Calling out GQ magazine on some double-pleated shite.

Yeah, these two are the problem.

So, I picked up the latest issue of GQ to read on the plane. I like looking at all the cool shit men can own, wear and do. Provided you’re super f-cking rich. (More on that later.) Anyway, I get to this piece, “The Least Influential People of 2014” and topping the list, at Numero Uno, is “Bono and U2.” The editors were leveling some serious hate on the Irish band because they “strong-armed” their “dad-rock” into your iTunes “without your consent.” For those unawares, U2 released their new album, Songs of Innocence for free. The magazine called it a piece of “direct mail.”

Oh, the indignity!

A little history: Apple and U2 go back ten years in a relationship that helped launch the iPod as well as taking the iTunes platform to a whole ‘nutha level. Remember those iconic commercials in 2004, featuring the band’s hit, Vertigo? Nobody complained.

But that was then. If ever there was proof ‘no good deed goes unpunished’ this latest U2/Apple collaboration is it. Were U2 & Apple presumptuous in their noble deed? Maybe even pretentious? Probably.

But so is GQ. Frankly, GQ has been on a vanity trip as long as Bono has. And as for being “least influential” what exactly has GQ given us, other than inferiority complexes? Who among the working class can even buy anything in GQ? A pair of boots for two grand? A watch for 24k. Give me a f–cking break. “Dad-rock?” Who else besides movie stars and trust-fund babies can afford any of the shit from GQ magazine? That’s right. Dads. And only a small handful of those at that. Hating on a 50-yr-old do-gooder like Bono for giving his work away reeks of annoying millennial hipsterism if not downright hypocrisy.

Speaking of which, in GQ’s advice section, The Style Guy an editor criticizes wearing sweat clothes outside of the gym, blithely suggesting they are “worn by oversize bouncers, bodyguards and repo men in the hip hop industry.” Fair enough. And classist. Yet, on page 34 they show a dude wearing sweatpants ($320!) with a sweater ($400), shirt ($350) and jacket costing one grand. Later, “GQ’s exclusive advertising section” pays tribute to the winner of Express’s Back2Business contest, Nick Taranto. Dude is wearing sweats pants. He is not in a gym. Nick is drinking coffee in someone’s loft. There are other sweats-wearing people in this issue, both advertorial and editorial.

They’re fancy but they’re sweats.

GQ, I’m calling bullshit on your double standards. What’s worse than a man purse? A douche bag.

Final Note: After Bono, GQ chose Barack Obama as the second “least influential person of 2014.” Both men appear before Donald Sterling. Which makes sense, I suppose, if you’re a douche bag.

The real outrage over Phil Robertson’s homophobic rant is the hypocricy of being outraged by it.

“Er, I thought you liked my ignorance.”

I’m not surprised, offended or even “disappointed” that Phil Robertson from A&E’s hit show Duck Dynasty went on a homophobic rant at some dumbass bible study. What I am surprised about is the network’s surprise about it. After all, that’s what ignorant white trash does: they go on homophobic rants. And racist ones. And sexist ones. And so on.

Actually, I’m not surprised at all. And neither is the network. A&E and every other reality TV producer knowingly open Pandora’s Box as soon as they put cameras on these misfits.

Isn’t that the whole point to reality TV? We want to see buffoons make fools of them selves. We tune in hoping tonight’s the night a ticking time bombs goes off. Why is it okay if Honey Boo Boo gorges herself on poisonous junk food but God forbid any vitriol comes out of her mouth? Or how about those ass clowns on Jersey Shore? You don’t think amidst all the f-bombs they don’t drop the N-word or myriad gay slurs? Of course they do. You know it. I know it. And the two-faced networks know it. Yet we impose an invisible code of conduct upon them when it comes to more sensitive areas like race or sexuality, even if they don’t.

If this were truly reality TV, A&E wouldn’t suspend the dude at all. Duck Dynasty is their number one show, raking in boffo ratings and money precisely because these Duckheads are backwoods idiots. Idiots, I might add, that we made famous.

Therefore, we should see what we’ve created, enabled and rallied around. Society should know the real reality. Call it a teachable albeit uncomfortable moment. If nothing else spare us the mock outrage.

Axl Rose: one in a million.

Some time ago at the height of Guns & Roses’ powers, their moody psychopath of a singer, Axl Rose put out a song called One in a Million. It contained racist and homophobic lyrics. Outrage ensued. We demanded an explanation. We expected atonement. We wanted Axl to change his tune.

Are you kidding me? He was and is a ticking time bomb. You can’t ask a bomb to forgive itself for detonating. When we demand a bomb to apologize for exploding we are the ones who need changing. Axl Rose and Phil Robertson are supposed to be vulgar. We reward them with riches for being so. But then we want to punish them for crossing a line. Now who’s being stupid?

Is it hypocrisy to advertise (even celebrate) the Vegas lifestyle and then crucify those who enjoy it?

What happens in Vegas…

Is Tiger Woods a naughty boy, a truly bad man or merely a very, very famous person who got caught? I learned a long time ago not to cast stones at someone for his or her indiscretions. And I won’t here. My bet is few professional athletes come out against Tiger for much the same reason. They know too well the temptations that come with being a celebrity. They know how easy it is to cross the line. After all, these are young, obscenely rich men. They are worshipped and fawned over. Millions adore these athletes (and rock stars and movie stars and politicians and so on). Adoration can take many forms, some of which are quite alluring. In their Gucci loafers, what would you do?

Whether we participate in immoral activity or not, it’s safe to say we are titillated by it. Consider our most popular TV shows and films. The Real Housewives. The Bachelor. The 40-year Old Virgin. The Hangover and Knocked Up. Adultery is the most popular topic on earth. And that’s the mainstream! Pornography was (is) by far the most lucrative market for VHS and DVD rentals. The digital age has only increased this ardor. Fantasies and their fulfillment are alive and well on the Internet.

And then there’s advertising. The byline on my blog states ‘We make you want what you don’t need.’ I could have just as easily shortened it to ‘We make you want.’ And want and want and want. Granted, lusting after a flat screen TV is not the same as coveting a comely TV star but, according to most spiritual principles, wanton want is very much a sin. Creating it can be no less of one. For obvious reasons I hope I’m wrong.

Getting back to Tiger. It seems he’s quite the player.  The pun is intended. A “player” knows how to have a good time and where to go to have one. For many of us (Tiger included), that place is Vegas. And nothing sums this up better than its notorious tagline: What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Even though gambling is also a sin, I don’t think I have to point out that they are not talking about roulette.

As Woods (and many before him) found out, the Vegas hall pass for infidelity is only imaginary. (In the digital age nothing stays private.) But the advertising doesn’t make this distinction. On the contrary, the advertising would have you believe your fantasies are not only permitted in Vegas they are expected. And it does a damn good job of it. I think just about everyone on earth (men and women) winks when they hear about Bob’s trip to Vegas. And we’re the prudes! In other countries, they don’t even bat an eye.

An old boss of mine once told me that every good ad makes the consumer think they are going to get laid if only they’d use the product. He was talking about spirits advertising but in a way he was talking about all advertising. We make you want and the keenest form of want is lust.

So, to my original question: Is this hypocrisy? How can society cut down a person for participating in activities we not only advertise but also celebrate? Adam succumbed to temptation and we are no better. In the end, how we behave is our own affair, so to speak. That is until we get caught.

Order my novel on Amazon

Follow me on Twitter