Maureen Dowd has written a vitriolic op-ed about Sarah Palin. (Yawn). Who hasn’t?
The unexpected thing is that she blatantly has her facts wrong. The main focus of the op-ed is Sarah’s stance on the universal healthcare plan, which she has outlined on her Facebook page, a forum Ms. Dowd finds most offensive.
Amidst rampant accusations of ineptness, Dowd says in her piece, “[Palin] took a forum, Facebook, more commonly used by kids hooking up and cyberstalking, and with one catchy phrase, several footnotes and a zesty disregard for facts, managed to hijack the health care debate from Mr. Obama.”
View Palin’s statement here.
What?! Kids hooking up and cyberstalking? I fear Ms. Dowd is showing herself to be so horribly out of touch with the cyber-times, by making such an over-generalization. Likening Facebook with stalkers and kids “hooking up” is like likening the airport with terrorists. While those types are definitely there, they don’t make up the major clientele.
More accurately, Dowd’s out-of-touch-ness shows a fear of Palin’s views because they are dead on. Otherwise what beef would she have with her views, posted on a site that is frequented by teenagers and stalkers?
“Death Panels” are a distinctly accurate portrayal of what will go on. So proponents must mock it and call it stupid, “death panels,” don’t be ridiculous,” so that when they eventually do foist this healthcare plan on us, the hoi polloi won’t know what hit them.
Her piece is obviously meant to discredit Palin; to lessen the threat she represents. Using language like “the dizzy Palin has to be ‘clear in her own head what she wants to do’” only perpetuates the media stereotype of Sarah Palin. This is not journalistic integrity. Though not necessary for an op-ed, it would show her to be a force to be reckoned with, rather than just another Palin-hating lib.
Maureen Dowd, who not surprisingly, does not have a personal Facebook page, has several pages, groups, and clubs dedicated to her. By the cyberstalkers, no doubt, or maybe just teenagers wanting to “hook up.”
Maybe I’ll invite her to join. I wonder if Sarah Palin would friend her if she did.
c. 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Politically Correct Bible
So the Bible is getting an update. A politically correct version? A more hip version? One that is more with the times? (OK, God really doesn’t mind coveting now). One where hypocrisy is allowed? Not yet.
This is a more insidious way of misinterpreting the Bible. Going under the guise of modernizing the ancient texts, the “translators” are actually rewriting them.
The New International Version, or NIV, was first published in 1978. It was created out of a desire to provide a faithful translation of the Scriptures that spoke the language of 20th century English. Though it is already outdated say many translators.
An article on the Christian Post quotes the scholars as saying that they are looking for a translation that is accurate as well as understandable. So what’s wrong with that, you might ask. The problem is that, whether they realize it or not, along with modernizing the text, they are stealthily changing it.
Past attempts at “modernizing” the Bible were frowned upon in Christian circles, as it was seen as not being true to the original words of God. An earlier attempt to update the NIV failed in 1997 after Christians denounced plans to use gender-inclusive language, which would eliminate the male pronouns in the Bible.
Just changing the gender specific nouns in the bible may sound innocent enough, but according to biblical scholar and my pastor, Dr. Mike Kruger, “in the ancient world the concept of “son” was packed with all kinds of meaning, including the understanding that the son has certain privileges and is heir to the father’s estate, etc. That is all lost if we tamper with the words.”
Biblical scholar, Wayne Grudem, author of The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible, is all for gender neutral language when the original language permits. He said “[it] is an improvement: the word “men” isn’t specified by the Greek text, and “all people” is a faithful rendering of the Greek pronoun “pas.” Changes like this use gender-neutral language without sacrificing accuracy in translation.”
But the problem is when they change words that have a clear intent. It changes all nuances of meaning.
He gives examples of many of the verses that have been changed. For instance:
Genesis 1:26-27
Current NIV: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image. . . .” So God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them.
TNIV: Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image. . . .” So God created human beings in his own image . . . male and female he created them.
Change in meaning: The change from singular “man” to plural “human beings” obscures the unity of the race as “man” (indicated by the singular Hebrew noun “adam”). The word “man” in English can mean either “a male human being” or “the human race,” and thus it is the best translation for Hebrew “adam,” which can also refer either to man in distinction from woman (Gen 2:22, 25) or to the human race as a whole (as here). The TNIV thus fails to convey as much of the meaning of “adam” as it could in English today. Why is the male-oriented aspect of the meaning of the Hebrew word removed?
Inappropriate gender inclusive changes may seem harmless enough, but what’s next? If we change a few pronouns, what’s to stop us from changing a few verbs and proper nouns? It is not a stretch to say that soon we’ll have created God in our own image. Scholars of the Bible realize that every word holds a weight of meaning. It would seem strange for any Christian who believes that all scripture is God breathed to be on board with this.
c. 2009
This is a more insidious way of misinterpreting the Bible. Going under the guise of modernizing the ancient texts, the “translators” are actually rewriting them.
The New International Version, or NIV, was first published in 1978. It was created out of a desire to provide a faithful translation of the Scriptures that spoke the language of 20th century English. Though it is already outdated say many translators.
An article on the Christian Post quotes the scholars as saying that they are looking for a translation that is accurate as well as understandable. So what’s wrong with that, you might ask. The problem is that, whether they realize it or not, along with modernizing the text, they are stealthily changing it.
Past attempts at “modernizing” the Bible were frowned upon in Christian circles, as it was seen as not being true to the original words of God. An earlier attempt to update the NIV failed in 1997 after Christians denounced plans to use gender-inclusive language, which would eliminate the male pronouns in the Bible.
Just changing the gender specific nouns in the bible may sound innocent enough, but according to biblical scholar and my pastor, Dr. Mike Kruger, “in the ancient world the concept of “son” was packed with all kinds of meaning, including the understanding that the son has certain privileges and is heir to the father’s estate, etc. That is all lost if we tamper with the words.”
Biblical scholar, Wayne Grudem, author of The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible, is all for gender neutral language when the original language permits. He said “[it] is an improvement: the word “men” isn’t specified by the Greek text, and “all people” is a faithful rendering of the Greek pronoun “pas.” Changes like this use gender-neutral language without sacrificing accuracy in translation.”
But the problem is when they change words that have a clear intent. It changes all nuances of meaning.
He gives examples of many of the verses that have been changed. For instance:
Genesis 1:26-27
Current NIV: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image. . . .” So God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them.
TNIV: Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image. . . .” So God created human beings in his own image . . . male and female he created them.
Change in meaning: The change from singular “man” to plural “human beings” obscures the unity of the race as “man” (indicated by the singular Hebrew noun “adam”). The word “man” in English can mean either “a male human being” or “the human race,” and thus it is the best translation for Hebrew “adam,” which can also refer either to man in distinction from woman (Gen 2:22, 25) or to the human race as a whole (as here). The TNIV thus fails to convey as much of the meaning of “adam” as it could in English today. Why is the male-oriented aspect of the meaning of the Hebrew word removed?
Inappropriate gender inclusive changes may seem harmless enough, but what’s next? If we change a few pronouns, what’s to stop us from changing a few verbs and proper nouns? It is not a stretch to say that soon we’ll have created God in our own image. Scholars of the Bible realize that every word holds a weight of meaning. It would seem strange for any Christian who believes that all scripture is God breathed to be on board with this.
c. 2009
Did You Hear the One About the Mother-in-Law Who Couldn't Take a Joke
Everyone loves Sundra Croonquist’s mother-in-law jokes. Everyone, that is except her mother-in-law, who is suing for defamation and slander. But heck, even VH1 which has her on as a commentator on those “Top 50 Celebrity Breakdowns” shows, enjoys the jokes.
Sundra, whose life is a comic’s dream, is half-black, half-Swedish, grew up Roman Catholic and married into a Jewish family. The jokes basically write themselves.
As you can imagine, her family makes up most of her material. Her mother-in-law jokes are her trademark, akin to Jeff Foxworthy’s “redneck jokes.” Mother-in-law, Ruth Zafrin isn’t laughing, though. She is suing Croonquist for spreading false, defamatory and racist lies with her in-law jokes.
“I walk in, I say, ‘Thank you so much for having me here …..’ She says, ‘The pleasure’s all mine, have a seat.’” Then, in a loud aside, ‘Harriet, put my pocketbook away.’” (This joke is also in the video below)
Mom says, “OK, now that we know you’re having a little girl I want to know what you’re naming that little tchotchke. Now we don’t want a name that’s difficult to pronounce like Shaniqua. We’re thinking a name short but delicious. Like Hadassah or Goldie.”
OK, the relatives didn’t really say that. These are just some examples of the racist lies Croonquist tells in her routine as jokes.
The comedienne remembers a time when the family played her tape at Passover one year, and they loved it. The in-laws laughed along with everyone else until the New Jersey gigs were promoted on her website. They said that Croonquist posted information that would make it obvious that they were the butt of her jokes. Now they are claiming that she is telling racist lies.
But her jokes aren’t racist. “They’re nice jokes. There’s nothing bad, nothing defamatory,” says Croonquist. It should be obvious to her in-laws, she says, that she’s not anti-Jewish. She converted to Judaism before she met her husband and keeps a kosher house.
Her husband’s law firm is representing her. She says she would drop any language her family finds offensive, but refuses to pay any settlement. Her lawyer has filed a motion to have the suit dismissed, and a judge is scheduled to hear it on Sept. 8.
Most attorneys will tell you that suing a comedian is difficult because it should be fairly obvious that they are joking instead of slandering.
Sunda says she was “shocked and sickened” by the suit, “This could have broken up my marriage,” she says bitterly.
But she is taking all the conflict in stride, keeping her anger in perspective with humor. “Maybe they don’t like Swedes,’ she muses to NBC’s Today Show host Al Roker, telling how she had been asked to step out of family photographs.
She has since changed her material to focus on herself, her husband, and Jennifer Lopez.
“My father is Swedish, my mother is African-American. You know what that made me growing up?” she asks the audience. “A Puerto Rican! That works for me, honey. … After having two babies in two years, I look like J-Lo.”
Let’s hope the judge has some common sense and throws this suit out the window.
Sundra, whose life is a comic’s dream, is half-black, half-Swedish, grew up Roman Catholic and married into a Jewish family. The jokes basically write themselves.
As you can imagine, her family makes up most of her material. Her mother-in-law jokes are her trademark, akin to Jeff Foxworthy’s “redneck jokes.” Mother-in-law, Ruth Zafrin isn’t laughing, though. She is suing Croonquist for spreading false, defamatory and racist lies with her in-law jokes.
“I walk in, I say, ‘Thank you so much for having me here …..’ She says, ‘The pleasure’s all mine, have a seat.’” Then, in a loud aside, ‘Harriet, put my pocketbook away.’” (This joke is also in the video below)
Mom says, “OK, now that we know you’re having a little girl I want to know what you’re naming that little tchotchke. Now we don’t want a name that’s difficult to pronounce like Shaniqua. We’re thinking a name short but delicious. Like Hadassah or Goldie.”
OK, the relatives didn’t really say that. These are just some examples of the racist lies Croonquist tells in her routine as jokes.
The comedienne remembers a time when the family played her tape at Passover one year, and they loved it. The in-laws laughed along with everyone else until the New Jersey gigs were promoted on her website. They said that Croonquist posted information that would make it obvious that they were the butt of her jokes. Now they are claiming that she is telling racist lies.
But her jokes aren’t racist. “They’re nice jokes. There’s nothing bad, nothing defamatory,” says Croonquist. It should be obvious to her in-laws, she says, that she’s not anti-Jewish. She converted to Judaism before she met her husband and keeps a kosher house.
Her husband’s law firm is representing her. She says she would drop any language her family finds offensive, but refuses to pay any settlement. Her lawyer has filed a motion to have the suit dismissed, and a judge is scheduled to hear it on Sept. 8.
Most attorneys will tell you that suing a comedian is difficult because it should be fairly obvious that they are joking instead of slandering.
Sunda says she was “shocked and sickened” by the suit, “This could have broken up my marriage,” she says bitterly.
But she is taking all the conflict in stride, keeping her anger in perspective with humor. “Maybe they don’t like Swedes,’ she muses to NBC’s Today Show host Al Roker, telling how she had been asked to step out of family photographs.
She has since changed her material to focus on herself, her husband, and Jennifer Lopez.
“My father is Swedish, my mother is African-American. You know what that made me growing up?” she asks the audience. “A Puerto Rican! That works for me, honey. … After having two babies in two years, I look like J-Lo.”
Let’s hope the judge has some common sense and throws this suit out the window.
Is Microsoft Racist?
Microsoft was forced to apologize last Wednesday after word of an editing choice of an online ad leaked to the public. Apparently, the head of a black model was “photo-swapped” with the head of a white model.
The ad drew widespread criticism on the Internet after Engadget, an influential tech blog, published news of the gaffe Tuesday.
The ad showed three business people, one Asian, one white and one black. It was altered on Microsoft’s web site in Poland, presumably with the “racially homogeneous” Polish market in mind.
On an amusing note that could put this all into perspective, upon closer inspection, it seems that the middle person is using an Apple MacBook MB062LL/A.
“While saying that Microsoft’s Polish operation was not commenting at all on the issue, Gazeta Wyborcza made much of the suggestion that the laptop in the shot may actually be a barely anonymized Apple model and that the monitor on the table doesn’t seem to be connected to anything. The paper even quoted Vijay, a commenter from the PhotoshopDisasters blog, who wrote: ‘The white head and black hand actually symbolise (sic) interracial harmony.’”
The article goes on to say that the Poles seem to be regarding this as a non-issue,
probably because they don’t have many blacks there. However, the more racially sensitive America will no doubt see this as an attack.
“Apart from the racial undertones it is surprising because the black man looks quite charming while the white guy looks like one of those cheesy, sycophantic employees who laughs the loudest at the bosses jokes, then gets slaughtered at the Christmas party and tries to shag his secretary” an Australian blog says.
On Microsoft’s official page on the social network site Twitter, a posting calls the swap “a marketing mistake” and offers “sincere apologies.”
“We apologized, fixed the error and we are looking into how it happened,” said Lou Gellos, a Microsoft spokesman. He said that because the company was still reviewing how the swap occurred he could not comment further.
So is this a racial slam, a “marketing mistake,” or just an editing job gone awry? My money is on the latter ones.
c. 2009
The ad drew widespread criticism on the Internet after Engadget, an influential tech blog, published news of the gaffe Tuesday.
The ad showed three business people, one Asian, one white and one black. It was altered on Microsoft’s web site in Poland, presumably with the “racially homogeneous” Polish market in mind.
On an amusing note that could put this all into perspective, upon closer inspection, it seems that the middle person is using an Apple MacBook MB062LL/A.
“While saying that Microsoft’s Polish operation was not commenting at all on the issue, Gazeta Wyborcza made much of the suggestion that the laptop in the shot may actually be a barely anonymized Apple model and that the monitor on the table doesn’t seem to be connected to anything. The paper even quoted Vijay, a commenter from the PhotoshopDisasters blog, who wrote: ‘The white head and black hand actually symbolise (sic) interracial harmony.’”
The article goes on to say that the Poles seem to be regarding this as a non-issue,
probably because they don’t have many blacks there. However, the more racially sensitive America will no doubt see this as an attack.
“Apart from the racial undertones it is surprising because the black man looks quite charming while the white guy looks like one of those cheesy, sycophantic employees who laughs the loudest at the bosses jokes, then gets slaughtered at the Christmas party and tries to shag his secretary” an Australian blog says.
On Microsoft’s official page on the social network site Twitter, a posting calls the swap “a marketing mistake” and offers “sincere apologies.”
“We apologized, fixed the error and we are looking into how it happened,” said Lou Gellos, a Microsoft spokesman. He said that because the company was still reviewing how the swap occurred he could not comment further.
So is this a racial slam, a “marketing mistake,” or just an editing job gone awry? My money is on the latter ones.
c. 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
