The music video is supposed to expose the reality of how some men want to have the ideal or "perfect" girlfriend/wife. In the beginning when Selena is looking at the sun it symbolizes how love can be blinding so the woman may think that ure and ch

The music video is supposed to expose the reality of how some men want to have the ideal or "perfect" girlfriend/wife. In the beginning when Selena is looking at the sun it symbolizes how love can be blinding so the woman may think that her partner may love her when he actually is just fetishizing over the idea of having that perfect wife, remember the lyrics are "you have a fetish for my love." She isn't talking about sex, but instead she's talking about that image. The perfect wife is supposed to be pure and chaste (hence the peach tree which symbolizes pureness and chastity). In the video Selena is acting insane because she wants to viewers to understand that trying to uphold that image is hard work and can eventually drive you insane. She also had a te

Imagine a new type of capitalist economy that’s geared toward maximizing human well-being and fulfillment. These goals and GDP would sometimes go hand-in-hand, but there would be times when they wouldn’t be aligned. For example, an airline removing passengers who’d already boarded a plane in order to maximize its profitability would be good for capital but bad for people. The same goes for a drug company charging extortionate rates for a life-saving drug. Most Americans would agree that the airline should accept the lost revenue and the drug company accept a moderate profit margin. But what if this idea was repeated over and over again throughout the economy? Let’s call it human-centered capitalism — or human capitalism for short.

Human capitalism would have a few core tenets:

  1. Humanity is more important than money.
  2. The unit of an economy is each person, not each dollar.
  3. Markets exist to serve our common goals and values.

You'd think that Big Business interests would support free enterprise, but the bulk of their annual corporate giving goes to nonprofit groups promoting increased regulation and higher taxes. An expert on corporate philanthropy claims that "corporate America is funding its enemies." Austin Fulk of the Capital Research Center reports that "many corporations give away their investors' dollars to special interest advocacy groups that favor irresponsible government policies harmful to a corporation's own best interests." In a recent issue of Human Events, Fulk charges that "big business is undermining American values by freely contributing to tax-exempt groups that work against a free and competitive market." He points out that "tax-exempt groups receiving the biggest share of corporate charitable dollars repeatedly offer status quo proposals to solve America's most pressing problems: racial quotas, increased welfare and entitlement programs, higher taxes and more government spending, command-and-control environmental laws, and regulations on employers." More than 300 nonprofit advocacy groups got contributions from America's top 250 corporations in 1993, but only 35 of those groups received more than $250,000 apiece. Austin Fulk reports that nearly two-thirds of these 35 groups "favor the liberal, tried-and-failed policies of bureaucratic government. Groups such as the Nature Conservancy, the NAACP, the Center for Community Change, and Planned Parenthood get big corporate grants." Liberal groups with a Big-Government bias aren't the only beneficiaries of corporate largesse, however. "Corporations not only fund groups working against the general interests of business, but some also support radical activist groups that are principled opponents of America's enterprise tradition," says Fulk. "Corporate funding, even in small amounts, affects the fortunes of radical activists far out of proportion to the actual dollar amount. A corporate gift lends respectability to radical groups. It gives them a credential so that they can ask other corporations, individuals, and grantmaking foundations for funding." Donations to nonprofit groups that promote big government also undermine the work of legitimate charities. "Private charities have a record of effectively delivering services," says Fulk. "But too often their work is overshadowed by failed government programs that perpetuate the social problems they were supposed to address. The mission of charity is hurt when government programs replace private programs, and when taxpayer funding replaces private contributions and individual voluntarism." Austin Fulk of the Capital Research Center urges American investors to hold corporate management responsible for foolish and self-defeating philanthropy. If managers can't make charitable contributions wisely, they should make none at all. "Corporate managements do shareholders and the nation a grave disservice when they fund leftist advocacy groups," says Fulk. "If the welfare state is to be replaced by an opportunity society, support for nonprofit institutions must become more discerning. Individuals as well as corporations must champion charities and advocacy groups that encourage self-reliance. And they must refuse support to nonprofit groups that draw strength from government."

USA #1

God is good