Not So Happy Meal

This clip features a woman representing the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood. Aside from very funny (I mean, come on, it's Colbert), I found it interesting that a woman would be so offended by a little coupon for McDonald's. The organization Campaign for a Commerical Free Childhood is reminiscent of ACT, which we read about in Kids Rule!



I personally don't feel that youth are corrupted by McDonald's and I don't see the harm at all in providing free McDonald's coupons for children who earn good grades. I received many similar coupons (Book It, anyone?) when I was in school, and though they were not my sole motivator, it was very nice to be rewarded for a job well done. I do not have Diabetes nor am I obese, so clearly children are not as susceptible to corruption as some may believe. I appreciate all the companies that have encouraged my education.



These companies not only did not corrupt me, they actually improved my quality of life by giving me the tools to get an education. Even if I was slightly corrupted, it was well worth it to get my scholarship money/kids' meal/free tokens/personal pan pizza. I don't mind being brain washed with commercials a little bit to reach my goals.

Why The Internet is Different from TV

Channel-surfing is typical of both radio and television. Void of a TV Guide, audiences scan the channels for a program they might enjoy. However, such scanning simply does not occur on the internet because a) it’s impractical (short of recklessly following links or typing in random URLs, how could you?) and b) it’s dangerous. Because of the fact that the American populace is generally internet savvy enough not to stumble upon sites with content they find offensive, it is not necessary for the government to regulate Internet content in the same manner it does TV or radio.

Of course, there are some exceptions to this rule. Speech that is not lawful elsewhere should not be tolerated in virtual format either. For example, speech that is likely to incite imminent lawless action must be curtailed. That means that a terrorist cell within the United States should not be allowed to set up a website telling the world the most effectively way to blow something up. Also, child pornographers and sex predators must be held accountable for their online actions and their sites should be deleted from the internet.

Overall, though, I think the internet is a pretty safe place without the government interfering. Though I have stumbled upon some sites I thought were in poor taste, I’ve never found a site I found deeply offensive (and I have pretty high standards). Furthermore, parents concerned about what their children view should just use a parental filter like the one that comes with MSN.

Does anybody remember when the internet was just emerging and there were always commercials for internet filters? We were very afraid of this new technology and we thought that porn sites would just be popping up even if we were looking up benign things. I think the internet is a great example of something for the people and by the people actually working out. Maybe innocent people really were stumbling upon pornography back then (I doubt it, but maybe), but now the people have spoken and the most popular sites are those that internally regulate their content. Isn’t that why Facebook is so much more popular than MySpace? Facebook allows you to report inappropriate pictures and they actually take care of them. Another perfect is example is Wikipedia which maintains a pretty high level of integrity despite the fact that the government has nothing to do with it and anybody can change it.

So, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The government should leave the internet alone.

Nick's Got Nothing on This

My parents have never paid for what we watch on TV. That means no satellite and no cable. That means 2 channels we can see all the time and 4 more if we go outside and turn the antenna. So, I did not watch Nickelodeon as a child. I watched PBS Kids. So do my younger siblings. And I think we're better for it. Because PBS does not rely on commercial sponsors, it can maintain a commitment to education that just cannot be found on channels like Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network. That's not to say that those channels don't have their place, but I think that PBS children's programming has some real advantages that cable stations just cannot compete with.

First of all, PBS has no commercial interruptions. That means that kids can receive more educational content per hour that they watch TV. Second of all, PBS does not have to answer to companies marketing to kids, the company does not have to be constantly pushing the limits to entertain kids.

The future of adult public television may be at an end, however. The programming on PBS in the evenings is usually mind-numbingly boring and catering to a very niche audience. I would exchange a few minutes of commercial time to watch something that is both informational and interesting. Fortunately, there are plenty of cable channels where one can do just that. Channels like National Geographic, TLC, the Discovery Channel, and Animal Planet provide viable alternatives to the boring shows on PBS.

So, basically I agree with the article when it comes to adult programming, but think that it fails to account for the great children's programming on PBS. Public television is not dead, but it does need to reinvent itself in light of the changing face of television. While I still think the children's programs are popular and successful, the adult programs refuse to up the ante. (The narrator on the PBS show NOVA has a voice like Ben Stein.) For every good PBS show like Frontline or BBC World News, there are 5 painfully worn-out ones like Masterpiece Theater (granted it is doing Jane Austen this month, so that's pretty cool) or Mystery!. Then there are the dumb ones like Century of Quilts or Keeping Up Appearances (which I unfortunately have watched). If the adult programs on PBS are to survive (and I hope they do because they really do contribute to academia and society as a whole), they have to think more about marketing and programs for the 21st century. It's time for PBS to catch up with the fresh new things being done at PBS Kids.

One Big Happy Family

There are 9 people in my family (I'm the oldest of 7 kids). It's chaos almost every minute of every day, but I absolutely love it. That's why I go home every weekend, and call home in the meantime. Once people turn 18, they are technically liberated from their family as a community, but I opted to keep mine. It's the one community I'm the most hesitant to abandon.



Above all else, my family's main value is unity and togetherness. That may sound cliche, but I definitely think that some families value getting along more than others. My family definitely falls in the category of one that values respect for the individual as well as the collective.



And I think we really do a good job of working together and supporting each other. (I think big families are usually like that.) We work together on just about everything and spend a lot of time with each other. For example, I go to almost every one of my brother's basketball games, and the whole family helps him practice for baseball tryouts.


It's probably atypical for a 20-year-old college student to be such a determined part of her family. I'm graduating in a couple months and, though I could go anywhere and be anything, I most want to live in Charles County and spend time with my family. They understand me and yet still accept me. I hope that the future doesn't make me give up this, my favorite community.

Collector of Identities

I'll admit it. I spend a lot of my time on the internet. Except for myUMBC and Facebook, however, my internet viewing habits are rather random and varied. I can't exactly say that I have one particular site I regularly check. Honestly, I think that says more about me than if I said that my favorite website was one devoted to some niche identity like poultry farmers or something.

The beauty of the democratic internet is that not only can I visit several different sites, but I can visit them all at once in separate tabs within the same window. So I can try on several identities at one time. What does that say about me? Well, it either says I'm cosmopolitan and wordly or a dilletante with only a passing knowledge of everything. Probably the latter.

I realize that the above was a rather noncomittal answer, so I'll list a few of the websites I often visit:

PNC.com--I love online banking. And when one is as broke as I am, one has to be constantly aware of how little money one actually has.

Specific YouTube users--I find that YouTube as a whole is filled with a lot of horribly-made videos not deserving of my time. However, if I receive a link to a YouTube (or Vimeo) from a reliable source, I am only too happy to view it. For example, I got a kick out of watching the lip dubs posted on Professor Regales's blog, but I never would have found them on my own because, in my experience, searching YouTube for random entertaining clips only results in a lot of trash I'd rather not see (connection to porn, anyone?). So I like to watch YouTubes from users like Lenayiskindofcool and Tubopopcorn. I don't really know why. It's still mindless and egotistical, but at least its wholesomely so.

Boundless Webzine--This is a Christian site that publishes daily articles about life in general. Although I often don't always agree with what the articles say, they are food for thought. So I read them (usually not the entire article--they're a little too long for internet reading in my opinion).

Oldnavy.com--I never buy things from Oldnavy.com. I just imagine what it would be like if I did. Old Navy has cute clothes, and I like keeping up with what is curently fashionable even if I'm not wearing it.

BBC.com--My print news source is always The New York Times. I like to supplement it with a little news from overseas, however. BBC is an excellent news source, and I especially like it because it is not U.S.-centric. Of course, it has its biases, but at least its biases don't reinforce the biases I'm receiving from popular American media.

Freerice.com--I like expanding my vocabulary. I like ending world hunger. It's really a win-win.

So, there you have it. My collection of identities. I'm a Christian, a news junkie, poor, a linguist, and a twenty-something who buys into pop culture (with my media choices and not usually with my actual dollars).

Who me? Spend Money?

I come from a long line of savers. My Mom has actually taught courses on making budgets and sticking to them at the local community community college. She is coupon-clipping, sales paper scanning, and frugal. Okay, she's cheap. And she's definitely passed her cheapness on to me. I'm always saving. My only real expenses are gas and school. I have to work and save hard to afford those two things alone. My priorities are pretty pragmatic. In the future, I see myself still being a saver. After I'm finally done with school, I'll still be saving. The only difference is that my expenses will be mortgage, car, and food. I'm not looking forward to it.

Okay, that's not exactly true. I'm occasionaly a failure as a saver. I feel really guilty about it. Sometimes marketing gets to me and I go out and buy a new shirt or go see a movie. Afterwards, I feel a bittersweet mixture of pleasure and remorse. The pleasure is at marketing successfully realized in me. The remorse is over my perceived lapse of responsibility.

Thus, I'm probably not the ideal consumer citizen. I've never had cable (until I came to college), so I was never part of the Nickolodeon Nation. I appreciate branding, let it affect me and define me, but I rarely actually purchase the brands I like. That about defines me. Conservative and boring, but occasionally I break loose and buy something.