both "entertainment" and "news" media feels the *values* it promotes ought to be nearly exclusively those prominent in the urban domains of New York and Los Angeles? Rather than state by state, look at a county-by county map of the 2004 presidential election results. It is much more revealing. Take a look, likewise, at the sources of American media, demographically speaking. Is it likely that media, particularly in the days when it was limited to a handful of networks, imposes the values of its own limited perspective rather than reflecting values of society at large? It is worth pondering that we should be cautious with a two-edged sword such as the media we use for both news and entertainment, as, historically, in some significant revolutions only an active minority of the population have been necessary to achieve coup-d'etat, for whichever political cause.
(50 year old music composer and journalist from Georgia USA)

Bless you for your work. In reply to the voters choice and TV programs, I ask another question: Why don't we know what these TV programs are doing to the viewers, including children who escape the oversight of their parents. In searching psychology's case histories, I think we see that these programs "program" the mind-set of the less strong-minded viewers to interpret what they see in their own lives as closely matching the fiction of the TV programs.
The problem with that kind of programming is that it tends to "inure" the viewers into believing that things SHOULD BE THAT WAY. The youth may say -- "that's life and I guess that's okay" to the mayhem that goes on in the fictional TV (I'm sure the producers have a bad answer to that too.) We have to have real life-saving values that exclude the "no one may care" attitude that current secular programming gives the audiences. Even saying, "you can turn it off" doesn't always work because the programs are done with great skill and the writer/producers know how to engage and hold an audience -- that's their job. So for the producers to say "that's what people want" is a lie. The truth is that "that's what the producers want the audiences to want." The next question is why would the producers want that? Send them all to a psychotherapist and what an answer that would be. I'm serious about the ill effects that those programs do have for youth and young adults. We need a good behavior-study to allow the public to know they are being hypnotized by crummy ideas. We need to take charge of making life a better place to "live and let live."
(Fiction writer from CA USA)

The so-called "values-issue" that is said to have influenced the election is basically about mendacity, the majority, the tyranny of the majority, is because this majority wants to say they uphold "traditional" values but as you observed action speaks louder than words; these people's values are really that of the l9th century robber barons. Why would people vote for values they don't honestly believe in, in practice, is a sticky, thorny question but their mendacity is probably best explained by fear, they probably think W's tyranny will protect them. Fear of the unknown is powerful stuff. He says it's Armageddon now; you either support my crusade or you are a traitor and they must have believed that there was no rational alternative; the idea of any sane diplomacy just didn't seem a viable alternative to the majority, which is a very scary fact to face, for those citizens of the USA that still believe they are living in a sane society. I hope this election doesn't cause a mass exodus of the best minds in this country. We have to pray for hope as there is no logical reason why it shouldn't. I can't tell if W is destroying the USA's prestige in the world because he is incredibly stupid or incredibly evil but the result of his regime is terrifying and if this election wasn't rigged by his brother, like the other one, the majority actually agree with his policies. Surely the mass media plays an important part in why this is so but I have to leave it up to you to analyze why this is happening, I don't watch the tube and assume there is no unbiased coverage there. I assume there was just more republican money and more of the thoughtless majority believed fox's propaganda.
(66 year old retired social worker from Florida USA)

Yes, Americans are looking for more moral values nowadays. Reasons are 9/11, near total family breakdown, the impossibility of taking the kids to the beach or a park without being confronted with public sex of both homo and hetero varieties. It is time for everyone to go back to the closet. In other words, live and let live. 35 years ago in high school, I was shunned and ridiculed because of my lack of sports ability and "physique". A few years later, my brother needed a phony medical excuse to duck "phys ed" because of aggressive behavior. TV pro-sports promises violence, not sportsmanship and skill. Back then was "before AIDS" and families were more stable. Now ... the best thing is to chuck the TV. Sex&Violence is being used to sell racy clothing and anorexic morality, to disenfranchise good folks like us. This is one of the reasons I left the USA. Chuck the TV and let these tyrants of immorality rot.
(57 year old computer programmer from Jerusalem, Israel)

What you are forgetting is that 50% of the adult American populace is not even registered to vote and of the 50% registered to vote only 57% did vote, and of those only 51% voted for Bush. 1/4 of the country voted and 1/8 of the country voted for Bush. The rest of the country watches TV. I am still agitating for election day to be a National Holiday and demand a paper trail for all ballots so they can be verified and recounted by hand if necessary. We get a receipt at ATM machines, we can get a paper trail by ballot. But we have to demand it.
(50 year old musician from Louisiana USA)

Return to Table of Contents

The long term effects of pesticide use continues to ignite debate between chemical companies and environmental activists.

=> Corporate America's Response:
"The EPA announced this month that it was launching a two-year investigation, partially funded by the American Chemical Council, of how 60 children in Duval County, Fla., absorb pesticides and other household chemicals. The chemical industry funding initially prompted some environmentalists to question whether the study would be biased, and some rank-and-file agency scientists are now questioning whether the plan will exploit financially strapped families. In exchange for participating for two years in the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, which involves infants and children up to age 3, the EPA will give each family using pesticides in their home $970, some children's clothing and a camcorder that parents can keep." (The Washington Post)
(American Chemical Council is a chemical industry front group that includes members such as Dow, Exxon, and Monsanto) (Organic Consumers Association)
"The study (will) look at how pesticides, which can cause neurological damage in children, and chemicals such as flame retardants might be ingested, inhaled or otherwise absorbed through such things as food, drink, soil, crop residue and household dust." (CNN.com)

=> Society's Response:
There has been significant protest by the public and social activist groups, ostensibly forcing the EPA to delay their study until sometime next year and evaluate the ethics. "'It's fine that they pushed the pause button here,' said Richard Wiles, senior vice president for the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy and research organization. 'But for the study to have any integrity at all, they need to kick the chemical industry lobbyists and their money completely out of the process.'" (CNN.com)

=> Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary:
Certainly any study funded by an entity with financial interests in the outcome is flawed to begin with. Pharmaceutical companies and even alternative holistic treatments constantly face this same conflict of interest. However, the bigger issue here is bating financially strapped families with gifts and dollars to put their children at serious risk.

It reminds me of impoverished parents in third world countries who intentionally maim their children so that they can be more successful beggars. However, the EPA isn't severing arms and legs so people can garner sympathy and a few coins. Instead, for the generous gift of a video camera, free T-shirt, and $970 in cash (probably taxable), they would like to poison your kids and monitor the short and long term effects it has on their brains! How does a concept this unethical make it far enough to be debated in public forums?

Perhaps the solution would be for the board members of the American Chemical Council and their colleagues to volunteer their own children for the study. There would be no need to create financial incentive, as clearly the outcome of the study is greatly in their interest since they are partially funding it. Furthermore, their willingness to fund it is likely based on the belief that the study will prove that there are no neurological effects, so what do they really have to risk? If these wealthier and better educated families truly believe in the ethics of the study, they win either way - financially from the continued use of pesticides, or spiritually, knowing that they sacrificed their child in the name of scientific advancement and public safety.

At the end of the day, we all know that pesticides are unhealthy. There is no need to potentially harm children to prove the degree of the effects, as organic farming is undeniably in everyone's best interest. Any educated parent who would take such a risk with their own child should be charged with endangerment, as should anyone bating the less fortunate.

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
Pests Aside

I like your idea of having the children of executives who produce these products test them. You had better be careful. You may be the next Michael Moore of this decade. Good work, as always.
(60 year old lawyer from New York USA)

For some reason, I am very suspicious of this method of testing on real people in their homes. I wonder if there isn't an ulterior motive? I would think the chemical business could come up with accurate results in a clinical laboratory style experiment, instead of this method. But, I am not a chemist, nor a scientist, so what would I know?
(50 year old semi-retired from technology industry from Illinois USA)

You hit the nail on the head right there Ravi! And I thought testing on animals was horrific.
(30 year old university administrator from Tennessee USA)

While I'm not one to stand up for big business, there may be some validity to the study. I have a 2 year old and I would want to know what effects the chemical's he is exposed to at home and school have on his developing mind and body. I could give a damn who pays for it as long as someone does. Are additional chemicals being introduced to these homes that did not exist before? I can't imagine the EPA would allow families to unknowingly sign up as guinea pigs.
Drug companies must go through extensive testing before,during and after development to ensure our pharmaceutical supplies are as safe and effective as possible. Sometimes people are put at risk during this process. This is with the full knowledge that there may be adverse reactions to the testing. If they didn't fund it and pass the cost on to us, who would do the research? The federal government? There are some companies out there actually trying to make a buck and do so with honesty, integrity, respect and courage. To lump them together as untrusting profit mongers disrespects us all.
(35 year old bar/club owner from Louisiana USA)

Indeed you make a good point, and a worthy argument. You also raise a good question as to whether the EPA would introduce poisons into the study. Here's a quote from the Washington Post that seems to address that:

"Troy Pierce, a life scientist in the EPA's Atlanta-based pesticides section, wrote in a separate e-mail: 'This does sound like it goes against everything we recommend at EPA concerning use of [pesticides] related to children. Paying families in Florida to have their homes routinely treated with pesticides is very sad when we at EPA know that [pesticide management] should always be used to protect children.'"

So, while I can certainly understand that as the parent of a two-year old you would want to know the results of such a study, would you ever consider involving your own child in such a focus group, or encourage any other parent to do so?

I'll refer you to Neely Bruce's CD "The Plague," a theatrical piece he wrote some time ago for the British vocal quartet Electric Phoenix. One of the references is to "Moon goo" -- a tacky substance that came out of ground cracks in a neighborhood playground built over a toxic waste site in New Jersey, the kids that played with it called it "Moon goo." Let me leave it at that for now...
(50 year old music composer and journalist from Georgia USA)

Return to Table of Contents

As pressure on car makers to make more environmentally friendly vehicles continues, manufactures struggle to appear committed to the goal, meet government regulations, and also appease dedicated SUV drivers. With SUV's recently suffering a blanket of bad press, manufacturers have the burden of recovery.

=> Corporate America's Position:
Hummer (a civilian version of the uniquely broad military vehicle) unleashed its new more fuel efficient vehicle last week. "The H3 is expected to approach 20 miles per gallon in highway driving and get about 16 miles per gallon in the city, a G.M. official said. That is better than the roughly 12 miles per gallon that the H2 gets. But it is below the 22 miles per gallon on the highway and the 19 miles per gallon in the city for the average midsize sport utility vehicle, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. 'I don't want you to get the idea we're releasing the H3 to get to those people who think the H2 is not fuel efficient,' said Susan Docherty, Hummer's new general manager. 'It allows 20- and 30-somethings to get into the brand, what we found with the H2 is that there are a lot of customers that aspire to be in the brand, but it was out of people's reach." New York Times

=> Society's Position:
"Hummer has also become a symbol of America's love affair with large gas-guzzling S.U.V.'s. The Sierra Club operates www.hummerdinger.com, which is among the Web sites devoted to criticizing the brand, and another site, whose name cannot be printed here, has more than 1,000 pictures of people giving the Hummer H2 an obscene gesture...Rising fuel prices have probably not helped the Hummer - poor gas mileage has been one of the top complaints of Hummer drivers, according to J. D. Power & Associates. But most analysts say that Hummer's main problem is not gas prices but that its bold design made it a vehicle that had a hot debut only to cool off, a pattern seen before with other flashy designs like the PT Cruiser by DaimlerChrysler" New York Times

=> Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary:
I cringe at the sight of a Hummer. These vehicles represent the worst enemy of American civil liberties - the presence of military on our town and city streets. As America is currently embroiled in a war (and we seem to be well on our way to some form of a "police state" a la the Patriot Act), perhaps it is in poor taste for General Motors to be enticing more Americans to "get into the brand" and increasing a "military appearance" in our neighborhoods. America should be trending toward a goal and image of peace, not war.

Furthermore, Hummer's lousy gas mileage greatly contributes to environmental pollution and oil consumption - two major political and societal issues. The government's environmental policies and military motives (terrorism or oil?) have created much debate, and General Motors should be leading the way to an environmentally friendly, oil conserving auto industry. Instead, the H3 encourages younger and less financially resourceful drivers to disregard our planet and dependence on oil. If more corporations worked toward a cleaner environment and lesser need for oil, our healthcare and military costs may begin to diminish. Hummer does make a hydrogen fuel version but it can only travel 50 miles before refueling and there is only one on the street - owned by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Hummer may indeed symbolize America, which in the eyes of most of the world is self-important, greedy, and inconsiderate of others. All Americans - corporate and individual - should aim toward cleaning up our image, our environment, and corruption in our government.

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
Humming the Same Old Tune

You are absolutely right about hummer. Here's what we need to do. We need to boycott. Democracy for America lead an effective boycott against Sinclaire when they wanted to show the swiftboat propaganda. We emailed their chief advertisers and let them know that if they continued to advertise with sinclaire we weren't buying their goods. Conversely, we can boycott any TV station or magazine who takes advertisements from manufactures who are irresponsible. Go on to DemocracyforAmerica.com and stay in touch.
(49 year old product designer from New York USA)

So far, I think I've agreed with you on all the topics that you've brought up. Keep up the good work. It is a noble effort that you undertake. Hummer's remind me of a Brinks truck armored car full of money. Maybe that's the point?
(50 year old semi-retired from technology industry from Illinois USA)

Then I don't think you understand the Patriot act other than what the ACLU might be telling you. The Patriot act simply gives the govt. the same power to go after and follow potential terrorists as it has already done so in it's method of following members of organized crime. Think about that. It has been easier for the govt. to go after members of the Mafia than a terrorist. I suggest you view the movies FarenHYPE 911 (Not the Michael Moore movie) AND Celsius 41.11 for some more facts on these issues. The terrorist threat is VERY real. The average citizen has no idea that the Bush administration has thwarted at least one terrorist act against Americans EVERY SINGLE DAY since 9/11. See books by Richard Miniter for the info. But it's not wise to brag about every single victory in the war of terrorism. A stealth operation is absolutely vital to catching and eliminating terrorists. "Police State"!!! Come on now! We have the freeist country on the face of the earth. Are there bands of people being arrested under the Patriot act? Of course not. Maybe you need to visit a REAL police state like North Korea to understand what one really is. Maybe you need to read Alexander Soljenestian to understand how the gulags worked and imprisoned people for no reason at all. The people in the mass graves in Iraq suffered under a police state. The US has never known anything like a police state. That's just liberal propaganda. People do whatever they want here, they get to say whatever they want.

This is a free society any company can sell whatever they want as long as it is legal. The reason the Hummer is so popular is because people want them. My son in law has one, I've driven it. It's OK, it's not for me, too expensive and just "too much" vehicle for me. I think it's just overpriced HYPE. On the other hand I think the notion of it making it look like we are militarizing our streets is a pretty far fetched one. We have had Jeeps on the road for over 50 years and even VW bugs first created in Nazi Germany a half a century ago. Range Rovers used in the second world war have been on our streets for decades. I think this is the problem of the youth. They simply don't know about our true history. That's why many 21 year olds cannot understand our war in Iraq. They were only 9 years old when we fought our first Gulf war. They don't understand the reasons why we went or even the reasons why it never ended, we only had a ceasefire entirely dependent upon Saddam's actions which he did not fulfill for 12 years. It is not fair to say that GM should be making a more environmentally fuel car like a hydrogen car. They can make whatever they want. It is not their requirement. There are 10 million other companies who could do this. Just come up with the engine. If they feel one will sell, they will work on it. Hydrogen will come over time once it is perfected better.
(46 year old small business owner from Virginia USA)

(Follow up response from a 40 year old artistic director from Virginia)

Awareness is unfortunately not well spread in this country. Thank you Ravi for embarking on this mission!

Fahrenheit 911...Our true history (with Iraq)
By opting for a propaganda style instead of a journalistic one, Moore unfortunately failed and wasted a great opportunity to challenge the opinion of undecided voters and republicans. However, there is a reason why it got the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in France: it is the symbol of how the rest of the world feels about Bush and the USA, not to mention a great percentage of Americans. Why don't Americans in their majority care to be respected in the rest of the world? Is it because it would imply respecting the rest of the world first? It certainly would imply that American citizens educate themselves in the history of the world (history programs should encompass world history the way they do in Europe), and also in the history of the CIA organizing regime change for 50 years in foreign countries, in order to start understanding the origins of so much anger and hate against their own country! Talk about true history and the true reasons behind the war in Iraq! The following is an article that sums it all pretty well "Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's party in Power ...the CIA has removed many governments that are unfriendly to US corporate interests and replaced them with regimes that are more likely to work closely and slavishly to carry out the economic and geopolitical desires of the US corporate elite" http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html. Corporate power has been ruling this country and foreign regimes for too long, it is killing the spirit and the future of the United States of America. History tells us of declining empires, maybe it's time we listen and learn from history!

"The US has never known anything like a police state. That's just liberal propaganda..."
Remember when Americans were in fear of communism, when McCarthyism meant PATRIOTISM and created havoc in this country? Even 10 year old actress Shirley Temple was questioned at the time! People’s lives were ruined. Some committed suicide and some left the country. People in America are allowed to hold any belief that they want... well, all of America forgot that along with McCarthy during the HUAC (the House Un-American Activities Committee) Senate hearings. Just being suspected of communism meant that one was a traitor. There were many reasons for this galloping paranoia. One reason was that news reports confirmed that some communist countries had spies in the U.S., and now had the recipe for atomic bombs. People were afraid of an impeding nuclear holocaust. News reports of atrocities committed by communist leaders served to fan the flames of America’s fear. DOES IT RING A BELL YET? The Red Scare is now called the War on Terror! Here is an interesting article which shows that the McCarthyism spirit has been reborn and where this country is headed again: "The Progressive McCarthyism Watch: Suspicious Reading Material at the Coffee Shop" http://www.refuseandresist.org/police_state/art.php?aid=961. Pathetic isn't it?

"I don't think you understand the Patriot act....You need to read Alexander Soljenestian..."
Reasons behind wars are historically financial and the gulf war had OIL written all over it (that's why the US government couldn't have cared less about fighting the invasion of Tibet, for instance, since there were no economical incentives as opposed to the invasion of Kuwait). I feel strongly that a country should spend budget on intelligence and training agents to arrest and/or eliminate terrorists. It doesn't make any sense to go to war with a country (which is furthermore not responsible for the attack on New York), kill innocent people and waste the lives of civilians and American soldiers. Above all a country should not restrict the privacy and civil rights of its people...that is how individuals who disagree and are therefore deemed unpatriotic end up in Gulags one day....ask Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn! THERE IS NO FREEDOM IN A COUNTRY WHERE DISSENT AND DISAGREEMENT WITH ONE'S GOVERNMENT AND ITS POLICIES MEANS THAT ONE IS NOT A PATRIOT! The patriotic angle unfortunately is an insidious and successful one with people who are in fear of terrorism...it's worked before with the fear of communism! Solzhenitsyn was arrested for criticizing Stalin in letters and imprisoned for 8 years under the draconian Article 58 of the Penal Code which was created by Stalin's regime to arrest those suspected guilty of anti-Soviet activities/disagreeing with the Soviet leader. In effect, article 58 was carte blanche for the KGB to arrest and imprison anyone deemed suspicious. DOES IT RING A BELL YET? The Patriot Act significantly expands the government's authority to make use of secret surveillance, including in circumstances where part of the investigation is unrelated to an intelligence investigation. FBI's powers under Section 215 of the USA Patriot act is broader than what government officials have publicly acknowledged. Among other things, the documents show that the controversial provision can be used to collect information about innocent people and state that Section 215 may authorize law enforcement to obtain an individual's apartment keys! Well, our friend Solzhenitsyn would no doubt enjoy making a parallel with what happened in his own country under Lenin and Stalin (incidentally, the dissident writer didn't feel comfortable in the Western capitalist system either and criticized it heavily in his "Worlds split Apart" Harvard speech of 1978 http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=770, he has since moved back to his homeland) and he would probably warn us that we are on the way. A door has been opened, a door with "PATRIOT ACT / LOSS OF FREEDOM PART ONE" written all over it! " The Western world has lost its civic courage...Must one point out that from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end?" - Harvard Speech 1978 by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

"It is not fair to say that GM should be making a more environmentally fuel car like a hydrogen car. They can make whatever they want..."
"People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting, and manipulating law. Every conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the ultimate solution. If one is risen from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be right, and urge self-restraint or a renunciation of these rights, call for sacrifice and selfless risk: this would simply sound absurd. Voluntary self-restraint is almost unheard of: everybody strives toward further expansion to the extreme limit of the legal frames. (An oil company is legally blameless when it buys up an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to purchase it.)...It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations."
- Harvard Speech 1978 by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
(Follow up response from a 40 year old artistic director from Virginia)

I couldn't agree more. It's long time we started to think about social responsibility again, and not just greed, in our attempts to define ourselves. The Hummer represents the worst of America.
(45 year old musician from Texas USA)

Return to Table of Contents

Painfully Fresh

Over the counter medication is an extremely competitive business. With many store brand/generic products boasting the same active ingredients as the bountiful and pricier "brands we trust," household names need to lure customers back, and are attempting to do so with advertising campaigns that blur the focus of actual drug indications.

=> Corporate America's Position:
"Tylenol, made by the McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals division of Johnson & Johnson, has long been touted for safe and effective pain relief. But with the new campaign, McNeil is on a quest to make the drug more appealing to consumers. Borrowing marketing strategies out of the playbooks of chewing gum, beer and soft drink manufacturers, McNeil packaged the Tylenol samples to show the mint medicine package bursting out like a pack of Wrigley's Big Red (chewing gum). And, in what must be a first for the brand marketed as the one hospitals trust most, McNeil has hired dozens of "Tylenol Cool Caps Girls" to wear revealing outfits while they distribute samples in hot spots like Times Square and Miami Beach." New York Times

=> Society's Position:
"When the pain reliever acetaminophen was developed in the 1950s, it was only available under its brand name, Tylenol. Today, acetaminophen can be found in many generic and store-brand versions. An estimated 44 percent of all prescriptions in the United States are filled with generic drugs. Generic drugs are safe, effective and FDA-approved" (FDA). There are also enough brands in addition to generic versions to confuse the most savvy consumer. Other than publicity (hype or negative - such as the Tylenol/Cyanide tampering in 1982 which resulted in a temporary setback for the manufacturer), it is hard to distinguish one from another.

=> Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary:
As one who swallows a pill as a last resort, I find it disturbing that drug manufacturers produce and market drugs under the pretense of refreshing enjoyment. Pills should be tolerable, but making them pleasurable and going to the extent of selling them as an enjoyable and social enhancing treat is promoting overuse of medication for non-medicinal purposes. Granted, we consumers should all be smarter than that, and hopefully we are. But to have Corporate America boldly attempt to fool us (marketing Tylenol in packaging similar to Big Red chewing gum) is misuse of public trust.

According to a New York Times article, "the mint flavor could enhance the perception of efficacy and help Tylenol attract younger consumers who want variety and flavor." Younger consumers! Variety! What are we talking about here? This is a medication to treat pain. The user should be in enough discomfort where "variety of flavors" is not the primary (or secondary) concern. I also fear that this could encourage preventative use, therefore dependency, on the analgesic.

Tylenol commercials portraying a young, concerned, motherly woman expressing that pain medication should only be taken when absolutely necessary hit the airwaves just prior to the "cool caplets" hitting the shelves (nothing "minty" was mentioned in this particular ad). It seems to me that if you must start the damage control before causing the damage, one should abort the mission altogether.

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
Painfully Fresh

Ravi, you are a treasure for people who don't believe in drugs, medics, or being victims.
There's a story that shows how important/unimportant drugs are, according to the individual. Ram Dass (remember him) went to a Guru and said to the Guru, "I think I'm addicted to pills -- uppers, speed, and the like." The Guru said, "Give me a bottle of those drugs you have." Ram Dass gave the Guru a bottle of "Speed" - you know it was thought that too many of those pills can fry your brain's wiring. The Guru poured out about ten pills from the bottle and threw them into his mouth all at one time. He gulped down some water after them. He sat there in front of Ran Dass and said, "These pills will have no effect on me, because I don't want them to." Ram Dass was petrified, expecting the Guru to go into a frothing coma at any time. Two hours later, nothing about the Guru had changed; the pills had no effect. That is a true story; however people who have not tried to use their minds to rule over matter will probably not agree. This story is a happy example of how the trained Mind rules the being. This reality should inspire others to look within themselves for all the spirit and intelligence they can find in spirit, and to rely on the gift that is themselves from the Supreme Being, instead of constantly looking for peace and fulfillment outside of themselves. There are many Gurus from India and America who know how to help us, and it isn't the pharmaceutical society, who themselves, probably rely too much on pills.
(Fiction writer from CA USA)

Madison Avenue has not changed. It is just the simple fact that the consumer has become more savvy; thank God. As a MBA with a specialty in International Marketing, I had my first taste of this in 1979-not believing the extent that would or could be taken to SELL! Cheers to you by attempting to bring this knowledge into the mainstream.
(50 year old educator from Louisiana USA)

By the way I love my medicine. That's because without it I would be dead. I take simple, extremely cheap, diuretics that allow my genetically enlarged heart to function so that I don't drown in my own fluids. My various heart medicines have kept me alive at least 10 years beyond what I would have without them. So it's just a note to know not all medicines are bad because of corporate America. I feel we need to stop blaming the govt. and corporate America for everything. There's nothing wrong in pointing out violations, but a fine, unclear line exists between what's legal and what's a moral obligation. If a companies products don't meet your moral requirements don't buy them.
(46 year old small business owner from Virginia USA)

In response to your new message (let's get down to business, I have to go back to drafting a brief!), I would like to tell you something my brother, a doctor, told me about medicine. He said he learned in medical school that "all medicine is poison, and will do you some harm. You have to figure out how much of it to use, if any, to counteract disease. The less the better. None at all better still. Balance medicinal needs against the harm done by excluding its use." I think that's good advice. Which means that we have to take charge of our own bodies and get the correct information we need from our doctors. Over the counter medicine is no exception. We can ask drug companies to be responsible, but they will sell what we will buy. Education is the key. We have to educate ourselves about what medicine's we need to take, when and how much. As you suggest, we can't trust the drug companies. Thanks again for keeping us all thinking about important issues!
(60 year old lawyer from New York USA)

I enjoy your emails. You really frequently hit the mark dead on. Keep up the good work.
(Musician from Massachusetts USA)

This is just downright sad.
( 25 year old musician from Ohio)

Wow, i haven't heard of that.. That's just insane. Ii hate medicine and I never take it. Making it more tolerable, that's okay. Making it "enjoyable" that's going too far. People are just going to start getting addicted to it and stuff and just take it whenever they want and that's not good at all.
(19 year old sales associate from New Jersey USA)

Return to Table of Contents

Banking on Fallen Heroes

War historically stimulates the economy. "Generally speaking, the bigger the war, the better the economy does" says author/expert John Cassidy in a recent article in "New Yorker" magazine. However, life insurance for soldiers is not what usually springs to mind. New York Times reports: "Securities regulators and lawmakers are looking into the sale of investments to military personnel that may be ill suited to the financial needs of the service members who buy them...(and) that young recruits and other personnel are being treated as a captive market."

=> Corporate America's Position:
Financial planning corporations are sending agents to military bases and selling "whole life" type of insurance policies to those who are at highest risk and need additional coverage the most, and are therefore doing soldiers a service. "First Command Financial Planning heavily promotes the sale of contractual plans, an archaic type of mutual fund that vanished from the civilian market two decades ago. These plans require investors to pay half of their first year's contributions in sales charges. As a result, investors who drop out early - historically a high percentage - wind up paying a very high portion of their investment as fees, and even investors who do not drop out earn less than if they had avoided the high first-year fees." (New York Times)

=> Society's Position:
"In May 2002, a young, unmarried soldier named Michael R. Deuel, serving with the 82nd Airborne division at Fort Bragg, N.C., signed up to pay nearly $120 a month for life insurance that supplemented the much less expensive coverage he had through the military...A year later, in June 2003, the 21-year-old soldier was shot and killed while guarding a propane distribution center in Baghdad...Financial experts say that in most cases young Iraq-bound soldiers would be well advised to avoid the more costly policies, which include a savings plan as well as a death benefit, and stay with the less expensive ones, especially if they have young families...'It might very well be good advice to let the low-benefit, high-premium so-called savings program go, and stay with the lower-price term insurance,' said Joseph M. Belth, emeritus professor of insurance at Indiana University and editor of The Insurance Forum, an independent periodical." (New York Times)

=> Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary:
Indeed war historically stimulates the economy, but "the buck stops here" when it comes to robbing those who risk their lives for our country. In most cases, soldiers are not top students with fat wallets. Many enroll in the armed services solely to further their education, willing to go to war only if absolutely necessary. We have soldiers in harms way. Many disagree with their mission but support our country and protect its citizens with their lives, while insurance companies and unethical financial planners are taking advantage of them, profiting from their emotional vulnerability and premature deaths.

I can't think of anything more evil, as the conclusion of this investigations proves that the sales were improper. According to the New York Times this past Sunday: "Hundreds of soldiers who unwittingly signed up for high-cost life insurance during basic training at Fort Benning, Ga., will receive full cash refunds from the insurance company whose agents sold the policies, a spokesman for the company confirmed yesterday."

There may be an argument that says that if these soldiers survive their duty, they benefit from securing premiums at an earlier age with potentially better "pre-battle" health. However, I suspect that these policies also carry restrictions, as even I was initially considered high risk as a musician on tour, and had to forego certain benefits without a deduction in premium.

The government should not permit privatized financial incentives to be presented on military bases, but should provide (and perhaps does) different term insurance options that are statistically proven to benefit active duty soldiers. Insurance underwriters should penalize agents for unethical practices. Those at war are gambling with their lives and should not be put in a position to also gamble with their wallets and the welfare of their families. The corrupt motivations of the guilty companies and agents are reprehensible from the get-go.

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
Banking on Fallen Heroes

I don't see how an Insurance Company can profit from getting a few months premium from the insured's family, and then paying off the policy to the family, which will be considerably more than the premiums. The facts are such that there are good companies and "not so good" companies, and we have to be holistic in our thinking, looking at all sides dispassionately before we "condemn" someone as greedy or not. After all is said, I'd rather we just send the insurance agents over to the war zone to do the battling and keep our soldiers home, wouldn't you?
(Fiction writer from CA USA)

Insurance policies are so confusing. What are the meanings of whole life and term insurance? How do they differ? What are the costs? We get insurance offers in the mail all the time and haven't a clue what they mean. As musicians sometimes we are required to have insurance for gigs which can be horribly expensive. We are asked to pay if our equipment falls on anyone, etc. Generally we don't find out about these insurance demands until AFTER contracts are signed for how much we're gonna get paid. This happens with state fairs especially.
(50 year old musician from Louisiana USA)

Insurance is incredibly confusing, which is why I think it is horrific that such confusing issues are presented to emotionally taxes soldiers on the front lines, and that those emotions are capitalized on by companies trying to make a few bucks, regardless of ethics. FYI: Whole Life are policies that are invested. They come with a higher fixed (locked in for life) premium, but the benefit increases the longer you live (this is why it makes little sense for soldiers who are at high risk of losing their lives in the near future). They only pay off down the road - if you live long enough. Term are lower cost policies that pay a fixed benefit during that term (usually 10 to 20 years). After the term expires, so does the benefit. You can renew, but generally at a higher cost since you are older, and potentially have other health issues at that time. If you don't die during the term, you lose all benefit and premium. As far as musicians and gigs go, my contract requires the venue to carry liability insurance, omitting the need for me to carry my own. I do have limited liability coverage in my business insurance (which covers my gear from theft, vandalism, etc.), but if someone were to be seriously hurt in a venue where I am playing (such as the horrible Great White incident in Rhode Island some years ago), I cover myself by making the venue declare their coverage in our contract.

Oh, I can think of a whole lot more things more evil than that!! LOL!!! Nazis, beheadings, torture chambers etc. Although I'm not excusing it. We need to get behind and investigate that 50 BILLION dollar oil for food scandal which is the biggest white collar crime in history the UN participated in.
(46 year old small business owner from Virginia USA)

You certainly make a good point. I was thinking "evil" in the "Corporate America" context as it pertains to war.

I was following this insurance/military story. I agree that there should be some punishment for the sale of these policies, if it can be shown that the agents used sharp business practices. I was glad to see that the company did the right thing though. I wonder whether they did it to avoid a more serious investigation. I guess we'll never know.
(60 year old lawyer from New York, USA)

Return to Table of Contents

Junk Food for Thought

The infiltration of junk food in schools is astounding. Schools keep most of the revenue while the food and drink companies control and stock the machines. "Banning sweets and other snacks means weaning schools off a revenue source at a time when schools are scrambling for money to fund even basic services...(however)...health advocates say the choice between nutrition and revenue is a false one. By offering nutritious items that also taste good, schools can keep kids healthy without giving up vending-machine dollars." (Reuters)

=> Corporate America's Position:
"Major vending companies say they are protected from bans and restrictions since they offer a range of products. 'It's a real asset of Pepsi Bottling Group system to offer a wide portfolio of products, from good-for-you products like Aquafina water or Dole fruit juices to fun products like Mountain Dew or Pepsi,' said Kelly McAndrew, a spokeswoman for Pepsi Bottling Group Inc. School vending makes up less than 1 percent of the company's total revenue, she said" (Reuters). Of the drinks sold in vending-machines: 70 percent soda, juice with less than 50 percent juice, iced tea, and “sports” drinks. Of 9,723 snack slots in all the vending machines surveyed, only 26 slots contained fruits or vegetables. (Center for Science in the Public Interest)

=> Society's Position:
“It’s hard enough for parents to guide their children’s food choices, but it becomes virtually impossible when public schools are peddling junk food throughout the school day,” said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan. “Many parents who send their kids off with lunch money in the morning have no clue that it can be so readily squandered on Coke, Doritos, and HoHos” (Center for Science in the Public Interest). "Critics expressed concern not only about nutritional value, but also about big companies getting a captive and impressionable audience for their marketing message. 'We were told Coke makes very little money on our five-year exclusive contract so the implication is they're in the schools mainly to brand our kids,' said Brita Butler-Wall, director of Seattle-based Citizens Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools" (Reuters).

=> Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary:
We live in an age of shrinking school budgets and expanding waistlines of children. While parenting is becoming a national pastime rather than a responsibility, kids are being raised by corporate campaigns designed to make long term consumers of whatever is easiest and most profitable to sell in the short term.

The inter-industry support structure created by arresting the intelligence of Americans has taken over, and ironically, it prevails in our "intelligence institutions" - schools. Apple Computer's famous business model (giving free computers to schools so kids ask parents to purchase home machines) is regurgitated today in irresponsible ways. Junk food manufacturers create their market by imposing unhealthy, cheaply processed foods on impressionable kids. Parents then buy whatever their children want for home, alleviating the guilt from not spending more time together. Pharmaceutical companies benefit from increased sales of Ritalin (it's shocking how many of my students drink sodas and eat candy while their parents control them with disciplinary/calming drugs). At the end of the day, schools are able to fund programs such as classroom health education, which are ultimately undermined by lunchroom vending deals.

Corporate America must follow efforts in California and other places to provide healthier, organic meals for students. They shouldn't try to be "white listed" from restrictions, but rather, understand the social importance and accommodate the restrictions. Let's not be fooled by Frito Lay unleashing "Organic Doritos." According to USA Today, nutritionist Cynthia Lair says: "These are all dead, processed foods. Organic or not, they won't make you healthier or give you more vitality." Furthermore, keeping people healthy will make them live longer and consume more products during their lifetime, albeit it different ones. If everyone agrees that education and health are the priority (we all say we do), tax dollars saved due to better health could provide much needed improvements in education. Social responsibility must always take priority, especially when it comes to children.

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
Junk Food for Thought

How's it going? I've been reading your recent e-mails (Culture of Integrity and Artistic Integrity). I'm sorry I haven't taken the time to respond to any one in particular yet. But I agree with your basic premise. Corporations may not be inherently "evil", but they are inherently undemocratic, and as such should have no business dominating our government, which is supposed to be a democracy. One fundamental change for the better surely would be outlawing all private contributions (personal or corporate) to political campaigns, and having purely public funded elections. In the cultural realm, I concede that corporations also have an unhealthy dominance over our lives (me with my diet cola fixation, to pick a prime example). That realm entails more of a personal battle for each of us, I think ... It's hard to resist the lures set out to ensnare us: TV and films are full of sex, riches, fancy houses, fancy food, fancy cars, etc. My brother told me a little revealing anecdote, recently: His 3 year old daughter Zoe wanted to watch "Beauty and the Beast" on the VCR, and so he put the tape on and left her alone in front of the TV for a moment. A few minutes later she walked into the kitchen, where he was making a phone call, and she was all in tears... the reason? The Disney cassette had advertised several "must-need" junk-food items to munch on while watching the film, and of course they didn't have any, so the result: Now she's unhappy (or thinks she is), whereas two minutes ago she was all psyched to see the film. My brother picked her up and looked straight in her eyes: "Zoe..." he said, speaking very carefully, "you know what? You don't need to have that so-and-so... you know why? Because Television lies..." She went around school the next week repeating that to everyone she bumped into. I like that: "Television lies..." Certainly a truism, if I ever heard one.
(30 year old musician from New York, NY)

In the lobby of my building, there are 7 vending machines: 1 of water, 2 of juice, 3 of Pepsi products, and 1 of candy... In a classroom building, there is a room dedicated to vending machines. I believe there are about 12 vending machines, 1 including Mcdonald's french fries, the rest with Pepsi products, ice cream, and 1 with fattening lunches. When you're in the building waiting for your class to start, you get bored, see the vending machines, and eat junk food. This happens every day to everyone. Actually, I think that was a good idea in a sense because of the fact that you can choose the healthiest thing to eat instead of being forced to eat chips and candy. But still, there are so many vending machines, it's insane. Who needs all that food? In high school, we had 4 vending machines in the cafeteria--and that's where I always went. I never bought food. The food was gross and because of that I was forced to eat candy and a wild cherry Pepsi every day. Instead of providing funding for vending machines, schools should get rid of the vending machines so that there is only like one, and use the additional funding for better food so that kids aren't forced to eat junk. I've just decided that this is a junk food society and there's not much we can do to change it since it is now a major habit in the minds of Americans.
(19 year old retailer from New Jersey USA)

Thanks for that response, but remember that it isn't the schools providing funding for vending machines, but rather, companies provide schools with vending machines free of charge or at a nominal fee, letting the schools keep most of the revenue from the sales of vending products. Schools are actually making money from them (not spending), and using those funds for supplemental academic and elective programs (hopefully).

When you speak of such an issue, I would add that you might want to include a list of companies that are socially responsible and how you can get details on them, etc. Also, speak on the cost of snack foods and how savings could be realized with alternative and more healthy snacks. Don't let the opportunity go to waste.
(30 year old accountant from Louisiana USA)

Those are good ideas, and if you have any thoughts or know of any companies, please let me know. Getting readers involved is certainly part of the point, which is why I post responses on the website. Regrettably, my doing even more research turns this into a full time commitment, which given the newsletter's freedom from sponsorship obligations, makes it impossible. I certainly welcome any insight you have to offer fellow readers.

Oh, you want to get me started on schools? I could scream just thinking about their hands always being out when they make stupid decisions about spending money. Anyway, the other side of junk food/processed food is the amount of money spent on Nexium, Prevacid, Tums and Pepsid to relieve the side affects of our bodies not being able to digest all the non-natural parts of what goes in our mouths.
(25 year old musician from Ohio USA)

Oh yes. One psychiatric social worker here has a clinic that controls ADHD (or whatever the initials are supposed to be) without Ritalin. Healthy eating and the kid taking responsibility for his actions are her program, as well as physical exercise, crafts, etc. She is denounced by most all her colleagues. Why? If healthier eating and attitude can help with reduced or no medication, what it bad here. Brainwashing. Many geniuses are multi-channeled minds, just the very symptoms that the drug suppresses. Many of these people say they owe their success in life to the drug (while munching on salty, oily, sugary, coal-tar-colored junk.) But the cure starts at home. Simply do not buy junk food. None, nada. No gum, so artificially colored stuff, nothing. Learn how to prepare tasty and healthy treats. Teach the kids to do them as well. The good social worker's program is about TAKING RESPONSIBILITY.
(57 year old computer programmer from Jerusalem, Israel)

I had a t-shirt once that read "I Don't Have ADD, You're Just Boring", and I can't think of a better way to put my opinions on THAT diagnosis. It boggles my mind that people can stick 30 children into a classroom, trapped in those desks with the fixed chairs, and then fault them for not being able to concentrate. To further this line of thinking by declaring these children as 'chemically imbalanced', and then pumping them full of drugs takes this beyond the realm of absurdity into that of the diabolically insane. Boys especially are 'kinesthetic' learners, which basically means they need to learn by doing - they need to be physically mobile and active in order for their brains to function properly in the learning process. If you place children in an overcrowded and uncomfortable environment, it is inevitable that there will be many who experience traumatic difficulties. I personally don't believe that children do not WANT to learn - they are sponges, absorbing everything around them, and their ability to 'multi-task' rivals any operating system Microsoft could ever develop. I've seen kids who seem to require two or three tasks at hand IN ORDER to concentrate - sort of like some adults, huh? At the root of this is the assumption that our education system is right, and the kids are wrong - but the dangers in this are obvious. It is our responsibility to find an environment in which a child can realize it's own natural curiosity, not to force a model onto these unsuspecting new souls that they must be drugged in order to accept !!! Who in God's name has envisioned that world?!?!?! It's disgusting and hellish !! I can't even see how the current practice of drugging large numbers of children realizes the intentions of those in charge - it is nothing more than laziness, and lack of imaginative and pro-active thinking on the part of our educators and physicians, coupled with the short term cynicism and greed of large drug manufacturers. Until individual parents stand up and say "You're not doing that to MY kid", it likely won't change. For anyone who does take this stance, there is plenty of evidence that your child will easily find their footing and flourish in a less crowded, less impersonal, less stressful environment, combined with a diet at least reasonably low in sugar, caffeine and chemical preservatives. Start by cutting back the cola, which is loaded with all three. If it takes 'innovative thinking' to realize this, then that in itself is a sad statement on our culture.
(Follow-up response from a 27 year old musician from Ontario CANADA)

There is no loyalty in corporate america!!! It is a beast
(50 year old musician/former corporate employee from Connecticut USA)

Return to Table of Contents

=> Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary:
As someone who early on decided to forgo the security of working for a company and be an entrepreneur, it seems more apparent than ever that I made the right decision. Job security is a myth, and being an entrepreneur is the only way to keep control over one's life. Healthcare, pensions, and overtime may seem to have little to do with one another, however, they are all symptoms of the same disease: bad management.

Whether it's an executive team incapable of navigating through a volatile economy or just an evil dictator in the corner office, those working for corporations and expecting security are finding themselves up corporate creek without a paddle. Health insurance companies shooting premiums into the stratosphere make it cost prohibitive for other companies to offer health benefits to employees or even hire new employees, which likely contributes to the current bad job market. Struggling airlines are looking to their work force to help bail them out, asking pilots to take wage cuts and employees in general to forfeit pensions. If companies default on pension programs, tax payers will ultimately pay due to the under funded (given the likely domino effect that will follow) Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (federal agency). The current administration (under pressure from business groups who wish to reduce litigation of overtime lawsuits) ruling to cut overtime pay for anyone with team leadership abilities (i.e., nurses, chefs, pharmacists, restaurant managers) further diminishes the value and integrity of working for a company. These short term corporate solutions are a result of years of short term corporate thinking, and will ultimately result in long term tragedies for society.

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
Sus-pension of Job Security

A corporation is still made of people, and they have to bring in income to keep functioning; the bad corporation doesn't care how it gets its income (I would call these people unenlightened), but most companies do care and use their brains to find solutions that are innocuous to the environment and to other people and animals (I would call these people enlightened). And people like you and I care too. We are the future of Business America.You may have it easier if you are a genius musician or genius entrepreneur, however, there are plenty of entrepreneurs that aren't geniuses just hard working people. When you are gifted, such as Celon Dion is or Barbra Streisand is, look at the outpouring of love from audiences, love that translates into the medium of money. I've worked for large corporations, small businesses, and have been an entrepreneur. As a fellow entrepreneur you must realize how much work it takes to earn income from your own mind and energy: multiply that by the hundreds of people who work for corporations -- it is their sweat going into the products. This isn't to say that I like all corporations, I just know that many of them have consciences and use them. I love your idea of integrity in work, it's my own precept that love of people and others should come first and if you have that love the opportunity will be given to you. I bet some large compenies would support your tenents. Most People respond to love, not hate; they respond to friendship, and if a CEO or the like is a greedy so and so they end up like those whose corporations sent their officers to jail. Corporate America couldn't be all bad or we wouldn't have the wonderful products and theatres and other things you enjoy that we have.
(Fiction writer from CA USA)

I see you have a busy lecturing schedule. That's cool. I'm looking to split from my job in January. I read your article on job security and how you felt that working for yourself was the best decision you made and it got me inspired.
(40 year old graphic artist from New York USA)

It used to be one got into a company like GE or IBM, it was for life. Now, if one lasts two years, this is a big deal. The cutting of benefits is made possible by forcing all the moving around and lack of security. Do not be fooled into blame this on a few "dictators" and the poor economy. This is ALL by design. Beginning with President Reagan (of blessed memory, even so!) smashing the air traffic controllers union, American and after it, its imitators, industry saw its opening and has systematically been lowering effective wages and destroying benefits ever since. Even in the best of times, I, with an advanced degree and experience, cannot do half of what my self-educated father (of blessed memory) was able to do. I cannot buy a decent home, put my kids through college, make them nice weddings, etc. At least, here in Israel, the HMOs are mostly funding through Social Security so individuals need only purchase "supplemental" health coverage. However, wages here are a bad joke. Knowing what they can get away with, employers will not take the time and consideration to evaluate candidates competing for their currently below average opportunities. Age and other discrimination abound. And .. oh yes, it is official: Forget overtime pay--Forget it!
(57 year old computer programmer from Jerusalem, Israel)

I think you've made an excellent point about pensions and job security causing us all to be at risk in the near future. I don't think it's cynicism to look at it that way ...the system behaves cynically as far as I'm concerned. I'd like to think that the army of lawyers in our country will help change corporate greed practices but I don't think it will happen. When the baby-boomers retire in droves we will see major strains on all our systems. I don't have much faith in the party politics system either... I hope Kerry gets in but I don't think he'll be very effective at changing things ...look what happened with Clinton...education seemed stuck in the mud. Sure some people got richer than ever and a lot more got hurt...the big party balloon popped and the terrorists had a field day. I like Kerry and Edwards and hope they can fix it...but we can't be sitting ducks anymore either.
(50 year old artist from Louisiana USA)

Yes, generally I agree. I made the same decision--to control my own professional life and future, rather than depend upon a less personal entity for whom I would be employed. My brother was the victim of a large corporate entity that decided limiting their future benefit payments to their employees was more important than the quality of life their employees enjoyed, regardless of the years of loyalty and devotion of those employees. So, I am mindful of your warnings. However, not every corporation is "evil" and there are those that really do care about their employees welfare and repay years of loyalty and devotion. They are just too few and far between to justify a general belief that corporations take care of their own--obviously. It is important for young people today to choose carefully between a career tied to corporate tethers and entrepreneurship. Youth, choose well with whom you sign contracts, and more importantly with whom you shake hands, even if you have signed a contract.
(60 year old lawyer from New York, USA)

Return to Table of Contents

The power and revenue stream created directly from advertising has far exceeded a healthy balance for society. As individuals give in more to ideas, propaganda, and consumption solicitations, the value of our eyes and ears become too high for our own good. "Advertising is the art of arresting the human intelligence just long enough to get money from it." -- Chuck Blore, a partner in the advertising firm Chuck Blore & Don Ruchman, Inc.

=> Corporate America's Response:
Newspapers and magazines are increasingly publishing free content online. While most report that it leads to more subscriptions, it is also more cost effective than servicing subscribers via traditional methods. Giving it away free to "penny wise" individuals makes corporate advertising more valuable. According to the New York Times, 75% of their revenue comes from advertising.

=> Society's Response:
The New York Times has 1.5 million readers daily on the web (11 million registered users), vs just over 1 million who read the actual paper daily (710,000 subscribers). The New York Times Company

=> Ravi's Commentary:
The reversal of roles between advertisers/manufacturers and customers exists in so many different facets of our daily lives. It is shocking that advertisers/manufacturers have become the customer and consumers are now the product that one corporation sells to another. CD stores generate significant revenue from selling displays and shelf space to record companies. Wal-mart negotiates unscrupulous wholesale prices based on their high volume of foot traffic. When you read newspapers (whether paid for via subscription or read for free online), you are another set of eyes being sold to advertisers (hence, it is more valuable to have 11 million registered readers online than 700 thousand home delivery subscribers that need to be serviced). According to the New York Times: "Wal-Mart's culture has long emphasized cost-cutting as well as serving the customer - two concepts that may be at odds." I don't think the concepts are at odds if you realize who today's customer is - advertisers! With such a cost conscious society, low prices will always lure in the product - you and me.

This may not be news, but values (personal, financial, and social) have changed, particularly with industry giants like Wal-mart and New York Times that dominate their industries. How can we trust our news sources if it is ultimately designed to "undivide" our attention rather than inform and educate us? The gross sensationalism that occurs in the media everyday is sucking us in just to spit us back out toward advertisers. When I was with Hanson, radio often refused to play the band because the majority of fans were under 21 and not attractive to beer companies that purchased advertising. Combine this with the lowest common denominator society that Corporate America is creating, and you have a very, very poorly informed consuming public. When did America become so "third world," where the middle class is not just disappearing, but the rich are blatantly using the majority at the expense of society's well being? We don't live under Capitalism anymore; America is a Corporate Dictatorship.

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
Arresting Human Intelligence

When news media make their profits from advertising, it is a conflict of interest that makes them unable to do unbiased reporting. The same conflict of interest arises in the art world. I appreciate what you're saying and I hope you influence some people to vote. The last 4 years have been sort of like the McCarthy years and in some ways are approaching the Third Reich. One doesn't have to be a socialist to expect that free enterprise be managed by people that are truthful and have some moral consciousness. Reverting to an age of Robber Barons which preceded the administration of Theodore Roosevelt is not the road to prosperity--for the general good, at least I think that just making the rich richer and the USA the most hated nation in the world is counter productive, if a humanistic view of society is part of ones priorities.
(66 year old retired social worker from Florida USA)

Perhaps the worst example is credit bureaus. And they are not only selling the "consumer" as "product" but 25% of the time selling a wrong description of consumers (if I recall correctly Clark Howard's commentary) -- a less than true impression of consumers, and one that's
*quantified*. If you go back to the old notion of a "department store" (Macy's, Rich's, etc.) you'll find that many sections of the store were actually sub-leased and were only presented as being under the store's name; i.e. selling (renting) floor space. I believe this is still true. I believe
a Wal-Mart is different, being a "monolithic" model. But in grocery stores, the shelf space is so precious that major brands do actually pay chains for the guarantee of shelf space and
premium spots. As far as record companies in CD stores go, I can say that Naxos had (has) the unusual approach of leasing small square footage for its branded "budget classical" kiosks, which they kept (keep) re-stocked without CD-by-CD intervention from the store's/chain's individual buyers, though Naxos budget recordings would also appear in the regular
bins. In this way, they have been able to maintain an "everybody makes a small profit" distribution system (say one insider) and is thus able to remain a "budget" label ($6.99 retail) using second and third-tier orchestras (like Nashville Symphony) which get only a flat buyout $$$ figure in terms of royalties. (Just my understanding of it here. I'd have to dig up old e-mail to re-check details.) Regarding "When did America become so "third world," where the middle class is not just disappearing, but the rich are blatantly using the majority at the expense of society's well being? We don't live under Capitalism anymore; America is a Corporate Dictatorship." Maybe it depends on what flavor of capitalism we're invoking (or provoking). You can see in the novels of Dickens (like a Christmas Carol) characters who directly echo platitudes of 19th-century Victorian capitalism (as Scrooge does early on). With or without a middle class, what is the relationship of "the poor" to society at large? The Victorian capitalist notion in America perhaps largely "functionally" crashed with the stock market in 1929 (functionally, though not killing the cultural notion of an economic aristocracy) and the consequential backlash in Euro-America included the interest of the "intellectual elite" in communism during the Depression, an interest which is still with us (musically speaking, see the legacy of the Seeger and Lomax families going back to the early 1930s) and survives most significantly in those who identify themselves as "progressives." "Progressive" is a "safe" word that much of the public don't understand, and which carries "historicist" notion of being willing to "progress" stepwise in what they believe is an inevitable evolution to socialism then communism, in contrast to a more familiar notion of sudden "revolutionary" change to one then the other. "Evolution" is misused here in a way that Darwin did *not* propose, with Marxists (and now "progressives") speaking in "absolutist" socio-economic theory of survival of entire social groups (species) rather than what Darwin actually said, which is survival of *individuals* within groups (species) -- hence the *Origin* of (New) Species. (See essays of Stephen Jay Gould.). It is interesting to compare the historical time of intellectual popularity of such "inevitable economic evolution" to socialism/communism as a theory parallel to the intellectual popularity of an "inevitable musical evolution" to dodecaphony/serialism as a theory during the 20th century! The parallels of thought are remarkable. However, the "music" didn't present the face that the "politics" wanted; hence, devoted "serialist" communists like Hans Eisler were consciously rejected by the Euro-American version of communism in favor of "folk" musicians like Woodie Guthrie, the Seegers and the Lomaxes. And we know the iron hand laid on music in Stalin's Soviet Union. And we know of Chairman Mao's "Red Guard" purge of intellectual
culture in mainland China (which was, frankly, remarkably far more similar to the actions of emperor Qin Shi Huangdi than any modern Marxist-Soviet notion). Question for consideration: How recent a phenomenon is "the middle class," historically speaking, within the context of capitalism? How many different inds of capitalism can be clearly identified? And what do we then do about it to make for a Capitalism of Integrity?
(50 year old music composer and journalist from Georgia USA)

Get your head out of the sand. I guess ignorance is bliss. Personally I hate ALL those who hate America, even the ones that reside in this country. Wake up and count our blessings. I went from govt. disability, to being a successful small business owner in the last 5 years, partially because George Bush let me keep more of my own tax money and hire help to make the business grow. It's a great time to be an American. Happy, successful times, and for the most part, a great feeling about doing the right thing and fighting the evil of dictators and terrorism. Great economic growth, low inflation, low interest, and fantastic productivity. Yet some say we are in a depression. It just doesn't make sense. I'm fully disabled, 46 years old a small business owner. I had absolutely nothing 6 years ago other than my $550.00 month SSI check. I now own a million dollar Internet business and did it totally on my own if I can make it, anyone can. I don't even have a college education, just a desire to succeed.
(46 year old small business owner from Virginia USA)

I am so glad to hear your story, but I fear that many people cannot say they have the same experience. I am not sure any of the other comments are from people who hate America though. As for myself, my motivation for starting the newsletter is out of love for America, particularly the potential our country has to truly be a great nation for all.

That's right ...corporate dictatorship ...the end result of pure capitalism...how about compassionate capitalism ...then compassionate dictatorship? ...all government seems to head in that direction if they make "progress" ...life is a constant struggle ...on the broader level, if our country is not at war with another country, we're at war with each other ...or ourselves...or all 3 at once. Lord, have mercy on my soul, when I get too tired of it all.
(50 year old artist from Louisiana USA)

Return to Table of Contents

This year's Democratic Convention was relatively unpopular amongst TV viewers, with day one (featuring Bill Clinton) ratings supporting this claim. "Each of the three main broadcast networks showed steep declines in the number of their viewers: from 6 million viewers four years ago to 4.4 million on ABC; from 5.9 million viewers to 4.5 million on NBC; and from 5.2 million to 4.6 million on CBS. Viewers interested in more complete coverage clearly gravitated to the all-news cable channels, whose audiences increased to 4.7 million viewers in prime time, up from 2.7 million in 2000." (New York Times)

=> Corporate America's Response:
Commercial networks NBC, ABC, and CBS all snubbed the convention in anticipation of fewer viewers, offering only one hour of "prime time" coverage nightly. "The number of people watching the first night of the convention on network TV follows the trend we have seen for many years - fewer people are tuning in to the conventions," Jeffrey Schneider, a spokesman for ABC News.

=> Society's Response:
"While viewing levels fell off sharply for the networks, viewing on the cable news channels showed a big increase, with about two million more viewers watching this year's first-day coverage than did four years ago. PBS, the one broadcast network that has continued to provide gavel-to-gavel coverage, experienced a sharp rise in viewers. PBS news executives pronounced their increased ratings as proof of their competing thesis: that there is a substantial audience engaged deeply enough in American politics seeking more complete coverage of the conventions." (New York Times)

=> Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary:
For the first time, I watched the majority of the publicly broadcast Democratic convention television coverage (thank you PBS). It astounds me that commercial networks only covered one hour of each evening, claiming that the decision was based on minimal public interest. If the public's lack of interest was the motivation for less network coverage, why did PBS, who is directly funded by its viewers rather than by products purchased by their viewers, dedicate more airtime than commercially financed CBS, NBC, and ABC? Networks can certainly find more entertaining programming to appease the lowest common denominator viewers that they have created with Joe Millionaire and Temptation Island. Perhaps advertisers have more to gain from a couch potato public. However, political advertising provides significant revenue for networks. Some respect to the political process and the public's education is in order, not to mention the media's civic duty. Furthermore, such snubbing conveys that politics are simply not worth our time. In a country that repeatedly promotes (through war, invasions, occupations, etc.) freedom and democracy as the superior system of government, the lack of American interest (individual and corporate) sets a very bad precedent internationally. In a country where only 51.3% of those eligible to vote actually cast ballots in the last Presidential election (according to the Federal Election Commission), this decision by television networks is nothing short of domestic irresponsibility.

Perhaps I am now old enough to really care about politics, or not quite old enough to be fed up with the barrage of propaganda. Or maybe it is that the state of our country has inspired me (and hopefully the majority of others) to find a savior for the devolution of politics, culture, and integrity that shapes America in the eyes of the world, and the lives of my fellow citizens and permanent residents. Whether one finds his savior on the left or the right, political conventions are an opportunity to recognize unified parties, understand party platforms, and learn the democratic process upon which our country was founded. They are an opportunity for all Americans to truly feel American. I say shame on the public if it is not interested, but even more so, shame on the networks for not better informing American citizens and inspiring them to go out and vote.

(Next issue: Advertising: Arresting Human Intelligence)

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
Un-convention-al TV

Thanks for not making a specific political endorsement. That would be myopic. What's important is to look beyond political parties and to observe what degree to which they are equally controlled by that hard-to-pin-down spectre called "Corporate America." Or is it, more
accurately, "Corporate Globe"? And "non-profits" can also be a part of that. Look at George Soros and his political activities in over 50 nations. Who are the puppets, and on whose strings? Buckminster Fuller urged us to look to sea trade routes for an historical clue to this; today it is important to add the air trade routes and electromagnetic communication routes. (Legally Piggly.) Political parties, like television, are often just a convenience for public display.
(50 year old music composer and journalist from Georgia USA)

Being apolitical is just as being as political as any one from a political party is, especially when terrorists are trying to kill us. Blaming corporations for all of Americas failings is narrow-minded.
(Follow-up response from a 46 year old small business owner from Virginia USA)

I agree that the networks did a lousy job of covering the DNC last week. Despite the fact that significantly more viewers are tuned in to this hotly contested election than was the case in 2000, the networks decided to air precious little of the event, and the pundits just got in the way (thank God for CSPAN, which allowed us to watch as much or as little as we liked, and which let us make up our own minds about what we thought of it). No surprise, really. Just another form of censorship by the networks' corporate parents--who's CEOs are just a bit too cozy with the Bush administration. Fox News was by far the worst offender. They showed a mere 45 seconds of Al Gore's speech before cutting away to attack the former VP. We'll see if they give the same "fair and balanced" reporting for the Republican National Convention that they gave to the DNC. Thanks for sending along your views on this. I've been sending my own thoughts on politics to my fans, colleagues, friends and family as well.
(Musician from Massachusetts USA)

Thanks so much for your words. It's good to meet other socially active artists! I imagine the same coverage will be given to the Republican Convention, as anything else would be blatant partisanship of the media. But these days...anything is possible!

I think the major networks have stooped to a new low on this one. I too was shocked that they were not covering the convention in full. Then it occurred to me: If all of them are essentially showing the same programming (i.e., the convention), this would affect their high prime-time ad rates for the"popular" junk food TV they're dispensing. So no doubt, they get most revenue from showing their regular programming. Devoting an hour to the convention seems like a CYA effort. The major networks have devolved from the days of Walter Cronkite real-journalism to the current pathetic info-tainment cast as "news." PBS is the real deal. We're lucky to still have it. Keep up the good work.
(40 year old musician from Louisiana USA)

Not at all, the Democrats failed to even mention abortion, or many of their other core values because they wanted a glossed over convention. They did their best to hide that fact. No wonder the media had no interest now that the convention is a non convention.
(Follow-up response from a 46 year old small business owner from Virginia USA)

Yep, it's because people are simply uninterested in what's going on in the country..they have absolutely no care and are very uninformed about what's going on---most probably don't even know that there is a presidential election coming up or who's even running.
(19 year old sales associate from New Jersey USA)

Perhaps the reason viewer-ship on the major networks is declining is because the conventions, themselves, are more propaganda than substantive party meetings. In the sixties and prior, the national conventions were a time of "coming together" for the party after primaries came down to the wire and a final candidate had to be selected. To select a final presidential candidate, and to unite the party for the final run for the White House, the party had to compromise on major issues to draw a consensus, with the compromise being based on the successes of the primary contestants. Today, the national primaries are essentially over after five to ten states have held their own state primaries. The "candidate" is already essentially agreed upon months prior to the convention....and to the victor goes the spoils.....thus the victor gets to choose the party platform. I know this because of my patients was a designer of this years party platform. All the work was done prior to the convention. Last week, upon his return, all I heard about was the parties. When asked about the work, he commented that the convention was the celebratory party, not the time of work. Today's conventions are nothing more than a propaganda generating political machine. The purpose is to look for the poll "bounce" after the convention and ride that wave to victory. The TV networks are clearly biased in their reporting, and they have their own, more subtle, propaganda to disseminate. To me, it is a real disappointment that the issues are never really the focus of the elections. Do we want bigger government with more control over our lives, or less government, and possibly less help to those needy, but more independence? How capitalistic do we want our democracy to be? These are the real questions! PS I love your email publication.
(40 year old doctor from North Carolina USA)

I agree that conventions are staged for the purposes that you state. I still feel, however, that they are a window into the party and the people. I say this because it really did provide a window for me - someone who is trying to learn more about the opposition to the current administration, so I can feel good about casting my ballot for new leadership, as opposed to doing so just to remove the old. I also feel on a very basic level that lack of Corporate interest (as Corporate America being the loudest voice in society) inspires lack of public interest, which when it comes to politics and the issues our country faces today, is most unfortunate. Corporations need to be more socially responsible, hence "creating a Culture of Integrity."

It is extremely sad that our country as a whole, is not interested in politics. We the people should be involved, emailing/calling our representatives about issues that are important to us. We should set the agenda, not them. However, I think that the networks signing on for an hour has more to do with the lack of excitement in this particular campaign, that or they are all friends with Bush and he doesn't want those of us who can't afford $50/month for cable to be informed. Honestly, if everyone just forgot to show up and vote, I think that would send the best message. I personally am thinking about writing in a candidate this year since I really don't think either of these guys can handle the job.
(25 year old musician from Ohio USA)

I hope everyone goes out and votes (half of the public seemed to have forgotten last time)! Writing in a candidate would certainly send a strong message, particularly if the majority of voters did so. However, I have to say that this year, I hope to see Kerry prevail, as 4 more years of this mess is too much for me to take, and he is the best chance we have given the options!

I have to say that this is the first year I REALLY watched the Convention - for as long as I could take it, that is. At times I actually felt hopeful that the Republicans may be on the run. (Sorry to Republicans - but that's how I feel. You folks scare me!!) I want to say also, that I will be watching the Republican Convention even more closely. When one discusses propaganda in the media, you have to think Republicans. When you say that polls showed decreased interest in the Demo convention in terms of viewers, please remember that that is merely an interpretation of statistics. Mark Twain said there are lies, big lies and statistics. I am certain that the Republican convention will show higher numbers of viewers than ever before. Just skewing statistics. Actually, I'll be contributing because I'll be watching. When people get their prime source of important information from major networks, realize that about 45% (I think) of major television networks and other media are now owned and controlled by only ONE company.
(49 year old music teacher from California USA)

Really?!!! When a candidate runs on his military record as John Kerry touts every 5 minutes, and when over 3/4 of those he served with repudiate him and all the stories he tells, and yet this or the Sandy berger cover up, or the 50 BILLION dollar oil for food scandal get's hardly any mention in the press at all the same year that the Army's self disclosed Abu Grabe prison story got no less than 50 front page covers of the New York Times in 2004 is there even a shred of doubt the media tilts to the left?
(Follow-up response from a 46 year old small business owner from Virginia USA)

I'll say this, the lack of coverage is interesting given the high level of stakes and sentiment perceived on both sides of the major parties. And I agree, a shout out for PBS is something deserving.
(30 year old accountant from Louisiana USA)

If our citizenry chooses to not take this election seriously, does not think long and hard about the issues and choices that will be presented to them in this election, we are doomed to mediocrity. It is bad enough that the networks ignored, virtually ignored, the convention. If the public does so, we are in trouble. I like to think that everyone was glued to PBS, as I was. While the convention was clearly scripted, and well scripted at that, there was much to learn and contemplate nevertheless. If we do not keep a close eye on these candidates, we will not be able to vote intelligently. I hope we can send a message to the networks that the real reality shows this summer are the conventions, and the opportunity they give us to dissect the platforms and positions of the presidential candidates. Nothing else on TV will be more real. The next four years and the direction the country takes as a result of who we elect is as real as it gets.
(60 year old lawyer from New York, USA)

I appreciate your growing political activism and involvement. You're making some good points in defense of common sense and rational discourse, but I notice you're carefully avoiding making any political endorsements or taking any particular stands, which comes across to me as pretty weak. I'm assuming that your dual purpose is to raise your profile as a performer by seeming substantial, but I'd caution you that you can seem like an opportunistic poser if you insist too carefully on being non-controversial. I realize it's a ticklish situation, but I don't know how you can expect to be honestly seen as bold and exciting if you refuse to boldly state your convictions, never mind the consequences.
(50 year old graphic artist from Louisiana USA)

Thanks for your email. You missed the point of my email, however, which if you have been following the theme of this iNewsletter/website, you might see that my objective isn't to take a political stand, but rather, to point out Corporate America's (in this case, network television) socially irresponsible decisions. To make a political statement here would actually dilute my point, or shift the focus, rather than make it stronger as you suggest. The only stand that I intend to take with "Culture of Integrity" is in regard to Corporate America, and not one of partisanship. This isn't to say that I don't have my own political views, but this isn't the forum where I wish to present them. In regard to raising my own profile, that isn't the point at all. Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't. But no matter what, I want to return to living and working in a capitalist society, not the corporate dictatorship that we live in today. This is my initiative to bring whatever attention I can to this specific area of interest.

Return to Table of Contents

"The pharmaceutical business...has grown in the last quarter-century from a small group of companies peddling a few antibiotics and antianxiety remedies to a $400 billion behemoth that is among the most profitable industries on earth." (New York Times)

=> Corporate America's Response:
According to the New York Times, most drug makers now spend twice as much marketing medicines as they do researching them. Pharmaceutical companies are even paying doctors to prescribe their drugs. "Schering-Plough paid physicians $1,000 to $1,500 per patient for prescribing Intron A, the company's hepatitis C treatment. Because patients usually undergo Intron A treatment for nearly a year and the therapy costs thousands of dollars, Schering-Plough's payments to physicians left plenty of room for the company to profit handsomely."

=> Society's Response:
Prilosec and Nexium, the drugs we know better as "the purple pill" due to millions of marketing dollars, is the No. 2-selling drug in America (after Lipitor), according to the Chicago Tribune. "Everyday more than 2 million Americans take the ubiquitous $4 purple pill."

=> Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary:
As I write these commentaries, I often find myself losing hope that you will send me back a hearty argument. The facts speak so strongly that perhaps it is difficult to argue the other side. Yet, so many of us continue to support this manipulation of our freedom by irresponsibly falling for the marketing. Prescription drug companies are robbing us left and right, laughing all the way to the bank while we wait in line at discount pharmacies to give up an arm and a leg (if we haven't already done so through insurance premiums). They are coercing our doctors into giving us biased information, and with the retail environment becoming a mass-market menace, can we really expect the Wal-mart pharmacist (hopefully one of the few employees making more than minimum wage) to advise us appropriately? Furthermore, with the increased popularity of online pharmacies, we are eliminating another level of possible "prescription drug police."

It shocks me how much advertising there is these days for prescription drugs. "Melts in your mouth, not in your hands" has been replaced with "May cause dizziness, drowsiness, dry mouth, vomiting, swelling, rash, fever, diarrhea, constipation, depression, etc..." Of course, all these side effects create a huge market for other drugs. Our concern should be getting healthier, regardless of pill color. We should be able to trust our doctors to steer us in the most healthy and affordable direction - especially if insurance is paying for it! The Chicago Tribune reports that Prilosec, Nexium and Prevacid - all heartburn treatments known as proton-pump inhibitors - had more than $8 billion in sales last year combined. They have also been key contributors to employer and consumer health insurance premiums, costing General Motors Corp. alone more than $80 million last year.

It is horrible to think that we may actually live in a country that wants us to be sick. We are too busy trying to stay afloat in a challenging economy to navigate through Corporate America's marketing and find the real truth on health related issues. Our being sick is way too profitable for the drug manufacturers. One possible hope remains in, of all places, our government. Politicians may be in bed with the Pfizers, Merks and Eli Lillys, but the conflict is that these companies are simultaneously robbing Medicare and Medicaid. According to the New York Times, once the new Medicare drug benefit takes full effect in 2006, the government will pay for almost half of all medicines sold in the nation. Doesn't it make you feel good to know that the industry not only picks your pocket when you are sick, but also every time you pay taxes?

Perhaps insurance companies (and individuals) should make regular payments to our doctors to maintain our health, and when we get sick, dock their pay for not doing their job. This would certainly revamp the system, increase awareness in alternative therapies, and result in better health for everyone at a cheaper price.

(Next issue: Advertising: Arresting Human Intelligence)

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
Prescription Drugs: Payola Ain't Just for Radio

I do find the subject extremely interesting but very complicated, and it is one that I have "studied", in the sense that I keep up on health issues and, of course, have a brother who is a doctor and discuss with him both public and private health issues. I kind of agreed with the doctor who responded to you. I found myself agreeing with much of what you suggested and disagreed with much also, mostly because it was too simplified an attempt to delve into what is a very complicated matter. Having said that, I still think it is great that you put the subject out there for people to consider.
(60 year old lawyer from New York, USA)

I am always hesitant when a doctor prescribes me something...is it really something that I need? Is he just giving it to me cause he wants more money? Do these medicines actually work or are they something that we believe do work? Is it possible that they make things worse, continuing our visits to the doctor, giving them more money? I hate prescriptions never know if I should trust them. I've grown up never using medications (unless forced to by my parents for some serious things) and I'm perfectly fine.
(19 year old retailer from New Jersey USA)

I love the idea that we should pay doctors every month to keep us well and dock them their pay if we get sick (because they're not doing their job). We should also make factories and car manufacturers pay our doctors because they (the factory owners and car manufacturers) pollute the air that we breath that (among other things) MAKE us sick.
(45 year old musician from Connecticut USA)

Agree! Fully! Especially that we're all too busy to take the time to do the research ourselves. The big guys busy marketing these things are also perpetuating the culture that keeps lower & lower middle class Americans fighting to survive, and we have less & less power, time, & energy to enrich and empower ourselves. Glad you are fostering thought & individual responsibility. Keep it up!
(Singer/Songwriter from Nashville USA)

Thanks for the book reference...sounds like a good read. I think a national health plan is way overdue. Everyone should be entitled to subsidized health care, and an education campaign on better health would make the program less expensive and more sustainable.

You didn't take long to hit on a topic close to home. As a physician, I can tell you that your argument is really more of a smorgasborg (sp) of multi-layered criticisms and arguments that generalize very complex systems into simplistic ideology that doesn't lend itself to easier argumentation. Thus, I would not be surprised if you had few responses....and I would only consider a good response one that addresses the issues in depth (and therefore would be a novel). Please know that there are doctors out there that do not accept insurance reimbursement (like me) and are less influenced in decision-making by their campaigns. But don't be fooled, the market drives almost everything....and you'd be surprised at how many patients come to my office asking for a specific drug without knowing what they are doing, asking for (in reality). As well, remember that preventive anything is always seen as a costly "risk." If it didn't happen yet, how do you know it is going to happen? Thus, who wants to pay for it? This never gets and hardly ever will ever get government funding! Take 9-11 as the ultimate example. As I always say, "You can never really value something unless you've had it and lost it, or you had to earn it yourself."
(40 year old doctor from North Carolina USA)

Glad I got your attention - it's nice to get an MD's point of view. No doubt that my broad brush strokes on these issues are opinions based on a limited amount of research and information. Your input helps demonstrate the complexity of the issue, and illustrates that there is another side. I am also sure that not every doctor accepts reimbursement, as you point out, but the very fact that some do (and in secrecy) casts doubt in the integrity of the health care industry. The public needs to be more active when it comes to their own health. This isn't new news, but as you point out, your patients are often self diagnosed based on TV marketing and other influences. In my opinion, the public needs to be better educated on the realties of health care, and doctors need to be more vigilant in directing the best care for their patients, and educating their patients. I have had plenty of personal experience where doctors have been too eager to prescribe drugs without offering any alternative advice, even if only to compliment the medication. An example that comes to mind is Acidophilus...why isn't some form of this always recommended to compliment antibiotics, particularly long term high potency antibiotics that kill good and bad bacteria in our bodies? Or the number of kids on Ritalin - a whole debate in itself. I am no doctor, so there may very well be reasons of which I am not aware. Yet, perhaps a little more "alternative" knowledge and openness in the medical field may result in less perpetuating syndromes or side affects, often leading to other long term disorders. Certainly eliminating payoffs would be a step in the right direction. As far as prevention goes, education in proper diet (as opposed to big business "got milk" type propaganda) would likely reduce the cost of health care significantly, and perhaps is only a "risk" to the bottom line of the pharmaceutical companies (there I go again with broad brush strokes!!)

Read your rave about drug companies. Couldn't agree more. My personal gripe in this area is Ritalin. Did you know that the group that calls itself CHAD (they help parents understand the "complexities"regarding ADD) is led and sponsored by the people who manufacture Ritalin? The people who lead discussion groups are all board members of that company?
(49 year old music teacher from North Carolina USA)

Thanks for your support. Ritalin is a great example of what is wrong, and one day I will do a "Gripe" on the drug itself. As a music teacher, I have had so many kids put on the "discipline replacing" medication and it has always upset me. It is such a personality changing medication, and way too commonly prescribed in today's fast paced, over stimulated, under parented community. Parents need to recognize that the "professional" advice that they receive is playing into their own needs, and not in the best interest of their kids. Social and dietary changes in children may eliminate the syndrome we know of as "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)." Save the drugs for those who really need them!

First of all, the organization is called "C.H.A.D.D." and secondly, it is a grassroots organization, sponsored by and devoted to the families with individuals with ADHD. To my knowledge, in all the CHADD meetings I have attended as a physician (to educate myself on community knowledge and support), I have NEVER run into a board member from the highly lucrative pharmaceutical industry. I suspect they are all are spending their time and millions elsewhere. (The argument about what "ADHD" really is deserves much more attention, but we'll save that for anther "Hey Ravi").
(Follow up response from a 40 year old doctor from North Carolina USA)

I last saw you perform in Stamford, Connecticut. I am working very hard on the political front against the pharmaceutical giants. Nancy Johnson in Connecticut's 5th Congressional District co-authored that horrible Medicare bill that is ultimately designed to destroy Medicare while making the pharmaceutical industry wealthier. Robert Marconi - http://www.marconiforcongress.com/ is opposing her. He is a very honest person and has strong positions on both social and fiscal issues. On a personal note, he became the first politician whom I've heard use the " l word" in the same sentence as the name George Bush - he said that George Bush lied to both the American people and the congress about his reasons for invading Iraq. Bravo.!!!!! Robert has an excellent shot at unseating Incumbent Johnson, just based on the Medicare issue. His is a low-budget and grassroots campaign, and we would appreciate any help or time you could donate. Your music is beautiful and I know that the seniors whose votes we can ride to victory would love to hear you perform.
(Realtor from Connecticut USA)

Thanks for your kind words, and for your efforts in making a difference in CT. Also, your response nicely equates how the Medicare bill is socially irresponsible, and that the government would rather empower financially supportive drug companies than serve the elderly public. What a shame. Email me with a more concrete idea of how/when/where I can offer my time and a performance, although as a non Connecticut resident, my abilities to contribute may be inhibited. Nevertheless, it is important, as I have first hand experience and interest (as we speak) on seniors and Medicare, as my own mother is battling a multitude of health issues...and she is a CT resident.

Return to Table of Contents

Targeting Teens Where No Parent Has Gone Before

We live in a rapidly changing environment - you might say a "dual" environment - and America's teenagers are leading the way. According to AOL Digital Marketing Services, more than 50% of teens go online every day, while 82% go online four or more days per week. Edison Media reports that 46% recently chose the Internet as the "most essential" medium in their lives, while just 29% chose television.

=> Corporate America's Response:
"Credit card companies...are swooping down on young consumers...Capital One...is targeting high school juniors and seniors with a co-signed MasterCard that is solicited through the Internet and mailings addressed to their parents." - (Bankrate.com). "The Web offers marketers a medium that is a huge part of youth culture—with the added bonus that it's unregulated, with very little parental supervision. In 1999, the U.S. Center for Media Education found that 62 per cent of beer and alcohol Web sites displayed what they call 'youth-oriented features' - that is, activities that appeal to the adolescent and pre-adolescent set." (Media Awareness Network)

=> Society's Response:
"Parents today are willing to buy more for their kids because trends such as smaller family size, dual incomes and postponing children until later in life mean that families have more disposable income" - (Media Awareness Network). "Last year, youngsters shelled out $105 billion of their own green, compared with $94 billion in 1998...They spent $48 billion of their parents' dough last year, compared with $47 billion in 1998. Jupiter Communications estimates that teens will account for $1.2 billion in Internet spending by 2002" - (Bankrate.com). (Given the years, actual numbers must be higher today).

=> Ravi's Commentary:
My initial inspiration for this topic came from a New York Times Magazine article on May 30th that addressed teenage sex and "hooking up" online. "After school" sports and arts activities have been replaced by sitting alone in a bedroom, interacting online with real life friends under mutually known alternate online identities, often acting out "inappropriate" (and premature) fantasies. Many kids take it a step further and a "play date" takes on a whole new meaning - we're talking 13 year olds, oral sex, intercourse, and two parents who don't come home until dinner!

But that topic alone did not establish corporate responsibility, which is the theme of this newsletter. However, ads from Calvin Klein and Abercrombie & Fitch, portraying half naked teens in sexy scenarios, are setting "acceptable" thresholds for kids and compromising their values. With the lack of parental control (cell phones and the Internet eliminating the gatekeepers), anything becomes possible. So here comes Capital One offering credit cards to fickle spenders with little responsibility and no experience with credit, also taking advantage of the fact that many kids have jobs today and therefore have records established with credit bureaus. With the Supreme Court last week striking down the "Child Online Protection Act," how long will it be before teenagers are purchasing the majority of online pornography with their platinum cards? I can't believe that even on an economic level, facilitating irresponsible spending is in anyway financially healthy. We will all pay for it down the road as more charges are contested and the cost of doing business increases.

Corporations manufacturing everything from balls to beers are investing billions to reach this demographic, and even hiring "cool hunters" and "cultural spies" to report the trends from the field in order to better insure their investment. Yet, they are casting the waves that they are eagerly trying to catch up to, and in a quest to figure out what kids really want, they are totally ignoring what kids really need. Parents have to get back to being involved in the lives of their children. However, women's increased role in the workplace combined with the average family's "need" for a double income (whether to keep up with the Jones' or actually put food on the table) has put the priority elsewhere. Corporate America has many resources. It should take a conscious role in setting the trends for today's teens (and parents), and do so with social responsibility.

(Next issue: Prescription Drugs - Payola Ain't Just for Radio Anymore)

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
Targeting Teens Where No Parent Has Gone Before

I agree, parents have seem to have stepped off of the playing field. In order to reclaim our children in our society all parents must step up to the plate. Taking responsibility
for our children is the only way. Without monitoring their web time and regular play time as well, the kids shall continue to run rampid, disrespecting and engaging in mature sexual acts before their time. I have a nine yr. old daughter and would like to fell better about the other kids she will interact with in school.
(30 year old construction worker from Louisiana USA)

I have been following your newsletters and I applaud you for pursuing this cause. It's very noble of you to emphasize the importance for artists/entertainers and I would add professional athletes to maintain their artistic integrity and raise the dialogue that we all have a responsibility in how we influence society and especially the youth of our culture. I think the first place we can all start is in our own backyard as so to speak. As a songwriter I try to stay within bounds of what I consider to be positive, edifying and entertaining all at once, which is not really so difficult . Unfortunately a lot of our entertainment is geared to have a "shock and awe" effect and so we've become desensitized and overstimulated to the point where we can't appreciate the beauty of simplicity and the subtleties of life. It' s good to know that there are artists like yourself out there who are concerned and are trying to make a difference.
(40 year old songwriter from New York USA)

Over the years I've lost respect for kids and teenagers because now, all of them are psycho (for lack of better word).. I feel like I'm one of the very few decent teenagers left. I have morals and responsibility--and I've yet to meet someone (besides my sister) who shares my beliefs and values. Kids and teens are getting more and more irresponsible and stupid every day and I fear for the future.
(19 year old sales associate from New Jersey USA)

Well, I am glad to hear you are out there with a good head on your shoulders. Try and spread those values to your friends...we need more of you out there!

I think you have struck on a very important chord (no pun intended). We live with it all the time, as our son is now 19 years old, has been away at a boarding school for the last four years (and is now about to start college) and has used the Internet for many years for both educational and entertainment purposes. Since he has been away at school he has had a credit card, which is practically a necessity today. He seems to have a good understanding of the importance of money, and particularly that when he uses his credit card he is spending his parents money, not his. He appears to be genuinely grateful for his privileges and prudent in exercising them. We would like to think that we have overcome any "marketing" ploys by corporate America by teaching him about money, responsibility and making good choices. But he may be an unusual kid and society has to be ever alert to the indulgent child who has not learned moderation and good judgment. We are a two parent working family and it is often hard to keep on top of matters affecting our son, particularly as the pace of his life accelerates. He is working this summer full time for the first time in his life and putting all of his earnings away for college. However, we do worry about his ability to continue to make good choices in the face of constant peer pressure and marketing onslaughts, especially now that he is reaching the age where independence is important to him, his acts are not going to be "parentally reviewed" on a regular basis and where he expects to be treated as an adult. While we can only hope that what we have taught him will become a permanent part of his character, there are never any guarantees. So far so good. We talk about this topic a lot. Corporate America should be far more sensitive to this issue. I'm glad you are encouraging the concept of business taking an active part in creating responsibility in our teenagers and adolescents--and doing it in a positive and encouraging way.
(60 year old lawyer from New York, USA)

Return to Table of Contents

Reality TV, "Idol"-izing Rock Bottom

"The Apprentice, The Simple Life, Next Top Model and Average Joe joined the ranks of staples American Idol, Survivor and The Bachelor as reality moved from programming trend to network star, particularly among the 18-to-34 audience ad buyers crave." (USA Today)

=> Corporate America's Response:
Networks continue to capitalize on the phenomenon scripting new shows with old formulas: For Love or Money - 16 single ladies compete for the bachelor and winner gets to choose him or a paycheck, possibly a million dollars or only 1 dollar (is this in anyway "reality"?); Next Action Star - a movie industry version of American Idol that picks two winners to star in a movie. Obnoxious Fiance - need I say more?

=> Society's Response:
Last season, American Idol averaged 31.4 million viewers/episode (by comparison, 60 minutes averages 10 million). The Apprentice, Obnoxious Fiance, and Average Joe were amongst the top five most watched television programs. Kids ages 12-17 say three out of four of their favorite programs are "reality" shows (Network Statistics).

=> Ravi's Commentary:
We used to "live" our own lives, but now we prefer to watch "reality" on TV. Good natured reality shows that poked fun at people "caught in the act of being themselves" (Allen Funt regarding his Candid Camera) have been replaced by the quest for money and fame at the expense of your fellow human being. Survivor, Temptation Island, Joe Millionaire, The Bachelor, and many others blatantly instigate, perpetuate, and profit from the demise of personal values, and by doing so, are glorifying this behavior as normal and acceptable. Kids are being raised on this "lowest common denominator" form of entertainment - the ultimate baby-sitter is molesting the values of young Americans.

American Idol, the "Gong Show/Star Search" combo exploiting the worst of the worst and the best of the rest, delivers quality old fashioned entertainment while lowering the cultural standards of society as the corporate conglomerate picks pockets well into the future. It makes a mockery of the music industry by awarding the winner (or more likely requiring the winner to accept) a professional record deal - also known as a high interest million dollar loan...congratulations, you have just won 15 minutes of fame and a lifetime of debt - and pushing underdeveloped talent onto the charts. While the winners undergo performance development during the contest, the corporate conglomerate is selling renditions of timeless classics on TV while delivering mediocre original music to millions of viewers on CDs.

The formula: let the public decide who they WILL buy, then invest in the artist and music - 65 million votes were cast to select this season's winner (interesting for a show averaging 31.4 million viewers). The cart is before the horse, and it has nothing to do with raising artistic standards or cultural enrichment, which is what art and entertainment should do. These "idols" (last year's winner Ruben, an overweight guy bastardizing the English language, and this year's Fantasia...do your kids now associate "Fantasia" with Disney or a pregnant teenager?) should win the chance to hone their craft and launch a career of longevity in a free market. Instead, their dreams are exploited for quick corporate profits on TV, and then again on CD.

What makes American Idol value degenerating is William Hung - the well exploited, talentless, appropriately named (as far as appealing to the lowest common denominator), awkward looking "Idol" reject who was quickly signed and further exploited by Koch Records. Ironically, he might have the best deal of them all if he was a "free agent" when Koch came knocking. He sang at a Toronto Blue Jays game, appeared on Jay Leno and on TV commercials...what's next, the silver screen? (This just in: Hung will be filming his movie debut in Singapore this summer). It's racist, shameless, and says to America that it's okay to exploit this "loser" and we should "consume" him because he's either the kid we bullied in school or the one we feel sorry for since he has no idea how bad he is. Society is listening, as sales prove that Hung's rendition of "She Bangs" is giving Corporate America a major bang for its buck...at everyone's expense.

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
Reality TV: "Idol"-izing Rock Bottom

I truly enjoyed your article. I myself have not been completely sucked into the Reality TV buzz. I don't watch American Idol (my best description of it is "cheesy") and I think I might have watched one episode of Survivor, ever. The only Reality TV show I ever supported was "Switched" on ABC Family. It's set up so you can "switch" lives with another person for four days. I can't really tell how you actually switch lives, though. I mean, the fact that there are cameras everywhere probably isn't a part of a person's everyday life. Well, I'd just like to say, again, that I truly did enjoy your article. It is nice to know that I am not the only person who doesn't buy the whole Reality TV thing.
(18 year old college freshman - singer/songwriter from New York USA)

Interesting rant. I agree with much of what you say, but so that the accolades won't go to your head I will point out that your charge of racism in the last paragraph seems completely unfounded. Nothing you write about leads to that conclusion or remotely supports it.I suggest you stick to the points for which you have a strong base (i.e., the rest of the article!) and push, push, push. Voices like yours are needed. I sense from your article that we might not agree on politics (I'm pretty darn conservative), but I like your style and much of what you have to say. And if I'm wrong about your political bent, mea culpa.

I do believe that Hung's success is partly perpetuated by a form of racism, in that his minority status makes him funnier to the majority, and therefore does not offend the majority of American Idol's audience. My political views are neither hard conservative or liberal, but predominantly based on capitalism with a conscience - building up oneself and trying to use higher stature to benefit society in a social services capacity.

You touch on many hot button issues and bring a spirited point of view and clear convictions to the debate. As for American Idol and reality TV, I don't think that they are the scourge of Western civilization. In fact, these kinds of programs are hugely popular in Europe and Asia (a great many reality TV shows that are popular in the US originated in Europe and the UK). American Idol is really an updated version of Ted Mack's Original Amateur Hour, a staple of 1950's TV. One refreshing aspect of American Idol is that the people who win are the least likely to ever have been signed by an A&R executive at a record company. P.S. - Fantasia is #1 on the Billboard charts!
(50 year old author from New York USA)

You are right about the reality TV syndrome in other countries...I have seen it throughout Europe as well, and of course game shows like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire also began overseas. Nevertheless, the prize is greater here, and in such an economically motivated country, the willingness to trade humanity for a buck is capitalized on at every opportunity, so much so that it has literally become part of the American culture.

Thanks for your article on American Idol and other "Reality" Shows. As the mother of a musically talented teenager, this show has been bothering me since it's onset. However, I think the Bottom Of The Dung Heap Award should go to Fear Factor. Not only does it exploit people, (women in particular), to the highest degree, but it is misleading as far as I'm concerned. I was never aware that the greatest fear among women was to eat maggots while wearing a bikini. Thanks for making an effort to do something about this lowest common denominator society.
(45 year old mom from Oregon USA)

Thanks for your email, and for your characterization of Fear Factor. I have little experience with the show, but from what I do know, your impression seems right on target. The reason why Fear Factor never hooked me (aside from that it is disgusting for the most part), is that I never really saw a purpose (corporate greed aside), like I do with the other shows. What is the point of pushing people to do things that are totally unnecessary (no real benefit to life, and not really a showcase of any valuable human perseverance)? If I knew more about it, I could comment further. However, I think you summed it up well for all of us.

I think you're right on about this "reality TV" thing. It's an expression of the mindless mass market consumerism that for the most part has replaced values & aesthetics in contemporary culture. As the media become more and more concentrated into a handful of giant corporations, news, entertainment, and culture become the brain-numbing bread and circus fed to us to keep our minds off the dirty deals the power elite (Enron, Haliburton, et al) are running. Leave this stuff alone, read, think, vote and get the Bush-Cheney crowd out of office next fall. At least that would be a start!
(40 year old musician from Louisiana USA)

Sounds like a plan! Thanks for the support and vote of confidence in the message. Pass on the emails and keep the comments coming!

Incredibly well written - you got a thumbs up from the entire office
(45 year old booking agent from New Hampshire USA)

Thanks...I appreciate the votes of confidence! Pass on the emails and keep the comments coming!

I agree with you that reality tv has gotten way out of hand. I was particularly disgusted when I saw "The Swan", the show where women compete in a pageant after having plastic surgery. I found that to be outrageous. It is irritating to me, as well, that people are making so much money off the humiliation of others. What a world to raise kids in. When reality tv started to get popular with Survivor, I never thought it would grow to the point it has but it has and it should be stopped. While I will admit that I have watched American Idol, I do find it upsetting that they humiliate the less-than-good singers on the show. I hate what has happened in the situation with William Hung. It's absolutely wrong. However, I feel like American Idol isn't nearly as bad as the others.
(18 year old spa consultant from New Jersey USA)

When I began writing this commentary, I too felt that American Idol was not as bad as the others - and on the surface, in terms of the "values" that it projects (William Hung aside), it is a far better reality show than the majority. However, as I was writing, I was uncovering/discovering the corporate greed side of it and the affect that it has on the music industry, and therefore the audience, culture, and artistic appreciation within our society. What I realized is that it is perhaps more dangerous than the rest in terms of its subliminal affect on a much broader scale, as opposed to the more obvious low-grade appeal of "The Bachelor," for example. American Idol is on the surface a very inspiring and entertaining show, but with an underlying motive to cheat the audience, both on an artistic and mercantile level.

You are beginning to sound like a Republican! Once you understand what has happened to the American youth, and that has been the cycle for the last 40 years, it is dumbing down and appealing to the base instincts, immediate gratification, etc. I am not sure that it is a corporate mentality, the independent rap companies get into it from the beginning, just appeal the
easiest sense, create a buzz, sell some CDs, the hell with how terrible the message really is. And look where it is getting them, rich and famous and the people are going about killing each other, of course, the rap artists sometimes kill each other as well. Tonight I watched a bit of the show CASINO, and people were showing some really bad traits, and it came on at 8 PM with a warning of sexual content, so why the hell are they showing it on network TV at 8PM?
(50 year old record producer from Louisiana USA)

It's true, this has been the cycle for a long time. But it seems to be hitting rock bottom (I hope it can't get too much worse), and perhaps we still have enough integrity as a society to build it back up before it bottoms out completely.

DING DING DING DING....give that man a cigar...Ravi...i've been so disillusioned with staying in this business after seeing William Hung sell nearly 50,000 copies of his CD while I kill myself on the road night after night. So degrading...perfect way to say it. The only reality show I enjoy...the Joe Schmo Show...why?? Because its reality TV busting and parodying Reality TV...and it's quite funny to boot...all the rest are not worth it and it's a shame that they dominate the air. Right on bro...
(35 year old musician from New Jersey USA)

The last report I saw indicates that Hung has sold 100,000. Don't be disillusioned (and don't hang yourself...just hang tight). Join me in creating a culture of integrity...then the world will become a better place for artists and audiences - and hopefully we'll still be alive to enjoy it.

I would have to say that I agree with you about William Hung . When I listened to his single
"She Bangs" on the radio, I thought what kind of garbage is this? I also agree with you that entertainment, and this is nothing new, has reached it's lowest common denominator. "American Idol" because that was brought up at the Amato Opera during a break between scenes, we were discussing how the standards of that show are of amateur value, and although I have never watched that show, I do not have the desire to do so, because I hate anything that is amateur or resembles an amateur. We were saying how shows like "American Idol" should be banned because they enforce low values and in my opinion, bad examples of what professionalism should be. I do hope that they can do something to get rid of shows like that, because they are not worth my time. I know this has nothing to do with what you wrote in your newsletter, but people like Britney Spears? Come on...
(40 year old opera singer from New York USA)

I agree that the show is amateur, but that is perhaps the one redeeming quality. It is ultimately a talent show, and like other talent shows, it showcases amateurs with lots of talent and potential. However, simply "awarding" them professional status is where the show goes wrong, as the talent is still raw and in need of nurturing. Talent shows go back to the beginning of TV broadcast (I believe) and presenting talent in the amateur context can be quite refreshing and pure. However, if it starts to set the precedent for professionalism, as American Idol does, we are once again putting the cart before the horse and bringing down the business for artists and audiences alike.

I love your newsletter. I wish I had the energy to funnel my frustration and anger in some more constructive ways. For now, I live vicariously through you. I forward out often to others. Loved the Pancakes for Pudgies piece. Especially appropriate after seeing Super Size Me. The title ALONE says it all. Some days I wonder how or when I became my mother at such a young age. I remember my mom bitching about things that pissed her off, but for some reason there just seems to be less optimism for my generation. I watch our world going to "hell in a hand basket" in an effort to pay dividends to stockholders. GAWD, I never thought I would use that term to describe anything. Only my Mom did that. HELP. I saw a great bumper sticker today. NO CARB (please, don't get me up on THAT soap box) in BIG BOLD LETTERS. Underneath, in smaller ones: Condoleezza, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld & Bush.
(40 year old Promoter from Louisiana USA)

Thanks for the vote of support, and for forwarding the emails. As far as becoming your mother at such a young age, I think the real issue is how did the world become so blatantly insulting that it is even painfully obvious to those of us with less life experience? You are more than welcome to live (or vent) vicariously through me, but always feel free to bark back, and I'll happily do the work to anonymously relay your views to the public! Keep the comments coming, as that is how we will ultimately create a culture of integrity.

I saw your recent newsletter. Thanks for that. Good stuff and I agree that that the arts are being perverted. Message and aesthetics and inspiration and good story telling has taken a hit from the arts and entertainment industry.
(Author from California USA)

Thanks for the compliments! Keep them coming, and pass along the emails!

Return to Table of Contents

Pancakes for Pudgies

Obesity is on the verge of surpassing smoking as leading cause of preventable death. (American Obesity Association)

=> Corporate America's Response:
IHOP (International House of Pancakes) promotes "all you can eat" pancakes to an increasingly fat society

=> Society's Response:
We are literally eating it up. "The never-ending pancake promotion is driving people into the restaurants, and the relatively low cost of the ingredients means there is little pressure on margins from the giveaway" (Dow Jones)

=> Ravi's Commentary:
This is symptomatic of corporate mentality. Conglomerates have lost touch with society's real needs and are socially irresponsible in their quest for a quick buck. Our own desire to pinch pennies prevents us from recognizing true value. We have truly become a "penny wise, pound foolish" society, in more ways that one. I see more and more overweight people in low budget restaurants and bottom dollar stores (that's right, I'm in them too!). Many of us don't know any better, and that is exactly how Corporate America wants it. Remember when "mom and pop" believed that an educated customer is a good customer? Today the tactic is to teach the consumer not to think, and then sell them whatever yields the highest margins. Don't forget to stock up with duct tape in preparation for the next terrorist attack.

©2004, Suburban Turban Inc.
Ravi (www.heyravi.com), grand nephew of India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, is an Artist/Musician, Author, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at http://www.cultureofintegrity.org/.

=> Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the copyright notice and bio remain attached.

Your Neighbors' Responses:
"Pancakes for Pudgies"

I agree that corporations bear some responsibility in how their products are used and misused. I don't think, however, that lawsuits intended to bring the McDonald's and Coca-Colas of the world to their knees will do much to stem the obesity epidemic in America. Super-sized Americans are the result of poor eating habits--snacking, eating on the run, bizarre diets-- and a sedentary lifestyle. For most people, sports and athletics mean being a spectator. Today's NY Times had an excellent op-ed piece by a well-known Italian cookbook author who took issue with the low-carb craze. People in Italy eat plenty of pasta and carbs but not usually in gargantuan portions and as a result, they are not typically overweight. My own experience bears this out. I've been in Switzerland, Germany, Spain, and France many times, including several visits in the last couple of years. I seldom see an obese person. And the food there is excellent, plentiful, and often rich. But people don't chow down dinner in 10 minutes, eat lunch at their desk, use their car as a mobile cafeteria, or fill up on snacks and soft drinks in between normal meals. I think that's the key word--normal meals.
(50 year old author from New York USA)

I think you are absolutely right about the lack of result that suing corporations has in the case of obesity. And again, right on target about European countries having great food and less (although increasing) obesity compared to the US. However, while I don't believe that Corporate America is actually to blame, I believe they have a tremendous opportunity, and therefore a responsibility, to turn the growing obesity problem around. Obesity is an issue because people are becoming unhealthily in epidemic proportions...and what I mean is that the standard to which we compare ourselves is changing, and companies such as IHOP are literally feeding that standard. America will only "get back in shape" if American's recognize healthy standards. Corporate America has the opportunity to teach us how. I lived in Paris for a year, and had the same experience as you. They live the lifestyle that they were brought up on, not the one that American capitalism instills as the norm. The Europeans still seem to recognize the difference between fat and slim.

This obesity problem is another example of the unconsciousness that our 'government' /military /industrial complex fosters, with a goal to create automatons that will work to fill the coffers of the rich and powerful. Advertising, fear producing mass media propaganda, indoctrination (military) and 'education' of beliefs, all contribute to this robotic behavior. Unconsciousness has many ramifications: addictions (to just about everything), criminality, irresponsibility, pathological consumerism, and every imaginable consequence of being alienated and fearful. With no sense of Self or Human Dignity, the species is on a path of degeneration and destruction. Will we learn that happiness can't be bought; that happiness is not something to have, but a state of Being into which we are born and can maintain.
(62 year old psychotherapist from Virginia USA)

While I agree that we are headed down that dark path, which is the inspiration for the newsletter in the first place, I remain optimistic that we will pull out of it before destruction of the species. If society can be jolted enough to recognize what really is happening, we will crawl out of our seemingly comfy private lives, realize that we are indeed suffering as a culture and community (and therefore as individuals), and revolt against the powers that are driving us into the ground. Happiness is indeed a state of being, yet somehow we are programmed to spend our lives looking for it rather than experiencing it.

Capitalism, in its many forms, is not necessarily about "big" business. The problems of "corporate" ("big business") has been a two-part history, essentially across the span of the 20th century. First being the "Ford" era, the second being the "McDonalds" era of "big" business.
Each era has its own character, typified respectively by the two businesses mentioned as not only representative but seminal influences that marked each: the automobile assembly line, and the fast food franchise. Rather than write a lengthy essay here, I refer you first to "the McDonaldization of Society" by University of Maryland sociologist George Ritzer. While it was written in the late 20th century (the book is now in its 4th edition), has spawned a lot of "faddish" imitative uses of the phrase, and is really NOT about the culinary plight of contemporary society (as some of the "faddish" mis-users of the phrase continue to harp), there is a core of insight into how the hell we got where we are as being "consumers" first and yet so much of the population has been not only tolerant but enthusiastic about living a "McDonaldized" life. Unfortunately, because of the often mis-directed use of the term
"McDonaldization" (like the popular overuse and mis-use of "paradigm" in the 1990s) I still have hesitated to bring it up without explanation, lest the subject get sent down a tangential dark and dead-end alley (or more accurately, suburban cul-de-sac). To paraphrase Buckminster Fuller, you could be a "trimtab." That's a small part that has a heck of a lot of impact when turning an oceanliner.
(50 year old music composer and journalist from Georgia USA)

Thanks for your thoughtful response and closing words of encouragement. Sounds like I have some reading to do! It looks like you have sighted a source from which we can all benefit.

I am having real trouble with the 'Keep America Stupid' characterization of corporate America that is so common among the so called 'thinkers' of the west - if this is true, then how come we know better? The more I think about it, the more I think that senseless corporations flogging ridiculously lame and stupid products and promotions are a SYMPTOM of how stupid people want to be, not the cause. If people wanted to smarten up, they would - but they don't care. They'd rather not think too hard or too deeply about life, reality - anything - and as a result are the root cause of the malaise we are always hearing about. I don't know if it's anyone's place to 'save' these poor people from themselves - America is about freedom, for better or for worse. To expect the entire populace to be a bunch of proactive geniuses is missing the point - society is multi-layered, and to homogenize those layers is - you got it : communism. And we all know how stilted a reality that leads to.

I think when you look at the government (who I feel is essentially employed by Corporate America - CA) and what they feed us (such as protecting ourselves from a terrorist attack with duct tape), it seems so obvious that they are trying to inspire fear to promote consumption, catering and perpetuating the stupidity of society. Also, campaigns such as "Milk Does a Body Good," which is ingrained into our minds, ignores the realities of the human body's ability to digest cow's milk. I agree that ultimately it comes down to the "Stupid American" educating himself if he wants to. However, when we have an epidemic (obesity) and everyone knows how "sheep-like" society can be in regard to advertising, CA has a great opportunity to step up to the plate with money making ideas that also promote good values (see my praise of Song Airlines at www.cultureofintegrity.com - Praise). Regarding communism, it does look great on paper, but we all know how that worked out! I no way do I think communism or even socialism is the answer. Capitalism with a conscience is possible, and can be more profitable in the long run.

Along the lines of integrity, there are so many areas to address--e.g., college tuition, the military, essentially, the attitude/conditioning that generates such non-visionary, self-centered, and aggressive practices, corporate and otherwise. Even Yoga in the US has become a business and, in some ways, is losing its integrity and purpose, which is, basically, to keep the body fit to prepare one for meditation. For the most part, Americans are so apathetic, but the good thing about the arrogance and stupidity or the Bush administration is that, hopefully, people will be so outraged that they'll begin speaking out, as you're doing. When I get a chance, I'll send you Barnard's graduation address, which is quite thought provoking.
(60 year old Yoga practitioner from VA USA)

Indeed there are so many areas to address. When I originally set out to do this newsletter, I was concerned that I might run out of issues - that concern was quickly put to rest. Unfortunately, there is an "All You Can Eat" buffet of topics to choose from! ! look forward to the Barnard address...thanks.

I agree generally with your comments about obesity and the need to foster corporate responsibility. However, I think you have to be careful not to paint your points with too broad a brush. There was a time when IHOP was very attractive to me (and I'm sure others) because they served either big portions or gigantic pancakes. I was also much younger and doing long distance exercise--it just burned off and actually helped me keep my weight up. Perhaps IHOP could be more responsible by including a caveat on their promotional material for those who should be concerned with obesity, and for those who do not know the difference, but not everyone falls into those categories. Also, there are those in corporate America who have stepped up to the plate, such as Subways, and others who do promote healthy eating (I don't know how that effects their bottom line of course).
(60 year old lawyer from New York, USA)

Thanks for the response. I agree with you, but my point is more that when the stats say that we are becoming deathly fat as a society, I don't think Corporate America should take advantage of our vulnerability and profit off of it. Subway is at least presenting a good concept, which is losing weight. However, the majority of their sandwiches still contribute to the overall problem, and only do the few healthier offerings combined with exercise result in possible weight loss. They could further promote weight loss by making half a sandwich cost 50% less that a full one, instead of only 25% less. I am stuck on Subway, as I feel they promote a healthy lifestyle, but are also fooling the public into thinking that they are a healthy alternative. All that being said, there are definitely companies that do step up to the plate...like Song Airlines (see my praise when you have a chance at www.artisticintegrity.org).

I am in total agreement with you. See http://clearchannelsucks.org for other info and links that completely bolster your position, and if the public needs more evidence than one angry musician, tell them so go see 'SuperSize Me' (now in national release). I won't go into it, we'd be patting each other on the back, because you and I both know the game from the marketing side, which the layperson never is made aware of. The opposite, really. Folk are encouraged to not think, just consume. As far as you being "socialist" or whatever, it wouldn't matter anyway; a system under pure communism, capitalism or theocratic rule will never work,
because systems are run (inevitably) by faulty, short-sighted (and sometimes corrupt) HUMANS. Which leads us (America) to where we are now. Thanks for speaking up.
(35 year old musician from Louisiana USA)

Thanks for the link and tips! You have inspired me to add a links page to the site. And now we have at least two angry musicians!

I strongly agree that the almighty dollar shouldn't always be the deciding factor. I will have to disagree on the pancake point. If people don't want to over eat, then they need to stop over eating. They need to choose a portion of food that is right for them. Or go for a jog to burn off the extra calories. They have the freedom to choose.
(25 year old musician from Ohio USA)

You are absolutely right, people have the freedom, and should have, to choose. But obesity is becoming an epidemic, and that is either because people don't care, or because people don't know better. I actually fear that it is the latter, because as society grows larger, the perception of average grows with it. Therefore people's comparative objects (other people) promote the problem, and IHOP (as an example), literally feeds it with an "all you can eat" promotion. Corporate America really has the opportunity, and therefore a social responsibility, to help put things back in perspective, rather that take advantage of the vulnerability of the public. It absolutely comes down to choice, but I the options and perceptions of normal and acceptable have become distorted.

Hey Ravi ...please don't supersize me!
have you seen the little piggies ...the ambassadors of obesity ...all needing drastic obesiotomies ...have you seen the fastfood hogs...croaking in the ditch ...yes, I've been down there too, but haven't popped a stitch...clutching supersized fries to feel like makin' bacon...have you seen the slurpy sludge clogging up their veins...someday they'll need Dick Cheney's doctor to open up the drains...always have a lawyer to make 'em take the blame!
run me up the golden arches
stir my sugar's greasy spoon
old mcdonald had a cow
that couldn't jump the bun
what happened to the one
that couldn't stand up
foaming at the mouth
they made the cow eat
Canadian bacon
and shipped the patties down south
to rally round the windy burger king.

Have you seen the slurpy sludge
clogging up their veins
if you think their slurping's strange
just try to make 'em budge.
(50 year old artist from Louisiana USA)

Thanks for the poem...now that might be one of the most "inspired" responses I have had!

I agree completely with you on what you are saying. I think its horrible how places only care about making money. Its like when you get a meal and they give you at least 2-3 portions of something. You don't realize how much they are really giving you and you just eat it. When in all actuality you are eating enough for 2 or 3 meals, in just one sitting. Then if you think about it, you have those people, who will go in, get an appetizer, then eat that large meal, and turn around and go for dessert. The only thing is, since places have been doing this, if they turn around and start to be more conscious about what they are really doing, they might lose business. You know that if they went and made the portions smaller, people would be mad, thinking they got ripped off. I really think people need to become more aware of this. Not to mention they really need to think and not just stuff their mouths.
(19 year old news/media person from Texas USA)

It is true that people will react as you say if they made smaller portions. No doubt that Corporate America may have to bite the bullet on this one, but they also need to present it the same way I am trying to do in this newsletter, which is to make society realize that this is better for them, and that not only should they not be mad, but they should appreciate it because it is in the interest of their own health. If I were a restaurant owner in this predicament, I might start a campaign where I'd serve the same amount of food, but half of it would be packed "to go." Either you take the rest home and eat it later or give it to a less fortunate person on the side of the street.

Corporate America is maybe the most dominant cultural influence in the word, for better or for worse. If someone enjoys pancakes, well, enjoy them. Anything to excess is bound to be unhealthy, in either direction. Problem, CA (Corporate America) says eat-eat-eat and at the same time says that if you do not have that very fashionable slim and muscular bod, you have little prospect. Not just showbiz but mundane stuff like computer programming jobs (yes--all those places with the inhouse gym expect you to use it and look good there!), finding a mate, finding clothes that fit, etc. I once complained: American boys used to dream of becoming president. Now they dream of being successful rapists. The smarter ones dream of being both. How right I was! Corporate America has tremendous talent, resources and power. Since it is, after all, market driven/driving, it needs to create WANT. It can use the talent, resources, etc., to encourage want to help others in need or to feel the want to flaunt one's sexuality in front of all. It can use the talent and resources to encourage the celebration of ones G-d-given talents and ethnic background or can seeming force mind-cutural-numbing sameness on half a planet. America has seen a generation raised with the notion that a good-looker is above law and morality and is suffering the consequences. Entertainment media that once flinched as showing Elvis wiggle have no substantial qualms about breast-baring at football halftime shows. Do we really want our daughters to go into anorexia to imitate a slender slut who simulates sex at a singing concert? An informed and conscientious consumer (market-target) can fight the misplaced CA marketing that has undermined morality in the USA, knowingly addicted the world to cigarettes, etc. And he/she can encourage and patronize the CA marketing that brings out the nobility and integrity in us all--and this also exists!
(57 year old computer programmer from Jerusalem, Israel)

I agree that there is also an emphasis on keeping fit, but clearly it is losing to the acceptance of obesity. Clothes are manufactured larger (although often with labels stating smallar sizes - "they run large" so we can think we are the same size regardless of how much weight we gain and will therefore by that brand), food portions have increased or become unlimited, and in many cases fat is glorified, often in an effort to be politically correct and to make those with less than "ideal" bodies feel accepted - a noble reason perhaps, but ultimately a bad role model for society. I am all for a "slim muscular bod" being the goal to which we all aspire. As far as our daughters going into anorexia, you make a very valid point. A balance needs to be found, as I also wouldn't my daughter being 30 pounds overweight and judging herself as average because everyone else is also 30 pounds overweight. I agree totally with your final two sentences, and for kicks, let's say that I am an informed consumer. Through this newsletter, I am trying to encourage the CA to do exactly what you suggest. In addition, I hope to make more individuals recognize their opportunity to do the same, and in turn, create a culture if integrity.

It's said if you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your doorstep. All of which you said, and let's assume its correct, seems to indicate a business opportunity for those willing to put forth the resources (i.e. , educational angle on better eating; a place to eat that's affordable and focuses on healthier eating, etc. The next step, if individuals stopped buying the goods from corporate America, meaning the deals you identify, it would give corporate America the key incentive for stopping them virtually overnight hence, another business opportunity for the willing investors. Personally, I like pancakes, as I am sure many other folks do to and a meal involving pancakes can be made healthier, my guess, with the inclusion of other items so perhaps you can foster a position to have additional items added to the list, something that might work well with making it somehow healthier.
(30 year old accountant from Louisiana USA)

Thanks for pointing out a plan of action. There are several ways to move forward, and from one pancake lover to another, I'll just settle for a few less on my plate! I am not interested in IHOP or any other popular business suffering through boycotts or any similar action. What I would like to see is a smarter public, who will realize that "all you can eat" is far less valuable than good health. That understanding alone will change the angle of the business, and I think Corporate America should educate the public by example. Besides, the longer people live, the more meals they will buy!

Hey Ravi, sign me up for everything, and right on! Making a buck is far more important in our capitalistic society than teaching people to think wisely and act wisely That is why people around the world hate Americans. We had better change and change fast before some country decides to invade America!
(45 year old musician from Connecticut USA)

Thank you! Forward the emails and help spread the word!

No one is being "driven" into fast food restaurants...Do you really say "Oh my god, that commercial forced me to eat that #3"???? A deli sandwich is just as inexpensive as a McDonald's meal....Everybody is always looking for an excuse or better yet - someone to blame. Product is product, whether its fast food, clothes, art, music... If you own it -you push it to any one that will buy, but No one is Forced to buy anything... People make their own choices and if you choose to pack a happy meal down your kids face everyday - the consequences are sad, but don't plead ignorance... all you have to is read the fat content on the back of the package, go to the library and educate yourself, run around the block,eat a salad... you have only yourself to blame.
(23 year old from New York USA)

I agree with what you are saying, however, based on the premise that Corporate America is turning us into a lowest common denominator society, I believe that too many people have lost touch with true value, and therefore are not able to make the best decisions for themselves due to ignorance. Therefore, I put the onus on Corporate America to take the opportunity to change our direction. They have the loudest voice, and while it all comes down to personal choice, they can lead us in the right direction instead of playing into our vulnerability and pushing us down further. To me, that is social responsibility.

The overweight issue... TINY LITTLE ME is considered to be overweight right now.. who would've ever thought that would happen to me? i never did. I gained a lot of weight.. its not that im fat though.. i'm just overweight.. you wanna know why? because everywhere I go to eat.. there are unlimited refills/bottomless bowls/all you can eat/jumbo supermega king sized offers for a relatively low price.. and i'm hungry so that all sounds so good and so worth it. then i eat it all and i say to myself... why did i eat all that? it's because all that food is sitting there in front of you.. 472347 pounds of food.. and you just wanna eat it all.. cause youre getting a value for your money.. and in turn.. you gain like 40 pounds.. and then you get sad.. yet you're stuck in a big bad habit of eating.. and your appetite expands and you have the need to eat more... you see a small portion on your plate..which was once considered normal..and you're all like "that's it?" it's so not worth it.
(19 year old retailer from New Jersey USA)

You hit the nail on the head. And even though it ultimately comes down to your choice of what to eat and where to put value, Corporate America could help you and millions of others by not trying to "feed" your vulnerability...that is the point and thanks for helping me make it!

You commie! Do you want to get a visit from Ronald McDonald with a chainsaw in the middle of the night? What's IHOP supposed to do? Stop making pancakes and sell grapes? That would make them IHOG. Come back to New Orleans and have a drive thru daiquiri and chill out...I'm as big a liberal as anyone but blaming corporations for doing anything they can to make money when that is the basis of the whole capiltalist system is futile, mate. Asking a corproation to have a conscience is liking asking a footballer to be a little more gentle. That's the game. Once you have decided to sell your soul for the goal of making money then cigarettes, movies, boats, CDs, petroleum products, coffee tables, pancakes are all just interchangeable items to be made as cheaply as possible and sold for as great a profit as possible and to hell with the ethics of the methods or the consequences. With increased competition for resources the profiteer's withering away of conscience is nothing but a natural evolution - Karl Marx figured that out a while back. As he predicted, as a result there is an ever-widening gap between rich and poor. Sticking it to IHOP is fun but sticking it to Bush and the Republicans makes more sense.
(50 year old screenwriter from Louisiana, USA)

Not a commie, just a capitalist with a conscience. IHOP is still supposed to serve pancakes...otherwise I wouldn't go there anymore. Just don't stuff unlimited quantities down fat people's (or soon to be fat people's) throats! Drive thru daqueries...now there is social responsibility! I am not just sticking it to IHOP...I'm going to stick it to somebody twice a month! Plus, I am praising companies as well up on this site...check it out if you have not. The point of the "praise" is to show that Capitalism can exist with a conscience. I actually don't expect Corporate America (which to me extends to the Government and therefore Bush) to begin to adopt my POV, but I do think that as society becomes more aware of what is being done "to" them as opposed to "for" them, the tide could begin to turn.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think I look at it a little differently. People need to be further educated about health. This is the most important aspect. Then people can make decision on their own about what will affect their bodies. It would be nice if people started to take responsibility for their own actions and quit blaming corporations for the choices they make.

Yes, people do need to be better educated about health...absolutely. And once that happens, people can and will make better decisions about their own bodies. But, we are living in a country run by corporations (they control the government too), and America has become less educated in so many ways. Corporate America is lowering our common denominator because they make more money in the short run from a "herd of sheep" than a smart and questioning consumer base. As a result, society is becoming less capable of accessing proper education and therefore less capable of making these better decisions. Perhaps we cannot solely blame Corporate America, but that doesn't change their responsibility to society. And as the most powerful voice, they need to recognize that opportunity and accept that responsibility helping us as a society.

Ummmm.... Ever heard of personal choice and responsibility? Or "integrity?"

Of course it is all ultimately about personal choice and responsibility. However, we make our choices based on what we perceive to be best for ourselves. When so many powerful voices in this country are working to corrupt our values, and more and more people are standing in line with what they are "taught" to believe (i.e., that "milk does a body good"...if people only knew what cow's milk really does to a human body) in order to support big business, we as a society are no longer knowledgeable enough to make good choices. It is a danger that is intentionally being inflicted upon us, and if we don't realize it, we will remain a herd of sheep only useful for our wool!

Return to Table of Contents