According to an AP story, Aerosmith rocker, Joe Perry is pissed off at Steven Tyler for sidelining their tour.
Tyler, 61, is normally quite agile despite his age. Though he apparently fell backwards off the stage onto a couple of fans on Wednesday night during the band’s show in Rapid City, South Dakota. Apparently the sound system malfunctioned during Love in an Elevator performance, and Tyler was amusing the crowd with his dancing when the fall happened.
“He does a lot of dancing on the stage and he does a lot of stuff with his mic stand. He put his stand down and twirled around and stepped backwards off the stage,” said Mike Sanborn, spokesman for the Buffalo Chip Campground, which hosted the outdoor concert.
He was airlifted to the hospital, but was said to be in good spirits, even with a broken left shoulder 20 stitches in his head. He was joking around with the doctors. He was ordered by doctors to take some time off to recover.
After the incident, Perry Tweeted to ticket holders, “Sincere apologies out 2 all Aero Fans regarding the canceled shows. It really bums me out too- you have no idea. Pray 4 Stevens speedy return,”
However, Perry responded to the media a little more candidly, “I was pretty (upset), because right before that, he had pulled a muscle in his leg. And we had to take two weeks off and we missed probably seven dates.”
I’m not sure why Steve Perry is so upset. He has been busy promoting his upcoming , album, “Have Guitar, Will Travel.”
It would seem that he would show a little more concern for his injured co-worker. I can understand being frustrated that the tour is cancelled, but why do you have to being an ass about the whole thing? It’s not like Tyler asked for the injury. I would hope that if Perry were to get injured, Tyler wouldn’t respond in like manner.
It would also not seem uncommon for health issues to be interfering with Aerosmith’s plans. They are in their 60s, after all.
“All I know is he’s got to get his act together. I mean, he and I haven’t written a song together alone in the same room in over ten years, so there’s been some changes in paradigm of what Aerosmith is,” he said.
Perry said that he hasn’t spoken to Tyler recently.
c. 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Eddie Izzard Runs Around Britain
Transvestite stand-up comic, Eddie Izzard, 47 ran 1,100 miles around Britain. This is an especially unlikely challenge for someone who has never run more than 5 miles. It is, as you can imagine, quite the feather in his cap. He had been entertaining the thought for 10 years
It was a charity run for Sport Relief, a fundraising organization that raises and donates money to impoverished people in the UK and abroad. “I wanted to try to run around the whole of the UK. London to Cardiff to Belfast to Edinburgh and back to London, running through as many parts of the UK that lie in between our 4 capitals,” he said, of his “Eddie Iz Running challenge.” He carried flags and ice cream through the capitals. Wales, Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland. The ice cream truck followed him along, giving free ice creams, in hopes for donations.
He Twittered and blogged throughout the whole adventure to keep the public informed and supportive.
Izzard admitted his charity run from London to Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh, in aid of Sports Relief, had become “science fiction” and he was beyond exhaustion. Asked about preparation, Izzard said: “Well, I was told I was supposed to do five months of training, but I don’t like training so I did five weeks of training.”
After the run, by he announced the possibility of running for parliament in either Westminster or Brussels, because he liked to make long announcements.
When asked why he had decided to take on the Eddie Iz Running adventure, Izzard, said, “I think running is very primal. We used to hunt in this way.”
All kidding aside, his reasons for running are purely noble, which he did share on his blog,
The thinking behind his mission was;
WE ARE DIFFERENT
WE ARE THE SAME
WE ARE UNITED KINGDOM
WE ARE AFRICA
WE ARE HUMANITY
The 47-year-old finished his 1,100 mile (1,770 kilometer) odyssey across Britain, telling journalists: “I feel dead.” He is determined not to give up on the running and would like to do at least a couple of long runs every week.
Izzard, sustained a few minor injuries, including one to his hamstring during training, as well as shin problems. When asked how he managed to keep going, with the strenuous schedule of thirty-one miles for 6 days a week, he said that it was all about mind over matter. He compared it to the Second World War, where people had to do extraordinary things. He said, “If you imagine that you are going to do something that is rather extreme you just go ahead and do it.”
c. 2009
It was a charity run for Sport Relief, a fundraising organization that raises and donates money to impoverished people in the UK and abroad. “I wanted to try to run around the whole of the UK. London to Cardiff to Belfast to Edinburgh and back to London, running through as many parts of the UK that lie in between our 4 capitals,” he said, of his “Eddie Iz Running challenge.” He carried flags and ice cream through the capitals. Wales, Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland. The ice cream truck followed him along, giving free ice creams, in hopes for donations.
He Twittered and blogged throughout the whole adventure to keep the public informed and supportive.
Izzard admitted his charity run from London to Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh, in aid of Sports Relief, had become “science fiction” and he was beyond exhaustion. Asked about preparation, Izzard said: “Well, I was told I was supposed to do five months of training, but I don’t like training so I did five weeks of training.”
After the run, by he announced the possibility of running for parliament in either Westminster or Brussels, because he liked to make long announcements.
When asked why he had decided to take on the Eddie Iz Running adventure, Izzard, said, “I think running is very primal. We used to hunt in this way.”
All kidding aside, his reasons for running are purely noble, which he did share on his blog,
The thinking behind his mission was;
WE ARE DIFFERENT
WE ARE THE SAME
WE ARE UNITED KINGDOM
WE ARE AFRICA
WE ARE HUMANITY
The 47-year-old finished his 1,100 mile (1,770 kilometer) odyssey across Britain, telling journalists: “I feel dead.” He is determined not to give up on the running and would like to do at least a couple of long runs every week.
Izzard, sustained a few minor injuries, including one to his hamstring during training, as well as shin problems. When asked how he managed to keep going, with the strenuous schedule of thirty-one miles for 6 days a week, he said that it was all about mind over matter. He compared it to the Second World War, where people had to do extraordinary things. He said, “If you imagine that you are going to do something that is rather extreme you just go ahead and do it.”
c. 2009
All Oprah, All the Time
Imagine, if you will, a world without the Oprah show. The all-pervasive Oprah brand has been with us since 1986. But her contract ends in 2011. Now who will greet us when when we get home from work or school, Steve Wilkos?
Lord help us.
I was in the 6th grade when The Oprah Winfrey show made its debut. Little did I know what an enterprise it would become. Talk shows of that sort were just starting. What started as a sprinkling of followers in the 80s led to a huge BOOM in the 1990s, all following Oprah’s model. Even with the so-called “competition,” she was able to rise above.
Oprah is more than just a talk show; it’s an entity. She is responsible not only for her success, but the successes of many others, be it philanthropy, branding, even a passing comment. A mere mention from Oprah is worth more than gold.
So what is a world without Oprah like? Will she fade away into a new world of inactivity? Will her entrepreneurial spirit retire as well? Not quite.
One blogger says, that Oprah might want to consider replacing Joe Biden in the 2012 re-election, claiming that the 2011 date for her retirement is no coincidence.
According to the Tribune, Winfrey has been back and forth on the possibility of ending her world famous show for a while. Now with her Oprah Winfrey Network vision, the possibility seems more likely.
After all, why should she be satisfied with only ONE show when she can have an ENTIRE CHANNEL? The most powerful woman in the world is taking on a new cable channel, the Oprah Winfrey Network, with Discovery Communications. The company’s CEO said in a conference call Friday that Winfrey will not renew her syndicated talk show contract when it expires in September 2011.
“The expectation is that after that, her show will go off of ABC in syndication and she will come to OWN,” Discovery CEO David Zaslav said, according to the Chicago Tribune. “We’re talking now about what the presence will be and what kind of programming she would be involved in directly. But this is her Chapter 2, and building the OWN brand online and on-air is . . . a core mission for her.”
“This network isn’t just about me,” Oprah says. “It’s using the voice and the brand and the vision, but it really is about creating possibilities for any number of people … to extend the vision….”
Liberty Media’s Discovery Communications paid Ms. Winfrey $420 million to take control of Discovery Health Channel which will become OWN. OWN would be a 50-50 venture between Winfrey’s Harpo Productions and Discovery Communications.
This is a huge win for Discovery, and since the Oprah brand has few losses, score one for her as well.
“This is an evolution of what I’ve been able to do every day. I will now have the opportunity to do that 24 hours a day on a platform that goes on forever.” She says.
Lord help us.
I was in the 6th grade when The Oprah Winfrey show made its debut. Little did I know what an enterprise it would become. Talk shows of that sort were just starting. What started as a sprinkling of followers in the 80s led to a huge BOOM in the 1990s, all following Oprah’s model. Even with the so-called “competition,” she was able to rise above.
Oprah is more than just a talk show; it’s an entity. She is responsible not only for her success, but the successes of many others, be it philanthropy, branding, even a passing comment. A mere mention from Oprah is worth more than gold.
So what is a world without Oprah like? Will she fade away into a new world of inactivity? Will her entrepreneurial spirit retire as well? Not quite.
One blogger says, that Oprah might want to consider replacing Joe Biden in the 2012 re-election, claiming that the 2011 date for her retirement is no coincidence.
According to the Tribune, Winfrey has been back and forth on the possibility of ending her world famous show for a while. Now with her Oprah Winfrey Network vision, the possibility seems more likely.
After all, why should she be satisfied with only ONE show when she can have an ENTIRE CHANNEL? The most powerful woman in the world is taking on a new cable channel, the Oprah Winfrey Network, with Discovery Communications. The company’s CEO said in a conference call Friday that Winfrey will not renew her syndicated talk show contract when it expires in September 2011.
“The expectation is that after that, her show will go off of ABC in syndication and she will come to OWN,” Discovery CEO David Zaslav said, according to the Chicago Tribune. “We’re talking now about what the presence will be and what kind of programming she would be involved in directly. But this is her Chapter 2, and building the OWN brand online and on-air is . . . a core mission for her.”
“This network isn’t just about me,” Oprah says. “It’s using the voice and the brand and the vision, but it really is about creating possibilities for any number of people … to extend the vision….”
Liberty Media’s Discovery Communications paid Ms. Winfrey $420 million to take control of Discovery Health Channel which will become OWN. OWN would be a 50-50 venture between Winfrey’s Harpo Productions and Discovery Communications.
This is a huge win for Discovery, and since the Oprah brand has few losses, score one for her as well.
“This is an evolution of what I’ve been able to do every day. I will now have the opportunity to do that 24 hours a day on a platform that goes on forever.” She says.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Don't Count on "Super-Poking" Maureen Dowd Anytime Soon
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
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
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)
