Originally posted by love_child
New Kraft commercial with Ted Williams voice :)
They must've had that all done and yanked the voice of whoever did Ted's line and slapped his over it to capitalize on the hype. Pretty smart. Good for them and for him.
VDub
quote:
Originally posted by WittyHandle
They must've had that all done and yanked the voice of whoever did Ted's line and slapped his over it to capitalize on the hype. Pretty smart. Good for them and for him.
Agreed but I don't think his voice suited the ad...
Jayx1
quote:
Originally posted by love_child
Interesting Article
Thanks to near-ubiquitous national media coverage, you probably know by now that Ted Williams was a homeless and jobless man who is now being offered fairly major media jobs because he had the random luck of becoming a YouTube sensation. This is certainly a heart-warming story, and we should all be genuinely happy for Williams. It's a blessing when anyone is lifted out of such destitution.
However, there's a dark side to all this - not about Williams, but about the phenomenon he has come to represent.
In a country whose social class mobility has now dropped below many fellow (and often "socialist") industrialized nations, Williams is being implicitly promoted by our media as a representative example of how the American Dream still exists. I say it is implicit because, of course, none of the media promoting the story comes out and says exactly this. But the very fact that this has become such a huge national story logically implies that the media promoting it believes it represents something bigger or national. Indeed, why else would the national media cover the story of one homeless person as a national story, if not to suggest it represents something of national importance?
This, then, is a microcosm of a media that has become far more a manufacturer of false establishment-serving storylines than a documenter of genuine everyday reality. The idea that the American Dream still exists and that everyone can "make it" like Ted Williams is, by all objective economic measures, demonstrably false. But that idea is nonetheless incessantly promoted by politicians, corporate leaders and their media servants because it convinces large swaths of the put-upon general public to refrain from asking fundamental questions about inequality, poverty and the punitive structure of our economy - ie. questions that corporate-backed politicians, pundits and media institutions do not want asked.
What's so galling about this particular instance of American Dream triumphalism is the most famous player now involved: The Cleveland Cavaliers. As Cleveland's ABC affiliate reports, the NBA team owned by Quicken Loans has now "offered Williams full-time voiceover work" and "offered to pay a mortgage on a home" for him. The ABC affiliate - like the rest of the media - hasn't bothered to point out what The Nation magazine's Dave Zirin has previously noted: namely, that Quicken Loans has been one of the major banks throwing people out of their homes during the foreclosure crisis. Yes, that's right: The same company that is bragging about offering a single homeless man a job is the same company that is making many people homeless - and none of the media covering the story have mentioned that. All we get are stories about how wonderful and generous the Cavs and Quicken Loans are for making their offer to Williams.
This is exactly what I mean by manufacturing false establishment-serving narratives. Instead of using Williams' story to highlight the thousands of other rank-and-file Ted Williamses who didn't get lucky enough to become an Internet sensation, we are effectively led to believe that Ted Williams is a classic American story emblematic of what supposedly happens all the time in our allegedly well-functioning economy. Likewise, instead of highlighting the hypocrisy of a company that has caused so much homelessness now using a homeless man to whitewash its corporate record, we get hagiography making that company out to be a benevolent savior.
In short, instead of journalism that educates us about truly important realities, we get propaganda that perpetuates the plutocratic status quo.
Hmmm so the fact that this guy ruined himself with drugs and committing violent crimes (by even his own admission) has nothing to do with the fact that he was homeless om the street? Is it always someone else's fault when u are a lefty? Furthermore, if he was still screwing himself up with drugs there is no way he would be hired today. Lucky breaks help, but they only open the door to the person who still has to be in a position to walk through it.
Socialists amuse me sometimes.
PivotTechno
Is there anything out there that you're capable of discussing that doesn't involve your derogatorically classifying people as "lefty" and "socialist"?
The article simply points to the irony of a homeless individual being hired by what is essentially a high-pressure mortgage sales company whose predatory tactics were responsible for a glut of home foreclosures during the U.S. housing crisis.
But hey, just throw your two favourite words into the mix and voila! - all of a sudden you're able to add your input, which is (as usual) near completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Jayx1
quote:
Originally posted by PivotTechno
Is there anything out there that you're capable of discussing that doesn't involve your derogatorically classifying people as "lefty" and "socialist"?
The article simply points to the irony of a homeless individual being hired by what is essentially a high-pressure mortgage sales company whose predatory tactics were responsible for a glut of home foreclosures during the U.S. housing crisis.
But hey, just throw your two favourite words into the mix and voila! - all of a sudden you're able to add your input, which is (as usual) near completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
read the article. They clearly give a contrasting socialist example (By their own words) and then go on to blame everything under the sun except the guy himself. ANd you and I both know that Huffington is a Socialist cheerleader in the US.
I am simply pointing out the obvious. And its no diff than when you and people like you call harper things such as a neo con right wing bush patsy.
PivotTechno
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
read the article.
I did. I even went so far as to do a little more research into Quicken Loans and their business practices, so I didn't come across as someone who was talking out of their ass.
You, on the other hand, read the article through the "I hate socialists" spectacles that you seem to have on 24/7, completely missing the side of the story that points to an opportunistic corporation landing some wonderfully inexpensive PR by way of getting one, moderately talented individual off the streets, when their standard M.O. has by-and-large leaned more toward putting people there.
I'm starting to think that you don't hate socialists - it seems more and more like you just hate poor people. Tell me, have you ever known poverty of any kind?
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
They clearly give a contrasting socialist example (By their own words) and then go on to blame everything under the sun except the guy himself.
Right, so current free market capitalism has no bearing on indivudual economic standing? Just let the cream rise to the top, survival of the monied fittest and all that?
Again, have you ever experienced poverty in any way, shape or form? If not, you should really shut the up, as your perspective on the matter is based upon an extremely biased vantage. It's akin to someone saying they hate milk, even though they've never tried it, and only because they've drank orange juice for their entire life.
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
ANd you and I both know that Huffington is a Socialist cheerleader in the US.
No, you know that, because that's the label you slap on anything that doesn't appeal to your narrow sensibilities.
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
And its no diff than when you and people like you call harper things such as a neo con right wing bush patsy.
Yeah, it is different, because while I may have a somewhat rooted view of the world and how it functions, I also endeavour to retain an open enough mind to see things from more than one perspective. I've experienced both relative wealth and rather crippling poverty and can say without a doubt that the ways in and out of either aren't nearly as cut and dried as you constantly make it out to be.
And please, show me a post where I "call harper things such as a neo con right wing bush patsy". You're really grasping at straws these days; perhaps it's time to consider retiring from message board politics (which is about as far as you'll ever get in the field).
Jayx1
So basically to sum up your response:
1) I hate poor people because I think that people should be accountable for their own actions
2) Anytime you disagree with me it's because MY thoughts and beliefs are narrow minded.
3) No one should ever be able to comment on anything that they aren't directly affected by or involved in
4) Labels are not justified even when those labels are fitting
5) I will only get as far as commenting on a message board when it comes to politics because you don't agree with my comments. (a big LOL on that one!)
Is that a good summary?
Just to footnote this. You dont know me, you dont know my history and you dont know my current field of work and involvement in the community (outside clubs) ;)
Vanos
quote:
1) I hate poor people because I think that people should be accountable for their own actions
I wouldnt be so critical, there is always two sides of the coin.
Abercrombie
Jayx1
quote:
Originally posted by Vanos
I wouldnt be so critical, there is always two sides of the coin.
agreed. And as this guy says himself, he screwed up and is thankful for a second chance. And thats amazing that he has it!
