What Would GQ Do?

Last week I received my latest issue of GQ, which isn't all that exciting except for the fact that I found this little gem:

Above is a blurb which reads as follows:

Just Say No to Rapper Headphones
Props to Dr. Dre, who recently hit upon the only thing a rapper hadn't yet shilled: headphones. Beats by Dre has been a runaway success, and now 50 Cent and Ludacris are hocking headgear. But c'mon, y'all -- this isn't 1998, when dudes rocked Wallabees to be like Wu-Tang. If you're still chasing rapper-endorsed status symbols in 2011, it's time to quit asking yourself, "What would Jay-Z do?" and start asking, "What would I do?" -Will Welch

Clearly, the only way for me to address this is an open letter to Billy himself...

Dear Mr. Will Welch:

RE: "Just Say No to Rapper Headphones"

I do not disagree with your sentiments that people shouldn't just buy something because someone famous endorses it. But do you not find it even the slightest bit absurd or incongruent** for you, an employee of GQ magazine - a magazine whose sole purpose is to tell men what they should and should not buy and wear - are telling people not to be "followers" in what they wear and buy? If people really were to simply ask themselves "What would I do?" in the area of fashion and accessories, wouldn't you be out of a job?

Why not just call a spade a spade and say, "...If you're still chasing rapper-endorsed status symbols in 2011, it's time to re-up on your GQ subscription and quit asking yourself, 'What would Jay-Z do?' and start asking, 'What would GQ tell me to do?'"?

Sincerely,
Kenny

P.S. - GQ, once my free 1-year subscription to your magazine is up, I will not be renewing. I just want to make that clear upfront, so as not to be accused of sending mixed signals later.

** - Did you know that the definition for "incongruent" is "not congruent". Talk about a useless definition. Thanks Merriam-Webster!