Is a Class B CDL the most cost-efficient type of job skill with the best guaranteed ROI?
There’s a strong case to be made for it.
Yes, there are all sorts of free tutorials and courses on YouTube and elsewhere for things like copywriting, digital marketing, YouTube channels, blogging, coding, day trading, dropshipping, SEO, flipping, niche websites, and numerous other categories.
But none of those side hustles or online businesses offer much in the way of guaranteed results or job placement. Some of them have a steeper learning curve than many anticipate, tons of competition, and may require lengthy amounts of time before yielding any real income.
Frankly, many courses and tutorials are simply pie-in-the-sky scams that rely on outlier results to appear legitimate.
But suppose you’re broke, unemployed, or simply looking for a practical (and legit) new career path, and you need something that, you know, actually works, and you need it right now.
In that case, getting a Class B CDL might be your best option.
Comparatively speaking, few jobs come close to the benefits a CDL B can offer in terms of length of training, training costs, and most importantly, return on investment (meaning income).
For instance, there are people who spend four years in college and graduate with $32,731 of student loan debt, but end up with few or no job prospects.
Nursing school or medical technician training for CT or MRI usually takes 2–4 years to complete, and may cost tens of thousands of dollars. Though the payoff can be huge, and almost anything in the medical field offers great job security.
The average income in the U.S. for a lawyer is $144,230. That’s fantastic income, obviously. But you generally only make the higher end of the scale by working in places where the cost of living and taxation are higher (NY and CA, for instance). Then there’s the costly tuition and the lengthy time commitment: Seven years between college and law school.
Professional graduate-level careers in law, medicine, and engineering are no doubt prestigious and offer great incomes. But they come with subtantial sacrifice. You trade almost 10% of your life away to obtain them, during which time you generally make no income and can incur massive debt. And frankly, few people are cut out to be lawyers, doctors, and engineers.
How Much Do CDL B Drivers Make?
By contrast, you can get a CDL B in as little as two weeks, for as little as maybe $3,000 (or even free with tuition reimbursment), and expect to make an average of $48,196 in annual income.
The salary ranges between $35,000 to about $65,000 depending on where you work, your level of experience, and your license endorsements (hazard, air brakes, tanker).
In addition, with a Class B CDL, like nursing and other occupations that require specialized training, you have good job security. You can go virtually anywhere in any state and find places hiring truck drivers for above the median income for the US. Some states like Wyoming pay an average salary of $57,728 for drivers.
That’s a remarkable ROI for an “investment” of only two weeks, and maybe only $3,000 in total costs.
Some companies might even offer to pay for truck driving school as part of your overall job training. This is the case in currently worker-deprived fields like construction, petroleum, or mining, where you might be expected operate various forms of heavy equipment and machinery.
You can also obtain a Class B CDL when you’re as young as 18 years old. Which means that if you were to start driving right out of high school, by the time your college-bound peers graduated, you would likely have made over $200,000 in income. Meanwhile, your diploma-having peers are jobless or underemployed, and mired in student loan debt.
Is truck driving glamorous or prestigious? Of course not. Most jobs aren’t. But when it comes to offering practical, secure, and efficiently fast job training, a CDL B offers some of the best bang for your buck.
Photo of myself. Donating double red cells or “Power Red” at a recent Red Cross blood drive.
As I’ve written before, I’m a life-long Red Cross blood donor, first starting at age 17 during a blood drive in my high school.
Initially, I gave out of a desire to cure my needle-phobia (which worked, btw). But after seeing the kind of strong impact you can have on patients in need by donating blood, not to mention the positive effects I felt after giving, I started to donate regularly over the years.
Last Thursday, October 18th, was my 31st donation. Generally, I donate whole blood when I visit. During a whole blood donation, you give approximately a pint of blood. The process usually only takes about fifteen minutes. Whole blood of all types is vitally important for millions of people every year. My blood type is O+, which is the most common, according to the Red Cross. This allows my donations to help about 80% of the US population, as O+ is compatible with any positive blood types. But every kind of blood type is always needed.
In addition to donating whole blood, you can also give other blood products, like platelets and plasma. You’ve likely heard of places where you can sell your plasma for cash, or maybe even done so yourself.
You can also donate red blood cells, which are the most needed component in blood. In fact, you can donate double the amount of red cells as you would in a typical whole blood donation. The Red Cross calls this type of donation Power Red.
When I lived around Philadelphia, it was easy to set up regular appointments to donate whole blood. For a few years I went like clockwork almost every two months, as soon as I was eligible. But after moving to North Dakota in 2012, it became more difficult to schedule donations regularly. In fact, the Red Cross doesn’t even have blood drives in the state, but in Minnesota and Montana next door. This meant I not only had to drive quite a distance to each blood drive, but my days off from work had to align as well. As a result, I missed a lot of opportunities to donate due to blood drives and my schedule not lining up right.
However, while you’re eligible to give whole blood every two months (56 days), in a double red cell donation, you’re not eligible for double the time (112 days), while still being able to give the same amount of the most needed component in blood itself. This means fewer trips, which makes Power Red donations more suitable for busy working adults like myself, or for those who have to coordinate road trips to a Red Cross blood drive (also me). Three times a year is quite doable.
Up until last Thursday, I’d only been able to donate Power Red successfully twice, way back in 2013. I’d tried and failed twice since then due to either bad needle sticks, or my vein not cooperating, thereby ruining the chance to give. This put me off the whole process for a while. If I’m making a special trip and possibly taking time off work to give blood, you’re getting my blood and that’s all there is to it.
(I take this whole blood donation thing rather seriously.)
Double red cell donation is a little different than just giving whole blood. For one, the process takes about 30 minutes or so. It also involves using a blood centrifuge. This special machine separates the red blood cells from your blood, leaving the rest of your fluids in a bag. Then afterward it returns those fluids back into the same needle into your vein, along with some saline. The machine performs this twice, each time taking the amount of red blood cells that you would normally give in a whole blood donation.
I’ve posted a short video below I took while the machine was returning my fluids and saline back into my body:
So, what does it feel like? Well, it’s a strange sensation having parts of my blood returning to my body. Even though the saline is at room temperature, and mixing in with your warmer fluids, it still feels cold going back in. Remember, your body’s internal temperature is typically around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, so anything even a few degrees lower feels much colder. My lips began to tremble, or at least it felt like they did, while the fluids reentered. This is a reaction due to the brain thinking the body is short on calcium, as the nurse explained it to me.
The process is pretty quiet and smooth. And aside from the needle stick, basically painless. While the machine extracted my blood, I was given a ball to gently squeeze in my hand. On the screen there’s what looks like a little video game “health bar” that would indicate whether the “pump was primed.” A beep sounded if the machine needed me to squeeze the ball to help keep the blood flowing. Then, when the machine switched over to returning my red cell-less fluids, I just needed to relax my arm without squeezing anything.
Other than the coldness and the phantom lip trembling, double red cell feels the same as any other blood donation. Though there are some advantages over whole blood. For instance, I felt less diminished afterward. Usually it takes me a few days, even a week or so, to feel like my normal self again after whole blood. But because my blood “volume” so to speak didn’t change as much due to getting some of my fluids back, I felt normal again in only about two days afterward.
To be clear, in a double red cell donation, you’re still giving TWICE the red cells as you would in a whole blood one, so your body needs twice the time to replenish the red blood cells it lost. Even if you feel good, be sure to consume quality foods rich in iron so your body can recover, as they told me before I left. And of course drink plenty of water.
Pic by author. Donating whole blood in the summer.
Another benefit is you’ll have fewer needle sticks over time. Like many long-term Red Cross donors, I’ve developed tiny little “battle scars” in the crook of my left arm. While these marks aren’t really noticable, the less time a vein is injected the better. I have a good vein, but it’s flatter than it appears, making it a tricky target to stick for even an experienced nurse or phlebotomist. Combined with my naturally low blood pressure, it can make donating double red cells a delicate operation. Perhaps this is why I had failed at it twice years ago.
When you combine the time efficiency advantages with the physical ones, making a double red cell donation is a pretty good deal overall. I think from now on I’ll try to stick to Power Red. I hope you’ll consider giving it a try, too. 🙂
Man, she’s beautiful. Oh, wait, she’s 24? Sorry, hideous is what I meant.
You know, Red Pillers — these supposed experts on gender relations and female psychology — tend to speak of women like they are the scientist dudes in a cheesy 1950s sci-fi movie talking about the monster. Attack of the 50 Foot Woman or something. Or like how all those guys in The Thing were discussing the bizarre alien creature that could imitate them perfectly. With that cynical tone of powerlessness and hopelessness.
In fact, that’s a great idea for a bad comedy. A bunch of dudes freak out over a “monster” that shows up in their neighborhood, only for it to be just some random chick who scares them all to death for some reason.
“Good lord, the monster’s growing in height!”
“I think she just put on high heels, Johnson.”
To me, whether you’re a man or woman, if you’re discussing either gender with that resigned, angry, and defeated tone, you’ve already lost the game. You’re basically admitting you can’t functionally engage with and/or despise 50% of the world population. Not a good look.
I don’t have a love/hate relationship with the Red Pill. I have a 5% kind of like, 60% don’t like, 20% actively hate, and like 15% puzzled-by relationship. And 2% butterscotch ripple.
In so far as some Red Pill content encourages guys to follow generic platitudes like “be the best version of yourself” or “level up,” I’m okay with it. The problem is when the Red Pill steps into this weird dogmatic zone where it theorizes cookie-cutter psychology about men and women, starts prescribing a weird laundry list of actions and behaviors young men should do to “get da gurlz,” and hilariously tries to define “Alpha Male.”
One prominant Red Piller even thinks the Australian Party Guy from this 15-year old viral video is the definition of an alpha male. No, I’m not kidding. APG is cool and all, but men like Dwight D. Eisenhower or Tom Brady strike me as way better examples of alpha males than some party dude wearing sunglasses.
The Red Pill Alpha Male.
Then there’s the Red Pill’s obsession with women’s age and the whole concept of the Wall. Likely, you’ve heard of it. It’s basically the idea that women’s “sexual marketplace value,” (SMV) begins to decline precipitously at around age 30 and beyond. What is SMV? How much dudes want to bang you, pretty much. It also measures reproductive ability, as a woman’s chances to become pregnant declines as she ages until menopause shuts the window for good.
However, this “wall” idea very often becomes conflated with “beauty,” both muddling the concept overall. As “women are beauty objects” and “men are success objects,” as the maxim goes, Red Pillers cheatingly hand themselves a permanent trump card. Afterall, physical beauty obviously declines while “success” has no upper limit.
Wow, what a hottie! Oh, no. She turned 24 yesterday? Yuck, I can’t bear to even look at her now.
It all comes across as a giant cope, really. As if Red Pillers are saying that while women have all the advantages when they’re young and beautiful — ha ha — that only lasts briefly, girls. Meanwhile we men are able to dominate with the opposite sex our whole lives as long we’re leveling up.
Then there’s the constantly shifting goal posts.
For years I kept hearing age 30 was the magical wall number. Then it suddenly became 25. Now I’m hearing it’s as low as 23!
I think this one X user Maggie put it best here:
Ladies, we're facing severe wall inflation. First, it was 30, then 25, and now 23. Sad state of affairs.
I predict before long the “prime” female age in Red Pill world will creep on down to 18. Every man should be assessing potential mates the same way a porn producer casts new talent, evidently. Or the way a john hires an escort for the evening. Let’s not think of things like personal chemistry, values, or lifestyle when examining a partner — none of those things matter.
By the way, has anyone told Travis Kelce that Taylor Swift is 33 years old? OMG, dude has no idea he’s dating a wall-smashed mutant monster freak! What a pathetic loser he is.
* * *
The nice thing about Red Pillers is you don’t have to examine much of their dogma very closely to see how absurd a lot of it is on its face. Most of these guys simply don’t pass the smell test at a glance. Really, go scroll through the mix if you care to waste the time. Most of them are angry middle-aged guys who got shanked in divorce court, or weird anti-social types who just can’t function properly.
The conspiratorial part of me suspects that the Red Pill is part of a broader depopulation psyop at worst. Or at the least bad theater in the attempt to jigger the YouTube algo for profit.
But all that aside, the Red Pill too often runs afoul of my individualist perspective with its wholesale generalities about the genders to be useful as anything other than “carnival philsophy.” Akin to palm reading or crystal ball gazing. Look, both sexes have their share of assholes, no doubt. But I think you can only look at people as individuals. Trying to lump a whole gender into some easily understandable mass is counter-productive and frankly, rather weird. It’s also why feminism, aka the female Red Pill, is a crock of shit for the most part as well.
Talk to Me was a movie I instantly wanted to see immediately after catching that freaky AF trailer. It gave me Hellraiser and It Follows vibes. Plus it’s nice to see an independent horror that’s not associated with the The Conjuring universe. A24 — the Nike swoosh of the indy horror world —has done me good thus far, with prior entries like Ari Aster’s Midsommar and his instant classic Hereditary.
While I still had some reservations, being equally reminded of similar godawful teen “prop horror” films like Truth or Dare, Wish Upon, and Unfriended, I was still looking forward to checking it out.
Unfortunately, I live pretty remotely from any decent theaters. The one a two hour’s drive away from me, where I saw Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning, Part 1 this summer, had a giant tear or rip or something going right down the middle of the screen. So I wasn’t about to waste time or money on that one again. So, I was forced to wait until Talk to Me finally arrived on streaming, and for a decent price.
Was the wait worth it? Absolutely.
The premise of Talk to Me is at-a-superficial-glance silly — a group of teens use the embalmed hand of a dead medium to conjure spirits for fun and games, until one of them takes it too far and things turn murdery. We’ve seen this sort of set-up before, in which a group of young people screw around with the spirits and quickly get in over their heads. Such as in the miniature Ouija franchise from 2014 and 2016.
However, while many horror films have a slick and disposable feel to them, TTM boasts a strong cast that really manages to capture that elusive organic sense of a genuine group of teen friends. The standout is lead Sophie Wilde, playing Mia, whose spellbound facial contortions are ones for the ages.
Source: A24.
It Follows has a similar group dynamic aesthetic, but in a more subdued laid back Midwestern style. TTM, with its Australian energy, actually has one of the most amusing montage moments I’ve ever seen in a horror, if any film, period, where the friends all take turns getting temporarily possessed by the spirits they conjure with the evil hand. The camera work by director and writers Danny and Michael Philippou is clever and Evil Dead-esque in spots, and appropriately playful in the beginning.
But it’s not long before Mia falls prey to the tricky (and kinky) evil spirits on the other side of the hand. The rules for the game Talk to Me are pretty straightforward, if a little dubious. You light a candle to “open the door” so to speak. Grip the hand and first say, “talk to me,” Then a spirit only you can see will appear. You then say “I invite you in,” to let the spirit swoop into your body, where you experience what can only be described as a three-way cross between a rollercoaster ride, a mushroom trip, and an orgasm. But be careful not to let yourself stay possessed longer than 90 seconds, or forget to blow out the candle, or else the spirits will be able to linger, and get in your head.
When Mia’s dead mother appears to her, who died from suicide recently, she sees this as her only chance to reconnect with the parent she dearly misses. Except this is exactly what the evil spirits are looking for. They then try to manipulate Mia into killing so they can absorb another soul, with the “mom” spirit taking the lead. Evidently freshly dead spirits (or demons, it’s left amibiguous) are charged with possessing the next batch of suckers. Sort of like an afterlife pyramid scheme. Herbalife from beyond the grave. Talk about pure evil.
I judge horror on whether the story slithers into my mind and haunts me for a spell, as opposed to cheap jumpscares or profuse corn syrup. This one checked all the right boxes. As did Hereditary and even the original Saw, which is underrated as it is forgotten under the weight of a million sequels.
It’s also nice that Talk to Me doesn’t fall to the temptation of trying to be another “social horror.” Though it does make relevant thematic use of social media and drug abuse. And while the dead parent trope is often overused — Midsommar did it for instance— TTM wisely doesn’t center everything around it. Where the narrative of last year’s Smile was effective but thin, and ended somewhat unsatisfyingly, Talk’s ended in — spoilers incoming — quite frankly, terrifying fashion, if a tad predictable. I’d always imagined Jack Torrance’s spirit winding up in a similar way. Trapped discorporate at the Overlook Hotel forever and trying to bugger the living, just as our protag Mia ends up on the opposite side of the evil hand, with an ill-fitting and existentialist nightmare fate reminiscent of Craig’s demise in Being John Malkovich.
Talk to Me ia good creepy stuff that’s worth checking out.
Thanks for reading. Feel free to check out some of my other articles linked below. I’m also a novelist. You can check out my books here.
And God only knows what she could be doing to Travis Kelce.
Source: Made with Midjourney by the author. Taylor sitting on her pile of gold.
Taylor Swift is a woman of many talents. A global pop queen and beauty icon, serial boyfriend dumper, and one of the OG YouTube success stories. With her massively successful Eras Tour now in its international leg, and her docu-concert movie premiering in theaters this week, Taylor Swift is well on her way to becoming a billionaire.
Well, you can add brain damager to the growing list of her innumerable accolades.
Attendees of Taylor’s Eras Tour concerts are reporting a strange side effect that’s causing them to forget large gaps of her performance.
Fox News reports, according to Dr. Nathan Carroll, a psychiatrist at the Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center, that this is actually a legit neorological condition called transient global amnesia. Or TGA.
Says Dr. Carroll:
Individuals who experience TGA will attend an event (like a concert, wedding or festival) and later report undeniable gaps in their memory. For example, during the event, it may look like you’re acting normally and answering questions — but later, you may not recall some of your conversations. Unlike other amnesias, memory loss is very limited, only lasting about a day, and people don’t forget [autobiographical] information.
In other words, Taylor Swift is so damn good she’s literally blowing people’s minds. Hey, nothing wrong with that, right?
Dr. Carroll goes on to explain that other things like poor sleep, dehydration, anxiety, and anticipation can also cause the brain to blackout portions of activity. Somewhat frightening is also how Swifties don’t even realize TGA is happening to them until much later when they ironically remember that they forgot so much.
TGA reminds me of that weird driving phenomenon called “highway hypnosis.” This is where you drive for long periods of time without recollecting most of the trip. It can happen on short drives from work, or lengthy drives across the state. No doubt blasting “Shake It Off”makes it even worse.
Dr. Soha Salman, another psychiatrist working at the ridiculously wordy Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center, also blames other unique aspects of Taylor’s concerts like the nostalgia vibes and the emotional connection fans have to her music.
The doctor mentions how things like elevated blood pressure, stress hormones, and the release of cortisol and adrenaline could also be causing the mass short-circuiting of Swiftie brains.
But it’s what Dr. Salman had to say about the use of cell phones that interested me most:
By simultaneously trying to use your phone and watch the concert, you may overtax your working memory and affect your ability to store those specific memories.
Studies have also found that when we are recording something with our smartphones, we are relying on them to remember for us. This could lead to poorer recall of the event later.
Experiencing concerts and other events through the smartphone is something I’ve noticed has become a bizarre modern trend. I realize many are using social media apps to share what’s happening with their friends. But then aren’t you short-changing yourself by missing out on what’s happening right in front of you by acting as a virtual host? Seems counter-productive and unnecessarily burdensome.
Real friends would tell you to pay attention and enjoy the show, and not worry about sharing every second of it with them. Live in the moment. But then I guess everyone feels entitled these days to digitally inhabit someone else’s point of view. “If phone says I can, then I should,” is the mantra.
People vastly overestimate how much “mental bandwidth” they’re capable of sustaining. And in the case of TGA, they’re overextending themselves and losing their memories in the process.
Not to mention their wallets. Taylor Swift tickets ain’t cheap. At her last U.S. stop at SoFi stadium some tickets were going into the five digits, with the cheapest in the nose bleed sections as much as $700 or more. A hefty price for what turned out to be, well, a forgettable experience.
Ms. Taylor Swift could do her devoted fans a big favor by telling them to put away the phones during the concert. At least for a little while. That is, unless she wants to be forgotten.
A term used to describe a type of film just released but not worth seeing other than for the temporary comfort provided by the theater’s climate control system during a heat wave.
“with the trailers indicating the film’s dubious quality, and its low Rotten Tomatoes score, he designated Wrong Turn an air conditioning movie.”
I’m not sure if the above term has ever been used before. If not, I’m coining it now.
There have been several points in my life where I’ve been forced to stay outdoors, or simply couldn’t stand being at home, while also being bored enough to waste my money on absolute junk films I had no real interest in seeing. All of which coincided with summer time heat waves.
Air conditioning movies serve an important purpose. One might even say a humanitarian one. They get you out of the murderous heat, at the cost of seeing a (usually) bad film. Often these films are matinees of movies that have been in theaters for a few weeks. Or they’re being shown at those dollar theaters six months after they premiered. So they often only cost a few bucks to see.
Fun Fact: One of the big draws movie theaters used in the past was air conditioning to get people in the door. Back before TV’s became ubiquitous in American homes, people would spend all day at the theater catching news reels, Three Stooges shorts, Looney Tunes, and movies, of course. It used to be relatively cheap, too.
Nowadays, you can’t sneeze in a movie theater without spending $100. And God help you if you’re seeing something in REAL ID 3D, IMAX, IMAX 3D, UltraScreen DLX, D-BOX, PRIME, RPX, Cinemark XD, DreamLoungers, attending a Movie Party, Dolby Cinema, ScreenX, 4DX, The Void, 70mm, or BigD.
Yes, you can now go to the theater to get your fill of BigD. No wonder dating is dead.
Here are five air conditioning movies I’ve seen.
Wrong Turn (2003)
Source: By The poster art can or could be obtained from 20th Century Fox (All US rights, UK DVD)Pathé (UK theatrical)New RegencySummit Entertainment (non-USA)., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1380504
Boy, if ever a movie had a perfect title to describe what it felt like to drive to go see it.
I remember little about this film other than it was part of the early 2000s resurgence of the “killer hillbilly” horror genre originally started by The Texas Chainsaw Massacre back in the ’70s and renewed with 2001’s Jeepers Creepers.
Oh yes, one other thing. The moment the group of young people split up to look for help after their cars break down in the woods, some girl immediately offers her boyfriend a BJ. Hey, I don’t recall reading anything about that in any wilderness survival guide. Maybe it’s only in the ladies version.
Unlike Chainsaw, which was perfectly plotless, perversely original and shocking for its time, Wrong Turn is your predictable paint by numbers teens-get-slaughtered-by-maniacs film, only this time somewhere deep in the woods. It came out not long after the Scream and I Know What You did Last Summer renaissance. Lacking neither the smarts of the former, nor the bosomy charisma of the latter, Wrong Turn premiered during a time when all it took to sell a horror film was to slap a hot teen girl in a halter top on the cover looking moderatly distressed.
Apparently, this awful but profitable 2003 release launched a direct-to-video franchise and even a freaking REBOOT. There’s a Wrong Turn 6: Last Resort that came out in 2014, followed by Wrong Turn in 2021. Hmm, I wonder if some producers weren’t inspired by the same name style Halloween reboot in 2018? We can only gue$$.
I rate Wrong Turn a perfect five out of five air conditioners.
If you weren’t alive during, or don’t remember the time when Tom Green was everywhere on MTV, you sorely missed out. I’m still not sure his whole rise to fame wasn’t an elaborate CIA psyop designed to lower America’s IQ by ten points. Though to be fair, you could say that about virtually any social media star nowadays.
Freddy Got Fingered is a subtly brilliant meta deconstruction of the gross-out comedy genre. I know it’s hard to believe that about a film with a title about sexual molestation. But by the late ’90s, Tom Green had risen high enough to earn a blank check from MTV to make anything he wanted.
So what does he do? He makes a “film” with some of the most ridiculously disgusting gross out scenes ever put to celluloid. There’s a scene where he delivers a baby, and then proceeds to swing the infant around the hospital room by its umbilical cord. A scene where he gets sprayed by elephant cum. Then there’s a recurring gag about a young kid who keeps getting seriously injured.
And those are just some of the scenes I remember. I’ve suppressed the rest just like I did with all those Bill Cosby Jell-O commercials from the ’80s.
Oh hell no!
This so-called movie is essentially one man giving Hollywood the finger. Tom Green could have produced a solid high-concept comedy. He could have been like Mike Myers and done his own Austin Powers. Or like Adam Sandler and his many man baby comedies. He could have done a clever Shakespeare-inspired teen comedy like 10 Things I Hate About You. Comedy was easy in the ’90s and early 2000s, because you didn’t have to compete with the internet and streaming platforms. Seriously, there was a five-year period where Cameron Diaz having cum in her hair was the absolute height of yucks. Good times.
Instead, Tom Green made Freddy Got Fingered. For that, I feel he deserves some credit.
I rate Freddy somehow six out of five air conditoners.
Man, what a run by Sacha Baron Cohen. After his 2006 film Borat made fifty bazillion dollars, and inspired bad impressions at parties for years to come, he popped out this little satirical nugget in 2012.
The Dictator follows an evil despot named Aladeen from a fictional North African nation called Wadiya who fish-out-of-waters in NYC after escaping an assassination plot. Like Freddy Got Fingered, this too has some weird gross-out set pieces, including a scene where Aladeen and his new hippy girlfriend Zoey (played by Anna Faris) somehow share a handshake inside some woman’s birth canal. Don’t ask me how that event came about, it’s down there with Cosby’s Pudding Pops.
The film did make a few notable contributions to the national lexicon and the meme pool cyberspace. Including a clever bit about being HIV Aladeen, a gag about Gen. Aladeen wanting his rockets to be pointy because it makes them look scary, and Aladeen and an associate freaking an American tourist couple out during a helicopter ride over the city.
It feels somewhat loathsome to consign any film starring baby-faced Anna Faris to the lowly status of “air conditioning movie.” The Dictator is a servicable enough comedy, afterall. I actually saw it during a time when I was homeless and living out of my car. The film served as a vital escape and refuge in a dollar theater during a nasty July heat wave. Considering Faris’ lengthy career powered by such films as the Scary Movie franchise and 2007’s stoner comedy Smiley Face, The Dictator is high brow by comparison.
But if I’m being honest, I never would have checked this out had it not been for the fact that it was 100 degrees outside, the local library was closed, and I wasn’t about to sit in my car all afternoon listening to Carly Rae Jepsen sing Call Me Maybe for the umpteenth goddamn time. So off to The Dictator I went.
I rate The Dictator four out of five air conditioners.
You know, I’m not quite sure of the precise moment when Hollywood slid into the barren wasteland devoid of creativity in which it currently resides. But if I had to pick a time, I’d say it was right around when it decided to make a movie based on the popular board game Battleship.
Now, at first glance you might be thinking if you were going to adapt any boardgame, Battleship makes the most sense. It’s got conflict baked into it. Besides, it’s not like you can do anything with Connect 4, Operation, or Hungry Hungry Hippos, right? With Battleship you’ve got war. You’ve got guns. You’ve got senseless action and explosions. All the ingredients you need for any successful summer popcorn film. Transformers was also popular at the time, so you had a similar toy-based property raking in billions. You’d be insane NOT to green light Battleship with a $200 million budget.
Well, there’s this whole thing called a “plot” that has to make some sense. And there’s these things called “characters” you need to have in your story in order for it to work. In Transformers, you have two sides — the Autobots and the Decepticons — locked in combat, and represented by two strong characters, the awesomely named Optimus Prime and Megatron. As silly as the whole franchise is, it kind of writes itself. Good robots smash evil robots. It’s like poetry.
But what do you have in Battleship? Nothing, really. So they had to concoct this whole cockamamie story about an alien invasion and the aliens using some cloaking technology that makes them hard to detect, in order to shoehorn in the whole gameboard conceit of having to guess which grid number to launch missiles toward. It’s all too complicated and stupid to comprehend.
Then you have quite possibly the dumbest opening to a summer “blockbuster” in history, with director Peter Berg ripping off that viral YouTube video about some guy crashing through a store ceiling of a convenence store. You’ve got Taylor Kitsch, the King of Flops, whom Hollywood was desperately (and inexplicably) trying to make a thing back then. Poor Liam Neeson must have been blackmailed or something. And Rihanna was in it too for some reason.
I don’t even recall this movie even being worthwhile even as a mild diversion. In fact, I think I even left early I was so bored. Yes, it was preferable to sit in the burning heat in my car than watch this turd of a film.
I rate Battleship two out of five air conditioners.
An honorable mention goes to Hannibal, the 2001 sequel to 1991’s The Silence of the Lambs. Except that was a film I actually wanted to see, and I recall it came out during the winter, so there were no heat-related considerations in watching it. I do remember about a third of the way through realizing that it was clearly going to fall far short of the original, in which case it’s the only film of these five that transformed into an “air conditioning movie” while I was watching it.
You know, we’re lucky to live in a time where air conditioning movies are largely a thing of the past. Like polio and lobotomies. You rarely have to go to a theater to see anything anymore. With movies streaming earlier after releasing, and video on demand, and good ol’ piracy, we can all suffer to our heart’s content at home.
Still, what are your “favorite” air conditioning movies? I can’t be the only one who’s endured here.
So, about a year ago I was driving across country somewhere in the Midwest and I had to pull in to a travel plaza for some gas. It was one of those stops on the highway that has a fast food restaurant attached. This one, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, had a Mcdonald’s.
As a rule, I avoid fast food places unless it’s late and I’m traveling, and there are no viable alternatives. I was in the middle of a long trip. Usually I pack enough food for a day or two so I don’t have to eat out. Tuna sandwiches. PB&J. Mixed vegetables. Actual sustenance. But it was my third day of driving, and I’d already burned through all my rations. It was getting dark, I had a few more hours of driving to go, and by the time I stopped again it was possible nothing would be open.
That left one hell of a Sophie’s choice. So into McDonald’s I went after parking my car.
You know that shot from The Exorcist when the priest arrives to the house and it looks all foggy and ominous? That’s what I felt like standing outside the door to Ronald McDonald’s Chamber of Misfortune.
Source: “The Exorcist” or Me Entering a Mcdonald’s. Warner Bros. Pictures
“Maybe it won’t be so bad this time,” I stupidly thought as I entered, immediately smelling something that was a cross between a men’s locker room and a public bathroom. There were crumpled napkins on the floor. Crumbs left on tables. Wet rings left from soda cups. Splotches of ketchup all over the condiment counter. Like a party of five-year old’s had just left.
It wasn’t that busy. There were maybe three or four people in there. Middle-aged guys with pot bellies wearing stretched out t-shirts. Creased old white sneakers. A distinct aura of sloth and imbecility. In other words, your regular Mcdonald’s eaters. Not a visting dignitary stricken by an unstoppable masochistic urge due to severe hunger, like myself.
There were several employees wandering behind the counter and in whatever passes for a “kitchen.” Older, mean-looking ladies. I don’t blame them for looking mean. I’d turn into a one hell of a mean SOB too if I had to work at a McDonald’s. But then again, I’d be homeless and living under a bridge before doing that.
Because the old ladies looked so mean I thought better than to order at the counter. I instead turned to one of the glowing, smudgy rectangles nearby. McDonald’s has recently installed these giant smartphone-looking screens in their restaurants that you can order and pay on. This is supposed to make the food ordering process more “efficient.”
I guess they figure people can’t stand to look away from their phones for more than five seconds even to order food, so why not create a giant smartphone for them to order on? Seems genius to me. Who doesn’t want to press their fingers onto the same screen a million other people just touched with their germy, sticky hands?
But whatever, I was starved. And if this screen brought me garbage posing as food into my mouth even ten seconds faster, I’d be perfectly fine with getting hepatitis on my hands. I tapped on the digital menu selections. A simple quarter pounder “meal” with fries and a water. Paid with my card. Then took a little plastic number display to a table in the corner.
FYI, that little plastic number thing usually means someone will BRING your food to you. However, I was about to proven very wrong about this age-old tradition.
So there I waited. And waited. And waited. And no food arrived at my sticky little table. A couple of giant flies did try to land on me, though. And some goober was coughing the whole time in the other corner so hard it sounded like he was hacking up a blood clot. But besides all that unpleasantness, hey it wasn’t that bad.
About ten minutes later I get up and go to the tiny what-passes-for-a-counter counter to inquire about my missing cuisine. Mind you, I was only sitting right off to the corner. Like, if you were working that counter, I’d have been in your peripheral vision. You wouldn’t have even had to turn your head to notice me. But anyway, there my food was, sitting on the counter, getting cold, with the bag wide open. I’d input into the giant smartphone order taker that I wanted a tray as I planned on eating in, as I don’t like to eat and drive, or eat in my car period. And again, I took a plastic number to display on my table. But evidently the highly efficient new system Mcdonald’s had put in had failed to record that request. Either way, I was left with a bag of cold fries and a lukewarm “burger” (yeah right, more like a soggy greased cardboard).
I looked right at Mrs. Sourpuss Face and inquired why no one had brought me my meal.
“We don’t really do that here,” she hissed, and then ducked into the kitchen. I stood there dumbfounded for a moment.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. If you were sitting so close, why didn’t you get up earlier and check to see if your food was there? That’s besides the point. They still put it into a bag instead of on a tray. They left the bag wide open, causing it to get cold. And they weren’t that busy. Like I mentioned earlier, there were just a few buffoons in there when I arrived. They absolutely had time to hand off a simple tray of so-called food just out of courtesy. It’s literally the least the counter people can do. They don’t cook the food. They don’t even take orders for food, with those giant glowing monolith screens. They don’t clean up any tables. So what exactly do they have to do at all other than make customers feel like useless pests?
Dejected, I returned to my table. The food tasted like shit, of course. And after that horrendous service experience, I was pissed off and embarrassed. I’d have enjoyed a meal more sitting in a porta potty than sitting at that goddamn sticky table with the giant prehistoric flies buzzing around and Mr. Hack-A-Lung in the other corner.
Source: McDonald’s menu from the 1970’s.
When the fuck did Mcdonald’s become an absolute dumpster buffet? I remember when Mcdonald’s had a certain mystique. It had the ball pit. It had a play place. It was lively and colorful. Then some dumbass kid probably broke a tooth off on a ball pit ball and that was that. You used to even be able to smoke there. I know it was THE place to go to in the ’70s. That was when Mcdonald’s was at its height, not to mention reasonably affordable to eat at for a regular person. I paid something like $14-$15 for that cold pile of cholesterol-soaked sponges. Now, instead of Mcdonalds being a colorful foodie wonderland, the “restaurants” look like dystopian government offices. Everything is purely utilitarian. Like it were designed for robots. If there is one subtextual message McDonald’s sends with its interior design, it’s “Give us your money, now get the fuck out, asshole.” There’s no warmth. No welcome. No quality. No humanity. And certainly no value for your hard-earned money.
McDonald’s anymore is a monument to culinary failure. It’s like prison cafeteria food a supervillain somehow conned the world into paying $10+ per meal for. It’s staffed by people who aren’t really overworked, they just don’t give a fuck. It’s architectural design looks like it was created by aliens. Literally everything about it is so disgustingly bad that it’s actually shocking that such a business could even exist, much less be a multi-billion dollar corporation.
You’re not even a customer inside a Mcdonald’s anymore. You are a sucker from which as much money as possible is to be extracted, while offering as little as possible in return. Granted, that’s most retail and fast food establishments period. But Mcdonald’s takes it to an art form.
Source: “Falling Down,” or the Typical Mcdonald’s Experience. Warner Bros.
There’s this guy on YouTube called TheReportoftheWeek who reviews fast food. Some of his videos are quite lengthy. He reviews Mcdonald’s meals from time to time. He goes into detail, and gives really good and thorough reviews. But honestly, you only need about five seconds to review any meal at all from McDonald’s. They suck ass and belong in the trash. There, review done.
Really, I don’t know what it is anymore. It’s like every place exists to see how much it can piss you off just enough so you’ll still return. I went to Wal-Mart just today for example, and I’m not even done checking out before some fucking “associate” comes up to me to pester me about doing a customer service survey on the card reader. I’m in line trying to get my groceries in my cart and I’m supposed to fill out goddamn survey? GTFO. I was in line for all of two minutes. What the hell was I even supposed to base my survey on anyway? That’s it, no more surveys. I’m done. From here on out, if I’m asked to do a survey, it’s a guaranteed zero or one star review. I don’t care.
With the super successful Barbie movie in the billion dollar club at the box office, Mattel is ready to unleash the rest of its numerous branded toys into theaters.
It all started in 2018, when new CEO Ynon Kreiz, faced with declining toy sales, decided to transform Mattel’s catologue of toys into movie IP. Just like Marvel did. And like WB tried with the DCEU, and is trying again. And what Universal tried with its disastrous “Dark Universe” with 2017’s The Mummy. Everyone and their grandma is trying to make a cinematic universe. But will Barbie end up being Mattel’s Iron Man, or will the smash satirical hit prove to be a one off? Time will tell.
In the meanwhile, Mattel has 14 projects in various stages of development, according to Variety. This got me to thinking. What would they look like? What would they be about? Would they try to make them super smart, super feminist, and super socially-conscious like Barbie? Or would each be its own thing? Would they be connected, with a big Avengers-style mash-up every few years, or would they be stand-alone projects? How the hell do you even make a movie about Uno?
Well, I did some research on these upcoming films, and let’s just say I can’t wait for this MCU to get started! One thing I was very impressed with was the diversity of themes and ideas I found, and the piercing social criticisms attendant with each property. Here’s just a few of the plots and info of upcoming films I discovered coming out soon from Mattel:
What is it? Miniature dolls and accessories that you can fit in your pocket.
Theme: Female empowerment.
Plot: Polly Pocket and her friends discover they were invented by an evil man who wanted to make little toy women that fit in your pocket, because he thinks all women should be small and easily controlled. But they turn the tables on him when, through the power of friendship (and glitter) they become super-sized, and stick him in a tiny house.
Tagline:Is that a Polly in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
My thoughts: This is such a great idea whose time has come, and I think it will make a billion dollars at the box office easy.
Plot: A bunch of schlubby middle-aged good ol’ boy mechanics working at a car shop get put in their place when a newly hired 20-year old female with both beauty and brains, comes aboard and starts making these newfangled vehicles she calls “Hot Wheels.” When her models start selling like hotcakes, it becomes a full-on gender war. But not to worry, she easily comes out on top.
Tagline: Hot (and also Strong and Independent) Wheels
My thoughts: This is exactly the kind of deep intellectual satire you can sink your teeth into. We need more movies where stereotypically-presented alpha males are put in their place by flawless young women who are both equally beautiful and brilliant. I don’t think men realize that women can like cars, too. But after this movie comes out, the whole world will know that hell yes they can.
What is it? Little robots you control and punch the heads off of.
Theme: Female Empowerment.
Plot: Forced into a life of endless and mindless violence fighting in a ring, a toy robot is at last given a chance at peace when his human controller switches from a violent, mean and dumb little boy, to a peace-loving, very smart little girl.
Tagline: He won’t knock off your head, he’ll knock off your heart!
My thoughts: Such brilliant satire. And the irony, too. A violent robot boxer who learns to love peace and pacifism. I think Terminator 2: Judgment Day is going to get a run for its money for most likable robot who won’t kill when the world finally gets to meet our main robot character, Rock ’Em.
Plot: A little boy decides he’s had enough of being a little boy, and becomes a little girl instead. But not just any girl. An American Girl.
Tagline: (sung to the tune of American Girl by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers) He was…an Americaaaan Giiiiirl!
My thoughts: Just reading the plot made tears stream down my cheeks. What a touching, smart, and very empowering story about girlhood, femininity, femaleness, and the wonder of women. I’m marking this one’s release date on my calendar. I just hope the theater provides enough tissues, LOL.
What is it? A pool ball that gives vague but somehow correct answers.
Theme: Female empowerment.
Plot: When a mysogynistic middle-aged man discovers a magic eight ball that gives 100% correct answers, he gets the shock of a lifetime when the answer to his every inquiry is: “Women are always right.”
Tagline: Are all women infallible and wonderful? All signs point to yes!
My thoughts: I don’t need a Magic 8 Ball to tell me to go see this movie when it premiers. I’ll be camped out over night to get tickets, that’s for sure.
What is it? Playing cards with rules that are way too complicated to learn. Why can’t we just play Old Maid?
Theme: Female empowerment (with a touch of anti-patriarchy)
Plot: When a woman becomes the CEO of a major toy manufacturer based in Southern California, she deftly manages to ward off every criticism from the misogynistic men in the boardroom by using magically endowed playing cards that reverse their hostile feelings.
Tagline: Meet the girlboss who’s about to be numero Uno!
My thoughts: I’m going to go ahead and call this one a royal flush. It’s like Anchorman meets The Mary Tyler Moore Show meets Big, inspired by the incredible true story of Theranos run by legendary female CEO Elizabeth Holmes. With that many classics smashed together, you know it’s going to be good.
What is it? Some cheap plastic thing you look into to see blurry pictures of things.
Theme: Female empowerment
Plot: When a nasty, 98-year old misogynistic man is gifted a magic stereoscope by a fairy princess that allows him to see the hurt his thoughts and words cause to others in the world, he changes his sexist ways, and becomes a male feminist.
Tagline: He’s had eyes his whole life, but he didn’t SEE until he was 98.
My thoughts: I’ll be very surprised if this isn’t in contention for Best Picture. It has the kind of character arc you used to only see in classic films, not to mention a very timely theme you rarely see talked about in movies today. If Clint Eastwood is still around when this gets made, he’d be perfect for the lead. It’ll be the role he’ll be most remembered for without a doubt.
That’s all I could find for now. Aren’t these great? I’m not sure any of them will be at the level of Barbie, or bring in the same kind of box office. But I do know I’ll be waiting in line at each one on opening night. See you there!
So, a while back, I caught a video on good ol’ YouTube titled “Ghostbusters: A Movie About Nothing.” Basically, the video essay posits that the 1984 comedy classic lack a unifying theme. If you scroll down through the comment section, there are over 2,000 comments of people giving their own take.
As someone who watched this movie religiously as a kid for years, like many children of the ’80s, I was actually stymied by this video’s stance. Even rewatching the film as an adult some years ago, the idea of there not being a theme never caught my attention. To me, the film always just represented pure entertainment. A silly premise played straight by three comedians at the top of their game. A perfectly executed comedy, well-directed, with cutting edge special effects for the time.
Most comedies don’t have much of a theme, or much to say about anything, really. You think of the comedy classic Airplane! with its slapstick spoof absurdist humor. What social message or statement on the human condition is that movie trying to send? The plight of overcoming PTSD from war, as Striker eventually does? Or something like The Hangover, with its multiple gag sequences. The value of friendship?
Generally, when comedies do have a theme, it’s very safe and broad, and plays out in the background. You think of Caddyshack, another Bill Murray comedy hit, with it “slobs against the snobs” class warfare themes, pitting the young middle-class kid Danny and his nouveau riche allies (Ty and Al) against the uptight wealthy Judge Smails and his stuffy old money associates. Interestingly, Titanic has similar themes, but as a drama, is more upfront and systematic about the way it goes about exploring them.
The Wikipedia page onGhostbusters has an intriguing section regarding the movie’s subtle statement on capitalism and private industry, weighing the film as a reflection of Ronald Reagan’s deregulatory pro-free market ideology. I don’t entirely disagree with this premise. I just think the real theme is much simpler.
Ghostbusters is about celebrity. More specifically, it’s about how one’s status and value to society is largely determined by one’s portrayal in the media. Even if you’re trying to save the world, you’re not a “hero” or “important” until the press says you are.
This theme is a subtlely handled. Background radiation, as it were, subordinate to the clever writing and memorable dialogue. But there’s plenty of evidence for the idea of how the media shapes reality and perception.
If ghosts existing like this were the case, this would be quite a terrifying reality. People would be demanding governments come up with some solution to deal with these afterlife visitors. And anyone involved in solving the problem would likely be getting millions, if not billions of government funding. It would be like the Manhattan Project.
In actuality, Egon Spengler, Ray Stantz, and Peter Venkman are apparently the only three scientists in the entire world working on the cutting edge of the supernatural, and they’re about to be thrown out of their jobs at Columbia University. This despite Egon and Ray having already invented the P.K.E. Meter, a tool that can track ghosts and other supernatural entities. Likely, the pair were also on the verge of building the proton packs, or even had a protoype designed and functional. Remember, the packs basically just appear later in the movie, with little explanation as to how to they work or how they were built, other than they are “nuclear accelerators.” Not to mention the ghost traps and the ghost storage unit used later. All technology that was likely very close to fruition or in different stages of design.
You’d think if two guys were actually building tools and weapons capable of ridding the world of a huge menace like free-roaming ghosts, they’d have the respect of the university, and certainly their peers. They’d be regarded like Einstein or Newton. Instead, Columbia Dean Yeager regards them all as a joke, and kicks them to the curb. They’re forced to set up shop on their own, using Ray’s family home as collateral for a massive high-interest business loan.
Even after the Ghostbusters catch the ghost at the hotel in their first job, how are they treated by the stuffy manager? Like overpriced bug exterminators. Ray almost threatens to put the ghost back when the manager intitially refuses to pay the bill. Mind you, the ghost problem is played 100% straight. The manager KNOWS the ghost is real. He knows it’s been harassing his guests for years. At issue is the bill.
As it turns out, the Sedgewick manager is the last person who treats the Ghostbusters with low regard. For immediately after, the movie goes into a montage sequence in which major media publications like The Atlantic, Time, and others, turn the trio of scientists from unknowns into national celebrities, in a matter of weeks. Business booms, as evidenced by them leaving multiple buildings with freshly caught ghosts. They even seem to get groupies, as after dealing with a “pesky poltergeist” at a night club on New Year’s Eve, they stay behind to “dance the night away” with some of the ladies.
Another turning point in how the Ghostbusters are viewed is in Dana Barrett’s reevaluation of Peter Venkman as a suitor. This despite Venkman coming onto her earlier quite creepily when he visits her apartment to assess her refrigerator terror dog problem. Rather than being repulsed by him, after observing that he’s a “big celebrity now,” she agrees to a dinner date. This despite the interest of another romantic rival — the violinist, who Venkman calls a “stiff.” And not just any violinist, but one of the “finest in the world.” Something that doesn’t matter in the context of the scene because Venkman has high media status, and therefore greater “value” as a potential sexual partner.
Another thing to note is how the the montage sequence concludes — with Ray Stanz getting blown by a beautiful female ghost. Another example in addition to the Venkman one where sexual desirability is commesurate with your celebrity status. Even if the BJ Stantz gets happens in a dream or reality, it still serves to reinforce the theme. And don’t forget how the office secretary Janine gradually falls for Egon, even after he rebuffs her advances.
The Ghostbusters’ celebrity powers are enough to get them out of jail when the Mayor summons them to deal with the city’s spiraling ghost problem. This is where I part ways with the Wikipedia theories about the movie’s themes on free market capitalism versus government bureacracy. Because I don’t regard Walter Peck, the government inspector, necessarily as a true villain. He’s a dick, for sure. Dickless even, by some reports. But he’s doing his job. What the Ghostbusters are doing is akin to a bunch of guys trying to run a nuclear power plant on their own, without regulations or oversight. Farmers get fined all the time by state governments for not calling in line patrolers before digging into their own property. The SEC right now is trying to figure out how to crack down on the largely unregulated cryptocurrency market. So I’d think four guys using experimental technology that involves nuclear energy strong enough to vaporize matter (aka “total protonic reversal”) would warrant a stern look by government inspectors. While Peck shouldn’t have made them shut down the ghost containment unit until he knew fully what the hell was going on, it doesn’t necessarily make him malicious. Just stupid.
The Ghostbusters are also so beloved by the city that thousands of citizens show up to cheer them on when they arrive at Dana Barrett’s building for the film’s climax. Actually, “cheer them on” hardly does it justice. The New Yorkers are practically euphoric, with everyone from Orthodox Jews to punk rockers coming together in celebration. Even a powerful earthquake isn’t enough to send the people away. The masses are willing to endanger their lives just to watch their heroes enter a building. Even The Beatles couldn’t claim that level of worship at their height.
Such is the all-important power of celebrity in the world of the film. Even Gozer, the film’s villain, is not immune. What’s the first thing the androgynous demon spirit asks of them when they arrive at the rooftop? “Are you a god?” A status check. When Ray foolishly answers “No,” Gozer tries to kill them. Except the Ghostbusters are “gods,” in a way, by virtue of their celebrity, and their advanced technology.
After a show of power, Gozer evidently respects them enough that he/she selects the Ghostbusters to choose the “form of the destructor.” What villain allows the heroes that kind of consideration? And why them? Why not the collective consciousness of the city? Or why not a form that’s objectively terrifying, like the terror dogs? Why should the Ghostbusters get the ridiculous choice of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man?
Another thing to note is Gozer’s initial appearance, looking like a supernatural David Bowie or Michael Jackson. Eerie and ethereal. Not as a scary-looking demon, as you might expect. But as the ultimate stage performer, or showbiz celebrity, as such.
The film memorably ends with the entire city seeing the Ghostbusters off, as the closing credits play over the theme song. Reminiscent of the kind of jubiliation seen in the New York City Victory Parade of 1946.
The 1989 sequel continues with the theme of celebrity, with the Ghostbusters having to rebuild their lost status after being dubiously relegated to sideshow freaks again. Even the Ghostbusters cartoon that ran from 1986–1991 incorporates it. The closing credits shows the Ghostbusters strutting down the street in a ticker-tape parade.
Now, you could argue that the Ghostbusters become revered heroes not so much due to the press but because of their unique services. Except police officers and firefighters save people all the time, and usually with very little fanfare. Remember, we come into the story with ghosts already present and a serious threat, but apparently not enough of one to warrant government intervention or interest by anyone other than three schlubby scientists working at Columbia. It isn’t until the media catches on, seeing them as a means to sell copy and get ratings that they’re catapulted into fame. From then on, the Ghostbusters are taken very seriously.
I find this theme relatable even today. Many people view their own value and self-worth through the lens of their social media status, which is today’s governing agency of celebrity. Gone are newspapers, magazines, and even talk shows. Now it’s all about clicks and likes on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok. Think about the last time you went to a concert. How many people WEREN’T experiencing it through their smartphones? Likely very few. It’s as if people can’t properly enjoy something unless others are also enjoying it with them online. A bizarre kind of feedback loop.
Anyway, what do you think? Is the 1984 Ghostbusters about how one’s worth is relative to their status as a celebrity? Or is just about busting ghosts and nothing more? Or about something else altogether?
Over the past few months, I’ve found myself increasingly dissatisfied and disinterested with Medium, and have decided to focus my efforts toward building a Youtube channel instead.
It’s not that I haven’t seen some good results on here. Back in September of last year I had my best month ever, bringing in over $170.
Source: Screenshot of my earnings.
Mind you, this was accomplished mostly with an article that wasn’t even published on any major publications. My article “Why I Don’t Drink Alcohol” has brought in $213.43 and almost 2,000 views to date, 90% of which were organic internal views.
Source: Screenshot of my article earnings
I didn’t even have that many followers to help kickstart my article’s views. And the article barely got any views the first two weeks before blowing up later. This proves that Medium has a quality algorithm so that even articles with no publication promotion, and written by writers with only a small following can still get traction.
Medium is a great platform for the most part. I have no intention of leaving for good. It’s just that I think my efforts would be better rewarded on YouTube in the long term. Medium seems to have a low upper limit of success and income. Even if you’re a writer with tens of thousands of followers, you’re unlikely to realistically make more than a few thousand dollars a month sustainably.
Whereas, there are many, many people on YouTube making many times more than that.
Here are a few more reasons why I’m switching to YouTube over Medium for my content creation going forward:
Content Diversity
It’s no surprise YouTube has vastly more content than Medium, as the platform is open to everyone to use. You can find everything from academic lectures, to video essays about Batman, to just some guy who has a channel of nothing but videos of him drinking water.
Medium seems to be a place devoted to subjects like digital marketing, side hustles, and the occasional personal story.
I find myself on YouTube way more than Medium. In fact, I only passively check Medium from time to time, and usually I find the same sorts of articles again and again.
Content is Going Video Anyway
The written word is never going away. People will always be attracted to strong writing, either on the web or in printed form. But there’s no question there’s a growing preference anymore for video over blogs and articles. I find myself consuming information more through podcasts and videos over static articles on the web.
YouTube also has tons of audiobooks, if you prefer fiction instead.
You Can Build a Bigger Audience With Video
There are some people with tens of thousands of followers, and even hundreds of thousands of followers here on Medium. Those are great numbers, and having a big Medium following is a great accomplishment. But I can’t help but think if all the hard work that lead to those figures wouldn’t have been better put on YouTube instead. That guy I mentioned earlier who posts videos of himself drinking water? He has over 70,000 subscribers.
Sure, you can argue that videos of yourself drinking water is low effort content and not the same as a deep ten-minute article on the philosophical implications of AI, but numbers are numbers. I see other writers posting regularly about deeply important issues that don’t have even one tenth the followers as the “internet’s premier water drinking series.”
Better Engagement
When is the last time you saw an article with hundreds, or even thousands of comments? Never? I see videos of all kinds with immense comment engagement. Sometimes even on videos with few relative views.
Moving on from the humorous example of Jon Drinks Water, let’s look at a Youtuber I enjoy listening to regularly, and who posts the types of content you might see here on Medium, to see what I mean about engagement.
Martin Goldberg posts faceless videos talking about a range of subjects, but generally about society, culture, gender relations, politics, and other opinion and commentary type stuff. His style is like the soft-spoken “smart friend” who always has interesting and witty insights to share. His latest video talking about Vivek Ramaswamy only has 3,600 views, but has 107 comments as of right now. By constrast, my alcohol article has 2,000 views, but only 8 comments.
While I’m very appreciative of any comments or engagement on my articles, as well as for my 398 followers, it’s clear that if you’re interested in reach and engagement, YouTube is the way to go.
Medium is Strictly Leftist
My personal politics is hard to pin down and I’m agnostic about a great many issues. There are some things I agree with on the left and the right. But overall, I tend to fall on the conservative and traditionalist side of things.
Well, this is not the case with Medium whatsoever, which is largely left wing, very feminist, socialist, and generally hostile to anyone outside whatever is considered “progressive” or “woke.” In fact, I’ve seen conservative writers I’ve liked banned for seemingly no reason, even after building an audience in the thousands.
While I’m not an overtly political person or writer — I tend to avoid politics for the most part in my articles—I’m not a strictly technical writer either. Obviously one’s world view and mindset is going to bleed through the edges when writing about different topics. Medium isn’t friendly toward voices outside what I’d call the deep blue “metropolitan sophisticate” cohort who unquestionably embrace the DIE (diversity equity inclusion)/ BLM/CRT/LGBTQ+/ and whatever other leftist belief system you want to throw in there. Browsing Medium is sometimes like hearing a chorus of programmed NPC automotons. I don’t think people in that narrow mindset realize how exclusionary they really are, even while supposedly being all about “inclusivity.”
It’s not to say conservative media is any better. In fact, I think it’s largely godawful and cringe. And don’t even get me started on the “red pill” weirdos.
Increasingly, I value originality and voice, even if I may disagree with the politics of the content creator. I think maintaining a strict political mindset crushes creativity in many ways, whether you’re on the left or right.
YouTube may have issues with censorship in some cases, but for the most part it has the kind of diversity where it matters — in thought and opinion.
For example, just recently I discovered a YouTube channel called “the radical center,” created by a woman who talks about ideological bias in her academic experience. Her channel has the kind of content that would largely be a no-go here at Medium. But with just 86 videos, she’s amassed over 15,000 subscribers, and very active engagement. Something I doubt would happen here. Her latest video has only 1,500 views but 93 comments.
YouTube Offers Better Income Opportunities
Over the past months, I’ve covered a few YouTube channels in my “Niche Knowledge” series. You can make a living doing almost anything on YouTube — talking about comic books, sharing updates on cryptocurrency, making copyright-free music, or talking about controversial figures like Andrew Tate. Not necessarily the case on Medium, which again, seems more focused on things like digital marketing and “city professional” stuff.
And again, while I occasionally hear about people making $10k or so on here, those days seem to mostly be in the past.
I’m Tired of Hitting the Google Lottery and Having Nothing To Show for It
You’d think with me making this big case against Medium that I’d be some disgruntled writer who barely gets reads. On the contrary. Not only am I not disgruntled, I’m not even gruntled.
I routinely get anywhere between 60–75 or so hits daily on my articles, with no promotion or any real effort on my part. About a month ago, on May 9th, I even got almost 1,000 views in one day for my article “Three People Who Destroyed Their Lives in Less than 60 Seconds.”
Source: Screenwhot of my article’s stats.
The problem is virtually ALL of those views were external. On Medium, you only make money when other paying members view your stories, or people buy something through your affiliate links.
Now, it’s not Medium’s fault if a story does not click with an internal audience. If anything, this example shows Medium’s value in helping your articles rank in Google for different key words and topics. But what’s the point of that if any time an article hits the Google algo it doesn’t translate into actual dollars? At best all I’m doing is increasing Medium’s digital footprint, and increasing awareness of the site to other people, for free. At worst I’m short changing myself. Had that article been hosted exclusively on a website, or made into a YouTube video instead, those views might have meant actual dollars.
The majority of my regular daily traffic is external. I know that because my partner earnings increases by pennies. If over the course of a month I’m getting 2000–3,000 views or more, something like 95% of that is external, and therefore goes unmonetized. If a typical ad rate impression for a website or Youtube is around $10 RPM, then that means I’m potentially missing out on around $30 in revenue. That’s pretty small, but supposing in a year I’m getting 10,000–15,000 views a month, and it can start to really add up.
YouTube has its downsides too, in the interest of fairness. You still need 4,000 watch hours and a minimum of 1,000 subscribers in order to monetize your channel. And like almost any other platform out there, you’ve got to be put in the work and upload regularly if you want to see any results. Some niches pay more than others. Most of the higher paying ones, like dropshipping, affiliate marketing, finance, and others, are not areas I’m interested in covering. They are also hyper competitive.
Then there’s the fact that video is a different medium of information, and requires a much steeper learning curve. I can put together an article in under an hour. But shooting and editing a video properly takes time, and a good bit of knowledge. Youtube is more competitive now, and I think viewers are more demanding and discerning now than even just a couple of years ago. If you want to produce professional-looking videos but don’t have any editing skills, it’s expensive to hire a good editor. I’m not talking about AI-voiced “cash cow” video editors, either. I mean the ones who can put together videos you may actually want to watch, and convey worthwhile content. Over on Fiverr I see them usually starting at a few hundred dollars and up.
However, despite the challenges of the video medium, I’ve already seen some results on my Youtube channel. Over the last few months I’ve been mostly turning my Medium articles into faceless YouTube videos with some V.O. and either copyright-free or fair use imagery. A few weeks ago, out of nowhere, my video “Hot Blonde Bimbo Teachers Can’t Stop Banging Kids,” a video version of my article, “Hot Blonde Bimbo Teachers Can’t Stop Fucking Kids” about Marka Bodine, got over 7,000 views in a matter of days.
Source: Stats for my YouTube video.
That video brought in about 24 subscribers, bringing my current total number of YT subscribers to 32. That’s pretty small, I realize, but again, all I’ve been doing is sporadically uploading video versions of my Medium articles. Obviously, I’m not monetized yet. But small successes like this are very encouraging. I posted that video back in November. It took until this May before it got any traction. And that was purely algo-driven. I did not promote my video anywhere, or pay for views or anything. But if that’s the kind of results you can potentially get with no promotion or efforts to build SEO, imagine what you could do if you took YT really seriously. Video essays and humorous commentary on news topics tend to do really well.
In summary, I’m going to focus on making content exclusive to YouTube because I see much more long-term upside on there rather than on Medium. I’ll still going to post here once in a while, but it will be more off-the-cuff type stuff, or announcements.
I still think there’s opportunity on Medium, if you’re a certain kind of writer, and you write for a certain type of audience. But I think YouTube offers opportunities for virtually all audience types and interests. It can also prove to be a great platform for fiction writers like myself. There are many writers who use YouTube as a platform to help sell their books.
I’m certainly not a YouTube personality or a professional video editor by any means. I’m not the best at verbal communication, which is something I’m trying to improve. Except for a few videos I don’t even show my face. I think it will be a challenge to get serious traction on YT, as it would be anywhere else. But in the end I think it will be worth it.
Dean Brooks 