The Unbelievable Implications of Cologne Ads

I always found cologne ads a bit pretentious. The spartan but sensual voiceover whispering in come-hither, husky tones, for men, and in an alluring breathless French accent for women. Abstract scenes with incongruous elements, like a pensive white guy standing in the middle of the desert wearing his cologne contemplating an apple, as you do. But most annoying are the understated, and not so understated, implications of wearing the designer scents, now more often endorsed by big name celebs. Colognes ads usually feature White men with sex, or more accurately, promiscuity, as the primary selling point.  

Hugo Boss' Night ad features Ryan Reynolds, recently voted People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive 2010 (also a reserve for White men), as he stalks into his high tech, sophisticated apartment after a hard day of being incredibly sexy, unbuttons a single button of his perfectly tailored shirt, removes a cufflink dashingly and most amazingly, a white woman magically appears in his apartment with a 'you're gonna get lucky tonight' sashay. All, we must assume, based on his application of Hugo Boss Night. The ad ends with Reynolds recognising that coitus is imminent and stares directly into the camera as if to say, 'My cologne has made me successful and now, it has brought me sex...which I will now have', and cut. See for yourself.

Ryan Reynolds proves Hugo Boss 'Night' will make you a white, sexually active male

The real doozy for me though is Paco Rabanne's 1 Million ad. This features another European fellow, slim, toned with all the requisite caucasian good looks. He has the power to snap his fingers and win at the craps table and the roulette wheel, summon fur coat clad women, make their clothes fall off and conjure up bags full of cash.

This time you become a white male magician without a job - or a pimp

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being white, male, promiscuous and sexy - well something's wrong with promiscuity. But it's just the totally ridiculous premises that somehow convince some of us to buy these products. We know this is done with a myriad of products (including people who are products - celebrities) but if you are say, a 350 pound Chinese accountant who loves suspenders and puppies, do you really stand a chance of passing for Ryan Reynolds once splashing on a little Night? Will you even acquire a high rise city apartment shortly thereafter? Can the act of snapping ones fingers when doused with 1 Million somehow spontaneously generate a remarkably large sum of cash in neatly stacked, small bills?

I think that's why the Old Spice ad worked so well. It made it clear that the hot guy is the one selling the Cologne. The best we can do is smell like a hot guy - the rest is up to you or your plastic surgeon. Fortunately for me I look slightly better than the Old Spice guy. Braap! Only problem is it might encourage ladies to change their man rather than his cologne. 

                                        

Less Than Nobel Intentions and the Growing Boycott

China has boycotted this year's Nobel Peace Prize Award ceremony on the basis that one of its political dissidents, Liu Xiaobo, was the recipient. According to Reuters, China wasn't alone and reported that the Nobel committee,

...said in addition to China, countries declining invitations for the gala were: Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Serbia, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Sudan, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco.

But not all seemed to boycott for the same reason as China. However, with a little thought one can understand why some nations would be suspect of the mechanism behind the Award and the Award itself. Certainly the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize is without question, but if Obama's reception of the award is anything to go by, it may have a purpose other than just promoting Peace, and may in fact be a tool for the Western political agenda.

Last year Obama was awarded the Peace Prize for making nothing more than a speech. The irony is that one of the central reasons cited for Obama's worthiness was his, '...efforts to support international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament' (BBC 2009). This becomes laughable with France and England only recently forming treaties on defence and testing of nuclear weaponry. 

The implication of Obama's speech and subsequent award, is that the US - and by extension the West -  were taking a new approach to nuclear proliferation, with the award underlining the credibility and gravity of the 'effort'. In light of the UK/France defence treaty, it was nothing more than lip service. It really was only a speech. 

With the WikiLeaks info running amok and US opponents coming out holding the short end of the stick, suspicion grows in direct proportion with the hypocrisy of Western Governments who seem to think only they should posses nuclear weaponry. 

Liu Xiaobo may very well deserve the Peace Prize and China does have a spotty human rights record to answer for, however, a news forum participant insightfully noted that the West is quick to condemn WikiLeaks for exposing its violations and secrets, but quick to reward those who expose the violations and secrets of its enemies. Very good point. 

The UK Tuition Hike Protest Violence & Royal Pains

The UK's coalition government just won, by a 'narrow margin', the vote to hike student tuition fees up to a maximum of £9000 per annum. The run up to the vote was punctuated by student protests and moments of violence, vandalism and disorder. The latest round of protests included an 'attack' on Prince Charles and his homely consort-cum-wife, Camilla, an incident apparently worth more attention than the hypocritical turnabout by Lib Dem, Nick Clegg, and the Conservative Government, that both promised not to do what they have just done. 

A case for violence

The protests are a democratic right, and the violence debatable, however, Western action and philosophy provide for violence when there is no other recourse, and often when there are a myriad of other options. The United Kingdom uses violence against other nations at will and with little cause - and has done for centuries. Iraq is the latest and best example, but the Falkland Wars will do nicely as well. 

But when 'the people' become violent it indicates a profound societal issue: nothing else works. What became obvious in the run up to the vote and the vote itself, is that students and parents had absolutely no say. The only place a student voice could be heard was through the media, and that could not guarantee that those who 'mattered' were listening.  Based on the outcome of the vote, they definitely weren't and that is a genuine and disturbing problem in an allegedly democratic nation. This is an excellent object lesson for both the people and the Royals - now they have first-hand knowledge of potential causes of violence in third world nations: when one feels helpless to act, any action will do.

That said, the hypocrisy of the coalition government continues as they self-righteoulsy condemn the student violence and attempt to get the attention away from their broken promises, all while the UK continues to ravage Iraq and search for a pretext to invade Iran.

Importantly, PM Cameron noted that it was a majority of protestors that engaged in violence, it was completely lost on him that this may indicate something about the decision. Majority, it is widely believed, is an important element in democracy. But democracy may not be so important in the UK. 

Getting what they wanted

The irony, however, is that 'the people' got the government they voted for. Albeit a coalition, that it is Conservative heavy is no secret, and neither is the elitist leaning of the Conservative party. Historically, Conservatives favour the rich and exploit the 'commoner' - should the people really be surprised at the sudden 180 degree turn of their Government of choice? 

There is no debate that the budget needs to be trimmed, but why education should suffer and not defence (what with troops allegedly scheduled to pull out of Afghanistan next year) is an argument that never occurred, but should have. The fact that the Government didn't even consider a delay of the vote suggests the outcome was a fait accomplis. 

In the end Great Britain, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. Well, you just did. 

Iran and Iraq - for the US the only difference is a consonant.

                       “They have good reason to be suspicious of our intentions.”

                                              Ivan Oelrich, senior fellow, Federation of American Scientists                

The above quote is uncharacteristically humble, responsible and reasonable on the part of the West, and from a Washington-based group to boot. But then again, the speaker is a scientist and not a politician. That said, it's still the first sign of some admission that the West is even remotely responsible for the defensive posture Iran has had to assume - nuclear armament or not  - and especially since the Bush administration declared it was part of the enigmatic 'Axis of Evil'. 

The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, US and UK) along with Germany, are in Geneva conducting a second round of talks with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. But the first item on Iran's agenda was the November 29 killing of Iranian nuclear physicist, Majid Shahriari, in a Tehran bombing. Most telling was not the US denial of involvement, but unwillingness of the UK and Israel to comment. Is silence consent?

The issues are many, but there are a few I'd like to highlight: 1. The agenda began by the Bush admin seems to be moving ahead apace 2. The scenario is eerily similar to that pre-Iraq invasion 3. The entire Region, not just Iran, has reason to beware. 

As mentioned, it was the Bush admin that initially proposed the 'Axis of Evil' concept, citing that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were somehow the world's greatest threats. Iraq has already been appropriated and its oil fields sold off to private interests - mission accomplished - if Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons, who can blame them? Iran has the world's largest oil reserves second only to, and this might surprise you, Iraq. Nothing stopped the invasion of Iraq; not facts, lack of evidence, diplomacy or common sense - what reason does one have to believe anything will stop the implied invasion of Iran under almost identical circumstances? 

So what's the blatant implication? The American/Western corporate agenda takes precedence over any political or ideological agenda regardless of who is president - and that makes it ok for him or her to be Black and erudite (as in the case of Obama) or embarrassingly undereducated and inarticulate (as in the case of he-who-doesn't-have-to-be-named). That the scenario is almost identical to pre-Iraq invasion is obvious, what is alarming is that no one seems to care. Not the American public, not the Iranian public and not even Iran's neighbours who are likely to be next on America's hit list. 

In this context, the recent alleged 'Leak' that has dominated headlines in recent weeks, seems to play right into a Western pretext for an Iran invasion. It claimed the Saudi King urged the US to conduct missile strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and somehow painted the US as a reasonable and reluctant participant in the same. 

That the oil rich Middle East has been in Western crosshairs for some time is no secret. Some argue that Israel is its loyal 'watchdog' armed to the teeth and a constant destabilising force, now joined by an occupied Iraq. Divide and conquer seems to be the order of the day. Even now the GCC countries are meeting in Abu Dhabi, UAE to discuss Iran's predicament, among other things (importantly a unified stance against terrorism). We hope they make real concrete process. Even though Iran doesn't always see eye to eye with its Gulf neighbours, there is a common interest that may warrant some call for unity, cooperation or least dialogue that indicates, not support for the American agenda, but solidarity on an inclusive Middle East agenda.

Even as the US plays an essential role in brokering relations between Israel and the Arab world (and hence makes a logical ally for Arab states), its historical actions seem to indicate it has other more pressing concerns that may supersede all others. I'm not making any accusations, but there may be a reason to be 'suspicious'.

The New World Cup Hosts & England's Baffling Reaction

Russia and Qatar were just named the Fifa World Cup hosts for 2018 and 2022 respectively, to their own jubilation and to England's chagrin. While the preceding bid-teams celebrated their selection, the English press asserted claims of corruption, cheating and favouritism.

According to The Guardian the, 

2018 [UK Fifa bid] chief executive, Andy Anson, also said there was no point England bidding for another World Cup until the process was fundamentally overhauled as the detail of the humiliation was laid bare. "I would say right now, don't bother until you know that the process is going to change to allow bids like ours to win," said Anson.

Anson's statement is revealing. The obvious implication being that the system only works if England wins, not a gracious sentiment coming from the host of the upcoming 2012 Olympics. Apart from demonstrating an inability to lose with dignity, some elements of English media, and perhaps English public opinion, also exposed an arrogant and baffling sense of entitlement. Why should England have won and why shouldn't Russia or Qatar? England's odd reaction is made stranger considering it was eliminated from the first round of the two rounds of voting - it wasn't even close. There may be some element of denial here. 

Some claim that the move was all about money - it probably was and there is nothing wrong with that at all. It will, after all, take money (and lots of it) to host these events and Russia and Qatar have it, and from all indications, a Global recession and massive cuts in public spending, England (and indeed Europe) doesn't. But logic and common sense aside, Fifa has also been aiming to put the 'World' into the World Cup. 

In the 19 events since the beginning of the competition in 1930, over half (10 to be exact) were hosted by European nations (including England in 1966 - which they won), Italy and France got 2 opportunities at bat (in 2014 Brazil will have too), the US hosted once as did South Korea/Japan, and the rest were hosted by a mix of Central and South American nations. This year saw an African nation hosting for the very first time. Each of these nations had a 'first time', Russia and Qatar deserve no less. 

Indeed, the WC was seeing a revolving door of winners and qualifiers happily broken by Spain, first time winner in the 2010 competition. The danger was to see a similar list of the 'usual suspects' taking on hosting duties and benefiting from the potential commerce thereof. Fifa is absolutely right to spread opportunity - one that doesn't always guarantee profit as the gains for hosts are usually over the long term.

Some objectors to Qatar's selection cite a small population, its negligible footballing presence, relatively small size and very high summer temperatures as the main reasons that make Fifa's decision a questionable one. Qatar countered with a promise of climate controlled stadia and the relocation of the same to developing countries after the competition. A savvy and thoughtful response - and if the ambition, growth and wealth of the region is anything to go by, they are capable of living up to their word. Still, we speak in future terms - all is just a promise, and if it makes those objectors feel better (and it shouldn't) there's still time for both events to be catastrophic failures. 

A Panorama documentary has also been blamed for England's failed bid, with claims that voters, offended by accusations of bribery in the show, spurned the Brits proposal. If this was the case, it may be justified - certainly England's graceless response to their loss doesn't help. It may betray the attitude of a First World nation that is historically accustomed to getting what it wants simply because it wants it. Perhaps the best lesson for those English who are mortified by the loss and consider a Middle Eastern host 'a disgrace', is that the World Cup doesn't revolve around them.