“It’s like people only do things because they get paid, and that’s just really sad.”

Fans of Wayne’s World, and just comedy in general, might fondly recall this ironic line by Dana Carvey while portraying a ‘90s nerd/hippie/hard rock fanatic dressed head to toe in exclusively Reebok gear.

In the scene, network cable stars Garth Algar and buddy Wayne Campbell (one of Mike Myers’s best characters) cleverly use product placement to mock advertising and “selling out.” While eating Doritos and Pizza Hut and drinking Pepsi (in a sincerely blatant manner), they argue with their boss about making time on the show for the sponsor to promote his own products.

While Wayne and Garth make fun of the practice of infiltrating creative work with commercial messages in a lighthearted way, 20 years later product placement has evolved into forms that seem excessive, if not a bit disturbing.

The common view of product placement is that it occurs strictly in the entertainment industry — films, TV shows, etc. But there’s another type of it growing rapidly at schools all over the United States: college brand ambassadors.

They walk amongst us in plain view, blending seamlessly into the busy ecosystem that is a college campus. Some wear t-shirts promoting a brand or product, some set up tables by the Quad. They all have one thing in common, however. They are all students.

Companies like American Eagle, Microsoft and Red Bull, like many others with products that cater towards a younger crowd, have always had advertising campaigns geared towards college students. Very recently, though, there has been a change in how these companies reach out to one of their target demographics. Instead of marketing to students, they have begun to market through students.

A college brand ambassador is hired by a company, sometimes for pay and sometimes purely as an internship, to market the company’s brand and products directly towards his or her friends and peers. Now, what at first glance seems like an evil scheme involving the brainwashing of students for the use of further brainwashing is actually a pretty smart business move.

The kinds of students companies target to fill these roles are very active socially. You know, your run-of-the-mill 1,300 Facebook friends, greek life die-hard, sports fanatic student. College-aged kids who fit this bill are essentially spiders threading an enormous networking web around themselves. In other words, they’re mainstream.

Don’t get offended if you meet the requirements above and disagree with the “mainstream” label. This isn’t Jock v. Hipster or Mainstream v. Alt (cases that could soon hit the Supreme Court). This is purely how large companies identify the best candidates for spreading their brand on a college campus.

College-aged brand ambassadors have a much stronger effect on their peers than any older representative that works for a company could ever achieve. Students are more trusting of their friends, and friends of friends, that inhabit the same campus, and are thus more likely to accept offers from them to buy a product.

Part of human nature, no matter how far off the mainstream one may be, is to take notice in what those close to you are interested in. We’re far more likely to buy and drink Red Bull if our friends regularly champion and drink it themselves.

Big brand names have started to capitalize on this tendency to generate more revenue. They believe if they can find the “cool” kids on campus to market their products, others will want to emulate them and achieve coolness by shelling out cash for a product. And as awful as that may sound, it works.

Many of us would like to think we’re impervious to the ever-growing influence of commercialism, but the truth is, unless you’re ditching common society to hitchhike up to Alaska and live in a deserted bus à la Into the Wild, you can’t completely escape anymore. Businesses are always on the prowl for innovative methods of spreading brand awareness, and even if you do opt for the wilderness route, it’s possible they’ll reach you there one day too.

In conclusion, Red Bull gives you wings.

VICTOR BEIGELMAN isn’t trying to be a buzzkill; he’s just bringing the facts. Harass him about it anyway at vbeigelman@ucdavis.edu.

Iran is in a serious time-out, having just been sent to the proverbial oil sanction corner on Monday by Daddy and Mommy European Union. Iran’s punishment comes after growing threats that the country is increasing funding for an already sizable nuclear program.

The language used in describing this world news story is really that of a parent disciplining a naughty child. While following the reporting, I almost felt like the goody-goody sister eavesdropping from the stair banister, secretly reveling in my sibling’s sharp vicissitude. It felt uncomfortably self-righteous.

Within two paragraphs, I’ve already grown fond of this familial metaphor so I’m going to make it an extended one. Entertain us both and you’ll see that my analogy does a fine job of mashing up the mystery that is international relations by serving it into neat portions of easily digestible, child-proof information.

In our family, there are the strict parents who offer non-negotiable consequences: “Today’s sanction against Bank Tejarat will deepen Iran’s financial isolation, make its access to hard currency even more tenuous and further impair Iran’s ability to finance its illicit nuclear program,” said David S. Cohen, U.S. Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

His tone matches the oh-so-familiar “I’m taking away your allowance” defense. “So what?” or “Pish posh!” we rebelliously retort. There are other ways to stay financially solvent, ways that need not require the assistance of a guardian.

The EU accounts for a mere 18 percent (2.2 million barrels a day) of Iran’s oil export share. Iran could easily call up its Eastern friends in India and China, who run a combined 35 percent tab on the country’s exports, and negotiate a 10-15 percent discount to sell off the EU’s leftovers.

While we may not be dependent on the ultimatum-giving parents, how do we understand the new-age, Abercrombie-wearing, alcohol-supplying ones who coolly accept the truths of our ever-corrupt society?

Meant as a warning against Iran’s potential reactions to the imposed oil sanctions, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “For now, Iran continues to produce nuclear weapons without disturbance.”

This sort of relaxed attitude would be reminiscent of Regina George’s mom in Mean Girls walking in on her daughter and her boyfriend about to, ahem, consummate their love. Mrs. George talks over the smacking of lips, “Can I get you guys anything? Some snacks? A condom? Let me know! Oh God, love ya.”

The parents who decry, “Kids will be kids!” and are almost too scared, or in awe, of their children to fathom disciplining them will receive morsels of respect from their offspring. If they allow oil or nuclear copulation to occur under their roof, America and the EU will become these pushover types to Iran.

Lastly, there is the pleasantly stern parent team that sits decorously at the dining table, fingers crossed and smiles half cracked. While the adults speak in a calm, monotone voice, the child floods with hot tears to produce a reaction.

“Today’s action demonstrates the EU’s growing concern about Iran’s nuclear programme and our determination to increase peaceful, legitimate pressure on Iran to return to negotiations,” said British Foreign Secretary William Hague.

The European Union and U.S. seem to favor this clenched-jaw approach to taming international disputes. As momentarily aggravating as it is to be the object of another’s discerning gaze, I can’t help but concede from experience that such scrutiny is in fact the best technique.

Without the perspective of others — be it parents or fellow countries — we wouldn’t have a way of knowing precisely where we fall on the human bell curve. As Iran wades through these deep petroleum waters, I can only surmise that America and the EU will wish for Iran to end up on the sweet side of the function.

If you too have a knack for syllogisms, contact CHELSEA MEHRA at cmehra@ucdavis.edu for deductive reasoning worksheets.

In Bertolt Brecht’s Threepenny Opera, gangster Mack the Knife pleads his case to the audience, asking, “What is burgling a bank compared to founding a bank?” When weighed next to the massive expropriations perpetrated by the banking industry, Mack suggests, a few pilfered cash boxes are insignificant.

Yet, as we have seen time and time again, outrage stands in inverse proportion to the scale of the crime.

It should come as no surprise, then, that when protesters staged sit-ins at U.S. Bank, bystanders immediately complained they were an awful inconvenience. By preventing people from accessing their full range of financial services, they argued, the protesters horribly alienated the student body.

These naysayers fail to see the bigger picture. As tuition rises, students are forced to supplement their already massive student loans (now over $1 trillion nationwide) with additional debt. That’s where U.S. Bank steps in, with its wide array of credit cards.

According to a Sallie Mae study, one-third of undergraduates will put tuition on a credit card. And, of course, student indebtedness spiked after the financial crisis: In 2004, 69 percent of graduating seniors had paid off their credit cards but, by 2009, that number dropped to a mere 15 percent. The average senior will leave owing $4,100 on their cards.

Burdened with debt and facing grim job prospects, this generation of students goes forth into a bleak future.

But, there’s money to be made for the top one percent! Seeing our misery as a business opportunity, UC Davis struck a sweet deal with U.S. Bank. Now UC Davis gets a royalty for every new university account the bank opens and, in return, U.S. Bank receives perks like free advertising, exclusive access to campus events and space on our AggieCards. After 10 years, UC Davis hopes to bring in nearly $3 million from the program.

It’s a win-win for administrators and bankers, who both go home with loads of cash from impoverished students.

So, U.S. Bank exploits students through exorbitant interests on their tuition payments and everyday expenses, profiting off economic ruin, and that’s just ducky. But, if student protesters delay a bank customer for an hour, by God, we should get our ire up. The nerve of some people!

It’s a very old argument. Any action a social movement undertakes will be criticized as annoying, disruptive and rude. For many, the right to go about one’s daily business speedily and undisturbed is more sacred than the right to economic security and justice.

Whenever there is a strike, we’re told it frustrates the public. Whenever there’s a demonstration, it’s said to hinder traffic and commerce. Whenever an activist delivers an impassioned speech, the critics demand they tone it down so as not to offend the moderate and the apathetic.

But protests always bother someone. I imagine that many busy individuals had to readjust their schedules when civil rights activists occupied Woolworth’s in Greensboro, NC, or when Egyptians took back Tahrir Square. Luckily, protesters passed over these minor concerns and dealt with more pressing matters.

This tired complaint is usually followed by a bit of meta-criticism: How does this help get protesters’ message across? If I don’t understand what is happening, the argument goes, then nobody will.

It could very well be true that Occupy UC Davis needs more explanatory literature for the uninformed. They have offered countless teach-ins and discussions to explain their position, including at the initial U.S. Bank occupation, but they might not have reached out to all passersby.

Nevertheless, this critique betrays a misunderstanding about the purpose of direct action. Occupying a bank is not a form of outreach or a publicity stunt. The primary goal of the action isn’t to raise awareness among students, because students have no say in what U.S. Bank does. Even if campus opinion was squarely against the bank, it wouldn’t make a difference as long as no one acted.

The only opinion that matters to U.S. Bank is that of its shareholders and the only thing shareholders care about is their bottom line. The occupation strikes at the bank’s profits, forcing them to pay attention to the protest’s demand: banks off campus.

Certainly, the Occupy movement should hold every direct action up to careful, collective scrutiny. Some forms of protest are counterproductive or politically retrograde. But, when they do, they would do well to ignore the idle carping of complacent onlookers.

JORDAN S. CARROLL is a PhD student in English. He can be reached at jscarroll@ucdavis.edu.