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 Though it is already outdated say many translators.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
Sunday, September 13, 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
Friday, August 28, 2009
"Quality Journlism isn't Cheap."... Rupert Murdoch
What if you had to pay for all the resources that you now enjoy for free on the internet, all the articles that used to be yours for a few clicks? It is no secret how cyberspace has transformed research in just a matter of years.
Rupert Murdoch, who once talked about dropping the online fee for the Wall Street Journal’s content, has seemingly tightened the purse strings since a few years ago.
“We intend to charge for all our news websites,” says Murdoch. “If we’re successful, we’ll be followed by all media.”
However, most experts disagree.
Internet experts say that almost everybody who has ever tried charging for content has failed. The cyber-challenged, media mogul, Rupert Murdoch is out of touch, they say. Michael Wolff, whose book on Murdoch, The Man Who Owns the News, came out in December, says he was shocked to learn that Murdoch didn’t have an e-mail address, could barely use his cell phone and had not been on the Internet unaided. “Technology,” writes Wolff, “has always been regarded as one of those things, like fancy hotels, or long-form writing, that are not part of [News Corp.'s] culture.”
Journalism has reached its all time high, in terms of audience, it seems. Newspapers currently have more readers than ever before. The only problem is that very few of these consumers are paying. According to a Pew Research Center study, more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paying for newspapers and magazines. Who can blame them?
The nineties saw the boom of the .com age, when money was easily made from advertisers. This caused many newspapers and magazines to put all of their content on the web for free. But it backfired. Instead of paying the news source handsomely, those dollars paid for things like search engines and portals.
I have always imagined that the unlimited free access can’t be good for the print industry, kind of like how Napster was to the music industry. Regardless, we have enjoyed the accessibility of these articles for so long, we feel it’s our right. Print journalism has traditionally had three revenue sources: newsstand sales, subscriptions, and advertising. With web advertising declining, it is a business model that won’t have a leg to stand on.
As a writer, myself, I’ve learned that any exposure is beneficial, that sometimes you need to bite the bullet and give stuff away. But you can only give away so much stuff before you realize that you still have bills that require earnings to pay.
There are a few newspapers that do charge a monthly subscription for content, the Wall Street Journal being one of them. In 2008, online subscriptions were up 7%.
So will this really change the way we surf the net? Will computers now come with a coin drop attached to the mainframe? Will paid subscriptions be required for online news? Will Libraries be getting more traffic? Some envision an I-Tunes-esque system to be modified for the news industry. How will this change the way you get your news?
c.2009
Rupert Murdoch, who once talked about dropping the online fee for the Wall Street Journal’s content, has seemingly tightened the purse strings since a few years ago.
“We intend to charge for all our news websites,” says Murdoch. “If we’re successful, we’ll be followed by all media.”
However, most experts disagree.
Internet experts say that almost everybody who has ever tried charging for content has failed. The cyber-challenged, media mogul, Rupert Murdoch is out of touch, they say. Michael Wolff, whose book on Murdoch, The Man Who Owns the News, came out in December, says he was shocked to learn that Murdoch didn’t have an e-mail address, could barely use his cell phone and had not been on the Internet unaided. “Technology,” writes Wolff, “has always been regarded as one of those things, like fancy hotels, or long-form writing, that are not part of [News Corp.'s] culture.”
Journalism has reached its all time high, in terms of audience, it seems. Newspapers currently have more readers than ever before. The only problem is that very few of these consumers are paying. According to a Pew Research Center study, more people in the U.S. got their news online for free than paying for newspapers and magazines. Who can blame them?
The nineties saw the boom of the .com age, when money was easily made from advertisers. This caused many newspapers and magazines to put all of their content on the web for free. But it backfired. Instead of paying the news source handsomely, those dollars paid for things like search engines and portals.
I have always imagined that the unlimited free access can’t be good for the print industry, kind of like how Napster was to the music industry. Regardless, we have enjoyed the accessibility of these articles for so long, we feel it’s our right. Print journalism has traditionally had three revenue sources: newsstand sales, subscriptions, and advertising. With web advertising declining, it is a business model that won’t have a leg to stand on.
As a writer, myself, I’ve learned that any exposure is beneficial, that sometimes you need to bite the bullet and give stuff away. But you can only give away so much stuff before you realize that you still have bills that require earnings to pay.
There are a few newspapers that do charge a monthly subscription for content, the Wall Street Journal being one of them. In 2008, online subscriptions were up 7%.
So will this really change the way we surf the net? Will computers now come with a coin drop attached to the mainframe? Will paid subscriptions be required for online news? Will Libraries be getting more traffic? Some envision an I-Tunes-esque system to be modified for the news industry. How will this change the way you get your news?
c.2009
The Dark Side of William Golding
Upon reading Lord of the Flies, I am pretty sure that I wouldn’t leave any children with the author. But upon reading his memoir, I’m fairly certain that I myself wouldn’t be left alone with him.
William Golding, who penned the dark tale of innocence lost, Lord of the Flies, was a jack of many trades including schoolmaster, a sailor, an actor, and a musician. He was also a rapist.
This new information emerges as John Carey, a professor of English literature at Oxford University, was given access to a personal journal kept by Golding – who carefully guarded personal information during his life – for 20 years.
He confessed to the incident in an unpublished memoir, called Men, Women & Now, which he wrote for his late wife of 54 years in an effort to explain how his own “monstrous” character had developed.
The attempted rape involved a Marlborough girl, named Dora, who had taken piano lessons with Golding. It happened when he was 18 and on holiday during his first year at Oxford.
Golding seems to excuse the attempted rape on the grounds that Dora was “depraved by nature” and, at 14, was “already sexy as an ape.” Though she fought him off and ran away as he stood there shouting: “I’m not going to hurt you,”
he says in the journal he had been sure the girl “wanted heavy sex.”
Indeed, two years later, the pair met again and had [consensual] sex in a field. Golding recounts the girl’s foreplay remark: “Should I have all that rammed up my guts?”
The journal suggested that the Dora had later plotted to get his father, a grammar school teacher in Marlborough, to watch them having sex in a field through binoculars. Golding tells how Dora persuaded his father to spy on the two of them having sex. She suggested he take his binoculars with him on two specific days to a playing field where they would be. However, she knew that his other son Joseph, William’s older brother, would also be there with his girlfriend having sex.
“It was Dora’s revenge,” writes Carey, The Sunday Times’ chief reviewer. “She wanted to show him that his two sons were not exemplary.” Golding was convinced her approach to his father was a deliberate attempt to discredit him and his older brother.
The journal tells other disturbing stories such as Golding’s psychological experiments with his classes at Bishop Wordsworth’s school, in Salisbury, caused his eyes “to come out like organ stops.”
He divided pupils into gangs, with one attacking a prehistoric camp and the other defending it. This is probably how Simon, Ralph, Piggy and the other characters in Lord of the Flies may have been born.
The boys stranded on the island display man’s innate dark side, as well as the concept of good and evil. Golding’s theme in his book is a horrifying display of survival of the fittest.
Carey says that Golding “was aware of and repelled by the cruelty in himself and was given to saying that, had he been born in Hitler’s Germany, he would have been a Nazi. Dora seems to have played her part in this self-knowledge”.
A later girlfriend, Mollie, whom he also treated badly, was another local from Marlborough whom he later let down by breaking off their engagement, due to her cold personality. Mollie finds a place in his 1959 novel Free Fall, as Beatrice.
His work is said to reflect much of the horror of his time as well as an understanding of it. Will this new information change the way you understand his works?
c.2009
William Golding, who penned the dark tale of innocence lost, Lord of the Flies, was a jack of many trades including schoolmaster, a sailor, an actor, and a musician. He was also a rapist.
This new information emerges as John Carey, a professor of English literature at Oxford University, was given access to a personal journal kept by Golding – who carefully guarded personal information during his life – for 20 years.
He confessed to the incident in an unpublished memoir, called Men, Women & Now, which he wrote for his late wife of 54 years in an effort to explain how his own “monstrous” character had developed.
The attempted rape involved a Marlborough girl, named Dora, who had taken piano lessons with Golding. It happened when he was 18 and on holiday during his first year at Oxford.
Golding seems to excuse the attempted rape on the grounds that Dora was “depraved by nature” and, at 14, was “already sexy as an ape.” Though she fought him off and ran away as he stood there shouting: “I’m not going to hurt you,”
he says in the journal he had been sure the girl “wanted heavy sex.”
Indeed, two years later, the pair met again and had [consensual] sex in a field. Golding recounts the girl’s foreplay remark: “Should I have all that rammed up my guts?”
The journal suggested that the Dora had later plotted to get his father, a grammar school teacher in Marlborough, to watch them having sex in a field through binoculars. Golding tells how Dora persuaded his father to spy on the two of them having sex. She suggested he take his binoculars with him on two specific days to a playing field where they would be. However, she knew that his other son Joseph, William’s older brother, would also be there with his girlfriend having sex.
“It was Dora’s revenge,” writes Carey, The Sunday Times’ chief reviewer. “She wanted to show him that his two sons were not exemplary.” Golding was convinced her approach to his father was a deliberate attempt to discredit him and his older brother.
The journal tells other disturbing stories such as Golding’s psychological experiments with his classes at Bishop Wordsworth’s school, in Salisbury, caused his eyes “to come out like organ stops.”
He divided pupils into gangs, with one attacking a prehistoric camp and the other defending it. This is probably how Simon, Ralph, Piggy and the other characters in Lord of the Flies may have been born.
The boys stranded on the island display man’s innate dark side, as well as the concept of good and evil. Golding’s theme in his book is a horrifying display of survival of the fittest.
Carey says that Golding “was aware of and repelled by the cruelty in himself and was given to saying that, had he been born in Hitler’s Germany, he would have been a Nazi. Dora seems to have played her part in this self-knowledge”.
A later girlfriend, Mollie, whom he also treated badly, was another local from Marlborough whom he later let down by breaking off their engagement, due to her cold personality. Mollie finds a place in his 1959 novel Free Fall, as Beatrice.
His work is said to reflect much of the horror of his time as well as an understanding of it. Will this new information change the way you understand his works?
c.2009
Jealous, Whoopi?
Whoopi Goldberg really doesn't like Sarah Palin. Though, I think Sarah Palin needn’t worry. Even after she lost the vice-presidency, Palin remains the most-googled public figure 9 months after the election.
Whoopi takes full advantage of her Constitutional right to free speech against the former VP pick. (Which, you know only raises the Google hits). Truth be told, I think she sees Palin as a threat to her very existence. Indeed she should. Sarah stands against everything Whoopi holds dear. This sheer disdain that Whoopi holds for Sarah only shows her deep-seated insecurities.
It is not surprising or interesting that Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Just like it is not surprising or interesting that say, Stephen Baldwin wouldn’t be on board with any of Obama’s picks. What makes it stand out is the amount of time Goldberg spends talking about why it is that Sarah Palin is so horrible. This goes beyond passion for politics. She takes any and every opportunity to completely bash the former VP pick, which you know, no one else is doing, Way to go, Whoopi for doing a new thing.
Goldberg posed a question to Republicans on the Campbell Brown show; after hinting that Palin was too extreme in her beliefs (kind of like Obama’s or Biden’s extreme views, which she prefers), and pointing out many of the widely held “misspeaks” attributed to Palin, she asks, “Is this really the woman you want representing your party?”
After my resounding “Hell, yeah!,” The only conclusion I can come to is that the bawdy, self-important actress is so threatened by Palin, that she takes any outlet to vent her angst.
What’s ironic is that last year Whoopi came to her defense on The View.
Apparently, she’s had a change of heart. Since then, Sarah Palin has morphed into pure evil. She writes extensively in her WowOWow column about Sarah,calling her a “very dangerous woman.” Whoopi has a whole laundry list of complaints about Sarah that she’ll list on cue to anyone who will listen on The View.
Though she steers clear of personal slander, she stays true to the rest of her party, by doing it the easy way by accusing before checking her facts. Her list includes the would-be important issue of Palin supporting Alaskan succession (she means secession). I say “would-be” if only it were true.
She also brings up another would-be important issue of banning books, which is another mistruth.
She scorns Palin’s lack of experience saying, “She feels that her governorship qualifies her to be the VP. She has no foreign policy experience, she doesn’t have very much experience with anything but Alaska, and being governor, as we know, is not necessarily a carte blanche to being president.” This has to be a joke, given Obama’s minute comparative experience, and more importantly Goldberg’s experience in anything besides acting or running her mouth. What expertise does she have on these things?
She points out the “inaccuracy” of Palin’s treatment of unwed white mothers and unwed black mothers. Whoopi thinks it’s a double standard to refer to black mothers as “welfare moms.” It would be, but she wasn’t just talking about black mothers. And I doubt Bristol Palin asked the government to pay for her out-of-wedlock child. Besides, if anything, she has stuck to her standards by not aborting, not covering it up, and standing by Bristol.
On Campbell Brown’s show, Whoopi expresses her concern that Sarah Palin was “pretending to be dumb…I thought that she was much smarter than she let on and it irritated the hell out of me.” She also mentioned “meanness and snideness,” which I don’t think were there, but find extremely interesting that Whoopi Goldberg would have a problem with it if it were since she herself utilizes those traits weekly.
So what is Whoopi’s, or anyone’s, beef with Sarah Palin? What is it about her that is so polarizing? Sarah truly does raise the bar for women. I don’t blame her for being scared of the beautiful governor who truly does have it all, and epitomizes the goal of feminism more than Whoopi ever will.
c. 2009
Whoopi takes full advantage of her Constitutional right to free speech against the former VP pick. (Which, you know only raises the Google hits). Truth be told, I think she sees Palin as a threat to her very existence. Indeed she should. Sarah stands against everything Whoopi holds dear. This sheer disdain that Whoopi holds for Sarah only shows her deep-seated insecurities.
It is not surprising or interesting that Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Just like it is not surprising or interesting that say, Stephen Baldwin wouldn’t be on board with any of Obama’s picks. What makes it stand out is the amount of time Goldberg spends talking about why it is that Sarah Palin is so horrible. This goes beyond passion for politics. She takes any and every opportunity to completely bash the former VP pick, which you know, no one else is doing, Way to go, Whoopi for doing a new thing.
Goldberg posed a question to Republicans on the Campbell Brown show; after hinting that Palin was too extreme in her beliefs (kind of like Obama’s or Biden’s extreme views, which she prefers), and pointing out many of the widely held “misspeaks” attributed to Palin, she asks, “Is this really the woman you want representing your party?”
After my resounding “Hell, yeah!,” The only conclusion I can come to is that the bawdy, self-important actress is so threatened by Palin, that she takes any outlet to vent her angst.
What’s ironic is that last year Whoopi came to her defense on The View.
Apparently, she’s had a change of heart. Since then, Sarah Palin has morphed into pure evil. She writes extensively in her WowOWow column about Sarah,calling her a “very dangerous woman.” Whoopi has a whole laundry list of complaints about Sarah that she’ll list on cue to anyone who will listen on The View.
Though she steers clear of personal slander, she stays true to the rest of her party, by doing it the easy way by accusing before checking her facts. Her list includes the would-be important issue of Palin supporting Alaskan succession (she means secession). I say “would-be” if only it were true.
She also brings up another would-be important issue of banning books, which is another mistruth.
She scorns Palin’s lack of experience saying, “She feels that her governorship qualifies her to be the VP. She has no foreign policy experience, she doesn’t have very much experience with anything but Alaska, and being governor, as we know, is not necessarily a carte blanche to being president.” This has to be a joke, given Obama’s minute comparative experience, and more importantly Goldberg’s experience in anything besides acting or running her mouth. What expertise does she have on these things?
She points out the “inaccuracy” of Palin’s treatment of unwed white mothers and unwed black mothers. Whoopi thinks it’s a double standard to refer to black mothers as “welfare moms.” It would be, but she wasn’t just talking about black mothers. And I doubt Bristol Palin asked the government to pay for her out-of-wedlock child. Besides, if anything, she has stuck to her standards by not aborting, not covering it up, and standing by Bristol.
On Campbell Brown’s show, Whoopi expresses her concern that Sarah Palin was “pretending to be dumb…I thought that she was much smarter than she let on and it irritated the hell out of me.” She also mentioned “meanness and snideness,” which I don’t think were there, but find extremely interesting that Whoopi Goldberg would have a problem with it if it were since she herself utilizes those traits weekly.
So what is Whoopi’s, or anyone’s, beef with Sarah Palin? What is it about her that is so polarizing? Sarah truly does raise the bar for women. I don’t blame her for being scared of the beautiful governor who truly does have it all, and epitomizes the goal of feminism more than Whoopi ever will.
c. 2009
Beauty in the Eye of the Employer?
Would you be willing to undergo the knife to get or keep your job?
Everyone is familiar with celebrities’ both successful and garish experiences with plastic surgery. In fact, Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers are the first images that come to my mind upon hearing the word. It’s not for the common folk, right?
With many companies feeling the strain of the low economy, one industry is using it to their advantage. The increase of people embarking on unexpected job searches is causing many to consider more extreme measures to improve their marketability. Everyone knows that the future belongs to the young…or maybe just the young looking.
Our society’s focus on appearance is not only reinforced, but justified by books such as My Beautiful Mommy.
This is a book written to help the children of parents who undergo reconstructive surgery, by explaining the “necessity.” Or perhaps the more true-to-life satirical take by the Onion will help the child actually considering plastic surgery for herself.
Who could blame us? Shows like The Swan, and Extreme Makeover familiarize people with the concept of image-altering surgeries. They transform average folks, thus transporting them into a world of no problems, right?
26-year-old, Nancy says, “I had more opportunities for jobs and I was more accepted in all sorts of ways,” she marveled. Though, I couldn’t possibly imagine what sort of a job a 26-year-old would need to look younger for, it seems that this is the wave of the future. Plastic surgeons are developing a much younger clientele
Dr. Tom Haas, of the Imaage Surgery Center, says that consultations for surgeries have jumped significantly [since the recession started]. Some of the most common procedures he’s doing are liposuction, breast jobs, and nose jobs. In the last three months, he’s performed nine times as many nose surgeries as the same period last year.
One patient justifies it, saying, “I’m out there competing with women in their 30s and 40s, and I just turned 50…Of course, the economy has gotten a lot scarier, and I lost money in the stock market like everyone else. … But I want my clients to know I have energy and will be there tomorrow. Presenting a fresher face makes people feel like you’re awake at the wheel.”
You need surgery to do this?
One patient says, “I just feel good about myself. But you have to do it all the time in order to stay looking young.”
All the time? Is this really affordable? Is this even healthy?
A large part of the reason younger people are more attractive to bosses is they tend to have a lower salary expectation. It seems strange that older employees would be willing to undergo the knife if it meant a lower salary.
It is true that every surgical procedure, even legitimate ones hold risks. For some this is the answer and it does change their lives for the better. There are many people who have undergone surgeries who are very happy with the results.
So have we found our fountain of youth? In a society that most definitely values image over skills, is this the answer? Some are willing to take grisly measures to get the job they want. Which career do you think would be worth the knife?
c.2009
Everyone is familiar with celebrities’ both successful and garish experiences with plastic surgery. In fact, Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers are the first images that come to my mind upon hearing the word. It’s not for the common folk, right?
With many companies feeling the strain of the low economy, one industry is using it to their advantage. The increase of people embarking on unexpected job searches is causing many to consider more extreme measures to improve their marketability. Everyone knows that the future belongs to the young…or maybe just the young looking.
Our society’s focus on appearance is not only reinforced, but justified by books such as My Beautiful Mommy.
This is a book written to help the children of parents who undergo reconstructive surgery, by explaining the “necessity.” Or perhaps the more true-to-life satirical take by the Onion will help the child actually considering plastic surgery for herself.
Who could blame us? Shows like The Swan, and Extreme Makeover familiarize people with the concept of image-altering surgeries. They transform average folks, thus transporting them into a world of no problems, right?
26-year-old, Nancy says, “I had more opportunities for jobs and I was more accepted in all sorts of ways,” she marveled. Though, I couldn’t possibly imagine what sort of a job a 26-year-old would need to look younger for, it seems that this is the wave of the future. Plastic surgeons are developing a much younger clientele
Dr. Tom Haas, of the Imaage Surgery Center, says that consultations for surgeries have jumped significantly [since the recession started]. Some of the most common procedures he’s doing are liposuction, breast jobs, and nose jobs. In the last three months, he’s performed nine times as many nose surgeries as the same period last year.
One patient justifies it, saying, “I’m out there competing with women in their 30s and 40s, and I just turned 50…Of course, the economy has gotten a lot scarier, and I lost money in the stock market like everyone else. … But I want my clients to know I have energy and will be there tomorrow. Presenting a fresher face makes people feel like you’re awake at the wheel.”
You need surgery to do this?
One patient says, “I just feel good about myself. But you have to do it all the time in order to stay looking young.”
All the time? Is this really affordable? Is this even healthy?
A large part of the reason younger people are more attractive to bosses is they tend to have a lower salary expectation. It seems strange that older employees would be willing to undergo the knife if it meant a lower salary.
It is true that every surgical procedure, even legitimate ones hold risks. For some this is the answer and it does change their lives for the better. There are many people who have undergone surgeries who are very happy with the results.
So have we found our fountain of youth? In a society that most definitely values image over skills, is this the answer? Some are willing to take grisly measures to get the job they want. Which career do you think would be worth the knife?
c.2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
