U-2 Lets Us Down Again

 

Now, don't take me wrong.  I began as a U-2 fan, but it's been a while.  Back in the late 1980s, for instance, U-2 songs got me through the hard work and isolation of one summer in particular.  Their music meant quite a bit to me back then, working on Whidbey Island.  Fast forward a few decades, and I even served as a guest DJ of sorts on Sirius XM's U2 channel, where I highlighted songs like Sunday Bloody Sunday, Where the Streets Have No Name (with Amazing Grace segue), and 40.

The remakes of the classic songs were irritating, but I didn't say much about them.  I will say now that they feel like all the power and testosterone have been sucked out of them.  I recall them whining recently about artists being allowed to change their style.  I can understand that as a writer.  I wrote a collection of short stories for a somewhat similar reason.  It remains, however, that artists, musicians, and authors can adopt whichever style they may prefer, but it doesn't mean their audience is locked into supporting their new works.  Frequently, the audiences are not.  When groups like U-2 rewrite classic songs in such a strange, discordant way, it betrays, in my mind, a degree of disrespect toward their original audience.

Add to that, and now Bono is endeavoring to stoke hysteria and anger in the United States concerning certain political issues du jour.  I am seriously tired of being preached to by wealthy, out-of-touch entertainers who embrace whichever cause they think will further their careers.  They preach the dangers of carbon whilst traveling on their private aircraft: hypocrites!  At one point, the band emphasized Christianity and truth before the lie, then, some decades later, they supported the legalization of infanticide in Ireland.  I am getting to the point of being sorely tempted to get rid of their music.  For now, I will remember them as they were and not as they are or have become.  They are such a disappointment.

Sophie's...Choice (A Short Review of America's Favorite Pet)

So, I wanted to wait to comment on this contest until our cat Sophie was officially out of the running for the $10k, and that officially happened this morning.  This has been a very odd pet competition.  First of all, there is nothing suspicious here.  From what I have gathered, they really do award the dollars and feature one's pet on their magazine cover.  (PAWS itself has a high rating with Charity Navigator.)  My issue is not so much a potential scam issue as a matter of contest transparency and ethical concerns.  From the start, the organizers try to convey an inflated likelihood that one's pet will win the grand prize.  One way they accomplish this is to divide contestants into numerous small groups.  The contestant may quickly believe he is much higher in the rankings than he actually is.  You may notice the pay-for-vote feature in this contest and not think too much of it at first, but, having given it considerable thought for many weeks now, I have begun to notice an almost poker-like nature to the game for those who used the buy votes/points feature.  

Not only does the contest require daily votes (one can always cast a single vote for free; competitors can't buy votes, but their family can), but it also constantly encourages competitors to take action to improve their animal's ranking.  While the paid votes go towards a non-profit called PAWS, it would be very easy for someone with poor judgment to spend excessively to promote their pet to the top spot.  So, that's criticism number one.  This contest has less to do with the cutest animal and more to do with the votes (purchased or otherwise) that are behind the respective pets.  My second main criticism is that this encourages people to reach out repeatedly.  Even with humor and a tongue-in-cheek approach to my messages, I still had one person comment that I should perhaps avoid entering this contest in the future.  That's also because it drags on week after week.

While two of my books are traditionally published and one is with a hybrid publisher, several of my eBooks are self-published.  The constant request for votes is reminiscent of practices and habits I have witnessed in some parts of the self-publishing industry.  This repetition for the vote request is annoying not only to the contestant but particularly to the prospective voter.  Having to remember to log in daily to vote at about the same time is also a royal pain in the you know what.  Several people also reported difficulties logging in on their phones, and those without a Facebook profile apparently couldn't vote at all.  This raises another interesting criticism: ageism of a sort.

With older prospective voters arguably less adept at navigating the required online submission steps, which appear to require a Facebook account as well, the younger demographic has a slight edge in this category of online contest.  Others have reported privacy concerns with all of the requested information.

So, in summary, while America's Favorite Pet isn't a scam, it falls short on contest clarity, seems to encourage a gambling mindset, and it almost requires repetitive and annoying calls for votes from one's potential pool of friends and family.  It also appears to tilt the vote toward the younger competitors, who are more adept at navigating online requirements and less concerned about associated privacy risks.  If it were truly about the cutest pet, that would be fine.  As it is, it's a cash cow in the guise of a pet contest.