charles i. letbetter

Current Issues  /  PotD
How To Avoid Dying
February 24, 2016
charles i. letbetter - how to avoid dying

If I die a violent death, as some fear and a few are plotting, I know that the violence will be in the thought and the action of the assassins, not in my dying.—Indira Gandhi

 

charles i. letbetter - how to avoid dying

No one really wants to die, so maybe we should take more care in avoiding that outcome

I was amused when scrolling through my newsfeed this morning to see a brief article with the headline: University of Houston Offers Teachers Helpful Tips For How to Not Get Murdered. Odd, I didn’t realize murdering college professors had reached such epidemic proportions. Maybe it’s just a phenomenon particular to the University of Houston, or perhaps they recently hired Miss Marple in the English department and are anticipating the inevitable. Death does seem to follow that old lady and I’m rather sure dying is not in anyone’s syllabus.

Apparently, some faculty at the University are understandably concerned about a new Texas law that allows students to carry concealed weapons in their classrooms. Among the advice given were the following “bullet” points (extra credit for the irony):

  • Be careful discussing sensitive topics
  • Drop certain topics from your curriculum
  • Not “go there” if you sense anger
  • Limit student access off hours

Now, I’m not sure exactly what “sensitive” topics might be included nor where it is one should not go if sensing anger, but I’m going to guess they might include subjects such as how incredibly stupid it is to allow guns in the classroom in the first place and the simple fact that anyone caught shooting the instructor automatically fails the course. Seriously, if this is the type of instruction we have to give the teaching staff, I’m questioning the overall quality of education one might receive at the University of Houston.

However, dying is genuinely something most of us want to avoid and, it would seem, more than a few people have difficulty with the task given that several thousand will die today, and another big bunch of people will be dying tomorrow, and the day after, and the next, and etc. So, with all sensitivity to the delicateness of such an issue set to the side and filed in the back of a drawer in an unmarked manila envelope, I would like to offer some common sense suggestions for ways in which one might avoid dying. University of Houston teachers please take notes.

  • Avoid interaction with items such as bullets, knives, machetes, bombs, or other objects that might pierce one’s body in a fashion that leads to dying. Note: we’re not talking about the fashionable body modifications to your ears, nose, nipples, or other places your mother doesn’t know about. This strictly applies to those piercings that might do things like remove one’s head, severely displace one’s internal organs, or put oversized holes through vital body parts. Dying may very well be immediate should one encounter such piercings and should be avoided at all costs.
  • If you live in a trailer park during a tornado, move. Growing up in Oklahoma, this was just a given. No one who had any choice lived in or even near a trailer park from March through September. In fact, the rest of the year isn’t necessarily all that safe, either. Apparently not everyone gets handed that memo, though. At least three people died in tornadoes yesterday in Louisiana and Mississippi. All three were in trailer parks. This didn’t have to happen. How does one know if there’s a danger of a tornado hitting their trailer park? There’s an easy test: is it raining? If so, move. Dying by being sucked up into a swirling cloud and then dropped just doesn’t sound painless.
  • Avoid visiting places where dying seems to be a recreational activity. This includes places such as Syria, Iran, the Sudan, or South Chicago. These are places where they serve guns along with the appetizers, neighbors lob bombs at each other just for the literal hell of it, and if the bombs and bullets don’t get you the water will. Odds of surviving in these places is so low you’d have a better chance of getting a presidential candidate to convert to Islam. Stay away.
  • Excessive anything is never good, and dying from excess tends to make one the target of bullying in the afterlife, or so I’m told. These are things you already know intellectually. Eating too much will kill you. Exercising too much will kill you. Mouthing off too much to your wife will kill you. One doesn’t really need to be told such things, but yet, every day, there are hundreds of people who die because they just had to have that one last piece of pie, or the last donut, or run 47 miles. Dying can come in many different forms. Be careful. Use some common sense. Step away.
  • Stop smoking cigarettes. Again, you know this. You knew this when you started the dirty habit. Chances are, you ‘ve even told others not to start, and you’re always trying to quit. Stop trying. Do it. Put the damn things down. If your oral fixation is that strong, roll some bud. Having long conversations with the cat won’t kill you (though it may drive the cat nuts). Cigarettes and dying are buddies. Just stop.
  • Consider a career other than suicide bomber. I’m sure I’m not the only one who questions the mental capacity of people who leave nice, warm, presumptively loving homes in order to join the so-called caliphate. I have one question for anyone considering such a move: ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY? Dying is all they do in the caliphate; they rather seem to enjoy it. Apparently, someone told these incredibly gullible people that there’s a reward for going boom. WRONG! There is no reward! There are only little tiny pieces of you scattered all over the sand. That’s it. No endless supply of Snickers bars or anything else you might have been told. If one is trying to avoid death, this is the worst line of business to consider.
  • One last piece of advice: wherever you are, whatever you are doing, whoever you may be, absolutely, under no condition, should you ever, EVER piss off a United States Marine. Don’t even think about it. Just say “Yes sir (or ma’am),” do as instructed, and go on about your business.

Not having died recently, that I recall, I can’t speak from experience, but the lack of folks recovering from such incidents leads me to conclude that dying is not a great deal of fun. In case you haven’t noticed, we generally cry when people die because they’re not coming back. So, let’s all do our best to avoid dying. I know the Bible says, “… it is appointed unto man once to die … (Hebrews 9:27),” but that doesn’t mean you have to do so today. Be careful out there. We like it so much better when you’re around to annoy, er, visit with us.

Take care.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Say Something Nice
February 23, 2016
charles i. letbetter - say something nice

I don’t enjoy any kind of danger or volatility. I don’t have that kind of ‘I love the bad guys’ thing. No, no thank you. I like nice people.—Tina Fey

 

charles i. letbetter - say something nice

We have become a mean, vicious, and cruel race of people because there is no one to stop us

Finding nice things to say can sometimes be very difficult. Yesterday, for example, one presidential candidate said he wanted to punch a protester. News the past few days has been littered with claims of one person disparaging another, someone shooting someone else because they said the wrong thing, and people who are supposed to be leaders outright lying about facts that are easily checked.

Social media is even worse. Descriptors such as, “idiot,” “slut,” and “jackass” are commonplace as people respond to topics with which they disagree. Do the people speaking actually know the ones they’re insulting? No, of course not. One thing social media is very good at doing is encouraging us to participate in discussions about which we know very little. In fact, the success of apps such as Twitter and Reddit depend on us not being able to keep our mouths shut when silence would certainly be the better tact.

Fashion isn’t any better. I am trying this season to avoid reviewing shows that I dislike. I’m fortunate to have a choice in which shows I cover and I see no point in putting myself, the designer, nor Pattern’s readers through the agony of discussing something I don’t like. Not everyone is so fortunate, however. Between shows, I frequently listen to the panels assembled at SHOWStudio. Participants are tasked with talking about a designer’s collection not only for the duration of the show (which I ignore) but for at least 30 minutes afterward. When a presentation is good, finding something to talk about for that length of time can be excruciatingly difficult. Inevitably, the talk turns negative, and at times even vicious.

We have become a society of mean speakers. The ancient advice of, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all,” is lost on us. Instead, we embrace what we consider the “right” to say anything we want, anytime, anywhere, and we think we should be able to do so without any consequence. Should anyone challenge our comments in the slightest, we fire back with some claim of “free speech.” Never mind that what we say may be hurting someone else. We don’t care. We have a right to open our mouths and let filth and disgust spill from them, so that is exactly what we do.

Body shaming has become a global pastime and photographers and photo editors are among the worst, not only in how we talk about models, but how we rate photographs based on the physical qualities of the model. I can shoot two different models in the same location and the same time of day wearing the same garment and exactly the same settings, but the photo of the thinner model is inevitably rated higher than that of the more curvy model, even when both are smaller than a size 6. One of the reasons I rarely participate in photographer’s forums online is because there are too many who have absolutely nothing civil to say about anyone.

Even church isn’t safe. When the Pope and a politician exchange insults, what kind of example does that set? Pulpits have become dispensaries of hate and aggression rather than sanctuaries of peace and love.

As a result, we are becoming increasingly violent and intolerant of one another. The recent murder spree by an Uber driver in Michigan wasn’t a random act so much as it was the physical manifestation of anger and resentment building up in all of us. This guy wasn’t crazy. He’s every bit like you and me, angry at society and the world. The difference is that he took his actions too far, going beyond words and deciding to use bullets the same way he might otherwise have randomly left mean and inappropriate comments on some website. We shudder at the horror of what he did, but are the rest of us really all that far removed from doing exactly the same thing?

What we say matters. Words do hurt, and the example we set with our words has the ability to destory our entire civilization. We cannot coexist in a situation where we have lot the ability to say anything nice about each other. When our first response is one of sarcasm, belittling, and finding the worst even in other’s good intentions, we pick away at the threads that hold our society together.

I’m guilty. You’re guilty. We have to do better. We have to find more ways to be nice to each other. We’ve been mean and self-centered for so very long, that being nice is going to take considerable effort. Turning around what have become instinctual responses is going to take time. Even more, we need to stop accepting such meanness from others, especially those in positions of authority and those campaigning for those positions. When someone decides to be mean toward another, we need to walk away, withdraw any evidence of support, and go elsewhere.

Being nice isn’t all that difficult. We can be truthful without being mean. We can disagree without being insulting. Our words are killing us. All of us. Say something nice, will you?

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion  /  PotD
Sexy Is Still What Sells
February 22, 2016
charles i. letbetter - sexy isn't always enough

I don’t know what a world would be like if you do away with sexy images.—Christie Hefner

 

charles i. letbetter - sexy isn't always enough

The advertising mantra has always been “sex sells, ” but today’s market may change how sexy is defined

 

When one spends two months or more out of every year, as I do, watching fashion show after fashion show after fashion show, one can become a little jaded. What might have been considered innovative and attractive at the beginning of the season starts to look boring and over-used by the point we’ve seen it 87 times. We see certain designers try to define, or re-define, what is going to be the look for the next season and sometimes what they might send down the runway intending to be sexy completely changes how we look at women’s apparel. Other times, however, the whole concept fails, miserably. Even the best of designers have off seasons. Getting sexy right can be challenging

“Sex sells,” has been an advertising commandment longer than I’ve been alive and nowhere has that been more true than with lingerie brand Victoria’s Secret. The company has not only dominated the lingerie market, currently holding a 61.8% share, but they’ve successfully changed the entire course of the conversation regarding women’s underwear. Through the 1980s and 90s especially, they defined sexy with lace and silk, a heavy dose of tease, and an out-of-season runway show that is the thing of fantasies for both men and women. All that, however, may be changing.

Anyone paying attention last week was caught off guard when Victoria’s Secret CEO, Sharen Jester Turney, the woman largely responsible for making the brand the powerhouse that it is, resigned without warning. Her reasons were, “to prioritize my family and my personal life and consider what’s next for me professionally,” she said.  Yet, the timing is interesting. The brand just finished its strongest quarter ever. What might Ms. Turney see on the horizon to make her think this is a good time to take a few days off?

Mallory Schlossberg thinks Ms. Turney might not like what she sees coming in the future. In an article for Business Insider this morning, Ms. Schlossberg considers all the social changes taking place that could very well challenge the VS approach to what is sexy. After all, attitudes are changing. Look at the covers of this month’s Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition and on one we see a very fit but definitely not size two Ronda Rousey, while on another we find the very curvy Ashley Graham who is more along the line of size 14-16. Younger women especially are less likely to respond to overly airbrushed and manipulated images of women that are not real. What was considered sexy for previous generations of women isn’t working for Millenials or the Generation Z that is following them. Could this mean that Victoria’s Secret and brands like them, who have largely built their empires on being sexy, are going to have to change their tunes?

Maybe, or maybe not. For all the fret and worry and endless discussion over what Millenials and “Gen Z” shoppers may or may not buy, the fact is we’re just now starting to see the leading edge of their purchasing power. While that power is going to continue to grow, so, too, does their income. What we’ve not yet explored is the degree to which their shopping habits might change as they get older and reach a more mature income status. Granted, their shopping habits as young people are different from their parents, but they’ve yet to achieve the same income level as their parents. They don’t yet have the same level of expendable cash, so it seems natural that they’re a little more conservative with how they spend.

By contrast, let’s look at the fashion styles we’ve seen coming down the runway the past two weeks. Sheer is now everywhere, despite the fact that we’re looking at fall/winter collections. Backs are more likely to be open and necklines are likely to plunge well below the navel. Slits up the side of skirts frequently go all the way to the hip. While layering is still popular and often results in very bulky, shapeless silhouettes, even there, designers have found ways to show a bit of cleavage or flirt with the sight of bare thigh. Sexy is still a very strong look and we’ve yet to get to the notoriously skin-tight styles of Milan and Paris.

Each generation puts their own twist on what is sexy, to be sure, but whatever direction that twist takes, the fact remains that sex still sells. So maybe Victoria’s Secret has to widen the sizes of lingerie they’ve traditionally offered, and maybe they use a little less airbrush in their ads. I don’t imagine women’s appetite for things that are sexy to go away anytime soon. If anything, as the definition of sexy expands, it gives advertisers even more options for reaching out to a new generation of shoppers.

Sexy as your mother defined it may not always be enough, but it is still the dominant force in selling clothes. Sex still sells. A lot.

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
Time Ticks Too Loudly
February 21, 2016
charles i. letbetter - time ticks far too loudly

A poor life this if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare.—W. H. Davies

 

charles i. letbetter - time ticks too loudly

Time is a measure we use to punish ourselves with the reminder that we can never have enough of it

I have a new wrist watch. I’ve not worn one in well over ten years. In fact, I can’t honestly say I remember the last time I wore a wrist watch; the batteries tend to not last too long and I rarely have time to stop by a jeweler to have the battery replaced. Watch bands also seem to be problematic for me. But, this watch was only a dollar, a promotional item actually, so how could I refuse something that cost less than a cup of bad coffee?

Most watches today are smooth, digitally driven timepieces, but this one is old-fashioned gears and springs with a contemporary face. I don’t expect it to last too long. Mostly, I forget it’s on my wrist until the face gets caught on my shirt sleeve. The watch is about as simple a timepiece as one might find.

But early this morning, in the darkness before my alarm went off reminding me there was a fashion show which would ultimately end up being disappointing, I noticed something about my watch which may ultimately be disturbing: it ticks loudly. Tick. Tick. Tick. No tock, mind you, because the tock response to the tick only occurs in devices driven by a pendulum; it is the return of the pendulum that creates the sound. Spring-wound watches just tick, tick, tick, and in the middle of the night this watch was annoyingly loud.

My mind immediately thinks of that chorus from the Steve Miller Band’s Fly Like An Eagle:

Time keeps on slippin’, slippin’, slippin’
Into the future
Time keeps on slippin’, slippin’, slippin’
Into the future

Over and over and over that phrase repeats with all the annoyance of the ticking on my watch. Time. Ticking. Slipping. What am I doing in bed? Why do we have to sleep? I should be up, awake, living.

We were in the car yesterday with the TED Radio Hour playing on NPR, half-listening, half-daydreaming as Keith Chen talked about how our language affects our ability to save money.  Specifically, people whose language does not contain the future tense tend to save better than those who do use the future tense. That part is interesting enough, but toward the end of the talk Chen says that not only does the absence of future tense correlate to higher savings, but better health, better eating habits, less likely to smoke, and more likely to practice safe sex. All of this hinging on how our language leads us to understand the future, and in a broader sense, time itself. Extrapolating those findings out to the extreme, we might conclude that how we understand time, the perspective our language gives us on time, may lead us to behaviors that affect just how much time we have. Future tense kills.

Tick. Tick. Tick. Loudly. Far too loudly.

In the quiet of the night, every sound is exaggerated, of course, and so is our reasoning. Acting on thoughts one has at 1:00 in the morning is rarely a good move. A cup of coffee, perhaps some bacon and eggs, a moment to give those thoughts a second examination, might prevent one from doing something they would later regret. The ticking of my watch doesn’t change volume levels between 1:00 AM and 7:00 AM, but my perception of that ticking, and my perspective of time, does change. I’m less disturbed by either once I’m up and active and waiting for the next fashion show. I worry less about running out of time in my life, and more about being on time for the next runway.

Still, I wish I had more time; more time when my brain is active and not feeling sluggish from the morning’s work. Getting up so early often means that by the time my schedule opens up around 1:00 PM, either my brain or my body is exhausted. I want to keep going, to edit more, to write a couple more articles, or perhaps read a bit, but rarely is there enough energy for that to happen and I end up feeling that I’ve wasted time napping. Just imagine what I could have gotten done had I stayed awake!

With each birthday, time ticks a bit louder, reminding me that I have less of it now than I did 12 months ago, and raising the question of how I will use the time I have left. We’ve all heard the platitude about living each day as if it were your last. That doesn’t work, though. What we do today affects tomorrow, and for the greater majority of us there will be a tomorrow. We can’t live as if there are no consequences for our actions. The fact that we might die tomorrow does not excuse our lack of responsibility today.

Tick. Tick. Tick. Time for me to wrap this up. Another fashion show starts soon. If you’ve not been reading the reviews on Pattern, I’m disappointed in you. Those take a lot of my time, and I only have so much of that to give.

Tick. Tick. Tick. Louder and louder.

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
Too Early For Intelligent Thought
February 20, 2016
charles i. letbetter, too early for intelligent thought

The early bird gets the worm. The early worm… gets eaten.—Norman Ralph Augustine

 

charles i. letbetter - too early for intelligent thought

Technology has improved a lot since this picture was taken. Early mornings, however, are still the same

 

Even by London standards, I am up way too early. You see, it’s not enough that we cover all the important fashion shows, I still have to keep up with my standard shooting schedule and this morning that includes doing some long exposure photography downtown. In order to pull off the look required, we need to be standing in the middle of the street by 5:00 AM. In order to be standing in the middle of the street by 5, I had to wake everyone up at 2. Being able to make coffee with my eyes still half shut is a very good thing.

Getting up early isn’t all that difficult for me on most mornings. I rather like London time, sort of. Our British friends tend to get things started around 9:00, which equates to 4:00 in Indianapolis. So, that’s typically the time I’m up and running. But we’re even beating that schedule today. As I type, Kat is doing hair and makeup on a lovely young model who is trying her best to be awake. My composition time is slow as I type a few words then have to reach for more coffee. More coffee. Always, more coffee.

Of course, you won’t be reading this until much later, will you? No, you have better sense than to be getting up this early. You’re almost certainly still lying in bed, totally oblivious to the fact that in order for your world to be ready for you at whatever time you decide to put your feet on the floor, someone else had to get up before you and prepare that Starbucks that you grab every morning, or the muffin that you eat while driving to work. You’re smart, letting someone else do the work like that.

I think of those poor chaps at the BBC who have to prepare the morning report, or the writers for Business Insider who have to not only write, but do research to be able to concatenate the most important news into a list of things I need to know before I start shooting off my big mouth. Of course, this is a Saturday, so there are no such lists. Not quite as many people are up at this unholy hour, which is why it is the perfect time for us to be taking pictures in the middle of the street.

The biggest danger in getting up so damned early is that the brain hasn’t had enough rest and recuperation time. I’m running on all of two hours sleep today. Yesterday, I splurged and had three hours. Some days I’m lucky and get a nap during the afternoon, but that won’t likely happen today as, being Saturday, there are children at home. All day. They don’t stop unless you’re throwing food at them, and even then it seems as though they just barely slow down. How can I be expected to exercise the level of intelligence of which I am capable if my brain is still half asleep?

Speaking of children, they seem to do early better than anyone. They hit the floor running the moment their little eyes pop open, especially on Saturdays when we would dearly like them to sleep a little later than 5:30. I’m convinced that they are able to get up so quickly and easily because their little brains are not yet full of enough information slowing their boot up every morning. They don’t care too much about the Chinese stock exchange, couldn’t care less what the price of oil is, and neither of the slackers are planning on voting, given they’re only 5 and 7. They care a little about the weather since that determines whether they can play outside. They care about what’s for breakfast and whether they can stream some mind-numbing drivel via Netflix. Their little brains boot up in .002 seconds because their operating system isn’t yet weighted down with garbage.

I remember my own father getting up this early, much to my mother’s frustration. He always said he enjoyed the peace and quiet and I can certainly appreciate that. The difference between he and I is that I can get up without disturbing anyone else in the house. Poppa had some difficulty with that quiet thing. Mother accused him of being too much like a bull in a china shop. By the time he finished making coffee, the rest of us had at least stirred.

If we are all very lucky, and it will take no small amount of good fortune, I will be able to share the results of today’s adventures with you. I expect you to feign appreciation if we do. After all, we’ve gone to all the trouble of getting up way too damn early in the morning; too early to be doing hair & makeup, too early to be having intelligent conversation, and too early to be taking pictures.

But here we are, the early birds. Those worms better be tasty.

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
Food That Isn’t Fast
February 19, 2016
charles i. letbetter - food that isn't fast

So long as you have food in your mouth, you have solved all questions for the time being.—Franz Kafka

 

charles i. letbetter - food that isn't fast

Our relationship with food is too extensive to let it pass without a thought

There are times when reading my email can be a dangerous thing. Consider, for example, the promotional piece for a local restaurant offering all-you-can-eat fried catfish today for only $5.09. Yes, you’re reading that correctly. All-you-can-eat for under ten bucks. I am really tempted to go, and there’s still yet the chance that I may. The challenge is I have to walk. Both directions. Three miles each way.

In some aspects, that long of a walk is a good thing. I can use the exercise anyway and the temperatures today are supposed to be warmer so the weather isn’t the hindrance it has been. Walking there builds up a decent appetite and if I’m going to spend five bucks on food I want to get my money’s worth. Walking back helps, at least in part, make up for the fact that I would almost certainly eat more than I should because that’s what tends to happen when one is told the meal is all-you-can-eat.

The problem with that long of a walk is that once I leave the restaurant there are no restrooms available between here and there. Walking after a meal does a wonderful job of aiding in digestion, but when one has overeaten, and especially when what one overate was fried, the need for a restroom is likely to arrive rather quickly. Walking that distance takes me about an hour. There is almost no scenario in which the last 30 minutes of that walk isn’t painful. I’ve done things like this before. Disaster has been oh so narrowly averted on more than one such occasion. Do I really dare take that risk today?

We all know that the food we eat is important. There are plenty of people who want to know every little detail about their food: where it was sourced, how it was grown, what it was fed, whether it had a good life and was happy when it was harvested. There are millions of people who have medical reasons to watch what they consume. The young woman on the right in the pictures above is either allergic or sensitive a large number of the most common foods. Her food requirements are so narrow that she’s had to create her own set of recipes so she can still enjoy eating without getting ill. Her website, bubblechild.com, is a fantastic resource for anyone who deals with a myriad of sometimes conflicting food allergies. I read through her articles and often feel rather ashamed of myself for not eating better.

I’m not alone, though. Americans have been the fattest people on the planet for some time now, and our relationship with food extends beyond a mere matter of sustenance; it affects who we are, how we relate to other people, and how well we do our jobs. There is a recent article in the New York Times wherein Charles Schwab CEO Walt Bettinger talks about how he invites job applicants to breakfast and has the restaurant intentionally mess up their order. He tells reporter Adam Bryant:

“I do that because I want to see how the person responds.That will help me understand how they deal with adversity. Are they upset, are they frustrated or are they understanding? Life is like that, and business is like that. It’s just another way to get a look inside their heart rather than their head.”

Bettinger doesn’t say whether he counts the applicant’s cholesterol or sugar intake at that meal, but he has a point. What we want to eat can affect our temperament and getting an order wrong isn’t the worst thing that can happen in a restaurant.

I can remember occasionally going to restaurants with my parents when I was small. Back then, few, if any, items on the menu were prepared in advance. One reason we seldom ate out was because there would inevitably be a twenty- to thirty-minute wait between the time we placed our order and food actually arrived. Salads were encouraged not because they were healthy (they weren’t by the time we ladled several ounces of dressing on them), but because they gave us something to do while waiting on our entrees. If salads weren’t available, my parents were challenged with trying to keep two young boys occupied. We were forbidden from ordering anything that might extend our wait, such as fried chicken. The fact that the food was not going to be fast forced us to think carefully not only about what we wanted to eat, but where we sat, how we dressed, and whether we invited guests.

Food is serious. When I’m planning our menus here at home I have to take into consideration matters such as the amount of fruit the kids have had that day, are they getting enough vegetables, are the textures so challenging that they override the taste? If I get it wrong, we not only have cranky little people on our hands, but I’m also impacting their future relationship with that particular food. They’re both at an age where their opinions of food now affect their dietary choices for most their adolescence. For the moment, they love steamed veggies, but if I don’t prepare those carefully they’ll stop eating them and won’t try them again for several years. Remember, I have three that are grown. We’ve been through this before.

Taking time to think about our food before we eat brings us closer to making healthier choices. After all this, will I still have the catfish? Maybe, but if I do I am less likely to go full-tilt on the all-you-can-eat and will adjust my other meals to compensate for any errors in judgement I may make. Not giving in to the fast food convenience allows all of us to enjoy our food more, to make meals more of an experience rather than an automatic habit. We may not always make the most healthy choices, but we are less likely to make really horrible ones.

You know, I could use the exercise. Maybe I’ll just have the veggie tray instead.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Words You Don’t Own
February 18, 2016
charles i. letbetter - words you don't own

Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace.—Buddha

 

charles i. letbetter - words you don't own

Once words leave your mouth, or your fingers, the matter of who owns them becomes questionable and often it isn’t you.

I was amused recently when the driver of a car that was passing us could be seen gesturing rather vehemently while she talked, neither hand actually on the steering wheel as she passed. She was deep in conversation and obviously very passionate about the topic. While the visual observance was humorous, I was also just a bit concerned that neither of her hands were on the wheel as she zipped down the rather crowded street. The whole thing made me curious as to what she might be discussing, but that’s none of my business, right?

There is audio going viral of a certain well-known rapper who recently appeared on the television program Saturday Night Live. The rapper, whose ego is matched only by his narcissism, can be heard claiming that he is fifty percent more influential than any other person and then instructing those within immediate hearing distance, “don’t fuck with me!” Here’s the thing: the rapper was not in public space at the time the words were spoken. He was behind a closed door with his team. He did not know he was being recorded, but not the rantings of this petulant child are scattered across the Internet. There’s no getting them back. You can hear the audio here.

We tend to not give a great deal of thought to how important our words might be, and we almost never give any consideration to who owns the conversations we have, whether face to face or online. When texting your significant other that they need to purchase milk on their way home, one typically doesn’t consider that message profound enough to warrant any type of legal protection. The words are just out there, no big deal.

Consider, however, that one is a songwriter or a scriptwriter swapping ideas with a writing partner. Concepts and phrases jump back and forth between the two, and then, months later, one discovers that the other has used pieces of that conversation in a script or a song without crediting the partner. The next text is likely to be to a lawyer. However, one might ask why one set of words is protected more than the other.

This isn’t a new conversation, actually. I remember while I was still in college, 40 or 50 eons ago, there being a significant lawsuit over who owned letters in a correspondence between a now-famous author and a friend. Both subjects were deceased and the author’s family wanted the letters back because they contained information regarding the influences and inspirations and state of mind the author had while writing different books. The family of the friend did not want to let them go, however, claiming that once the author had mailed the letters they were no longer his (which is standard case law).

So, when you open your mouth or send a message to a friend, regardless of the medium, who owns that information and who has a right to access that information, especially if you’re not around to access it yourself.?

That question is at the core of the FBI’s request, and subsequent court order, for Apple to create software that would undo the encryption on the phone used by one of the shooters in a terrorist act last December. The stance taken by Apple, and vehemently argued by CEO Tim Cook, is that you own the words you type, and the communication you engage through your phone. To that end, Apple has natively encrypted everything on their iPhone with a level of security that even Apple itself cannot hack.

However, laws allow that any communication made in relation to or during the commission of a crime can be used to prosecute those who committed that crime and, especially in the case of what would be considered terrorist activities, to prevent additional crimes from being committed. Therefore, the FBI, with the court’s backing, they have a right to access the information on that phone.

Remember that line in the list of Miranda rights that says, “You have the right to remain silent. If you choose to not remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” All of your words, any of your words, can be used against you. If your words can be used against you, do you still own them?

At the same time, those seemingly innocent conversations can save one a lot of trouble. Let’s go back to that text about buying milk on the way home. That text is essentially creating an alibi for where your significant other goes between work and home. Should a crime be committed in the same area about the same time, that text could potentially help exonerate your partner, but only if you share it. One has to let go of the strict possession of that message.

Even words that we copyright, such as those I’m typing now, we don’t fully own. Copyright law allows for “acceptable use” by third parties, use that does not require my permission. My words can end up used in ways I did not intend and cannot control. In fact, I might never know the extent to which my words are being used out of context.

Here’s the frightening fact: one words leave your brain, regardless of medium, you lose control of those words, where they go, how they are used, and whom they influence. Privacy, as much as we may value it, is an illusion. And words we don’t control can get us into trouble.

Last example: I may tell Kat that I am shooting two people this evening. She understands those words to mean that I’m taking pictures later today. She goes to the salon, then, and casually mentions to one of her co-workers that I am shooting two people this evening. A guest who doesn’t know me becomes alarmed and notifies police. Why? I am shooting two people this evening. Doesn’t that sound like something the police needs to know?

My words, but I don’t own them.

Maybe, just maybe, we should give a bit more thought to our words before we allow them to escape our grasp.

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
I Can’t Show You That
February 17, 2016
charles i. letbetter - I can't show you taht

You have to show violence the way it is. If you don’t show it realistically, then that’s immoral and harmful. If you don’t upset people, then that’s obscenity.—Roman Polanski

 

charles i. letbetter - I can't show you that

The biggest problem with censorship of any kind is that it gives someone else the power to determine your morality

In a small town about 40 miles East of Indianapolis resides a woman who is convinced that everything I do is pornography. I don’t know this person at all. We’ve never met. Yet, because she doesn’t like what I do, she is of the opinion that no one else should, either, and has made lives miserable for people who disagree with her. I’ve actually not heard anything from her in a while, but I’m sure she’s still there.

Why do I care? What she’s doing doesn’t hurt me, personally. I’m okay with what I do, obviously. My friends are okay with what I do. Most importantly, the people who care about me the most, and whom I care about, consider my work quite fantastic and wonderful. Okay, so they’re a bit biased. Still, if there are people who like my work, why be bothered with those who don’t?

Because those who are like this woman enjoy imposing their morality on everyone else. We’ve seen it in every issue: women’s rights, welfare, voting rights, abortion, gay rights, healthcare, and marriage rights. There are always those people who not only are sure they know better than the rest of us, they insist they should have the power to stop us.

Now would be the point at which my closest friends ask what has me on my censorship soapbox so early this morning. The answer is an article in Business Insider about a UK initiative to force websites hosting pornography to verify user’s ages. I know, it doesn’t sound like such a harmful idea at all. In fact, pornography’s most popular website, PornHub, actually supports the measure, which I found, at the very least, interesting (in reality, I think they’re hoping it will filter out some of the competition). Protect the dear children and all that bunk, right?

I have two significant problems with what the UK is proposing.

First is the matter of who gets to decide what is pornography? No one has yet created a definition that stands up to legal scrutiny, for there are always artistic exceptions that would be deemed protected means of expression. Exactly what constitutes pornography? If sites that show belly buttons is pornography, then swimwear and fitness websites are pornographers. If sites that show nipples are pornography, then practically every major fashion magazine is guilty and one would have to be 18 to view the stream of a fashion show. If sites that detail reproductive processes are pornography, then medical and healthcare sites need to be taken down.

The article also raises the fact that elements of porn can be found just about everywhere, despite user guidelines prohibiting such. Porn can be found on Twitter. So, does everyone need to verify their age when they log onto the social media site? Porn can easily be found on Tumblr. Some of the things they show there even frighten me. But if one doesn’t follow those accounts, one doesn’t see that material, do Tumblr users need to show proof of age?

Underlying all those questions is the central fact that censorship allows someone else to determine your moral code. You may not agree with their moral code, but they insist that you abide by it. This philosophy is the kind embraced by narcissists and despots alike. They insist that they are always right and you are always wrong, therefore, they must tell you what to do. They would tell you what to eat (consider the GMO vs. non-GMO debates), what clothes to wear (school uniforms, anyone?), what church or synagogue to attend (everyone’s religion is wrong except mine), and even what vehicle to drive (those using fossil fuels are bad). People in power who embrace such a philosophy would soon enslave everyone in order to enforce compliance to their way of thinking. Most all the terrorist activity we see  today is the result of exactly this type of thinking.

Second, to censor sexual acts, most of which are natural, beautiful, and necessary for the species to prosper, while not censoring violence, which is not natural, not beautiful, and would bring an end to the species, is the height of hypocrisy. If one is so terribly concerned about what children are watching, then why can any child turn on Netflix and watch Kill Bill, or Pulp Fiction, or any of hundreds of grotesquely violent films. Are you really going to try and convince me, with absolutely no scientific evidence in support of your insanity, that allowing a child to watch realistic violence is less harmful than seeing a nipple like the one that gave him/her sustenance when they were infants?

I’m not going to take the time to show all the studies that detail the dangers of viewing violence in media. I just don’t have the time and you’d grow bored at the length of the list. We have known for decades that violence, not sex, is the greatest threat to children, but we refuse to do anything to stop movies, or television shows, or anything else that feels it is somehow more truthful to show violence than censor it.

I would agree that there are some things children shouldn’t see. However, the way to handle that is through responsible parenting, not censorship. Filtering software is available for every Internet-connected device made. If you have children and allow them to use such a device, the responsibility is that of their parents, and only their parents, to lock down that content, and not only control what  they see at any given age, but also how much time they spend on those devices. Studies now show connections between the amount of time a child spends online and an increase in attention deficit disorders. Even the most sanguine of programming can be dangerous in high quantities. Parents, not the government, not the UN, and certainly not any other organization, should control what their child sees and to which media and messages they are exposed.

Even well-intended censorship is still an imposition of one’s moral code over another, it is an indirect attempt to control behavior, which ultimately leads to tyranny and slavery. I don’t think we really want to go down that road. At least, I don’t. You make your own choice.

Continue Reading

Music
The Agony of (Grammys) Defeat
February 16, 2016
charles i. letbetter - the taste of Grammy defeat

Life is truly known only to those who suffer, lose, endure adversity and stumble from defeat to defeat.—Anais Nin

 

charles i. letbetter - the agony of grammys defeat

There’s a difference between being slightly off and missing the whole target completely. This rather hurts.

Okay, I have been putting this off all day, immersing myself in fashion shows and trying to not think of how horribly off I was with my Grammy predictions. The time has come to own up to my errors, though, and take my just beating for not being even remotely in tune with last night’s music awards. I guess I’m more out of touch than I realized. Let’s take a look.

Album of the Year

My prediction: I admitted that Taylor Swift would likely win, but was really hoping for Alabama Shakes.

Who actually won: Taylor Swift, of course.

Song of the Year

My prediction: Ed Sheerhan, Thinking Out Loud

Who actually won: Ed Sheerhan, Thinking Out Loud. Hey, I actually got this one right!!

Record of the Year

My prediction: was split between D’Angelo, Really Love, and Mark Ronson, Uptown Funk

Who actually won: Mark Ronson, Uptown Funk. I’ll take half a credit for this one.

Best New Artist

My prediction: Meghan Trainor

Who actually won: Meghan Trainor. Hey, wait, this isn’t tasting too much like defeat at this point. I have 2.5 out of 4!

Best Pop Duo/Group Performance

My prediction: Maroon Five

Who actually won: Mark Ronson. Yeah, I can see why. I just like sharing the love, ya’ know? Okay, so I’m essentially 50/50 at this point.

Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album

My prediction: Tony Bennett, The Silver Lining: The Songs of Jerome Kern

Who actually won: Tony Bennett, The Silver Lining: The Songs of Jerome Kern  Oooh, I’m 3.5 of 6 now!

Best Pop Vocal Album

My prediction: I admitted that Taylor Swift was a shoe-in for this one, but preferred James Taylor, just because

Who actually won: Taylor Swift. I’ll take a half point for this one because, technically, I was correct, I just didn’t want to be. So, I’m 4/7 now. Not a horrible defeat.

Best Rock Performance

My prediction: How could it not be the Foo Fighters?

Who actually won: Alabama Shakes, Don’t Wanna Fight. Sigh. Yeah, Alabama Shakes rocks, I’ll give you that, but they didn’t have to do it with a broken leg! I’m 4/8 now.

Best Rock Song

My prediction: Florence + The Machine, What Kind of Man

Who actually won: Alabama Shakes, Don’t Wanna Fight. Once the Grammy voters get on a roll, they don’t tend to stray. This one was a matter of taste. I’m not 4/9 and the defeat is starting to hurt.

Best R&B Performance

My prediction: Andra Day, Rise Up.

Who actually won: The Weeknd, Earnd It. I’m actually rather upset about this one. The Weeknd is a great group, but there’s no way I’m taking anything from such a ridiculous movie. 4/10 now.

Best R&B Song

My prediction: D’Angelo and Kendra Foster, Really Love

Who actually won: D’Angelo and Kendra Foster, Really Love.  I was so very happy with this one. Congratulations, Kendra! 5/11 isn’t too bad, I suppose.

Best Country Duo/Group

My prediction: Joey + Rory, for sentimental reasons. I mean, are you really going to say no to a dying woman?

Who actually won: Little Big Town, Girl Crush. I call bullshit on this one. Wouldn’t have hurt anyone to be generous with this one Grammy. I’m 5/12

Best Country Song

My prediction: Little Big Town, Girl Crush

Who actually won: Little Big Town, Girl Crush. See, I’m good with Little Big Town taking this one; it’s a cool song. They didn’t need both, though. I’m 6/13.

Best Country Solo Performance

My prediction: Cam, Burning House

Who actually won: Chris Stapleton, Traveller. Sorry, I’m not impressed. That makes me 6/14. Defeat does not taste good.

Best Pop Solo Performance

My prediction: The Weeknd, Can’t Feel My Face

Who actually won: Ed Sheerhan, Thinking Out Loud. Another example of the Grammy voters getting in a rut. This piling on thing is distasteful. So is being 6/15.

Best Gospel Performance/Song

My prediction: Kirk Franklin, Wanna Be Happy

Who actually won: Kirk Franklin, Wanna Be Happy Yes, and this makes me happy. I move up to 7/16.

Best American Roots Performance

My prediction: Mavis Staples, See That My Grave Is Kept Clean

Who actually won: Mavis Staples, See That My Grave Is Kept Clean Because child, you would be ill to make any other choice. I’ll happily mark that win and go up 8/17.

Best American Roots Song

My prediction: Don Henley, The Cost of Living

Who actually won: Jason Isbell, 24 Frames. Again, the Grammy Voters have no sense of tradition or sentiment here. Damn it.

Those were all the predictions I made, so I finish at eight of eighteen, less than 50% accuracy. Defeat hurts. I’m not happy. But then, typically only the winners are happy. So, we’ll wait until next year and do it all again. My crow is eaten.

 

Continue Reading

Hashtag Philosophy  /  Music  /  PotD
#IfICouldFixMusic
February 16, 2016

If my mind’s not trying to fix something or create something, I don’t know what to do. It just throws me off.—will.i.am

 

charles i. letbetter - #IfICouldFixMusic

If we are going to fix music, perhaps the first step comes in understanding music better ourselves

As predicted, I totally missed on my Grammy predictions. I’ll look at the exact damage later, but I mentioned when making those predictions that Taylor Swift would likely win where she was nominated, and she did. Congratulations to her.

Of course, not everyone is happy with the outcome, as is normal; there are always differences of opinion and taste. What I found interesting this morning, though, is that the hashtag #IfICouldFixMusic is trending, apparently a product of the Comedy Central show, @Midnight.  I thought the topic might be interesting, so I read through some of the most recent tweets.

The list of comments was the typical mix of, “I wouldn’t change anything” and “no more of the stuff I don’t like.” Some of them were funny, most were not, and a few were almost insightful. Are there issues within the music industry? Sure, there always has been. 40 years ago it was the labels ripping off artists, now it’s the streaming services (allegedly). Anywhere there is money being exchanged for talent, problems are going to be part of the equation. Everyone has music they like, genres they don’t like, and most everyone I know has fairly diverse taste. But then, most the people I know are already cool, so that’s to be expected.

It seems to me that #IfICouldFixMusic is best divided into two categories: fantasy and practical. The fantasy side is fun to think about, but you know is never going to really happen. That list would look something like this:

#IfICouldFixMusic

  • Only people with real talent would become famous
  • Concert tickets wouldn’t require taking out a third mortgage
  • I’d be able to find all the old vinyl I had as a teen and it would still be in good condition
  • Cars would not be allowed to have woofers bigger than the engine block
  • Legends wouldn’t die at age 27.
  • Everyone would be born with their own soundtrack, and together they would intermingle to create the world’s greatest symphonies.

I know I’m not going to get any of the things in that list, though. Life doesn’t have an alternative fantasy setting. So, if we really want to change music, we have to look at some of the more practical solutions, beginning with the people who never take to a stage.

#IfICouldFixMusic

  • Every child would be taught to sing, play an instrument, and read music. One never truly begins to appreciate something until they understand it. Music education is fundamental and should be exceedingly well funded in every school.
  • Music theory classes wouldn’t be at 8:00 AM every morning. Too many promising music students have been lost because no one can make sense of counterpoint that early in the morning.
  • There would be no gender bias at any level. Do you realize how few female sound engineers there are? Or female orchestra conductors?
  • School guidance counselors would never say discouraging things like, “Music is already an over-saturated field; your odds of success are not good.” Yes, I’ve heard those words.
  • Access to instruments and instruction wouldn’t be so damned expensive. My parents sacrificed to pay for my piano lessons and college. The price of band and orchestra instruments is too prohibitive for too many people.
  • Community sing-a-longs would be a thing all the time, not just at Christmas.

Many of the problems that music faces start with the fact that our musical foundations aren’t strong. Talented people go unheard and undiscovered. People who could be talented are never given the opportunity to sing or play an instrument. Too many people talking and making decisions about music are uninformed and fail to understand music beyond its sales sheets. Music appreciation begins in pre-school and rudimentary education should start then so that, as we grow, we not only understand music better, but we can make better music.

#IfICouldFixMusic is one of those hashtags that could go on forever with a wishlist as long as the Internet. But without basic early music education, what’s the point?

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  Photography  /  PotD
Pictures Or It Didn’t Happen
February 15, 2016
charles i. letbetter - pictures or it didn't happen

The technology keeps moving forward, which makes it easier for the artists to tell their stories and paint the pictures they want.—George Lucas

 

charles i. letbetter - pictures or it didn't happen

The fascination with Instagram and Pinterest is more than an annoying habit; it’s changing the world

We’re calling them Generation Z, those who are currently teenagers, and already they’re having an impact on the world. Wth smartphones glued to their hands and cell phone cameras ever at the ready, one of the traits this generation has learned from the Millennials right before them is that experiences matter over materialism. The big difference between the two group of youngsters, though, is that Gen Z is finding ways to make everything they do an experience, whether it’s the ride to school, ice cream afterward, or brushing their teeth before bed. Everything ends up on Instagram. And if it’s going to be on Instagram, one has to look good doing it.

Helping teens decide what makes them look good is Pinterest. Unlike their parents, who use the social media app for things like recipes and decorating ideas, Gen Z pins pictures of street styles and ads from their favorite online magazines so they can put together their own wardrobe combinations; a little of this, a touch of that, and they have a look that is all their own.

Now, imagine what it would have been like had my generation had cameras at the ready and an easy distribution method when we were teens. While we almost certainly would have taken just as many pictures as teens today do, what we captured would have likely been different. For starters, I’m not sure how often we would have been able to see anything due to the overwhelming amount of smoke that was everywhere. Even the few of us who didn’t have a pack of cigarettes tucked away somewhere had plenty of friends who did, so even a picture from the back of the driver’s ed car would have had smoke. No wonder we’re all dying.

Would looking at pictures of ourselves all the time given us a better idea of what to wear? While I’m still seeing 70s influences for the third season in a row, most of us actually had the fashion sense of a squirrel, and if one looks at the majority of us today, that hasn’t changed much. Of course, we country kids weren’t as big on the super-wide bell bottom pants as the city kids were because they were a hazard; those flared legs were dangerous around farm implements, so we tended to keep our 501s with a boot leg for practical reasons.

One thing for certain, though, had we had phones back then with the capabilities of those today, we would have captured some kick-ass music events. Imagine recording AC-DC, The Rolling Stones, Jimmy Buffet, Foghat, Chicago, The Doobie Brothers, Three Dog Night, or Led Zepplin back in their prime! Bands that are being inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame next month were still young, the concerts were legendary, and what happened after those concerts is responsible for Generation X. Imagine how great it would be if we had captured that all on Periscope and then saved it!

Being able to take plenty of pictures as we go through life sounds like a great thing, but there are consequences to such an over indulgence. The first one, right off the bat, is storage; it was a problem when I was a kid and it remains a problem now. We weren’t terribly shy about taking pictures when we considered it worthwhile, but where are those pictures now? Chances are, a few are stuffed in envelopes at the back of a drawer or file cabinet. My mother was into scrapbooking as she got older; what remains of ours are in a couple of large plastic containers under a bed at my brother’s house. Teens today, though, tend to not keep their pictures all that long. When the card on their phone begins to get full, they start deleting. They’re too young to realize the value of the pictures they’re taking today. After all, they’ll be taking more pictures tomorrow. Unfortunately, of all those experiences they are having, it’s not until years later that they’ll realize which ones were really important.

The other consequence is that taking so many pictures and sharing them changes how we shop. An article in Busines Insider this morning details how the Gen Z fascination with pictures and Instagram and other social media is killing more traditional retailers like the Gap, J. Crew, and Abercrombie & Fitch. Not only that, but it is that same attitude that is leading an increasing number of designers to shift their runway calendar so that instead of showing a season ahead for department store buyers, more and more are showing current season and allowing for instant online purchases immediately after the show, skipping both the buyer and the department stores all together.

How and when we take pictures, and our fascination with sharing them, changes our decision-making process, from where we go on vacation to what we’re having for dinner. Since almost everything we do ultimately has some economic tie to it, that impulse to share everything online is dramatically altering the world’s economy, for both better and worse.

When I first picked up a camera some 30+ years ago, my dream, along with those of my colleagues, was that maybe one of my pictures might have an impact on the world. Just one. Today, kids with smartphones are changing the world with every picture they take.

And more than ever, if there are no pictures, it didn’t happen.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion
Diversity At The Heart Of Fashion
February 14, 2016
charles i. letbetter - diversity at the heart of fashion

It is time for parents to teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength.—Maya Angelou

 

charles i. letbetter - diversity and the heart of fashion

Fashion has always been a place for people of diverse sexuality. To intentionally work in opposition to that is wrong

Before I get started on this morning’s NYFW shows, I want to introduce you to some people you may not know.

  • Dominique Jackson,
  • Angel Qinan,
  • Ren Spriggs,
  • Chanel Viiperi,
  • Arisce Wanzer,
  • Laith Ashley,
  • Gigi Gorgeous,
  • Elliott Sailors,
  • Rain Dove,
  • Erika Linders,
  • Hari Nef,
  • Lea T,
  • Juliana Huxtable,
  • Aydian Dowling,
  • Valentijn De Hingh,
  • Andreja Pejic
  • Isis King,
  • Arisce Wanzer,
  • Geena Rocero,
  • Carmen Carrera, and
  • Dezjorn Gauthier.

Who are these people? Just a handful of the transgender models who are making their mark on fashion’s runways, campaigns, and editorial spreads. How long did it take me to compile this list? About two minutes because I had to check the spelling of a couple of names. These are not people who are hiding in the background. They’re visible, they’re active, and they’re just the beginning. Throughout the world of fashion, there are trans designers, makeup artists, hair stylists, casting directors, and even owners of modeling agencies.

Let’s stay real here: There are a lot of places where fashion needs to really work on its diversity. Models of color still accounted for less than 20% of all those walking last year. Size restrictions are still severe. And you don’t see too many 40+ women on the catwalk. We have a tremendous amount of room for improvement, but the Council of Fashion Designers in America (CFDA) is very much aware of those shortcomings and works hard to make New York Fashion Week more inclusive with each passing season.

That’s why, when I learned there is a so-called fashion week contest that intentionally and specifically excludes trans models, I came out of my seat and was ready to bite someone’s head off (metaphorically, mind you; my mouth’s not quite that big). I am very suspicious of such events in the first place as they very seldom come through with everything they promise. This one, however, has pushed my anger button and deserves to be shamed.

The contest is running under the name Miss Fashion Week. I was immediately suspicious from the moment I first arrived at their website this morning. They make the claim of being “the world’s largest modeling competition,” but do not go outside the United States for any of their events and specifically limit the contest to women in the US. They provide absolutely NO credentials to establish any level of legitimacy. There is no address, no legal name of the sponsoring organization, nor any indication as to who might be operating the damn thing. All of those are immediate red flags to any contest of any kind, anywhere. I would strongly advise models to distance themselves from this organization and its events based on those criteria alone.

Next, let’s talk about the fact there is no indication that the organization actually has any ties or relationship with any casting agency or director. If you’ve not met a fashion week casting director, let me introduce you to some of the pickiest people on the planet. They arrive at a casting call with a very specific and very limited set of measurements, limitations, and physical requirements a model must meet in order to walk in a NYFW show. Casting directors have shown a history of not liking contest winners. Even America’s Next Top Model winners have difficulty finding work. So, to promise someone that they will walk in a fashion show at all is misleading.

Furthermore, the website gives absolutely no indication as to which fashion week the winner might walk. This is important because there are fashion weeks everywhere. There’s a Tulsa Fashion Week. Cincinnati Fashion Week. Atlanta Fashion Week. Dallas Fashion Week. Orlando Fashion Week. Miami Fashion Week. Even Indianapolis is home to Midwest Fashion Week.  So, exactly for which fashion week is one competing? Am I the only one smelling a great big rat here?

Finally, and most important to our topic, is this rule:

3. Applicant must be a naturally born female in order to compete in the Miss Fashion Week contest. 

Yes, that would be the rule that had me ready to eviscerate someone with a spoon. I don’t care who the hell you think you are, what your personal beliefs might be, what you consider your planet of origin, nor how much money you might have in the bank, nothing gives you the right to discriminate against someone on the basis of gender and/or sexual orientation. NOTHING! Not only does such a rule indicate that the person(s) running the contest are incredible bigots, but they have no real connection to the fashion industry at all!

For all of fashion’s shortcomings, and there are admittedly many, sexual orientation is one issue where we’ve actually seen strong improvement, thanks in large part to the fact that a significant and growing number of designers are themselves part of the LGBT community. The industry is proud of their progress in this area and is not likely to align themselves with anyone who would purposefully, willfully, and intentionally work against that progress.

We cannot allow contests and organizations like this to continue without challenge. To participate at any level is to condone their deliberate discrimination against transgendered women. While I cannot directly prove that the operation is a scam, it has all the hallmarks of one. Real contests don’t hide who they are nor with whom they are affiliated. Staying away from this outfit not only supports your transgendered sisters but sends a strong message that such discrimination in fashion is not tolerated at any level, even outside New York. Diversity is important. Diversity matters. Diversity should not, and cannot be compromised.

Stay away, children. Stay far, far away.

 

Continue Reading

PotD  /  studio nudes
Real Love Leaves A Mark
February 14, 2016
charles i. letbetter - real love leaves a mark

Real love is a pilgrimage. It happens when there is no strategy, but it is very rare because most people are strategists.—Anita Brookner

 

charels i. letbetter - real love leaves a mark

One does not go in and out of love unscathed. Real love prevents us from ever being the same

Valentine’s Day makes life difficult with its damned if you do, damned if you don’t expectations that make life impossible whether one is in a relationship or not. This pseudo-holiday creates performance anxiety for relationships by forcing the question: is this love? And if this is love, is it real  love or just that momentary emotion one creates out of a desperate need to feel something positive about a person without making a commitment?

Superficial love can happen, and does happen, all the time. That love that lingers on the surface is circumstantial, though, and like oil on Teflon slips easily away with only a faint residue of memory left behind. That’s why such love needs baubles and trinkets and silly holidays; without those things, superficial love has no traction, goes nowhere, and quickly evaporates. Even then, and this is what proves frustrating, there’s no guarantee that any of those things will hold a love in place long enough for it to grow.

Real love, by contrast, goes deep, sets anchors, not just one but several because it has no plan for leaving, ever. Real love wants to be eternal and when that’s not possible, whether, by design or fate, we come out of it with indelible marks, signs of having wallowed in that deep emotion. The marks are not necessarily scars, though that can happen, but signs that one has participated in something larger than and outside of themselves.

Real love binds us to another soul. I think parents understand this better than anyone. The moment one looks into the eyes of their own child for the first time, it happens; we are captured by real love and forever linked to this tiny person no matter how they might behave or what poor choices they might make later in life. We’re ensnared not by a heart, but by another life and we can no sooner escape from them than they from us.

Real love is not monogamous for if it were we would never be able to love our own children. Real love spreads its tentacles and shows no favoritism. Real love does not love one more than another. Rather, real love reaches out to whoever will take it and draws all together, creating a web that holds everyone safely, equally.

Real love is symbiotic, taking as it needs, giving to nourish and support the other. Highways of emotion flow back and forth between those who love so deeply and sometimes the roads traveled most often are the first to wear out. Sometimes love replaces those paths, other times it finds new ways of achieving what is necessary.

Real love is not immortal, however. Kahlil Gibran reminds us that I-do’s do sometimes die. Reasons for such are myriad and not insignificant for such true love does not go easily nor quietly into the night. Struggles ensue as those anchors, one  by one, are ripped away, the ties broken, the highways crumbled. Ending such love is a process, not an event. One does not simply wake up one morning and decide to leave love on a shelf with a note.

So, love ends, and in its place are the marks, the reminders, the memories of where that love once stood. Sometimes those marks are painful and become scars, for love sometimes love is taken from us unwillingly, sometimes violently, and that hurts. More often than not, however, those marks are reminders of how we’ve grown and changed, like the height measurements of a child on the doorframe. We look back at those marks and smile, perhaps sad that those loves are gone, but happy that we had them for a while.

Then, love begins again, for it is always reaching out. Sure, pain and bitterness may give us cause to fight against it, but love that is real is impossible to put off or deny. True love does not have an agenda, and I’m no longer convinced it even knows how to read a map. Love chooses whoever love chooses simply because love chooses to choose. I am repeatedly reminding Kat that I love her because I love her. There is no other qualifier. While there are many things about her I appreciate, love is not dependent on the qualities of another but drops anchor wherever it chooses. We do not choose love; it chooses us.

And as love introduces us to another, we find marks on their lives, just as there are marks on ours, for they have loved before; they know the pain of loss and the joy of receiving. We embrace that new love and move forward, knowing that it will not disappear without a trace, and happy to be so marked.

Continue Reading

Advertising
Violent Valentines
February 13, 2016
charles i. letbetter - violent valentines

The human mind is capable of excitement without the application of gross and violent stimulants; and he must have a very faint perception of its beauty and dignity who does not know this.—William Wordsworth

 

charles i. letbetter - violent valentines

Sure, relationships are rocky and arguments happen, but at no point is violence justified

Valentines Day has this bad habit of bringing out all the smarmy, cheesy, lovey-dovey ads about relationships that are too good to be real. Chances are, you started seeing them in mid-January and by now are ready to barf at the first sign of flowers, chocolate, or anything that sparkles. Ads for the holiday really ramp up the emotion in an effort to make you feel guilty if you don’t buy something expensive to show your love. Of course, you know that such a philosophy of love having a monetary value is faulty, but each year we buy into the concept more and more, so the ads just keep coming.

This year, Pandora (the jeweler, not the streaming music service) has a new ad that takes a slightly different approach. The concept is not so much that buying your spouse or significant other jewelry is an act of love as much as it is a plea for forgiveness. The general idea is a good one, given the number of guys who typically find themselves in hot water this time of year over some relationship gaffe.

The ad, directed by Martin Werner, is humorously set to music from Verdi’s opera, La Traviata, specifically the duet, Libiamo ne’lieti calici from the first act. The music is familiar, even to those who don’t know the opera. Giving the tenor reason to show off his vocal prowess is the whole reason for the song in the opera, and his first solo can be translated as follows:

Let’s drink, let’s drink from the joyous chalices
that beauty so truly enhances.
And may the brief moment be inebriated
with voluptuousness.
Let’s drink for the ecstatic feeling
that love arouses.
Because this eye aims straight to the heart, omnipotently.
Let’s drink, my love, and the love among the chalices
will make the kisses warmer.

Don’t be fooled, while love is occasionally mentioned, this is a drinking song, which is why the chorus keeps joyfully joining in from time to time. The song is a lot of fun and a favorite among opera fans.

Pandora uses the song, however, as a way of covering up the arguments taking place in the ads. There are multiple scenarios, but they all come to one joint conclusions: guys infuriate women and need to beg for forgiveness by heaping large amounts of diamonds upon their loved ones. Take a look at the ad and then I’ll continue my comments.

https://youtu.be/PRtt0LNm7CI

Okay, so the ad is a bit tongue in cheek, and the different approach to Valentine’s Day is appreciated. I was fine right up until the moment it gets violent and the women start throwing things. Sure, in the ad none of the objects actually hit their target, but what if they had? Were those situations to take place in real life, the outcome would likely be severe enough that all the diamonds in the world couldn’t fix it.

Here’s the thing: domestic violence is a real problem. General statistics run like this:

  • Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. Most often, the abuser is a member of her own family.
  • Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women—more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined.
  • Studies suggest that up to 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually.
  • Nearly 1 in 5 teenage girls who have been in a relationship said a boyfriend threatened violence or self-harm if presented with a breakup.
  • Everyday in the US, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.

However, one of the things those statistics hide, and which is often ignored, is that men are more likely to be the victims of violent domestic abuse at the hands of an intimate partner. A national survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Justice shows that over 40% of victims of severe physical violence are men. The study also showed that men are more frequently, “the victim of psychological aggression and control over sexual or reproductive health.”

No matter how lightly it is treated, domestic violence is never funny and cannot be covered up by diamonds or candy or flowers. Depicting women violently throwing vases at men is just as wrong as if it were the other way around. Obviously, no one at Pandora thought of that tragedy. Men who are the victims of violent abuse don’t like to bring it up.

This is a very bad direction for an ad to take. While it’s too late to do anything about this ad now, I do hope the folks at Pandora show better sense in the future..

Continue Reading

PotD
Opening Old Bottles Of Wine
February 13, 2016

Age is just a number. It’s totally irrelevant unless, of course, you happen to be a bottle of wine.—Joan Collins

 

charles i. letbetter - opening old bottles of wine

Relationships and conversations, like an open bottle of wine, have a point at which they are of no use to anyone

I was not raised in a house that understood wine. Sure, there was an academic knowledge of how it is made but beyond that, there was a fierce denial that wine could have any positive qualities at all. Our family not only didn’t drink, but we were raised to avoid anyone who did for fear they might be a “bad influence” on us, or drag down our reputation.

Then, I had my first glass of the real thing. Sweet. Red. Low alcohol content. I discovered that I could enjoy the glass presented with my desert and, contrary to all my mother’s warnings, not instantly become a gutter-hugging drunk. A few days later, I tried a glass of merlot with a meal and fell in love. I suddenly wanted to know everything about wine. I read. I talked to sommeliers. I went to tastings. We even bought a wine rack that was shaped like a cluster of grapes.

Normally, a bottle of wine never lasted more than 24 hours once it was opened. We enjoyed the wine too much to let any dregs sit in a bottle. One day, however, I was going through the wine rack looking for a specific vintage and came across a bottle that had been opened and then returned. When it had been opened, I didn’t know. Who had opened it was a mystery. The bottle was still almost full, less than half a glass had been removed. So, I took the bottle, removed the cork, and promptly took three steps back. The wine had turned to vinegar, and not a pleasant vinegar at that. Down the sink went the remains.

I bring up that subject because this weekend is one of those times when we can be tempted to re-open the old bottles of wine in our lives. With Valentine’s Day, we can be tempted to re-open past conversations, re-visit past relationships, things that we have left behind for good reason, but still wonder if they might yet be salvaged. The answer in most cases is no, they can’t. Like wine that has been opened, those things from the past have only soured.

One of the worst mistakes I made when I was younger was to re-open conversations that had been set aside. These would be tense words where no solution had been found, where walking away and not mentioning the matter had been the best solution. Conversations involving matters of human rights, religion, or constructs of government were topics that I frequently, and incorrectly, thought I had under command. I always thought I was right. Why else would I revisit  a topic if I wasn’t sure that I needed to correct a gross misunderstanding?

I can be a slow learner sometimes and didn’t realize that there are moments where being right or wrong on a topic is irrelevant. Acquaintances who were once friendly became distant and found reasons to avoid contact when they feared I might yet, again, bring up a conversation that had been uncomfortable or contentious. I was sadly oblivious to the social vinegar I was asking, forcing, others to drink.

Even worse can be when we return to past relationships. When I’m looking through old pictures, such as the two used here that are over ten years old, I often think to myself, “I wonder what they are doing now?” For better or worse, social media makes it easier than ever to answer that question. I’ll find someone on Facebook, or, far too frequently, LinkedIn will insist that I need to connect with someone I had willfully forgotten. Many times I am tempted to click that button, to make a new friend request, but I’ve learned to leave those old relationships alone and just enjoy the memories. If we have not spoken for years, there is quite likely a very good reason.

As I get older, I sometimes regret letting relationships grow sour, especially when a simple apology might have negated ill feelings in the first place. One sits and looks at that old bottle of wine wondering if it might yet be salvaged. Is it too late to apologize? If an apology is offered, will it be accepted?

Occasionally, I’ll come across an article (like this one) that claims to have a solution for “fixing” wine that has gone bad; it’s a nice dream, but I’ve not found one yet that actually works. Sure, we all like the fairy tale of lost souls finding each other again after all the years and falling in love, or becoming close friends. Sometimes the risk pays off and if that old bottle of wine represents a relationship with a family member, then perhaps taking the risk is justified.

Still, more often than not, it’s best to just not re-open those old bottles at all. Enjoy the memories of the wine when it was good. Keep the bottle as a token of a special time if you wish. But should you open that bottle, be prepared for the reality that all you’re likely to get is vinegar.

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
Some Days Just Suck
February 12, 2016
charles i. letbetter - some days just suck

Tonight I’ll dust myself off, tonight I’ll suck my gut in, I’ll face the night and I’ll pretend I got something to believe in.—Jon Bon Jovi

 

charles i. letbetter - some days just suck

Just as every day has the potential to be great, they have to potential to suck, and it’s not always your choice

I would very much like to meet the person who came up with the concept that every day is supposed to be bright, cheery, and wonderful. I would very much like to meet this person and come upside their head with a two-by-four. Why? Every day is not good. There is not always a reason to smile. Not every bad situation has a silver lining. Everything does not work out for the best. Some days just suck and to deny that censors feelings we legitimately need, such as anger, disappointment, and grief, if we are to ever improve our world. Remember: there are no bad emotions. Even the non-happy ones have their place.

So, here it is another Friday, the end of the work week, allegedly, and you have at least two, possibly three days off if you work for someone who observes President’s Day. Maybe you have big plans, have already spent a lot of money on deposits and such, and have everything arranged perfectly. You’ve done all you can and you’ve put your best effort into the whole weekend. Then, something happens, something you cannot control. Your father-in-law has a heart attack. Your car engine inexplicably blows a gasket in the middle of an intersection. That lovely person who was supposed to join you this weekend becomes ill and can’t stop puking. One of the children falls and breaks a limb. Suddenly, this Friday stops being happy and now, immediately, sucks. Your plans are ruined, your deposits are non-refundable, and all those perfect arrangements are irrelevant. There’s no recovery.

Sure, the day may suck. What’s important at this point is that you not deny how you feel. Don’t let someone tell you to suck it up. You can’t deal with those emotions until you admit that you have them. Be disappointed, there’s nothing wrong with that. Be angry, not in the sense that you fly off the handle and hurt someone else, but step away and punch the living hell out of a pillow or something. Go outside and scream. Let it out. Deal with those negative emotions.

No matter what we do, no matter how we try to live our lives as joyfully and righteously as possible, there are going to be days that suck, and they’re going to happen when it is least convenient to  put up with the sucking. Part of what makes a day suck is that it upsets what we were expecting from the day. Convenience isn’t in the cards when life suddenly turns sour. Even when you have some clue that a day is going to be difficult and you try to prepare yourself for the inevitable, it still can be worse than you ever expected.

My father died 14 years ago. We knew it was coming. If anything, we had hoped the end would come sooner because seeing him suffer through the deterioration caused by cancer was heart-wrenching. When I flew into Tulsa that morning, I knew what I was facing, that the inevitable had finally come. This was not going to be a good day. Yet, for all the mental and emotional preparation I had done, the moment he finally took his last breath, when the grip he had on my hand relaxed for the last time, when the hospice nurse looked at us and shook her head, the wave of grief that swept over me in that moment was unlike anything I had ever felt. This was more than just a bad day.

I didn’t think I would ever feel pain like that again, but I did. Six months and four days later I was called home from the office. Mother had fallen during the night and died quite unexpectedly. Not only was their grief, there was anger. I had just spoken to her the night before. What went wrong? To say that day sucked would be the most severe of understatements.

You’ve had days like that as well, maybe worse. I think of people who lose entire families in one fell swoop. People full of hope and opportunity are suddenly, for any number of reasons, paralyzed or struck with some seemingly random disease that dashes their hopes like glass on a concrete floor. A baby dies. A house catches fire. A dear pet is hit by a car. Those are all days that suck.

People are always trying to take a bad situation and make it better. Stop it. Let us deal appropriately with the bad, recognize tragedy for what it is, and then give people the space to move on in their own time, in their own way. Not every day gets to have a smile. Some days have tears, and that’s okay. Offer a tissue if you want to help, but never tell someone to not cry, to not feel whatever they’re feeling.

Some days just suck. Be a friend and accept that.

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD
Only Tom Hardy Can Go Naked On TV
February 11, 2016
charles i. letbetter - only Tom Hardy gets to go naked on TV

If you look around Hollywood there’s no end of white smiles and six packs. Long lines of beautiful people lining up to be incredible on film.—Tom Hardy

 

charles i. letbetter - only Tom Hardy can be naked on TV

Why can’t she be naked on television? Apparently only because she’s female.

At first, I was rather amused when I read Vanity Fair’s story claiming that Tom Hardy is filming a period adventure drama in the nude. After all, Hardy’s new show, Taboo, is filming in Essex of all places. There’s no way that being naked in Essex this time of year is even remotely comfortable. Brush up on your Photoshop skills because someone is going to need them! The whole matter seems just a bit absurd.

The more I thought about it, though, it occurred to me that the strangeness isn’t that Hardy is nude as much as it is the fact they’re getting away with it. Granted, the BBC censors have long allowed for certain amounts of non-sexual nudity and from what I can gather there’s nothing sexy about the role Hardy is playing. However, the program is scheduled to appear on FX as well, which means there will be naked man parts on US television.

Now, there are still some caveats, such as the fact that one has to have a cable subscription or in some other form be paying to watch content from FX. There still isn’t any form of nudity intentionally allowed on broadcast television in the US, whether it’s Tom Hardy or anyone else. We also assume (though we could be wrong) that there is some justifiable reason for Hardy’s character to be running around in nothing but his ink.

But, consider Tom Hardy compared to the photo above. They’re both human. They both are familiar with a tattoo gun. And they’re both naked. Actually, Hardy is more naked than our model; he tosses his underwear and goes full monty. Yet, it’s okay when Tom Hardy does it, but considered criminal if our model were to do the exact same thing.

Are you beginning to see the problem here?

Of course, it’s not like gender discrimination is anything new. Women were screaming about it long before there was the Internet. The biggest difference between then and now and that more people are aware of the senseless discrepancy both in terms of law and practice. No one can claim ignorance anymore and the excuse that everyone is doing it only underscores the need for change.

Sexism is a problem all around the world, but it becomes difficult to battle when we see such biased values supported through media such as television. The qualities of Hardy’s character matter little in light of the fact that, were his character female exhibiting the exact same qualities and motivations, she would either have to put on clothes or risk being arrested and/or fined. Only Tom Hardy can be naked on TV. Anyone else has to cover up.

This is exactly the form of sexism that the #FreeTheNipple campaign protests. Double standards are abhorrent no matter where they occur and when they are so obviously gender-biased there is every good reason to use civil disobedience or whatever other means seem reasonable to protest. What’s important to realize in this case  is that we’re not opposed to Hardy being nude. Good for him! We’re happy! What rankles our temper just a bit is that it’s only Tom that can get away with this. A woman in the same role just wouldn’t fly past BBC or FX censors.

We’ve talked about the problem with gender bias and nudity before both here and here so I won’t bother repeating everything I’ve already said. Let’s just consider this a dramatic underscore. Tom Hardy doesn’t get special privileges.  If he gets to go naked on television, women deserve the right to do the same. No excuses.

Continue Reading

PotD
What Are You Doing For NYFW
February 10, 2016

Playing dress-up begins at age five and never truly ends.—Kate Spade

 

charles i. letbetter - what are you doing for NYFW

With so many shows to watch, deciding where to spend one’s time is a difficult decision

New York Fashion Week, aka: NYFW, starts in less than 24 hours. I think I’m ready. There’s coffee. There’s chocolate. My phone is charged. There are pain relievers in my pocket. My comfy pseudo-dress shoes are ready. Everything is ready on Pattern for our reviews. Reading glasses, ink pens, photo editing … yeah, we’ve got this. I think.

Last year this season, we took it really easy, rarely doing more than two reviews a day. This season, we might be a little more aggressive, depending on the weather and exactly what we see from the different shows. There are a lot of new names on the official schedule this  season, so we’re setting our sights on shows that are dependable and saving the rookies as possible additions if they manage to really impress. If there’s someone you just really, really want to make sure we cover, then let me know ASAP.

No schedule is ever as firm as we might like. Marissa Webb has already had to move her show to avoid conflict with a loud-mouthed, attention-seeking, ego-driven rap star. The weather forecast for New York isn’t exactly friendly, either, which could impact shows scheduled for the Dock venue. So, what we’re highlighting on our schedule below are the shows we know we’ll cover regardless of circumstances. We’ll try to be as timely with our reviews as the process allows. Follow along and let’s make this fun!

What we’re doing for NYFW:

Thursday, 11 February

We’ll start our day with BCBG Max Azria. Lubov Azria is firmly in control of the brand now and as such we’re hoping to see some changes in the direction she goes for fall. Creatures of the Wind hits at noon and will likely be the highlight of the day. We can’t miss Marissa Webb early in the evening, especially since she’s changed her show time. We’re totally ignoring the big mouth showing at Madison Square Garden. Show off.

Friday, 12 February

Jason Wu is the big show to watch today. We were disappointed last season and are really hoping he steps up his game this year. Tadashi Shoji, Kate Spade, and Nicole Miller are also worth watching. Zoolander 2 hits theatres today, though, so cross-marketing surprises could show up anywhere.

Saturday, 13 February

Dion Lee has our attention in the morning. Then, Alexander Wang shows at 5:00 PM and that never fails to, at least, be entertaining. Altuzarra will keep us up late. There could really be some surprises in today’s schedule, though, so we’re trying to stay as flexible as possible.

Sunday, 14 February

Will we fall in love with anything we see on the runway? We certainly hope so! There are SO many choices here, and a lot may depend on weather and timing. Victoria Beckham, Public School, and Derik Lam all show in the first part of the day. Hood by Air,  Diane von Furstenberg, and Prabal Gurung show later. We may need an extra heart-shaped box of chocolates to get through this one. Public School is really going to be under a microscope.

Monday, 15 February

Another very busy day as Carolina Herrera and Tommy Hilfiger dominate the morning. I’m especially eager to see how Tommy implements his Instagram photographer’s pit. Real photographers are upset, so this could get messy. Zac Posen and Rag & Bone finish the day with a few new faces tossed in between. I wouldn’t mind seeing someone really break out of today’s pack.

Tuesday, 16 February

There’s a lot of activity during the day, and one newcomer to NYFW we’ll be watching closely is Ohne Titel at 1PM. However, the heavy hitters are much later, with Oscar de la Renta at 6:30 and Narciso Rodriguez at 8.

Wednesday, 17 February

Here’s where things could get really boring. Can Michael Kors show us anything that is really worth discussing? Jason Wu usually does better with BOSS than he does with his eponymous label but will he really show us any creativity? The guys at DKNY have a lot to prove this season if they’re given the chance, and Marchesa tends to like this season. However, they’ve all stumbled in recent seasons and left us yawning. We’ll see how it goes.

Thursday, 18 February

Only the big boys are allowed to play here. Ralph Lauren, J. Mendel, Calvin Klein, and Marc Jacobs. Of the group, though, only Marc Jacobs is likely to do anything really astonishing.

All the reviews will be on Pattern, so bookmark it now if you haven’t already. Follow us on Twitter (@charlesletbette) and Instagram (@charlesletbetter) to be alerted when new reviews are posted. It’s going to be an interesting month, NYFW is finally here, so buckle in and hang on!

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
Snapchat Is A Portal To Hell
February 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - snapchat is a portal to hell

The information you get from social media is not a substitute for academic discipline at all.—Bill Nye

 

charles i. letbetter - snapchat is the portal to hell

The fact that we cannot be separated from our phones is disturbing enough, but to not use them the way we want is criminal

Look at the string of icons at the top of this page and one should understand that I am not shy to using social media. I have Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Tumblr, Skype, and Instagram all set up and at the ready anytime I feel their use to be justified. As with many websites, Facebook is responsible for most of the visitors coming to this page, with Twitter coming in second on most days. I have other apps just for social media on my phone, including Vine and Periscope and Yelp. Perhaps most importantly at this particular moment, I have the NYFW app that allows me to view fashion shows even when I’m stuck in traffic. Yay me, I  am so connected [insert eye roll here].

Yesterday, I received an email (you remember those, don’t you?) from my favorite editor at Pattern asking, “I’d love to figure out a way to use the reviews and the photos cross-platform…like on snapchat…do you know anything about creating graphics and uploading text to snapchat?”

Snapchat. There’s an app I wasn’t expecting to need. Instagram, sure. I know exactly how to work that one cross-platform. Pinterest? Not a problem; we can do that. But Snapchat? I don’t have a freaking clue, and with good reason: Snapchat is for teenagers.

Okay, so there’s no age filter on Snapchat that limits who can use it. Still, there are several apps on the market that are primarily the domain of teens and/or college students and I feel no compulsion to pretend I’m part of that group by downloading an app I’ll likely never use. Still, I told the editor I’d take a look. Having done so this morning, I can only come to one possible conclusion:

Snapchat is a portal directly to hell.

I should have known this app was going to be trouble when I first saw its logo. What is that thing? Is it a ghost? The soul of lost Snapchat users? A depiction of what your brain becomes after hours of Snapchatting? An unidentifiable GOP Presidential candidate? I should know better than to download an app whose logo I can’t dissect.

Next, as I go to download the app, a window pops up on my phone telling me all the things this app is going to access. My friends lists. My contacts. My location. My current physical position. The last five songs I’ve listened to on Spotify. My blood pressure (which is suddenly very high). My last doctor’s appointment. The list was so long I had to scroll. This can’t be good, can it? I have a very bad feeling in the pit of my stomach, but I promised I would take a look at the app and the only way to do that is to install it. Fortunately, my firstborn is already spoken for.

Upon completing the installation, one has to create an account. Immediately, I see another red flag: it won’t accept my full name. I’m still mad at Twitter for having dropped the final “r” from my name. I don’t like apps that won’t let me use my whole name because it’s dehumanizing. Not giving me space for my full name tells me they had lazy developers who didn’t want to create a database cell of sufficient size.  I feel as though a portion of my soul is being stripped away from me as I create my new account name: c.letbetter. Sigh. Do you realize how many c.letbetters there are in this world?

Once my account is set up, with both email and phone confirmation, Snapchat then asks me to create a profile picture. Now, normally, this isn’t a problem. I have a set of images sized specifically for social media profiles. After all, I’ve done this enough we should be experienced, right? No. This is Snapchat. There’s no warning what is about to happen. There’s no option to upload your own picture. No, you press a button, the app counts down from three and then this happens (warning: those with weak stomachs  or heart conditions may want to scroll down very rapidly):

charles i. letbetter - snapchat is a portal to hell

The most frightening thing I’ve seen in a long time.

Mind you, there is no option for editing out the bags under my eyes. There is no filter available. No, you just get a picture of me at 4:00 AM. At least, it should keep small children from accidentally adding me. We can only hope.

Next, they tell you that everything you do on Snapchat is in the moment. There’s no saving it for later. There’s no keeping it as a reference for what someone said or did. You create the Snapchat, someone sees it, and it’s gone. Hellooooooo trouble. This is probably why only teenagers use this damn thing; they’re not old enough yet to understand the need to save correspondence, even when it seems trivial at the moment. Snapchat opens the door to he-said-she-said arguments that are unsolvable because the whole record of the exchange is deleted. Sure, someone could always take a screenshot, but then faking a screenshot is rather easy.

Without evidence of any content, the door is open for all manner of malfeasance. One might share top secret information. An Apple employee in Ireland could let a hacker see their login info (for which hackers are paying a reported $10K). Vermin could run for President (oops, that one already happened). Your girlfriend could accidentally send nude pics to your mother. Just think of the horrors that could ensue!

Of course, all that is assuming that people add you. One cannot send a Snapchat to those who have not added them. Still, the more I’m reading about Snapchat hacking, the more I question just how insecure the whole platform may be.

There’s no question in my mind now that Snapchat is a portal to hell. And I still don’t have a clue how to cross-promote with it. NYFW starts tomorrow. Contact me the old fashioned way if you know how to solve this problem.

Continue Reading

Fashion
Putting The Fix On The Fashion System
February 9, 2016
charles i. letbetter - putting the fix on the fashion system

A leader is someone who helps improve the lives of other people or improve the system they live under.—Sam Houston

 

charles i. letbetter - Putting the fix on the fashion system

We all know the fashion system is broken. The big question now is how to fix it. There are a lot of ideas.

We are two days away from the start of New York Fashion Week. Stop and think about that for a minute. In two days, catwalks are going to be full of clothes largely designed not to be worn now, but next fall. At best, you’ll start seeing them in August. Then, by the time fashion weeks end in early October, those clothes start going on sale. How is anyone actually making any money in this silly game we call fashion?

That’s just it; a lot of companies are not making money and those few that are seem to be anomalies rather than leaders that others can follow. Consider the news from earlier this morning that the retailer Banana Republic had sales drop a whopping 17% in January compared to the same time last year. Gap and Old Navy also announced declines, but neither were as severe as Banana Republic. The fashion system is broken from beginning to end and that’s making some desperate to try anything in an attempt to fix what’s wrong.

Consider Russian-born designer Demna Gvasalia. If you’re not already familiar with that name, write it down and underscore it in red. Not only are he and his brother Guram the power behind the Vetements collective, but he was also recently named as creative director for Ballenciaga. We’re going to be seeing a lot of him, to be sure, but probably not where we expect. He announced last week that Vetements is going off-schedule and plans to start showing their collections in January and June instead. The concept behind the move is that this gives their clothes more time on the shelves before they start getting the mark-down treatment.

Gvasalia isn’t the only one trying things new. Burberry announced last week that they will consolidate their mens’ and womens’ lines in their September show and that customers can purchase pieces they like immediately after the show. Tom Ford joined Thakoon, Rebecca Minkoff, and Mathew Williamson in skipping the upcoming season entirely so that they can come back in September with their fall/winter collections and immediate purchase options. Hunter is abandoning the schedule completely and opting to show at music festivals.

Fashion industry magazine Business of Fashion published an opinion piece  online yesterday that is a conversation between an editor, a designer, a blogger, a retailer, and a consultant. The article is interesting and you can read the full conversation here if you have the time. While the effort was earnest, however, I’m not sure the people involved are the ones who can truly transform the system. Perhaps had the editor been Condé Nast’s Anna Wintour, the designer been Raf Simmons, and the retailer was H&M CEO Karl-Johan Persson, there might have been a conversation that actually had a chance of changing the system. [Not to slight anyone, but including a blogger seems, to me, more of a courtesy as they are not truly in a position to directly impact processes within the system.]

What the group did, however, was identify problematic issues within the fashion system that most everyone agrees need to be changed. Solutions are debatable, of course, and there is no one-size fits all method that everyone can follow. Still, they make for good talking points so let’s consider what those areas of concern are:

  • Fashion is moving too fast. JJ Martin of Wallpaper* said, “A lot of fashion houses today are being run like consumer packaged goods companies. There’s no difference between selling handbags and toothpaste.” Here is the reason that so many companies are having to fall back on accessories and perfumes in order to make money. The fashion system is moving too fast and, as a result, over producing. There are more clothes on store shelves at any given time than we can even begin to comprehend, let alone actually buy. Consumers are so inundated with wave after wave after wave of new clothing that they feel they can’t catch up. No matter what one buys, when it is replaced on the shelves the next day that new garment now feels out of style. The obvious solution: slow down and restock shelves a mere four times a year, not every week. Sounds simple, but it would mean retailers and department stores completely changing their business models.
  • Show schedules are disconnected from buying schedules. This is the problem to which Tom Ford and others are reacting by moving their fall/winter lines to show in September rather than now. This is not an easy switch, though, and, as I’ve mentioned before, there are going to be some serious logistical issues to conquer in making this profound change to the system work. Where do buyers fit in? How is the supply chain converted? Does this change how shows are presented? This is definitely a pro-consumer move, but changes for those caught in the middle could make delivery almost impossible.
  • Brands don’t understand how to do digital. Instagram. Twitter. Snapchat. Periscope. Online purchasing. There are a handful of brands that handing the digital aspect of fashion very well, but the majority are dumbfounded, trusting large portions of their fashion empires to 20-somethings doing inexplicable things with digital cameras and computers. There are still some brands that are not represented online at all, believe it or not. The digital takeover of all things consumer-based has been overwhelming for fashion brands and both creative directors and CEOs have huge gaps in their understanding of how digital can/should work for them. Consider how many brands still won’t stream their runway shows this season, despite the fact that it has a proven positive impact on sales. The challenge here is that convincing anyone to adopt something to which they are already resistant is nearly impossible. This deficit alone could spell doom for some long-standing brands.
  • Creatives are overwhelmed and in crisis. The 2010 suicide of Alexander McQueen should have been a wake-up call for the entire fashion system. There is a limit to how much a creative mind can produce and, for the most part, we are exceeding that limit. Witness the recent exits of Raf Simmons and Alber Elgar from Dior and Lanvin respectively. Both were being asked to do too much in too short a time frame. They are not the only ones suffering under this impossible expectation. Look at how boring fashion has become. How many designers have little time to do more than re-work the label’s catalog rather than create anything genuinely new? Slowing down to only four collections a year would help, but fashion is going to lose more great minds if this doesn’t change quickly.

I remain convinced that one answer overlooked by the gigantic fashion system at large is to buy more from local designers and boutiques. Consumers can push a lot of positive change simply by altering their buying habits just a little bit. Start taking some of the cash out of Karl-Johan Persson’s hands and put it into the local economy through local makers. If only 10% of fashion consumers dropped department store shopping completely, the fashion system would immediately turn and take notice, supporting more local fashion rather than investing in seeing how impossibly large two or three players can get.

I also remain quite certain that putting designers in charge of their own houses and letting some brands die off is a good thing for fashion. This would help reduce some of the over-supply that is choking retail and would also support younger designers who, perhaps, might find even better ways to engage digitally. This could be an especially critical move as Millennials, who are not especially materialistic, take over as the lead shopping demographic.

Great change isn’t going to arrive by Thursday. I’ll still give you the blow-by-blow account on Pattern, and we will do our best to make it enjoyable. But if anything, now that we are talking about the problems in the fashion system, we’re likely to see them even more glaring than before. The road could get rocky. Hold on.

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD
Trolls And How To Be Them
February 9, 2016
charles i. letbetter - trolls and how to be them

Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, which is an ancient way of saying ‘Don’t feed the trolls.’—Anonymous

 

charles i. letbetter - trolls and how to be them

The Internet is full of disgusting, disagreeable creatures that lurk in dark shadows and say stupid things. These are Trolls. We all flirt with them.

Somewhere, well back into the mid-1960s, my parents gave me a paperback book with a yellow cover. I still remember the event clearly. We were on our way to visit one of my aunts and, presumably, they gave me the book to keep me quiet and out of the way. The trick worked. I can only assume now that we were visiting my aunt for rather serious reasons. She was the single mother of five, her husband having abandoned her when the youngest was but a few months old. Single moms were rare back then, and the challenges she faced were significant. We visited often, and I would assume now that those visits were not necessarily social, but more to help with various issues. Therefore, keeping me quiet and out of the way was beneficial.

The short title of the book is Goops and How To Be Them by Gelett Burgess. The complete title, though, is: Goops and How To Be Them: A Manual of Manners for Polite Infants Inculcating Many Juvenile Virtues Both By Precept and Example, With Ninety Drawings. Yes, the title is almost as long as the book itself. First published in 1900, there can be an occasional challenge in how some words are defined. For example, when he uses the term “infants,” he’s referring to any child not yet in school. The book is meant to be humorous, to be sure. After all, this is the same person who gave us that poem about a purple cow. Yet, the manners he prescribes are timeless. The book starts like this:

Let me introduce a Race
Void of Beauty and of Grace,
Extraordinary Creatures
With a Paucity of Features.
Though their Forms are fashioned ill,
They have Manners stranger still;
For in Rudeness they’re Precocious,
They’re Atrocious, they’re Ferocious
Yet you’ll learn, if you are Bright
Politeness from the Impolite.
When you’ve finished with the Book,
At your Conduct take a Look;
Ask yourself, upon the Spot,
Are you Goopy or are you Not?
For, although it’s Fun to See them
It is Terrible to Be them!

The book was out of print for several years, so I was not able to give a copy to my own boys. Thankfully, a 2014 reprint is now for sale and I’m thinking of a certain seven-year-old who might well benefit from having a personal copy of this particular volume. The lessons truly are well worth the effort.

Yet, as I look back over the title now, considering where and what we are as a society so deeply embedded in digital content and social media, I wonder if Burgess, were he alive today, might re-work the title as Trolls and How To Be Them. After all, or so it would seem, Internet trolls and Goops would have a great deal in common. In fact, it may well be that the infantile Goops grow up to be the adolescent trolls and, no matter their age, never seem to grow beyond that stage of development. While their adult-sized bodies may be large and misshaped, trolls never really grow up. They never assume responsibility, they don’t take care of their own business because they’re too concerned about everyone else’s, and they never socialize with friends because even trolls don’t like being around other trolls. They’re Goops, to be sure, just in larger bodies.

I apologize for not writing this next section in verse, something at which Burgess was especially talented, but let’s consider for a moment some of the ways Goops and trolls are alike.

  1. They are aggressive and rude. Goops pull on little girls curls, and trolls enjoy making fun of women’s features in general, body shaming every aspect bust especially focusing on faces, breasts, and hips.
  2. Goops and trolls go out of their way to create trouble. Goops might trip someone walking or push them in the mud. Trolls hurl verbal mud at the nicest of people and then berate them for being “dirty.”
  3. Both Goops and trolls enjoy their ignorance. Goops tear up books and pay no attention to teachers. Trolls delight in spreading rumor and innuendo without bothering to check their facts and are consistently unable to provide a reliable source to back up their comments.
  4. Neither are respectful of authority. Goops are disobedient and don’t listen to their parents. Trolls don’t care about community standards and challenge administrators and managers charged with moderating comments. Trolls also enjoy attacking anyone in a position of authority, from the President or Prime Minister to the manager of the local burger joint.
  5. They think only of themselves and the things that bring them pleasure. Goops are lazy, never helpful, and want everything done for them. Trolls provide no benefit and tear people down rather than build them up. Trolls never have anything positive to say.

Trolls are nasty creatures and I am constantly astonished at how they are tolerated in places they don’t belong. You may or may not have noticed that I don’t provide for commenting on any of my articles. Goops and trolls are a large part of why that feature is not present here. I struggle to understand why it is present on things such as news stories or magazine articles. Why are comments necessary at all? If one has a legitimate disagreement, then make appropriate contact through appropriate channels. Trolling comments serve no beneficial purpose at all.

Burgess created Goops as an object lesson. He featured them in a comic strip for about a year and I do desperately wish that those would make a renewed appearance. I think we might learn a lot about how we should behave. Perhaps, just maybe, they might teach us how to not be trolls.

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
Why Football Has To Change
February 8, 2016
charles i. letbetter - why football has to change

Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it’s so incredible, it’s unbelievable.—Tom Landry

 

charles i. letbetter - why football has to change

If the NFL is going to make it to Super Bowl 100, the game has to fundamentally change

Late in last night’s Super Bowl game, the NFL ran a ten-second spot where they asked children who might still be alive what they think Super Bowl 100 might be like. The answers were cute if not a little outrageous including things like hoverboards and other stuff I don’t remember. Coming at the end of the game, I doubt too many people noticed the spot at all, but I couldn’t help thinking that unless the NFL makes some serious changes, there won’t be a Super Bowl 100, and there may not be an NFL at all.

Let’s be very clear, growing up in Oklahoma, I was immersed in sports, even though I was too clumsy and uncoordinated to actually play. I love watching a good game, whether it’s baseball, basketball, or football. I love being at a game live, I enjoy being passionate in supporting a team, and I have this strange thing for hot chocolate from a concession stand. I’m not anti-sport by any stretch of the imagination.

However, I noticed something at the beginning of last night’s game that almost made me cry. Being the 50th Super Bowl, someone thought it would be nice to honor the MVPs from each of the preceding games. The names were those from my childhood, the men I’d watched battle on Sunday afternoons, the champions that defined the game in my imagination: Bart Starr, Joe Namath, Roger Staubach, Larry Csonka, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann, Terry Bradshaw, Jim Plunkett, Joe Montana. I watched as they took their places, crossing a corner of the field and I couldn’t help but notice that every one of those men who had played more then ten years ago had something in common: They were hurting. Sure, some handled it better than others, but you could see it in how they walked, how they held themselves, and how they stood, uneasily, on the risers. This is what football does to you.

There has been a tremendous amount of overdue attention this past year to the physical dangers imposed upon those who play football, especially at a professional level. Most critical among those is a problem with concussions, resulting in Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE. CTE is caused by repeated traumatic brain injury, the kind frequently experienced from concussions received while playing football. While advances have been made in regards to better helmets and other protective measures, concussions are still the game’s most dangerous injury. Even during last night’s game Carolina lost a player in the first half due to concussion.

CTE has only been identified in American football players since 2002. CTE is a degnerative disease that can lead to alzheimers, balance issues, severe changes in mood, blindness and hearing loss. There are multiple on-going lawsuits against the NFL from players, but the league has still been reluctant to fully address the problem and make significant changes to the game. Doctors are beginning to draw lines between CTE and erratic player behavior. Already, several retired players with CTE have committed suicide. There is even some speculation that O. J. Simpson has CTE and that it may have factored in the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson.

CTE isn’t the NFL’s only problem, though. Millennials are not embracing the sport in the same way Boomers did, and the Generation Z kids coming up behind them are even less enthused. While stadiums are trying to digitize in an effort to keep millennials in their seats, a handful of old-timers charge that millennials are soft, the reality is much more severe. Millennials are a problem for football because millennials don’t trust the NFL.

What we’re looking at are generations of young people who are more connected to what’s real, more adverse to taking risk, and place greater value in day-to-day life. They are less concerned about making millions (though several of them already have) and more concerned about doing better by the planet, society, their friends, and their families. As a result, when they come across an organization, whether it be the NFL, the GOP, cable companies, or Wall Street Banks, they tend to walk the other way and find alternatives.

How can football survive if upcoming generations refuse to attend the games run by corrupt owners? What does the NFL have to do to survive at all? Of course, opinions vary, but here are some critical elements that simply must change:

  • Acknowledge that in-game concussions are a serious threat to every player and not only change equipment but change rules to prevent them from happening. Yes, this will fundamentally change how the game is played, but it is necessary.
  • More closely monitor behavior of active athletes. Cincinnatti Bengals quarterback Johnny Manziel is the poster child for this one. Fans are tired of off-field aggressiveness and won’t pay to watch childish brats being paid too much money.
  • Provide more thorough and complete medical and mental care for retired players. One of the greatest scars across the face of football is players who are permanently disabled by the time their 40 and in financial trouble trying to pay for care.
  • Lower ticket prices. Millennials and those behind them aren’t keen on paying $100 a ticket for nosebleed seats to a game that only marginally holds their interest in the first place. The same applies to basketball and most concert venues. They’re going to find seats increasingly empty if this doesn’t change quickly.
  • Teams need to stop leaning on host cities and sponsors and learn how to pay their own way. Football teams, both college and professional, rake in billions of dollars, yet they don’t pay for the facilities in which they play, and in most cases they demand tax expemptions and other favors as well. Millennials and others are tired of footing the bill for the 1%. Let team owners and the NFL pay for their own damn stadiums, practice facilities rather than sucking host cities dry.

Dont’ let the excitement over last night’s game fool you. The writing is very clearly on the wall. Fans are not happy with the state of football and more than just millennials are ready to walk out the door and do something else with their Sunday afternoons. We love the sport and would like to see it continue, but the bullshit needs to stop. Football has to change.

Got that, Roger Goodell?

Continue Reading

Advertising
Bucking Trends: Our 5 Favorite Super Bowl Ads
February 8, 2016
charles i. letbetter - bucking trends

The trends that last and the trends that are relevant are the ones that make you look pretty.—Aerin Lauder

 

charles i. letbetter - bucking trends

There are times when a popular response and ad trackers can’t be trusted; this is one of them.

Whew, I am so very happy the Super Bowl is over if for no other reason than it’s likely to take a week for my indigestion to die down. There is still wing residue on my keyboard this morning and the over-abundance of dip and chips tells me what the kids will have for afterschool snacks this week. With some wacky weather moving in later this morning, it will be nice to talk about something else, once we tidy up a few loose ends around here.

Super Bowl ad watching has become just as much a part of the event as the football game itself. Some years, it’s been more exciting than the game, and let’s be honest, there were moments during the third and start of the fourth quarter when we might not have minded a few more ads to break the monotony of three-downs-and-punt. There were, as always, some very good ads, some horrible ads, and some that didn’t get the attention they deserve. There are also several rankings of the ads this morning. AdWeek and USAToday’s AdMeter are two decent lists if you’re interested. A lot of people look at Twitter response as well, but that can hardly be considered accurate, especially after half-way through the second quarter when a good portion of those tweeting are clearly drunk.

I’m going with a slightly different ranking system from what others use. Since we saw the vast majority of commercials before the game, what I found interesting was how some commercials actually felt different when viewed during the game than watching them cold beforehand. I was more likely to be entertained by an ad after one of the three touchdowns than one during the third quarter when the game fell into a rut. Reactions of friends also influenced my opinion, as happens for everyone. People viewing ads as a group almost always score them differently than when watching them alone. Overall, I was less entertained by the humor and more struck by the emotional ads. Let’s take a look at my top five:

Doritos, ‘Ultrasound’

Reaction to this one likely depends upon one’s age, whether one has children, and whether one was n a group when it came on. Kat and I had very different reactions. I thought it was hilarious. She thought it was a bit gross. We were both thankful the children were already in bed. This was the last of the Doritos “Crash The Super Bowl” contests, though, and one gets the feeling that no one was quite  as enthused about it this year as with previous games. Given a choice between this one and the dogs, this is the clear winner.

https://youtu.be/vH2LsFcWOFY

Kia, ‘Walken Closet’

I still have questions about this one, including whether the dude in the tan suit is driving that care barefoot. Christopher Walken makes an excellent case for a car I probably wouldn’t otherwise consider, though, and that’s what Kia needed. The fourth-quarter ad really helps them stand out from all the other automobile ads in the game and came late enough, when people were actually paying attention, that they might stand a chance of remembering the ad when they pass a Kia dealership on the way to work this morning. The add didn’t hit the trends hard, but it works.

https://youtu.be/9r0FrXXKeiA

NFL, ‘Super Bowl Babies Choir’

I fear the NFL may have shot themselves in the foot a bit with how they teased this one in five-second spots throughout the game. By the time the 60-second version showed up late in the fourth quarter, it felt as though we’d already seen it before and I have a feeling a lot of folks just weren’t paying attention so it completely missed the trends. Millennials without children didn’t seem to get the concept at all, which is not new. Still, the commercial is probably one of the few times the NFL has actually made me smile this season. The little ones are cute. Seal doing a parody of his own song is hilarious. And you know damn good and well there are going to be some babies in Denver come October.

Hyundai, ‘First Date’

Those of you with daughters understand. Actually, anyone with teenagers of driving age understands. The tracking technology built into this car has many potential uses. Live in a high crime rate area? Catch a car thief with this tracker. Suspect that someone’s not where they say they are? Follow up on them. There’s a potential creepy element here because if that thing is using GPS to do the tracking, then it can be hacked. Hello, stalker alert! Still, there’s not a dad alive who doesn’t want to send a message to the guy dating his daughter. This was funny.

https://youtu.be/-R_483zeVF8

Jeep, ‘Portraits’

Hands down, my favorite of the game. That may well be a reflection of my age, though. While the ad trends really well with the Baby Boomers of my generation, it resonated less with younger generations. Millennials didn’t get many of the references, some of which were a bit of a stretch in the first place. There are dangers to reaching too far back into history and the ad flirts with that line but doesn’t quite cross it. AdWeek has a nice article on the relationship between the faces and the vehicle, in case you missed a few. The ad touches on the nostalgia of the vehicle and its universal reliance as a vehicle that gets one through the rough patches. I’ve always wanted a Jeep and this ad really stoked that fire. Too bad I can’t drive.

https://youtu.be/wKn5K5V7tRo

There were some major disappointments along the way, too. The Coca-Cola ad with Marvel’s Hulk? Not a winner. Butterfingers big reveal? A complete letdown. Taco Bell’s new product? More of the same, just given a silly name. Perhaps most disappointing was the complete strike-out by all the Budweiser brands. When they’ve done so much better, this year’s crop fell well short of the standard.

But we’re done with them now. Hooray! Just in time to make fun of the gooey Valentine’s Day commercials!

Continue Reading

Music
Ethics Are A Real Thing, Bey
February 7, 2016
charles i. letbetter - ethics are a real thing, bey

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.—Potter Stewart

 

charles i. letbetter - ethics are a thing, Bey

Being a big star can get you a lot of leeway, but there are some lines no one has a right to cross

There’s little question that Beyoncé is one of the biggest stars on the music scene today, and when she hits the stage during the halftime of today’s Super Bowl crowds will scream and yell, forgetting the horror of Coldplay that they’ve had to sit through first. In addition to being a fantastic musician, Beyoncé is also a brilliant marketer. Last night, less than 24 hour before the Super Bowl halftime show, she released her new music video, Formation, which immediately set the Internet on fire, zooming to the top of both Billboard and iTunes hot charts. #Formation is still trending on Twitter and probably will continue to do so through the day.

There’s just one problem: The video makes heavy use of documentary footage from the documentary, That B.E.A.T., by Abteen Bahgeri and Chris Black. Chrisk Black was quick to lash out on Twitter:

Later, Entertainment Weekly publishes this statement supposedly from Queen Bey’s representative:

“The documentary footage was used with permission and licensed from the owner of the footage. They were given proper compensation. The footage was provided to us by the filmmaker’s production company. The filmmaker is listed in the credits for additional photography direction. We are thankful that they granted us permission .”

So, everything’s cool, right? Permission was granted, rights were secured, etc.

Well, hold on. If rights and permission were secured in advance, how did the filmmakers not know that? Yes, their names are in the credits, which had to have been added before the video was uploaded, but how is it even possible that the people who created the documentary wouldn’t know those things?

This comes on the heels of another dustup concerning the Coldplay video featuring Beyoncé  Hymn For The Weekend,  which was released last week. Almost immediately, anger erupted across the Internet over whether Bey and the band were guilty of cultural appropriation. Opinions were diverse and strong. Among the people from India or Indian-American, the greatest offense seemed to center around the sari and headdress that Beyoncè was wearing in addition to various backgrounds that identify with the culture. Was the video, as Coldplay claims, an appreciation of Indian culture? Or is it a westernized version of that culture appropriated for commercial purposes?

Thes are not easy question to answer, but then, matters of ethics are rarely easy. They take time to think through the multiple perspectives of an issue or situation, not just one’s own. One’s intention is not always how an action is receieved. Unfortunately, when one is a big star, with millions of people buying albums and screaming their adoration, ethics often flies out the window. Beyoncé is certainly flirting with that line, and in the opinions of many she’s crossed it.

Plenty of people would come to the singer’s defense, saying that any offense is imagined and that she’s simply being edgy or trying to bring attention to a specific situation. She’s trying to do good. Here’s the paradox: when one has to do something wrong in order to create the appearance of doing something right, is the wrong justified? Rarely is that the case, and certainly a music video does not justify any harm toward anyone, at any time.

The music industry has often crossed ethical lines and more than a few artists and record companies have paid a significant price for their errors. Yet, there are some who think the rules don’t apply to them, that it doesn’t matter if they don’t ask permission up front, or if they appropriate the culture of an entire country. We all love good music and Beyoncé is among the best, but ethics are a real thing, Bey. When our stars hurt other people in an  attempt to stay on top, what choice do we have but to walk away and leave those stars to fade?

When you sit on top of the world, everyone is watching. Ethics matter.

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Disaster In The Making
February 7, 2016
charles i. letbetter - disaster in the making

Even with all our technology and the inventions that make modern life so much easier than it once was, it takes just one big natural disaster to wipe all that away and remind us that, here on Earth, we’re still at the mercy of nature.—Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

charles i. letbetter - disaster in the making

Zika is one of those diseases that, unless we find a treatment, could unravel the fabric of society

I have been watching over the past few days as the specter of snow looms over tomorrow’s forecast. As much as a heavy snowfall has the potential to really mess up my schedule for this week, that may be exactly what we need. With our winter, to date, having been so very mild and comfortable, there hasn’t been enough snow and freezing temperatures to do what winter does best: kill bug larvae. Unfortunately, we’re likely to get little more than a dusting tomorrow, or so it seems. Our portion of the Midwest has missed the blizzards and the sub-zero temperatures that usually help keep the insect population in check. I’m beginning to worry. We could use a minor disaster to prevent a major one.

The problem isn’t all bugs, of course. The danger the lurks in the coming of Spring is a common nuisance: mosquitoes. We fight them every year and the wetter the spring the more challenging that battle becomes. For most people in the United States, they’re little more than a nuisance, but this year they hold the potential to bring society to its knees as they may be carrying a deadly disease known as Zika.

This past Monday, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared Zika a public health emergency. Such a move is fairly rare as it raises warnings that affect economies and social practices. Even in this statement, the WHO was been accused of playing politics in not putting a restriction on travel to affected areas by pregnant women. Why? Because ground zero for the disease is currently Brazil, the country hosting this summer’s Olympic games. Any level of travel restriction (which the US implemented last month ) could devastate Brazil’s already shaky economy. Yet, the risk to pregnant women is severe, and not exactly welcoming for anyone else.

While pregnant women and their unborn fetuses have been the primary focus of those attempting to corral the disease, Zika can affect anyone. Most healthy people would experience the all-too-common symptoms for about a week and not know what was the cause. Fever, rash, joint pain, red eyes, and perhaps a headache are the most common symptoms and most people who contract the disease never need to see a doctor or go to the hospital. They can wait out the symptoms, which last about a week, and be fine. So, what’s the big deal? Why are we worried?

Because Zika has the ability to do so much more. While mosquitoes remain the primary means of transmitting the disease, having sex with anyone currently infected with Zika can also spread the disease to an uninfected partner. Not everyone whose bloodstream is infected will present symptoms and while, for most people, the disease only stays in the bloodstream about a week, it can hang around longer without the host being aware of its presence. The one case of Zika that has occurred in the US was spread through sexual contact with an infected person. As we’ve seen with other sexually transmitted diseases, once the spread begins it can be difficult to stop.

Where Zika becomes a real disaster is in the effect it has on unborn children. Zika appears to affect the development of the head and brain, resulting in something called Microcephaly. There is no treatment that diminishes the effects. There is no cure. Children born with the disease are disabled for life and will never be able to care for themselves. Seizures, loss of hearing and/or sight, balance difficulty, and difficulty swallowing are among the dangers faced by children with microcephaly.

As if affecting children wasn’t bad enough, the great social disaster could be in how to respond, especially for pregnant women. Already, women in affected countries, most of which are in heavily Catholic South America, are beginning to re-think their stance on abortion, which not only puts them at odds with the church, but in most South American countries, such as Brazil, abortion is illegal except under the most extreme circumstances. The Church also forbids the use of any form of birth control, including condoms, which could contribute to the further spread of the disease.

Already, the United Nations has issued a statement urging “the repeal of laws and policies that restrict access to sexual and reproductive health services.” Here is where the disaster threatens to do the most damage. While few debate the need to curb the disease with medicine and science, when the most readily available means of prevention collides with religious beliefs, people are ready to go to war to protect what they consider their religious duty. Even in the United States, women’s reproductive rights are a hotbed of controversy, with Congress repeatedly attempting to defund women’s care providers, specifically Planned Parenthood, because of their willingness to provide various methods of birth control. Given that this is a presidential election year with passions already running high at both political extremes, this could be the disaster the ultimately leads to domestic violence on a level we’ve not seen since the Civil War.

Even in the United States, women’s reproductive rights are a hotbed of controversy, with Congress repeatedly attempting to defund women’s care providers, specifically Planned Parenthood, because of their willingness to provide various methods of birth control. Given that this is a presidential election year with passions already running high at both political extremes, this could be the disaster the ultimately leads to domestic violence on a level we’ve not seen since the Civil War.

Public health officials in the US are attempting, for the moment, to downplay the risks, citing effective mosquito extermination programs in the past. However, given that Zika can be spread through sexual contact, and we’ve not yet begun mosquito season, it is too early to be so dismissive. At the very least, it would seem prudent to impose even more stringent travel restrictions to places where Zika is a known problem. The CDC is already urging the use of condoms and other means of birth control as a way of avoiding pregnancy if one plans on traveling to an infected area. Consumer Reports, whose content is normally behind a paywall, has made public a list of mosquito repellants that best protect against Zika.

Disaster could still be averted, but to ignore the threat is foolish. We’re still three to four months away from seeing mosquitoes begin to spread across the United States. For many areas, especially rural communities, measures to fight mosquitoes are likely to require federal funding, something Congress has loathed. If the funding is not there, the risk for disaster increases. If people attending the Olympics are not careful in every possible sense of the word, the risk for disaster increases.

In comparison, maybe getting snowed in for a couple of days isn’t so bad.

Continue Reading

Page 28 of 41