I believe that the producers of the ads are acting, for the most part, in an apporiate manner. Altough the circumstances of the advertisements are questionable, the ads are doing what ads are meant to do: advertise their products. Since when have the producers and consumers of the ads been concerned about the means that they are being advertised to? I do believe that Abercrombie has highly suggestive photgraphs ans advertisements, and in that sense, i believe that it would be better that the ads be less promiscuous because they are seen in public places where juveniles are able to view them. I'm not saying that all ads should be PG, but i do think that it is better that the most suggestive of ads be altered or removed from the eyes of the youth. Lipitor, i believe, did not do anything wrong. Since Dr. Jarvik did not outrightly say that he was a doctor and speaking on the behalf of other doctors, he did not do anything wrong by endorsing the project. He was simply being paid to appear in the ad and say a few words. I do believe that there should be minimal codes that advertisers should adhere to, and these rules should be followed:
1. No overly suggestive or promiscuous advertisements.
2. No obscene language
3. No use of anything that harms or intends to harm another being or individual.
4. Products should be appropirately placed so that advertisements that are not suitable for some are not targeted to them on purpose.
5. The impact of the advertisement should be wholly positive, without encouraging the harming of individuals.

According to these provisions, both the Lipitor ad and the Abercrombie ad would be acceptable, on the basis that Abercrombie fixed or slightly altered the more suggestive of their ads. Lipitor, to me, did not do anything wrong, and neither did Abercrombie because they recognized and utilized their target audience and aimed their advertisements towards them: Abercrombie to young adults and teens and Lipitor to adults who are familiar with Dr. Jarvik. No one was harmed in the filming or production of the ad, and Abercrombie is able to remove a few of their ads to make sure that their target audience is reached.

My provisions provide a, to me, a morally, upright code that will protect those who are more innocent and easily suspectible to advertisements without protecting them from all.

Walking down any busy street, advertisements galore. Advertisements for products, activities, even people. Seeing such advertisements can create the urge to buy any of the goods being displayed: toothbrushes, shampoos, movies, milk endorsed by a celebrity. I responded with the casual phrase "I want that!". this phrase has become a staple to my vocabulary, for the urge to buy or receive certain goods is always present, though it does not necessarily imply that i will buy that good. I believe that being brought up in a society that is constantly advertising and promoting, I have become accustomed to buying and looking at goods through a consumer's eyes.

I know that I am not exactly the most driven consumer: I do no think to purchase every good on the market nor am I swayed to buy just about anything that tells me to purchase it, but I do know that many other young teens are. They are persuaded by the brand names that have lured others into buying them. This gimmick creates the sense that if a certain good is bought, the consumer who purchased the good will automatically have a certain coolness or popularity that other consumers have who have a similar good. This is further emphasized by endorsed goods, the concept that if I buy the product that so-and-so has, I will become like them.

I believe that I am partially materialistic, but I am also able to tell when I am being advertised to. I think I have an ability to willingly give myself up to the advertisements, meaning that I know when I want to buy something and will knowingly go to buy the product. I feel that I sometimes give items a more sentimental value more so than a materialistic value.

Twitter-dee and Twitter-dumb

The nation as we know it is now fascinated with the tedious, and essentially meaningless, process of Twitter-ing. People are writing about what they are currently doing (but wouldn't that person be writing the Twitter entry at that moment and nothing else?...). Yes Twitter is a form of mass media that informs the masses of a pointless fact or tidbit about the life of a person. Honestly, I could care less if a person is thinking about dying her hair purple or eating a burrito. But Twitter is a way to communicate a message, any message, to the masses, and all who are privy to your profile can see what you are up to. In the case of a person of influence to write about their day in order to communicate with the people (a Governor, perhaps), I believe that Twitter-ing is acceptable. But to talk about random facts or activities for amusement and understanding is beyond my comprehension.

I believe that Jeanne McManus is correct in her thinking about the uselessness about Twitter. Sure, it is a way to connect with others, but it does not seem to me to be a worthwhile use of your time. Twitter-ing is meaningless. If you want to communicate to someone your activity, why not send it directly to that person? Through a phone call, a text message, an e-mail, a postcard or even a mailed letter. Twitter-ing is a use of the modern technology to communicate a message, but what if that message is not important to anyone but the person that wrote it? The technology format of Twitter-ing shows the human obsession with modern progress, which in a way is good. For a person to want to advance oneself, that is good. But taking advantage of technology in order to communicate a message is in of itself useless.

What's Up with Obama's Military Oath

What's funny, is that people actually fall for this kind of joke. The rumor goes that Obama is going to require all soldiers to take an oath of loyalty directly to the president, not to the constitution as they are actually required to. When reading the original piece, found at http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/search/label/Barack%20Obama (if you scroll about one third of the way down), states, at the beginning, that the entry is a satire piece, meaning it is NOT real. And many have responded to this entry saying that they knew all along that Obama was going to say such a thing and that they now have insider information about the veracity of this argument. The moral of this tale is this: the Internet is not reliable and that some people are not paying attention to necessary details, like the fact that the piece was fake. To believe such a document, given that the author out rightly said it was satirical, would prove disastrous in a real life application. For people to believe the first thing that they hear without finding out if it is true or not is just absolutely ridiculous. We need to be able to separate fact from fiction and this was an example where people couldn't even do that when the truth was staring out rightly in their face.