October 22, 2003 Justin and Ronald... True Love ii Forever. [Rie el Colin Miley OP Contributor Have you seen the new McDonald’s ads on TV yet? If you haven't, don’t worry, you will be seeing them soon, and hearing them and even being reminded that they are cool by a McDonald’s “street swat team” (I’m not kidding). For those of you lucky enough to not know what I’m talking about, let me bring you up to speed. It’s life the way you wish it was—through a home video camera. It’s quick flashes of the parts of life you love—having fun with friends, sitting in the sun, looking good, and playing a practical joke on your buddy. Hold on a sec- ond...there’s this song in the background—my 12-year-old niece is loving it. That’s right, it’s the “i'm lovin’ it™” all-out barrage of what you could be doing, if only youd embrace the McDonald’s way of life. And it’s all based around Justin Timberlake. Former N’Sync baby face, Justin Timberlake, has graciously accepted the position of cool, hip, young, rich, spokesperson for the Diablos of the Drive Through, Mc-freaking-Donald’s. He's lending his boyish mug to evil’s cause, and he’s so happy he had to write a song about it—his new single, “i'm lovin’ it™.” Notice how those clever ad-execs kept the small i in there? How positively e.e.cummings of them (sorry e.e.). How 12-year-old girl is that? (Sorry 12-year-old girls). Since when did Justin Timberlake have any credibility to sell? Maybe to his huge throngs of pre-pubescent fans...hold on a second, it’s all becom- ing clear. This fiscal year (2003), McDonald’s Corporation post- ed its first loss for a fiscal quarter in its history. Where does McDonald’s focus a good part of its 750,000,000-dollar yearly US advertising budget? That’s right Kittlings, right at the kids. Celebrity corporate marriages are hardly anything new, but this one smacks of the foul stench of rotten lard. I mean, if youre going to team up with someone, ol’ JT has got the glob- al recognition for McDonald’s first global advertising campaign, but what’s in it for Justin? Oh, yeah, a reported $6 million bucks and a 35-city sponsored tour. It’s not even McDonald’s blatant attempt to co-opt some “cool” that gets me, it’s the fat, oops, I mean fact, that we barely notice these things anymore, much less care. Where’s the funky commercial where kids get the squits from too much “special sauce”? Or the one where pimples arise on deep fry cooks before our very eyes? Now that would be cool. “Justin Timberlake is perfect for the McDonald’s brand and our ‘i'm lovin’ it™’ campaign, which is all about connecting with our customers in fresh, modern, relevant ways,” said Larry Light, McDonald’s Executive Vice President and Global Chief Marketing Officer. I hope he gets dysentery from eating a raw burger, cooked by some kid whose scheduled for 37 hours this week in addition to his grade 11 studies because he’s still on the BC Liberals’ First Job/Entry-level wage rate ($6/hour for the first 500 hours of employment). Don’t worry Larry, just when the kid gets the hang of cooking beef to non-botulism levels, he'll probably get his hours slashed back to about four-per week because he’s now eligible to make a whopping $8 bucks an hour. It’s the McDonald’s way. The more I think about it, the more this ad marriage makes sense. Both McDonald’s and Timberlake have gotten rich from selling to minors, both have awful taste(s), and both are going to be going the way of the Dodo soon. I can’t wait for midnight to strike, so Justin can turn back into Rob Van Winkle (aka-Vanilla Ice). I pray that McDonald’s is dying a corporate death around the same time. Co-opting the minds, ears, and health of kids with your dangerous words and horrible products, you oughtta be ashamed. Salty, fat-filled, and rich—but ashamed. And Justin, for your next single, please, please, pretty-please hold the freaking cheese. For more on Justin and McDonalds visit: Andrew Matecha OP Contributor Now...what drugs is Rich Coleman on? Honestly. Was he the ultimate hippy back in the day or what? Because he’s clearly missing a large portion of his brain cells. “Increasing the learner stage from six months to one year, and raising the minimum age for a driver supervisor from 19 to 25.” Yeah ok, whatever, not a huge deal I guess. Although it’s just another inconvenience for honest, reliable drivers who just want to get their goddamn N’s (actually I have mine already so I’m not subject to these bullshit rules, but still). Since they can’t take the car on their own, it inconveniences new drivers and their parents. “Increasing the novice stage from 18 months to a minimum of 24 months.” This just causes more inconvenience. I mean, I had my L for over a year, however I drove so minimally that I could have gotten the same amount of driving experience in two or three months. Simply increasing the amount of time you have to wait does little else but piss off decent drivers who just want to take their road test and get it over with. “Restricting novice drivers to carrying one passenger unless accompanied by a supervisor aged 25 or over, or unless the passengers are members of the driver’s immediate family.” Now, this is the new restriction that I have the biggest problem with. ONE passenger? My car holds six people. That's five other people that could be in my car. But I can only have one other person in there with me? So, there are four unused seats. I mean, there are signs all over the place that say, “go green,” referring to carpooling. There are carpool lanes that require two people or more. Sure, I can use that. But that’s not carpooling, that’s going out with one friend. Carpooling is going out with three or four people to save gas. If I wanted to go out to a club with say, four of my friends. Let’s say Rick, Steve, Ryan, and Dawn. Okay, Rick and Dawn and I have our N’s, so we can all drive. But that’s not necessary, and it’s a huge waste of gas, because we could all go in one car. Now, because of these laws, three cars will have to be taken. Let’s say Ryan and I, Steve and Dawn, and Rick driving alone. Now, if we're going to a club, there’s going to be alco- hol there. But because of our new driver status, we can't have any alcohol in our bodies. Out of the five of us going, only two can drink. Does anyone here honestly think that out of a group of five friends who all drink regularly, only two of them are going to drink? So, Coleman-the-genius, youre going to lessen the amount of kids in a car, but instantly greatly increase the number of drunk teenage drivers. “New drivers, who make up about seven percent of the overall driving population, http://www.otherpress.ca Opinions ¢ the other press © are still involved in almost 16 percent of all accidents involving injury or fatality.” No doubt. That’s not too bad at all. 16 per- cent of injury/fatality accidents involve new drivers. That means 84 percent involve non- new drivers. Maybe we should be putting restrictions on non-new drivers, by that stupid analogy. Maybe the point they’re trying to make is that it’s seven percent of drivers being involved in 16 percent of crashes. That's not a bad thing though. This statistic doesn’t say that new drivers CAUSED the accident. They could have caused it or they could have been the ones hit. If my dad is driving and he hits someone, according to these statistics, there’s a seven per- cent chance he'd hit a new driver. Personally, I feel there is a lot more than seven percent of our population with new driver signs that are actively on the road. Why don’t they give us statistics of who's on the road more? I’m willing to bet that if you looked at what vehicles are on the road, right now, more than seven percent would be new drivers. All those experienced drivers are at work all day. New drivers are teenagers who get out of school at 2:30 pm and have the rest of the day to drive around, cause trouble, have fun, whatever. So these statistics they gave us are bullshit. I'd say it’s pretty damn great that only 16 per- cent of accidents include new drivers, consider- ing a hell of a lot more than that are on the road at any given time. “We expect the changes to reduce crashes involving new drivers by 15,000 over the next three years, with 3,500 fewer crashes involving fatalities or injuries,” Coleman said. “We are giving new drivers more time to learn the com- plex task of driving in all seasons under the supervision of experienced drivers.” I can tell you right now, crashes involving new drivers are going to increase. When that hap- pens, you can say to the people around you, “Andrew told us this would happen.” Oh, they're giving new drivers more time to learn? Just because they have to wait longer doesn’t mean they're actually going to practise their driving more. I strongly urge anyone who agrees with what I’m saying to email Rich Coleman and give him a piece of your mind. And no, I’m not com- plaining about all this because of my own per- sonal suffering. I’m not even subject to these shitty rules—however I’m angered that my friends and fellow young citizens have to suffer at the hands of a narrow-minded adult who fails to grasp the mindset of younger people. Younger people who like to go out and have fun, and aren't going to listen to unreasonable rules. Page 9