It's NOT Offensive!

With so much asininity going on all over the place today, I decided to flip a coin. Then I flipped it again. Then I flipped it again. Then I flipped it yet again. Finally, I got bored flipping the coin and decided I needed to pick a topic. I went with one of my favorite occurrences, one I love to despise. I went with a company pulling an ad because A group complained about something that doesn't even exist to complain about.

The gutless, spineless, wussy-ass company in the spotlight this time is General Mills and the commercial for the product that shouldn't even be in question is for Yoplait yogurt. According to the Huffington Post, a group called NEDA (the National Eating Disorders Association) believes that the commercial "...could trigger dangerous behavior in those suffering from eating disorders." Wow. That's a pretty powerful commercial. Or not. Let's see what the commercial entails.

According to the article (well, and the commercial), what we have is a young woman who appears

to be of regular weight standing in front of an open refrigerator. In front of her is a massive raspberry cheese cake with a huge slice taken out of it. The woman does what a lot of people (not just women) do when they're looking at a delicious freaking dessert like raspberry cheesecake. She starts to figure out how she could eat some. She thinks first about how it would be all right because she had been "good" that day. (I'm assuming that is referring to her eating habits and not some sort of willfull disobedience of the law.) Then she ponders whether eating celery sticks along with the slice of cheesecake would balance it out. (I'm pretty sure that works.) Then she comes up with the idea of jogging in place while she eats a large slice. (I'm pretty sure that would work too.) Then she wants to jog in place AND eat the cheesecake AND eat the celery sticks. She's just full of ideas, that lady is.

That's when a co-worker or some other mystery woman comes up behind her and exclaims, "Oh! Raspberry cheesecake!" And she reaches into the refrigerator and grabs a container of Raspberry Cheesecake Yoplait yogurt (which is delicious, by the way). The would-be-jogging woman notices that the yogurt woman looks like she has lost weight. Cut to a picture of the product and then back to the woman who has decided upon the Yoplait yogurt for herself instead of the cheesecake and is sitting happily at a table eating her yogurt. The end. Do you feel like developing an eating disorder now? No? Huh. I guess that's because NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS!!

HOW on earth is that supposed to trigger something in people with eating disorders?! Well, if you ask the president of the very annoying NEDA, a one Lynn Grefe, she will tell you "[For those with eating disorders], opening a refrigerator is like walking off a bridge. And to see this behavior in a commercial tells people with eating disorders, see, it's even on TV. It's ok and normal for my head to go through all these mental exercises." Oh, for Christ's sake.

Soooo....God, I don't even know where to begin. I guess the obvious. Does that apply to any depiction of an opening refrigerator on TV? Because if it does, half of the TV shows out there and half of the commercials out there are going to need to be cancelled. And don't forget about the movies! My GOD, the movies! And if this applies to food, of course it must apply to other things. For example, people who are violent. If they see violence being depicted somewhere, they must automatically think that it's OK. Same with drug users. Same with people who are knocked up. All just fine because, by using the NEDA logic (which I can't not recommend enough) if it's "even on TV" then "it's normal for my head to go through all of these mental exercises." Oh, there's something mental going on here, that's for sure. But I'm not so sure that it's exercises.

Why does this have to be about eating disorders? Why can't this be about eating healthy and being a reasonable weight? Isn't that what

Michelle Obama has been trying to drill into the soft, soft heads of the American public? We need to make better food choices? How is that commercial anything other than a woman trying to make a good food choice? She isn't saying that she wants to eat the entire cheesecake and then vomit it up in the company bathroom five minutes later! She isn't saying that she has starved herself for the past two months, eating nothing but dust and Chiclets because she feels fat. No, she's trying to figure out how she can justify eating something that probably isn't the best choice all the time. How is this commercial about anything other than selling yogurt and trying to make responsible eating decisions? I don't get it.

According to various sources on the Innerwebs, it is estimated that approximately 8,000,000 people have some sort of eating disorder in the United States. With a population of approximately 307,000,000, that amounts to about two and a half percent. But if those two and a half percent complain, by God, you had better do something about it, right? Wrong! There isn't any INTENT in this instance! There isn't even any SUBSTANCE in this instance! The VP of Corporate Communications for General Mills, a one Tom Forsythe, responded "We had no idea...The thought had never occurred to anyone, and no one raised the point. We aren't sure that everyone saw the ad that way, but if anyone did, that was not our intent and is cause for concern. We thought it best to take it down."


You thought best to take it down WHY? Because you're spineless? Of course that thought never occurred to anyone. Why would it?! It's a non-issue. No one raised the point because there wasn't a point to be raised! And while he's right that everyone did NOT see the ad that way, he's totally wrong when he says that "We thought best to take it down." NO! That's not best. That's not best AT ALL! ALL a company needs to do in this situation is simply say, "We're sorry you're 'offended'. That wasn't our intent. We don't see the commercial as 'offensive'. We're not taking it off the air because there is nothing wrong with it." That's it. For a long time I have said that the first company to actually take this sort of a stance on an issue like this will see a windfall of profits. I guarantee you that if that article was about how Yoplait was NOT pulling their ad because a bunch of tight asses thought it would do...something....(I'm still not clear on their actual complaint)...I guarantee you that people would take notice and would buy that product. I don't even eat yogurt that often, but if Yoplait had kept the ad on the air, I would have made sure than whenever I did eat yogurt that it was Yoplait. The non-offensive video is below. But be warned! You could develop some sort of eating disorder by watching a woman open a refrigerator and try to decide what to eat. Lord only knows what other conditions you could come down with after watching it and I won't be held responsible. It's your doing, really.

Sphere: Related Content

Have A Safe Sex Halloween

Remember when you were a kid and you went out trick-or-treating and there was always at least one house you went to where the people were just jerks and they gave you something like a penny or a pencil or the dreaded box of raisins or the unwanted and slightly ironic toothbrush? What was wrong with those people? Talk about a bunch of fun-sucks. But those sorts of people haven't gone away. No, in fact, a couple in Oregon have actually taken it up a notch. Wait. Maybe they've taken it down a notch. I'm not sure which one would be correct here. You tell me. What do you call it when people hand out condoms for Halloween? Um, what now?

Correct. According to MSNBC, a one Daniel Harris and a one Kathleen Harris, of Silverton, Oregon, handed out condoms to trick-or-treaters. They claimed that it was their "effort to promote health." It's Halloween! It's not about promoting health! And since when is giving away condoms considered to be promoting health and not making you think about having sex?

See, the way that this came to light was "The father of one 14-year-old girl who received the condoms, Daniel Cote, was offended and says it was inappropriate to give them to children without parents' consent." Oh, for cryin' out loud. Offended? Really? He wasn't just pissed off? Because I think that I'd be a little pissed off if someone was giving my kid a condom for Halloween. Screw being offended. What's wrong with just being pissed off that some people are morons?

Now, now. Before we all get all irritated, I should tell you that "Kathleen Harris says giving the condoms to the 14-year-old was a mistake." See? There you go. Yeah, um, "She says their usual practice is to ask teens if they're 16 or older and to give them a speech on safe sex." What the...? OK. Now we can be pissed off. Are you freaking kidding me?

Look, I don't live in Oregon, but what in the world is going on over there that 16 year old kids are trick-or-treating? For that matter, what's a 14-year old doing trick-or-treating? I mean, I guess you could make the argument that it's OK for the 14-year old, but that would have to be the last year. I thought that trick-or-treating was just for younger kids, like those under 13? I don't get it.

But what I also really don't get is that couple. Boy, they sound like a treat, don't they? You go to their house hoping to get candy and instead you get a lecture about safe sex. Real fun. But, I'm guessing that the 16-year olds that are out trick-or-treating really don't have to worry too much about having sex. What is wrong with some people? It's Halloween! Not Wrap That Rascal Day! Leave the condoms alone! Hand out little Butterfingers! It's a fairly simple concept. Get with it!

Sphere: Related Content

You're Not Really Offended

In another example of a company caving into allegedly "offending" a consumer (or potential consumer, I guess), we have a brewing company being informed by some overly sensitive individuals that their label was offensive and contained am image that should not be tolerated in our society anymore. Note: The person was a Wiccan astrologist and "healer". (Translation: She fancies herself a witch.) Side note: The image on the beer bottle was of a "witch" being burned at the stake. Wait. What now?

Correct. According to the delicious folks over there at Slashfood, the Port Brewing Company concocts a "...wheat beer, spiced with grapefruit zest, orange peel and coriander" called Lost Abbey Witch's Wit. Yummy. But it wasn't the deliciousness of the beverage that sparked the outrage of a one Vicki Noble. She is the aforementioned "witch" from the paragraph above. She saw the label on the bottle and flew off the proverbial broomstick handle! (That means she wrote a strongly worded email to the company.) Behold! Said label!

Huh. Cool. Kinda creepy. Good for Halloween sales, I would imagine. Sadly, capitalism isn't the focus of this tale. No, it's that there was a drawing of a person seemingly being burned at the stake with throngs of onlookers gathered 'round. THAT was the nugget of contention that Ms. Noble had with the beer. In her email she wrote: "Can you imagine them showing a black person being lynched or a Jewish person going to the oven?...Such images are simply not tolerated in our society anymore (thank the Goddess) and this one should not be, either." Oh, for cryin' out loud.

You know what the difference is between showing a black person being lynched or a Jewish person "going to the oven" and the depiction of someone being burned at the stake? The difference is that the first two might stir up some outrage because they actually happened. Witches being burned at the stake did not happen! You'd think that someone who claimed herself to be a witch would know that.

Are we really supposed to allow fake outrage at something that is allegedly offensive when it isn't even real? First of all, it's a drawing. It's not like there was a really nice color photo taken at the fiery event that was plastered on the bottle there. No, someone drew that. Second of all, witches that were tried during the Salem witch trials (which is what I'm assuming that she is wrongly referring to with all of her misplaced outrage) were generally hanged. I think that there were only around sixteen of them (not the gazillions like people have been led to believe) and they weren't burned at the stake. They were hanged. And finally, witches aren't real! Good Lord.

But what do you think the Port Brewing Company, of which Lost Abbey is a division, did? You got it. Instead of saying, "Tough witches teats" they instead will "...spend thousands of dollars to change the label." ::: sigh ::: What is wrong with you people?

Why would you do that? According to the article, a one brewery spokesman, a one Sage Osterfeld, said that "complaints flooded the brewery, accusing Port Brewing Company...of "inspiring violence against women. . . . We have been compared to the violence in Darfur." Oh, for Christ's sake! Are they burning people at the stake in Darfur? No? Then that's not a very good comparison then, is it? And it isn't crap like the labels on beer bottles that inspires violence against women. There are plenty of things that do inspire violence of all sorts, but I'm going to stick my neck out and say that beer bottle labels are NOT one of them. And I'd really like to know how many complaints "flooded the brewery". Ten? Regardless, if these people weren't loyal consumers of your brand, who gives a fat rat's ass? They can complain all they want; it's not like it's going to hurt sales or anything.

Port Brewing Company, I am deeply saddened by your actions. There is no reason why you should have had to change your awesome label. Why couldn't you have just told those who were all fake outraged that you were sorry? What did you think was going to happen if you didn't change the label? Were you afraid that they would cast a spell upon you? Psst! I'm going to let you in on a little secret. That doesn't work!

It's a shame, Port Brewing Company. Had I heard about this and heard that you did not cave in to fake outrage over a non-existent issue, I would have been tempted to go out and buy up your wonderful beverage by the truckload. But now? Now, not so much. Now I just see you as another cowardly company (not that I had ever heard of your before today, mind you, but I'm just saying) who would rather give power to the undeserving rather than stand up for what is right. I won't be buying any of your beverages in the future. Do you think that changing your label is going to make all of those "witches" flock to buy your product? I think not. Good choice, though. Reeeaaaalllly good choice.

Sphere: Related Content

Comedy Central, Meet Facebook

I think an introduction is in order. Comedy Central? Please meet Facebook. Facebook? Please meet Comedy Central. The two of you have an awful lot in common. Dumbassery being the prominent trait that led me to believe that you guys should hook up. Both of you, Comedy Central and Facebook, saw it completely appropriate to censor "images" of the "prophet" Muhammed because it was "offensive to Muslims". The two of you should be very happy together. Morons.

Here's the latest: You might remember (or not, I don't really know) about a month or so ago, Comedy Central heavily censored an episode of the perpetually offensive to humans (and simultaneously hilarious to humans as well) cartoon which is not for children (it's barely for adults) South Park. The episode in question allegedly depicted the alleged prophet, Muhammed, in a big bear suit. Apparently, even though it was a cartoon and even though no one has any idea what Muhammed looks like and even though no one really even saw Muhammed because he was IN the cartoon bear suit, it was still deemed "offensive" to Muslims. Really?

I'm really hard pressed for a time in my life when I have honestly been "offended". Even the folks who leave moronic comments on this blog don't offend me. Actually, those really amuse me. (My favorite was the one guy who called me an "ignorant and ethnocentric blogger". Can you believe that? Blogger?!) But really, lots of things that lots of people do every day are offensive. So why is it that when the extremist Muslim community gets offended do some people even bother paying attention and attempt to placate their wishes with censorship? Because they get rather 'splodey when they're offended.

See, when the Muslim extremists get all upset, their solution is death. Just kill the infidel who has wronged them and things will be fine. And there is no reasoning with those folks because they believe (or justify) that they're doing what they're doing in the name of religion. You really can't argue people out of their beliefs (no matter how bass-ackwards they are) that easily. I guess that's why Facebook got all censor-y on us.

There was a Facebook page called "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day" and it promoted everybody drawing Muhammed on May 20th as a protest in light of Comedy Central censoring South Park because of veiled death threats directed at the creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Apparently, a couple of weeks ago, Pakistan blocked all access to Facebook because of the page. They found it to be blasphemous. To which I say, "Whatever." But apparently, that's just me because Facebook said (in essence), "Oh, my God (Allah), you're offended?! You're going to block all access to Facebook because of that page? Well, we'll take it down right away! We are sorry. Please unblock access so that we may continue to enjoy revenue from ads we place on the site via information that we sell." I was paraphrasing, of course, but you get the drift.

According to the huffy folks over there at The Huffington Post, a one Majibullah Malik (pronounce that however you'd like), who is the secretary of the information technology ministry in Pakistan, "In response to our protest, Facebook has tendered their apology and informed us that all the sacrilegious material has been removed from the URL." Tendered their apology? What in the world were they apologizing for, exactly?

Malik also claimed that "Facebook assured the Pakistani government that nothing of this sort will happen in the future." Nothing of what sort? Free speech? I've got news for you, Pakistan. I don't give a fat rat's ass what you think. Why in the world Facebook does, I'm not quite sure. But what I do know is that the folks that run Facebook are a bunch of pansies (I wanted to use the other "P" word, but I'm trying to lend a bit of credibility to my argument so that I don't come across as simply hot-headed. That's not to say that I'm not. Oh, I've built up a full head of steam over this one.)

And get this: "Anger over the Facebook controversy also prompted the Pakistani government to block access to YouTube briefly, saying there was growing sacrilegious content on the video sharing website. The government restored access to YouTube last week but said it would continue to block videos offensive to Muslims that are posted on the site." I guess I find it interesting that they're only interested in blocking videos that are offensive to Muslims. Have you been to YouTube lately? There's something on there to offend just about every kind of human being on the planet. Reading the comments alone are enough to lower your IQ by about 10 to 20 points. There are over two billion videos on YouTube. Watching every single one of them start to finish, front to back, would take over 200 years. Good luck blocking all of those "offensive to Muslim" videos, Pakistan. Good luck with that.

What I don't get is if they can just block offensive videos on YouTube, why couldn't they just block the "offensive" page on Facebook? I mean, seriously, it's not like that's the ONLY page on Facebook that would be "offensive" to Muslims. That's the other reason why I don't understand why Facebook removed it. There are plenty more out there that would fall into the "offensive" category. Of course, Facebook could not be reached for comment. (Ironic, considering the purpose of Facebook is to continually share information. Yet, we can't get in touch with Facebook when we want to. Again, I say, "Whatever.")

This has got to stop. Freedom of speech is one of the most important concepts that is necessary for a truly free society to exist. What part of that do people not understand? When did people start getting so freaking soft that just because one group starts whining that they don't like something and implying that folks are going to die for it that people start apologizing and caving into their demands? When did this happen?

The face that Facebook took down that page shows them to be ridiculously hypocritical. They're always talking about the freedom to share information. Well, hey, dipwads! What do you think that "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day" page was doing? Sharing information, that is correct! But that isn't relevant because a bunch of folks in one of the crazy sand lands are "offended"?! Are you kidding me?! What in the world do I care what Pakistan thinks about Facebook? That's right! I DON'T care! You know why? Because they're Pakistan! And because it's a freedom of speech issue!

Good Lord, my head hurts. We're doomed. And screwed. Scroomed. We're scroomed, I tell you.

Sphere: Related Content

Deal With It

Finally! A corporate response to an "incident" that I can finally get behind! I can only hope that more will follow. After all, it IS rather illogical to think that someone would have intentionally meant for a recipe to include "ground black people", right? Right. Wait. What?

Correct. According to the huffy folks over there at The Huffington Post, Penguin Group Australia published a cookbook called Pasta Bible. That's right. A bible for pasta. Anyway, there was a recipe in it for that dish that we've all had a hankerin' to cook at one point or another (or perhaps, not), something called spelt tagliatelle with sardines and prosciutto. Tagliatelle is just a fancy-shmancy name for long, flat pasta. (Oh, how I long for the days when "noodles" would have been just fine.) Anyway, the recipe was was supposed to call for salt and freshly ground black pepper. Yeah. It read "salt and freshly ground black people". Oh. Awkward.

Now, if this had been Carl's Jr. or Burger King or any other corporate entity here in the US, they would have done what they always do and would have immediately caved to any sort of "complaints" about the issue. They would have removed every single book from the shelf and issued a ridiculously long apology that would have encompassed everything from the misprint to slavery itself. Then I would have had to see people on fallen-so-far-from-grace-CNN talking about how traumatized that they were and I would have had to listen to them demand an explanation. An explanation other than "Ooops", of course.

But not Penguin Group Australia. Their head of publishing, a one Bob Sessions, "...acknowledged the proofreader for the Pasta Bible should have picked up the error, but called it nothing more than a "silly mistake." I think I love Bob.

But here's the best part! He said, "We're mortified that this has become an issue of any kind and why anyone would be offended, we don't know." Yeah, I DO love Bob. He continued with, "We've said to bookstores that if anyone is small-minded enough to complain about this ... silly mistake, we will happily replace (the book) for them." Marry me.

Finally. Finally someone has some sense about these things. Finally someone just came out and said that they can't imagine why someone would be offended over something that was clearly not intended to offend. I love that he labeled them "small minded", though I would have been ecstatic if he had called them morons or softheads. I'm good with small minded, though.

But what about the books that are already on the shelves? Surely, they must be recalling those as quickly as possible, right? Not so fast. According to the article, "The reprint will cost Penguin 20,000 Australian dollars ($18,500), but books already in stores will not be recalled because doing so would be "extremely hard." Awesome. So, basically, deal with it.

This is what I want more of. I want to hear more often that folks shouldn't be getting upset or "offended" over something that is clearly a mistake. And since people are so damned whiny these days, I'd really like it if more corporations would take this approach. Just deal with it. You'll be fine.

Sphere: Related Content

Have It Your Crazy Way

Once again, we have certain folks freaking out over a commercial for a national fast food chain item. And once again, this annoys me.

The culprit this time is Burger King and something called a Steakhouse XT, which, according to SlashFood, "boasts 7-ounce patties that spill over their corn-dusted buns, with a base topping of mayo, lettuce, tomato and ketchup." And while that sounds just marvelous, it doesn't really explain what the X or the T stand for. (Extra Tasty? Extra Toppings? I don't know.) But it's not the X or the T that are in contention here. The problem is the ad that Burger King was running to sell this meaty, meaty burger.

I will say that as a general rule, I have a problem with all ads that Burger King runs simply because I hate that creepy king mascot thing that they have in all of them. What is with that thing? Why is that an effective means of marketing anything? But my being all weirded out by the King isn't the problem here. The Washington Post says that the problem, according to the "Arlington-based National Alliance on Mental Illness, one of the nation's largest mental health advocacy organizations" is that the commercial is offensive to those with mental illnesses because it feature the crazy looking King running through an office building and breaking through a window pane before giving some office working woman one of these sandwiches before being tackled by two guys who kind of look like Steve Martin in "The Jerk". Those guys explain that the King is "insane" and "crazy" for offering his sandwich for the low, low price of only $3.99. Wait. What now?

Correct. That is offensive to people with mental illnesses, according to a one Michael Fitzpatrick who is the executive director of the above cited organization. He says, "I was stunned. Absolutely stunned and appalled." Really? At what, exactly? "He called the ad "blatantly offensive" and hopelessly retro in its depiction of mental illness, adding that the commercial could lead to further stigmatization, the primary barrier for individuals to seek out treatment. "We understand edgy," Fitzpatrick says. "But this is beyond edgy. Way beyond." Oh, please.

Am I to believe that if a person with an undiagnosed mental illness were to view that commercial that they would re-think the decision to go out and get some treatment? I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think that ever HAS happened. The only thing that a commercial like that is going to further stigmatize is royalty having enlarged, plastic looking heads with constantly creepy smiles on them. Other than that, I don't think that there's much to worry about.

But see, that's just me. I am not Mr. Fitzpatrick, nor am I a one David Shern, who is the president and chief executive of Mental Health America in Alexandria. He claims that the ad is "a perfect storm of images and words coming together." OK. I'll buy that. Most things on TV are a storm of images and words coming together. I don't know that much of what is on TV these days is what I'd call "perfect". He also compared it "...to an advertisement using the word "idiot" while featuring someone who was mentally challenged." He's clearly never seen Family Guy.

You'd think that mental health groups would have other things to worry about. Don't their clients have enough made-up issues so that it's at the point where they don't have to start creating anything new to worry about. Trust me. There's a whole lot of crazy out there in all shapes and sizes. You're going to meet a lot of folks before you start running out of crazy and have to start inventing more. But it's mental health groups like these who flipped out over "Vermont Teddy Bear's 2005 Valentine's product, which featured a "Crazy-for-You" teddy in a straitjacket" and over a "2007 General Motors commercial in which a robot jumps off bridge after being fired from the assembly line." Listening to complaints like those makes me want to put on a straitjacket and jump off a bridge myself.

According to Ad Rant, in light of these complaints, Burger King has gone ahead and done the one thing that I despise more than anything in these situations. They caved. Apparently "Burger King has since pulled the ad from national rotation (although it may continue to run in local markets). A Burger King representative issued a statement that the ad's "creative concepts" were meant "to highlight the King's unchecked enthusiasm about giving his guests a steakhouse-quality sandwich at a great price and were not intended to reflect any group or situation." Correct. They weren't intended to reflect any group or situation. SO WHY PULL THE AD?!

I am telling you that the first company that stands up to these ridiculous complaints and issues will be hailed by the consumer public as Gods. All they need to do is issue a statement saying, "Sorry. We weren't making fun of you. The ad will continue to run. Get over yourselves and good day." That would be enough for me to give that company all of my future business for whatever it was that they were selling (with the possible exception of Klan gear, but since I'm so sick and tired of companies caving like this, even the Klan gear might not sway me). It's not offensive to anyone. Knock it off. (And if you happen to indulge in this particular burger, let me know how it is, as it looks absolutely delicious.)

The Burger King commercial which offends no one is below. I'm not saying the commercial makes any sense and I'm certainly not saying that it was money well spent (nor can I really endorse paying four bucks for a fast food burger), I'm just saying that it's not offensive.

Sphere: Related Content