Every time I'm in a cab in New York and my friends and I go by the mysterious number ticker that overlooks Union Square we shout over eachother to try to guess what the giant, rapidly-ticking, in the trillions number means. We used to think it was counting down until the millennium...but that came and went. Actual deaths in Iraq? Nahh way too high. Number of Starbucks locations? Probably not. Earth's orbital odometer? No clue. National deficit? Cost of the war? No one, not any of the natives or tourists that I talked to had any idea...and it's been there since 1999. What did any of you think it was?
Well, I finally found out, after years. It's a clock- duh! It's actually an atomic clock called Metronome. From the left, it tells the time since midnight, and read backwards from the right it tells the time until midnight. Exactly at noon, the clock would read 1200000000000012.
Anyway, what I thought was interesting about this "mystery" is the visual rhetoric behind it. When I saw a crazy-big number constantly ticking in the middle of New York city, it persuaded me to think about serious issues, I thought was something scandalous, and assumed it was that it was trying to get me to think about something important. My friends and I automatically thought about war, death, debt, when in actuality it was simply the time.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Meatrix
Here is a piece of what, in my opinion, is effective rhetoric. Not long after Watching the first Meatrix this past February, I stopped eating meat (The Meatrix wasn't the only reason why, but it had an effect). It's dark, but entertaining at the same time.
http://www.themeatrix.com/
http://www.themeatrix.com/
Friday, October 26, 2007
Jason Whitlock on the NFL Color Lines By DAVE ZIRIN
We discussed Jason Whitlock in class. Here is sportswriter Dave Zirin's eloquent response:
http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin10242007.html
Jason Whitlock on the NFL Color Lines
White Noise
By DAVE ZIRIN
Jason "Big Sexy" Whitlock has told me to "mind [my] own damn business" when it comes to his mission to lead a new Civil Rights movement against "black idiots". But whether you are talking about Whitlock or someone hanging a noose on a tree, there is a problem when you say, "Just ignore it and it will go away."
Whitlock's latest on Fox Sports, titled, "NFL buffoons leaving terrible legacy" takes it to even another level. It's an ugly clarion call for athletic ethnic cleansing. He makes the case that the NFL is getting whiter, all thanks to black "hip hop buffoons" who are alienating owners, coaches, and fans. He writes, "African-American football players caught up in the rebellion and buffoonery of hip hop culture have given NFL owners and coaches a justifiable reason to whiten their rosters." Justifiable: meaning it is a process he both defends and understands.
His evidence for actions that "justify whitening" lie with flamboyant Bengals wide receiver Chad Johnson and Chiefs running back Larry Johnson [no relation]. He believes that both men consciously undermine their coaches, Marvin Lewis and Herm Edwards, two of the few black head coaches in the NFL. To even the casual football fan, even those who favor Whitlock's politics, the argument should make no sense. Larry Johnson, a coach's son from a middle class background, is the Chiefs' captain. He certainly has a reputation for being enigmatic and sulky, but his Chiefs, picked to finish last, are now standing at a surprising 4-3.
Chad Johnson's Bengals have been a disaster at 2-5, with so many arrests they are referred to as Cincin-Attica. But one of their few players who have brought game every week, played at a pro bowl level, and stayed out of trouble is Chad Johnson. In the "No Fun League" he delights fans by being a bleached-blonde libertine.
Once again: Larry Johnson: middle class and sulky. Chad Johnson: extraverted and blonde. The only thing these players seemingly have in common is their last name and All-pro skills.
But Whitlock sees another commonality: the color of their skin. They are "bojanglers", buffoons, and symbolic of all that is wrong with "black athletes in thrall of hip hop/prison culture."
But perhaps sensing the transparency of his argument--and the fact that we've heard this song from him before, Whitlock isn't done. He also writes, "[The whitening of rosters] is already starting to happen. A little-publicized fact is that the Colts and the Patriots--the league's model franchises--are two of the whitest teams in the NFL. 47 percent of Tony Dungy's defending Super Bowl-champion roster is non-African-American. Bill Belichick's Patriots are nearly as white, boasting a 23-man non-African-American roster, counting linebacker Tiaina "Junior" Seau and backup quarterback Matt Gutierrez."
There is no end to how irretrievably stupid this is. No demographic evidence exists that the NFL is becoming "whiter." Yes, more players of Latino or South Asian, Pacific Islander, or even African heritage are playing the game. That speaks far more to the dominance of football in an increasingly multicultural United States. In other words, his example of Junior Seau and Matt Gutierrez don't exactly point to the whitening of the league.
Also, as the Battery Chucker Blog points out, even the Colts and Patriots are seeing their seasons rise and fall on the success of their African American players. "Outside of Manning, Brady and Bruschi, the major components of both teams are men like Moss, Harrisson, Freeney, Maroney, Samuel and Wayne. Yes the rosters for both teams are nearly half white, but the majority of the players carrying the load are black, some with corn rows, dreads, tattoo's and big cars and it certainly isn't have an effect on the teams success."
The Patriots example is a particular head-scratcher. This year the Pats took a chance on the ultimate poster-child of "hip hop athletes", Randy Moss, and the results have been spectacular. Three years ago, they rode the back of another disgruntled, corn-rowed "head case" Corey Dillon, to a Super Bowl.
But none of that is what makes Whitlock's article wrong. The worst part about it is that it is racist: pure and simple. It's racist because Whitlock is cheerfully willing to justify "whitening rosters" because of the actions of a few. Yes, there are pro athletes--in every sport of every color--who are narcissists that believe the world spins at their command. Stop the presses. This is the way it has always been in our hero-worshiping, sports obsessed culture. Ty Cobb beat a paraplegic fan for heckling. Ted Williams gave the finger more than once to the Boston faithful. Mickey Mantle went up to the plate hung over and would cuss out young starry-eyed reporters. In football, Whitlock's good friend, quarterback Jeff George was a career head case. When a rookie named John Elway spurned the Baltimore Colts for the Denver Broncos, he was derided as selfish. The difference is that when these athletes acted in such a manner, no one railed about a "crisis of the white athlete" or the "buffoonery" of "white culture." No one said, after Bret Favre admitted to a pain killer addiction, that maybe teams should take a chance on more reliable black quarterbacks. But Whitlock strains to provide ideological cover for every fan freaked out by a bigot's definition of "hip hop" and any owner looking to jettison problem players. Instead of building bridges, Whitlock uses his platform to burn crosses.
The worst part of the column is when he writes, "You know why Muhammad Ali is/was an icon? Because he rebelled against something meaningful and because he excelled in an individual sport. His rebellion didn't interfere with winning. Jim Brown, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, etc. rebelled with dignity and purpose."
Don't believe this self-serving sound bite for a second. It's as convincing as George Bush giving Ali the Congressional Medal of Freedom and calling him a "man of peace." Find a column where Whitlock has anything good to say about athletes who have taken a stand against war or the criminal justice system. He mocks athletes who have stood against the war in Iraq and for the young men in Jena. The young Ali, Brown, Russell, and Kareem would have regarded Whitlock like something beneath contempt.
If Whitlock was around in the 1960s, he'd be more an ally of Carl Rowan, the prominent African American columnist who said upon Malcolm X's death, in the New York Times, that Malcolm was "an ex-convict, ex-dope peddler who became a racial fanatic." Whitlock is on a side that believes the number one problem facing black America is black America--and he's using sports as a vehicle to advance his case. It's a debate that falls apart in the face of every crumbling school, prison, and hospital in any-city USA. It's also a position that, in the current climate, emboldens all the wrong people.
Dave Zirin is the author of "The Muhammad Ali Handbook" (MQ Publications) and "Welcome to the Terrordome: The Pain, Politics and Promise of Sports" . You can receive his column Edge of Sports, every week by e-mailing edgeofsports-subscribe@zirin.com. Contact him at edgeofsports@gmail.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin10242007.html
Jason Whitlock on the NFL Color Lines
White Noise
By DAVE ZIRIN
Jason "Big Sexy" Whitlock has told me to "mind [my] own damn business" when it comes to his mission to lead a new Civil Rights movement against "black idiots". But whether you are talking about Whitlock or someone hanging a noose on a tree, there is a problem when you say, "Just ignore it and it will go away."
Whitlock's latest on Fox Sports, titled, "NFL buffoons leaving terrible legacy" takes it to even another level. It's an ugly clarion call for athletic ethnic cleansing. He makes the case that the NFL is getting whiter, all thanks to black "hip hop buffoons" who are alienating owners, coaches, and fans. He writes, "African-American football players caught up in the rebellion and buffoonery of hip hop culture have given NFL owners and coaches a justifiable reason to whiten their rosters." Justifiable: meaning it is a process he both defends and understands.
His evidence for actions that "justify whitening" lie with flamboyant Bengals wide receiver Chad Johnson and Chiefs running back Larry Johnson [no relation]. He believes that both men consciously undermine their coaches, Marvin Lewis and Herm Edwards, two of the few black head coaches in the NFL. To even the casual football fan, even those who favor Whitlock's politics, the argument should make no sense. Larry Johnson, a coach's son from a middle class background, is the Chiefs' captain. He certainly has a reputation for being enigmatic and sulky, but his Chiefs, picked to finish last, are now standing at a surprising 4-3.
Chad Johnson's Bengals have been a disaster at 2-5, with so many arrests they are referred to as Cincin-Attica. But one of their few players who have brought game every week, played at a pro bowl level, and stayed out of trouble is Chad Johnson. In the "No Fun League" he delights fans by being a bleached-blonde libertine.
Once again: Larry Johnson: middle class and sulky. Chad Johnson: extraverted and blonde. The only thing these players seemingly have in common is their last name and All-pro skills.
But Whitlock sees another commonality: the color of their skin. They are "bojanglers", buffoons, and symbolic of all that is wrong with "black athletes in thrall of hip hop/prison culture."
But perhaps sensing the transparency of his argument--and the fact that we've heard this song from him before, Whitlock isn't done. He also writes, "[The whitening of rosters] is already starting to happen. A little-publicized fact is that the Colts and the Patriots--the league's model franchises--are two of the whitest teams in the NFL. 47 percent of Tony Dungy's defending Super Bowl-champion roster is non-African-American. Bill Belichick's Patriots are nearly as white, boasting a 23-man non-African-American roster, counting linebacker Tiaina "Junior" Seau and backup quarterback Matt Gutierrez."
There is no end to how irretrievably stupid this is. No demographic evidence exists that the NFL is becoming "whiter." Yes, more players of Latino or South Asian, Pacific Islander, or even African heritage are playing the game. That speaks far more to the dominance of football in an increasingly multicultural United States. In other words, his example of Junior Seau and Matt Gutierrez don't exactly point to the whitening of the league.
Also, as the Battery Chucker Blog points out, even the Colts and Patriots are seeing their seasons rise and fall on the success of their African American players. "Outside of Manning, Brady and Bruschi, the major components of both teams are men like Moss, Harrisson, Freeney, Maroney, Samuel and Wayne. Yes the rosters for both teams are nearly half white, but the majority of the players carrying the load are black, some with corn rows, dreads, tattoo's and big cars and it certainly isn't have an effect on the teams success."
The Patriots example is a particular head-scratcher. This year the Pats took a chance on the ultimate poster-child of "hip hop athletes", Randy Moss, and the results have been spectacular. Three years ago, they rode the back of another disgruntled, corn-rowed "head case" Corey Dillon, to a Super Bowl.
But none of that is what makes Whitlock's article wrong. The worst part about it is that it is racist: pure and simple. It's racist because Whitlock is cheerfully willing to justify "whitening rosters" because of the actions of a few. Yes, there are pro athletes--in every sport of every color--who are narcissists that believe the world spins at their command. Stop the presses. This is the way it has always been in our hero-worshiping, sports obsessed culture. Ty Cobb beat a paraplegic fan for heckling. Ted Williams gave the finger more than once to the Boston faithful. Mickey Mantle went up to the plate hung over and would cuss out young starry-eyed reporters. In football, Whitlock's good friend, quarterback Jeff George was a career head case. When a rookie named John Elway spurned the Baltimore Colts for the Denver Broncos, he was derided as selfish. The difference is that when these athletes acted in such a manner, no one railed about a "crisis of the white athlete" or the "buffoonery" of "white culture." No one said, after Bret Favre admitted to a pain killer addiction, that maybe teams should take a chance on more reliable black quarterbacks. But Whitlock strains to provide ideological cover for every fan freaked out by a bigot's definition of "hip hop" and any owner looking to jettison problem players. Instead of building bridges, Whitlock uses his platform to burn crosses.
The worst part of the column is when he writes, "You know why Muhammad Ali is/was an icon? Because he rebelled against something meaningful and because he excelled in an individual sport. His rebellion didn't interfere with winning. Jim Brown, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, etc. rebelled with dignity and purpose."
Don't believe this self-serving sound bite for a second. It's as convincing as George Bush giving Ali the Congressional Medal of Freedom and calling him a "man of peace." Find a column where Whitlock has anything good to say about athletes who have taken a stand against war or the criminal justice system. He mocks athletes who have stood against the war in Iraq and for the young men in Jena. The young Ali, Brown, Russell, and Kareem would have regarded Whitlock like something beneath contempt.
If Whitlock was around in the 1960s, he'd be more an ally of Carl Rowan, the prominent African American columnist who said upon Malcolm X's death, in the New York Times, that Malcolm was "an ex-convict, ex-dope peddler who became a racial fanatic." Whitlock is on a side that believes the number one problem facing black America is black America--and he's using sports as a vehicle to advance his case. It's a debate that falls apart in the face of every crumbling school, prison, and hospital in any-city USA. It's also a position that, in the current climate, emboldens all the wrong people.
Dave Zirin is the author of "The Muhammad Ali Handbook" (MQ Publications) and "Welcome to the Terrordome: The Pain, Politics and Promise of Sports" . You can receive his column Edge of Sports, every week by e-mailing edgeofsports-subscribe@zirin.com. Contact him at edgeofsports@gmail.com
Monday, October 22, 2007
Who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory?
As we talked about in class, many prominent African American celebrities, Cosby, Sharpton, Oprah, and Whoopi included, were peeved with Dave Chappelle's portrayal of the black community. Here is the site that details the conspiracy theory: The Chappelle Theory, I'm sure there are more, but once you start reading this one, it's hard to stop.
Also, the particular skit we discussed, (with Clayton Bigsby, white power) is said to be the one that really set Cosby off. Here it is in case you haven't seen it.
I'm interested to know if people really think that this comedy skit really "sets race relations back 50 years", as Cosby said.
Clayton Bigsby - Funny bloopers are a click away
Also, the particular skit we discussed, (with Clayton Bigsby, white power) is said to be the one that really set Cosby off. Here it is in case you haven't seen it.
I'm interested to know if people really think that this comedy skit really "sets race relations back 50 years", as Cosby said.
Clayton Bigsby - Funny bloopers are a click away
Okay, This story shocked me
Fans ponder Dumbledore gay revelation
NEW YORK (AP) -- With author J.K. Rowling's revelation that master wizard Albus Dumbledore is gay, some passages about the Hogwarts headmaster and rival wizard Gellert Grindelwald have taken on a new and clearer meaning.
The British author stunned her fans at Carnegie Hall on Friday night when she answered one young reader's question about Dumbledore by saying that he was gay and had been in love with Grindelwald, whom he had defeated years ago in a bitter fight.
'"You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me,' " Dumbledore says in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," the seventh and final book in Rowling's record-breaking fantasy series.
The news brought gasps, then applause at Carnegie Hall, the last stop on Rowling's brief U.S. tour, and set off thousands of e-mails on Potter fan Web sites around the world. Some were dismayed, others indifferent, but most were supportive.
"Jo Rowling calling any Harry Potter character gay would make wonderful strides in tolerance toward homosexuality," Melissa Anelli, Webmaster of the fan site http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org, told The Associated Press. "By dubbing someone so respected, so talented and so kind, as someone who just happens to be also homosexual, she's reinforcing the idea that a person's gayness is not something of which they should be ashamed."
" 'DUMBLEDORE IS GAY' is quite a headline to stumble upon on a Friday evening, and it's certainly not what I expected," added Potter fan Patrick Ross, of Rutherford, New Jersey. "(But) a gay character in the most popular series in the world is a big step for Jo Rowling and for gay rights."
Dumbledore may now be the world's most famous gay children's character, but he's hardly the first. "And Tango Makes Three," a story by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell that features two male penguins raising a baby penguin, topped the American Library Association's latest list of books attracting the most complaints from parents and educators.
In 2005, PBS decided not to distribute an episode of "Postcards From Buster" that had been criticized by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings for including lesbian characters. The Potter books themselves have long been threatened with removal from school and library shelves, with some Christians alleging that the series promotes witchcraft.
In Rowling's fantasy series, Gellert Grindelwald was a dark wizard of great power who terrorized people much in the same way Harry's nemesis, Lord Voldemort, was to do a generation later. Readers hear of him in the first book, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," in a reference to how Dumbledore defeated him. In "Deathly Hallows," readers learn they once had been best friends.
"Neither Dumbledore nor Grindelwald ever seems to have referred to this brief boyhood friendship in later life,"' Rowling writes. "However, there can be no doubt that Dumbledore delayed, for some five years of turmoil, fatalities, and disappearances, his attack upon Gellert Grindelwald. Was it lingering affection for the man or fear of exposure as his once best friend that caused Dumbledore to hesitate?"
As a young man, Dumbledore, brilliant and powerful, had been forced to return home to look after his mentally ill younger sister and younger brother. It was a task he admits to Harry that he resented, because it derailed the bright future he had been looking forward to.
Then Grindelwald, described by Rowling as "golden-haired, merry-faced," arrived after having been expelled from his own school. Grindelwald's aunt, Bathilda Bagshot, says of their meeting: "The boys took to each other at once." In a letter to Grindelwald, Dumbledore discusses their plans for gaining wizard dominance: "'(I)f you had not been expelled we would never have met."'
Potter readers had speculated about Dumbledore, noting that he has no close relationship with women and a mysterious, troubled past.
"Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling said Friday of Dumbledore's feelings about Grindelwald, adding that Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down."
Dumbledore's love, she observed, was his "great tragedy."
NEW YORK (AP) -- With author J.K. Rowling's revelation that master wizard Albus Dumbledore is gay, some passages about the Hogwarts headmaster and rival wizard Gellert Grindelwald have taken on a new and clearer meaning.
The British author stunned her fans at Carnegie Hall on Friday night when she answered one young reader's question about Dumbledore by saying that he was gay and had been in love with Grindelwald, whom he had defeated years ago in a bitter fight.
'"You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me,' " Dumbledore says in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," the seventh and final book in Rowling's record-breaking fantasy series.
The news brought gasps, then applause at Carnegie Hall, the last stop on Rowling's brief U.S. tour, and set off thousands of e-mails on Potter fan Web sites around the world. Some were dismayed, others indifferent, but most were supportive.
"Jo Rowling calling any Harry Potter character gay would make wonderful strides in tolerance toward homosexuality," Melissa Anelli, Webmaster of the fan site http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org, told The Associated Press. "By dubbing someone so respected, so talented and so kind, as someone who just happens to be also homosexual, she's reinforcing the idea that a person's gayness is not something of which they should be ashamed."
" 'DUMBLEDORE IS GAY' is quite a headline to stumble upon on a Friday evening, and it's certainly not what I expected," added Potter fan Patrick Ross, of Rutherford, New Jersey. "(But) a gay character in the most popular series in the world is a big step for Jo Rowling and for gay rights."
Dumbledore may now be the world's most famous gay children's character, but he's hardly the first. "And Tango Makes Three," a story by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell that features two male penguins raising a baby penguin, topped the American Library Association's latest list of books attracting the most complaints from parents and educators.
In 2005, PBS decided not to distribute an episode of "Postcards From Buster" that had been criticized by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings for including lesbian characters. The Potter books themselves have long been threatened with removal from school and library shelves, with some Christians alleging that the series promotes witchcraft.
In Rowling's fantasy series, Gellert Grindelwald was a dark wizard of great power who terrorized people much in the same way Harry's nemesis, Lord Voldemort, was to do a generation later. Readers hear of him in the first book, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," in a reference to how Dumbledore defeated him. In "Deathly Hallows," readers learn they once had been best friends.
"Neither Dumbledore nor Grindelwald ever seems to have referred to this brief boyhood friendship in later life,"' Rowling writes. "However, there can be no doubt that Dumbledore delayed, for some five years of turmoil, fatalities, and disappearances, his attack upon Gellert Grindelwald. Was it lingering affection for the man or fear of exposure as his once best friend that caused Dumbledore to hesitate?"
As a young man, Dumbledore, brilliant and powerful, had been forced to return home to look after his mentally ill younger sister and younger brother. It was a task he admits to Harry that he resented, because it derailed the bright future he had been looking forward to.
Then Grindelwald, described by Rowling as "golden-haired, merry-faced," arrived after having been expelled from his own school. Grindelwald's aunt, Bathilda Bagshot, says of their meeting: "The boys took to each other at once." In a letter to Grindelwald, Dumbledore discusses their plans for gaining wizard dominance: "'(I)f you had not been expelled we would never have met."'
Potter readers had speculated about Dumbledore, noting that he has no close relationship with women and a mysterious, troubled past.
"Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling said Friday of Dumbledore's feelings about Grindelwald, adding that Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down."
Dumbledore's love, she observed, was his "great tragedy."
Friday, October 19, 2007
Shared Values Revisited: a Case Study in the Limits of Propaganda
http://www.counterpunch.org/rampton10182007.html
Thursday, October 18, 2007
While this technically isn't a spiritual...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPcLPzItOQs
I felt that with the first class along with Astarte's post, posting this may have some benefits. Here is the opening scene for one of the funniest movies ever made. While it can be considered offensive, notice how it takes what would have been happening at the time, and flips some stuff around to show how blatantly stupid racism is.
I have to also relate a story. When I was in high school, the Family Channel played this two weekends in a row. The first was uncut, and all n-words were in tact. The next weekend it was replayed with bleeps over every single one. I am not arguing that the word is considered offensive and why it is considered such. In a way, I think that this movie was revolutionary for taking such a stance and using the word throughout the film. Reminds me of All in the Family in that stance. By showing Archie Bunker as this racist bigot, it illuminates exactly how preposterous his actions, thoughts, and words are.
I felt that with the first class along with Astarte's post, posting this may have some benefits. Here is the opening scene for one of the funniest movies ever made. While it can be considered offensive, notice how it takes what would have been happening at the time, and flips some stuff around to show how blatantly stupid racism is.
I have to also relate a story. When I was in high school, the Family Channel played this two weekends in a row. The first was uncut, and all n-words were in tact. The next weekend it was replayed with bleeps over every single one. I am not arguing that the word is considered offensive and why it is considered such. In a way, I think that this movie was revolutionary for taking such a stance and using the word throughout the film. Reminds me of All in the Family in that stance. By showing Archie Bunker as this racist bigot, it illuminates exactly how preposterous his actions, thoughts, and words are.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Damn! That truck's got balls.
no, not that one! This one:
Minutes after weighing in on the Ichthys conversation on WebTycho, I saw one of these guys headed down the road. I chuckled, said the obligatory "That truck's got some balls" and that was that. But then, my friend informed me that as of Oct 1, the balls are ILLEGAL IN MARYLAND. Here's the Bill: Ball Bill.
Am I the only one who finds "Prohibiting a person from displaying on a motor vehicle a specified item that depicts or resembles anatomically correct, less than completely and opaquely covered, human or animal genitals, human buttocks, or human female breasts; and applying a specified penalty (500 dollars) to the offense," ridiculous ? Is this really where we are with civil liberties?
If this is where we are headed, then there are some horses on the corner of Greenspring and Tufton that should really be "prohibited". Also, my next door neighbor has a dog that she should really buy some "opaquely covered" boxers for. Give me a break. And so much for that sticker I got in Florence of my favorite painting, "The Birth of Venus", better not put THAT on my car.
And why is it just female breasts that are considered sexual? What about my big fat boyfriend who has larger breasts than most females? He's allowed to ride in his car with the windows down. Ok, I made him up- but trust me, they're out there.
An article in The Herald quoted:
They're only a toy, but they're also unpleasant to look at, said Bragunier, worried what his 2-year-old girl might think someday.
"My daughter's going to see this," he said. "She's going to ask what this is. I don't want to be put in that spot. I don't think I ever want to be in that spot."
He doesn't ever want to be in that spot? He doesn't ever want to explain genitals, body parts, and reproduction to his child? Leave that to the mommy? I don't get it.
I LOVE the defense by the ball manufacturer:
Pamela Campbell, whose Bullhead City, Ariz., business sells fake bull testicles, suggested that the swinging decorations can prompt healthy discussions about anatomy and reproduction.
Monday, October 8, 2007
The power of suggestion...
Ok, I'll admit it...I love reading Perez Hilton's blog. It is a very guilty pleasure of mine. For those of you who aren't familiar, Perez is known for making or breaking celeb reputations with one ill-intetioned stroke of his Microsoft Paint-brush. Last week Perez published the entry you see to the left: an unflattering pic of Britney Spears' plastered above an unrelated news story with a shocking and disturbing headline. "Shitney", as Perez has dubbed her, has nothing to do with the headline, but when you click the link to read the full story, her picture appears again, so it's clear that it's no mistake. I'm not a Britney fan and I don't hold Perez to a particularly high standard of journalistic integrity, but I was still surprised to see him post something so intentionally misleading on a blog that reportedly receives over 8 million hits a day. The post is particularly timely, as Spears' was in the midst of fighting a losing custody battle in court. What are your thoughts? Is this a new low for Perez, or is this just fun and games?
Good golly! Zara strikes again.
When did fashion become so offensive? Zara, the retail chain that I posted about last week (with the swastika bag) is under fire again for having this shirt on their shelves:
I feel like when I see these shirts (the one on the left just looks weird to me, the one on the right looks offensive), I know that they're wrong, but I wouldn't necessarily recognize it as a "golly". Here is a clip from The Sun:
LEADING fashion brand Zara was slammed last night for selling a T-shirt featuring a racist “golly” picture.
The offensive top was on the shelves just two weeks after the Spanish-owned chain was blasted for stocking a handbag emblazoned with Nazi swastikas.
Student Lisa O’Well, 25, spotted the golly while shopping in a London branch of the trendy high street chain.
A white T-shirt had a caricature of a black girl with bulging white eyes and menacing teeth.
Lisa, who is black, said: “I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. The character on the front is clearly a golly. It’s amazing anybody could think this design was acceptable in 2007. This sort of thing should be confined to the distant past.”
When horrified Lisa pointed out the top to staff in the Knightsbridge store, they just asked her: “Do you want to buy one?”
I personally was a little unclear on what makes something a golly (short for golliwogg) or not, but I do know that it reminded me of blackface right off the bat. So, I looked it up on Wikipedia, gotta love it, and found the article really interesting: Golliwogg.
So what do you guys think? Is it a "cherished cultural artifact" or an "offensive relic of racism". And who would ever want to wear that shirt being that it's not cute and obviously offensive, at least to some people. And on top of that, what the *&%$ is wrong with Zara!? Twice in one week!
I feel like when I see these shirts (the one on the left just looks weird to me, the one on the right looks offensive), I know that they're wrong, but I wouldn't necessarily recognize it as a "golly". Here is a clip from The Sun:LEADING fashion brand Zara was slammed last night for selling a T-shirt featuring a racist “golly” picture.
The offensive top was on the shelves just two weeks after the Spanish-owned chain was blasted for stocking a handbag emblazoned with Nazi swastikas.
Student Lisa O’Well, 25, spotted the golly while shopping in a London branch of the trendy high street chain.
A white T-shirt had a caricature of a black girl with bulging white eyes and menacing teeth.
Lisa, who is black, said: “I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. The character on the front is clearly a golly. It’s amazing anybody could think this design was acceptable in 2007. This sort of thing should be confined to the distant past.”
When horrified Lisa pointed out the top to staff in the Knightsbridge store, they just asked her: “Do you want to buy one?”
I personally was a little unclear on what makes something a golly (short for golliwogg) or not, but I do know that it reminded me of blackface right off the bat. So, I looked it up on Wikipedia, gotta love it, and found the article really interesting: Golliwogg.
So what do you guys think? Is it a "cherished cultural artifact" or an "offensive relic of racism". And who would ever want to wear that shirt being that it's not cute and obviously offensive, at least to some people. And on top of that, what the *&%$ is wrong with Zara!? Twice in one week!
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Suing God
I recently read an article in the Washington Post about a state senator from Nebraska who was so sick and tired of people suing everyone for everything that he decided to make a point by suing God. The senator, Ernie Chambers, cited that God has made terroristic threats against him and his constituents, inspired fear, and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."(Click here for the full article.)The article struck me for two reasons. One, it is a clever form of verbal rhetoric attempting to appeal to people's common sense by relying on shock-value tactics. The second reason is the photo that the Washington Post deliberately chose to include with the article. This photo (seen above) is not a photo of Sen. Chambers during his lawsuit. Rather, it is an AP file photo from April 12, 2006 that shows the senator in the middle of a debate in the legislative chamber in Lincoln, Nebraska. Positioned behind his head is what appears to be a rotating fan, but when looking at the picture as a whole, has a definite halo look to it.
While this may have been the Post's attempt at humor (which is how I took it), I think there is also the potential for the religious undertones of the photo to impact the story. By making it look like Sen. Chambers is wearing a halo, it appears as though he is on God's level, and thus, is able to sue Him. This could potentially further offend readers who may have already found offense in the Senator's actions. On the flipside, it may also mock the Senator's method of making his point. What do you think?
(As a side note, interestingly enough, when I went to go to the page to write this response, the image was no longer available. I'm not sure if it's my computer or not, but perhaps some offense was taken by one party or another?)
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
One of these things is not like the others...
Flowers, bicycles, and swastikas- oh my! Some of you may have read about this in the news...but just to provide a quick update. The fashion retail chain Zara (not sure if there's one around here but I always make it one of my stops in NYC for cute, cheap, clothes!), recently had this bag on it's shelves:
That's right! Above the friendly little deer(?) is a bright green swastika which happened to appear on each corner of the bag. Here's a little clip of the actual news story from the daily mail:
That's right! Above the friendly little deer(?) is a bright green swastika which happened to appear on each corner of the bag. Here's a little clip of the actual news story from the daily mail:A Zara spokesman said today: "We did not realise Swastikas appeared on some of these bags, the swastika was not on the bag which was sourced by us after being supplied by an external producer. "Of course we apologise to anyone who was offended by the bag, and we will be withdrawing it from all our stores."
The Spanish firm has 1,026 stores in 68 countries across the world and is considered to be one of the largest fashion retailers in Europe.
The swastikas were discovered when a 19 year-old girl bought the bag (without looking at it?) and then returned to Zara the same day asking for a refund.
So this is all well and good, Zara apologized for the oversight, but some recent debates online have caught my attention. People are saying that this bag offers a chance for the swastika to be "rejuvenated" back to its original meaning. From what I understand- it is a Native American symbol for peace and unity, along with a Buddhist, Hindu, or Indian lucky charm for goodness and well-being. As we know, Hitler decided to adapt this symbol for himself, rotate it, and use it to represent white-power, the aryan race, Nazi genocide, and the annihilation of 6 million Jews along with countless black, physically and mentally disabled, and gay people. Some people are even saying that it was ethnocentric to remove the bags from the shelves, because even though there are lots of Jews who were offended, there are also Hindus and Indians who may have liked the bag because it used a symbol that is holy to them.
What do you guys think? Can the power of a symbol as powerful as the swastika be revoked and just changed back to the original meaning? Should the bags have been removed off the shelves?
Totally Wrong
So I went to the Special Olympics site today because I wanted a copy of the logo. I got an error that was wrong on so many levels...
My question is, do you think the site designers should be cognisant (SP) of their clients? Should this have been reworded?
My question is, do you think the site designers should be cognisant (SP) of their clients? Should this have been reworded?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)