The new symbols of America

Thank you for addressing the growing anti-commercialism in our country (“Isn’t It Time We All Had a Corporate Sponsor?” April 10).

I certainly do not classify myself as an angry liberalist. I do, however, refuse to give in to commercial influence.

I agree with Randy Lewis when he points out the necessity of sponsorship and how the only thing that has really changed about an amphitheater is the title and more performance opportunities (implying sponsorship has major benefits).

I strongly disagree, though, with “getting over” commercial power. I whine not at the name change (and, yes, that is a whine), but at the symbolic meaning -- the ever-growing influence not only on American society but on the global economy. It has gotten to a point where a Pepsi bottle and a pop singer symbolize America more than a statue or a bird.

Every time a corporation takes over a once privately owned business, individuality and intellect decrease in our civilization one more notch. We are growing increasingly lazy, attention deficient and obese (I find it no coincidence that these things are all variables of each other). It may be a leap to connect commercialism with obesity, but whose drinks are we selling at school? Why do we think we have no time to make dinner? Why is “Survivor” more entertaining than the Discovery Channel?

Who do we really point the finger at, though? Only we make ourselves vulnerable to corporate influence.

Lauri Kamiel

Northridge