“Would you give the fat guy next to you the same deference as the tall guy behind you? Why or why not?”  Slate asked the question after the Twitter/media storm surrounding director/actor Kevin Smith’s February 13, 2010 ejection from a Southwest flight for being too fat.

“Dear @SouthwestAir – I know I’m fat, but was Captain Leysath really justified in throwing me off a flight for which I was already seated?” Smith tweeted.  As he landed in Burbank, after being seated on another flight, Smith followed up with “Hey @SouthwestAir! I’ve landed in Burbank. Don’t worry: wall of the plane was opened & I was airlifted out while Richard Simmons supervised.”.

And Smith did not stop there.  “Go F**k Yourself , Southwest Airlines” was the title of his SMODCAST (116) in which he blasted the airline for being the “Greyhound of the Air” and swore he would never fly with them again.  Wikipedia claims that Smith pummeled Southwest with 24 further YouTube videos about the event.

Southwest apologized to Smith and responded on its blog in a post titled Not so Silent Bob, citing the comfort of other passengers and the priority of a “timely (emergency) exit from the aircraft” as priorities that led to their actions.  Smith’s Twitter followers were divided in their response to his anger.  Of course, Smith had sympathizers.   But Slate did a good job of compiling the comments of some of his followers that felt Southwest was justified in its actions and that Smith’s tubbiness was the actual problem:

1. “sitting next to someone bulging into my seat for 6 hours is agonizing”
2. “unfortunately each ticket is allocated a weight.”
3. “access 2 every option for weight loss yet u don’t take advantage. why?”
4. “You’re big, you’re rich, pay for the 2nd seat and stop griping.”
5. “why weren’t you first class(?)“

These replies may be appropriate for Twitter but the PR nightmare that hit Southwest from Smith’s new media-savvy fury was enough to remind any company that anything that even vaguely resembles discrimination against obese people has huge firestorm potential.  The anti-PC crowd will jump on this as another example of what they see as the gutless tendency of mainstream culture to label issues as taboo and therefore necessitating extreme tiptoeing and denial.  But then this is the same crowd of buffoons that blasts gays; thinks racial humor is funny and speak nostalgically of a time when shooting your mouth off was the norm.  “Eat less” would be their advice to the Smith’s of the world.  “Talk less” seems to be society’s reply to them.

So how do you appropriately treat the issue of obesity in American culture? On the one hand we push fad diets and the lean ideal and on the other, our lifestyle, left unchecked, leads straight to plus-sized waist lines.  If you attempt systemic change through education, you could end up like Michelle Obama, who, in her campaign against childhood obesity, was heavily critiqued for speaking of her concern for her own childrens’ body mass index (BMI) woes. Denial won’t work either: it will only ensure that our next 50 years look like the previous half-century of fast-food-fueled fatness.  It seems innovation and some risk taking could help.  For all their faults, Americans have an impressive ability to rise to the occasion and rethink life.  This could come in useful.  Until then, lift your armrest for Kevin Smith.

LEAVE A COMMENT

BECOME A FAN OF CULTUREMUTT ON FACEBOOK

Bjorn Karlman

Here’s a fact to chew on: 45 % of men ‘fess up to wearing a condom that did not fit them in the last three months. Before you get all riled up about how irresponsible this is, understand the pressure that is on both males and the condom industry.  Just like the “no idea is a bad idea” mantra in conventional brainstorming, “no penis is a small penis” seems to be the enduring anthem of the condom industry.

Think about it: What condom manufacturer in their right mind is going to call one of their sizes “small”?  As Menachem Kaiser in “The Challenge of Marketing Small Condoms” (The Atlantic) puts it, “There are products where smallness is a marketing virtue, like cellphones or thong underwear. But small condoms are a marketing nightmare.” The article points out that the closest a condom manufacturer comes to indicating size is the carefully-worded “Snugger Fit” marketed by LifeStyles.

The confusion around condom sizing and the cultural pressure to avoid admitting to anything less than a crankshaft of a penis has obvious sexual health repercussions. Kaiser says of those men who admitted to wearing badly-fitting sheaths: “The misfits were significantly more likely to report breakage and slippage, along with difficulty reaching orgasm, both for their partners and for themselves, and a host of other sexual mishaps. Not surprisingly, men with ill-fitting condoms were more likely to take them off before sex was even over — all of which adds up to a massive failure for the one job a condom exists to fulfill.”

So how do you market minus-sized condoms to a “size matters”, “bigger is better” culture? You lie. Kaiser points out that Dr. Bill Yarber, of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction in Indiana, recommends re-labeling small condoms as “large”, regular as “extra-large” and so on.  Of course, as Kaiser points out, this invites ridiculous confusion and, “Yarber’s plan would have the true-to-life Magnum man in a pinch: his previously large-enough condoms would suddenly be a tight fit.”

Other options include spray-on condoms that are too much drama/time.  Also, vendors like TheyFit offer 70 different sizes that virtually guarantee a match for each man, but this craves some time-sensitive measuring and, Kaiser notes, “The site thoughtfully warns, ‘Watch out for paper cuts!’ ”

In a follow-up article to Kaiser’s, Judy Berman in Salon wrote, “Shocker: Small Condoms Don’t Sell”. Berman’s conclusion: “…perhaps what needs to change, if we really want our protection to protect us, isn’t whether we call a condom ’small’ or ‘large’ so much as our own harsh judgments about guys’ penis size.”  But let’s be real, we’ve gone for untold millennia pontificating on penises and that is as likely to change as is the size of the male ego.

LEAVE A COMMENT

BECOME A FAN OF CULTUREMUTT ON FACEBOOK

Bjorn Karlman

Tony Blair was going to resign as UK Prime Minister back in 2004. After inciting the biggest culture clash in modern UK history by supporting Bush’s invasion of Iraq, Blair was a very depressed man. The End of the Party, a new book to be published March 1, 2010 by the The Observer’s Andrew Rawnsley says (according to The Guardian), “Tony Blair descended into such a deep depression after the Iraq war that he told Gordon Brown and John Prescott (both key figures in his administration) that he would quit No. 10 [the PM's office] the following summer.”

The End of the Party describes how Blair’s special envoy in Iraq briefed Blair at the end of his time in Iraq that the conditions were “unbelievably bad” and would deteriorate further. ” ‘What can we do?’ pleaded Blair. ‘We have told them [the Americans] again and again what we think is necessary. If it doesn’t happen, what can we do?’ Greenstock was left with the image of the prime minister ‘tearing his hair’ over Iraq and ‘throwing his hands in the air’.” (The Guardian)

In supporting what was seen by the British public as an oil-greedy mistake by a blood-thirsty dimwit with Daddy’s agenda, Blair committed the unpardonable sin.  The British public was much more skeptical about the war than the American public. While American reactions to Bush’s actions were often divided along party lines, British disdain for Blair was overwhelming.  Blair was openly referred to as Bush’s poodle, a sell-out willing to compromise his integrity to preserve Britain’s then-coveted “special relationship” with the US.

“He was very low, he was very lonely and he was very tired,” Rawnsley quotes Blair’s friend and colleague, Tessa Jowell, as saying about Blair at the depth of his misery.  Blair’s stress level was so high that he says he “spaced out” several times during the time-honored British tradition of Prime Minister’s Questions and would frequently wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.

As if the extreme disapproval with his decision was not enough, Gordon Brown (favored as Blair’s successor), was furious when Blair regained some self-confidence and reneged on his decision to resign. An eyewitness of one conversation (quoted in The End of the Party) says, “Gordon was just losing it. He was behaving like a belligerent teenager. Just standing in the office shouting: ‘When are you going to f*****g go?’ ”

It took Blair’s wife and several close allies to get him through the worst of his anguish.  ”Come on. Buck up. Buck up. Think of what you’ve got to achieve. You’re the best politician in this country by a mile,” said his friend Peter Mandelson, who himself had survived many a political storm.

Eventually, the embattled Blair did pick himself up but the damage had been done.  One of the most popular politicians in recent UK history had been forever sullied by allying himself with the trigger-happy Texan who permanently marred not just Middle East relations but the foreseeable future of Anglo-American partnerships.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Bjorn Karlman

Anti-immigration Republicans were dealt a hearty smack in the face by American Conservative editor, Ron Unz in the March 01, 2010 issue of the publication.  Conservative bigots have argued for years that crime statistics prove recent Latino immigrants are dangerous.   In His-Panic / Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness, Unz looked at federal crime rate statistics and found that such conservative claims are the result of lazy, prejudiced thinking.

Bumbling dolts, ensconced in thinly veiled white supremacist justifications of know-nothing hate, have made claims that crime stats prove that the incarceration rate for Hispanics is 150% that of Caucasians.  Rather than resorting to flimsy liberal gabble about how this stat does nothing but prove the prejudice of the American legal system, Unz actually analyzes the crime data.

His findings?  When the “data are controlled for things like age (the Hispanic population tends to be younger and more male than the white population) and location (some states incarcerate everyone at higher-than-average rates), the Hispanic incarceration rate is within a few percentage points of the white incarceration rate—and in some states, it’s lower.” (Slate, Feb 18, 2010)

Attacking xenopobic, conservative anti-immigration fear-mongering, Unz asks, “… are these concerns rooted in the same excitable and ideological mindset that produced endless stories of Saddam’s notorious WMD, with activists and their media accomplices passing along rumors and personal beliefs in pursuit of a political agenda rather than bothering to determine the facts? Does America face a Hispanic crime problem or merely a Hispanic crime hoax?”

This is an entirely valid question.  Why do we put up with axe-grinding, numbnut imbeciles like Dick Cheney and his relentless campaign to justify his disastrously irresponsible, nightmarishly isolationist and utterly fear-based foreign policy?  An embarrassingly pronounced flank of conservatives love nothing more than inciting fear in their followers. When you take this kind of fear and turn it against immigrants (as Glenn Beck and his various incarnations do), the results spell an indisputable megaflop for basic human relations and intercultural respect.

Then there’s the flipside of all this.  Let’s not forget Ron Unz himself is a conservative. Obviously, it is equally lazy to label all conservatives as fanatical, enthnocentric dum-dums.  ”Conservatives aren’t anti-immigrant, they’re anti-criminal, much like liberals are anti-tax filing.  Loving your country enough to request that anyone who wishes to be a member abide by their immigration laws, is not anti-immigrant, and making such an assessment by accusing the entire conservative philosophy as being racist is… well … anti-intellectual,” says Rusty Weiss in News Busters.

Fair enough.  But if the conservative gripe is with crime rates, then perhaps it would behoove Republicans prone to blanket pronouncements to actually study the data instead of quivering over the dangerous world beyond their white picket fences.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Bjorn Karlman

Jesus was a badass.  Or at least, that’s what a flock of enterprising evangelicals is bleating.  Spooked by the massive exodus of young men from their ranks, a growing number of nondenominational churches are setting up fight clubs in a bid to keep their testosterone in-house. Mixed martial arts (MMA) clubs are cropping up in churches all over the country.

About 700 of an estimated 115,000 white evangelical churches in the United States, are taking up MMA and the sport is accepted as a real proselytizing tool by the National Association of Evangelicals.

The stratospheric popularity of MMA is one of the most dramatic trends in popular culture.  Just a decade ago, it was banned in most states and demonized by politicians like John McCain as a dangerous bloodsport.  But MMA has taken off in the last five years through savvy marketing by Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), the sport’s main promotion company.  It is now legal and wildly popular in most states.

Evangelical Christianity has long been known to harness pop culture to draw converts. Rock music, dance, yoga – you name it and Jesus can use it.  So why not MMA? Christian MMA gear company Jesus Didn’t Tap spreads the gospel in MMA-speak: “When Jesus stepped inside the cage of life to take on the cross… It was not human hands that broke his arm during the arm bar of diversity… It was not a human fist that knocked him to the mat for our sins… God gave him strength while (he was) on his back being pounded in the face by the elbows of sin… Take a jog out to the mountain of the skull… the hand that placed you on the planet wrote the promise, “God would give up his only Son before he’d Tap Out on you.”

The goal with this kind of language is to give Christianity a face-lift and convince young men that church isn’t just for women: “some ministers… fear that their churches have become too feminized, promoting kindness and compassion at the expense of strength and responsibility,” says the New York Times. The same article quotes Pastor Ryan Dobson son of James C. Dobson who founded the popular “Focus on the Family” organization: “‘The man should be the overall leader of the household… We’ve raised a generation of little boys.’”

And little boys are the last thing evangelicals want leading them into the rapture. Hellbent on not letting their young men be left behind, the charismatic band of believers is building a jihad-like army of Anointed Fighters.  The message is clear: Why step out into the world if you can bash face right in church?  These guys don’t tap.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Bjorn Karlman

Equally a source of bellyache laughter, fascination, and sincere belief, the brand of premarital sexual purity hawked by evangelicals has made headlines for decades.  Everyone from Justin Timberlake-era Britney Spears with her purported virginity to right-wing Christian writers like “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” Joshua Harris, cashed in on pooh-poohing pre-knot-tying nookie.  But what were you supposed to do if you weren’t married but had already gotten laid?  Just how screwed were you?

Enter Bristol Palin.  About a year ago, the young Alaskan claimed that sexual abstinence was not at all realistic for teens. Last month she announced an about-face.  The former vice-presidential hopeful’s daughter said in a January 2010 interview with “In Touch” that she has now decided to be sexually abstinent before marriage:  ”I can guarantee it.”  Challenged later on her statement by Oprah Winfrey who asked her if she was setting herself up to fail, Bristol was adamant, “It’s a realistic goal for myself.”

Danielle Bean in the National Catholic Register reacted angrily to Oprah’s questioning: “I’ll bet Bristol had big plans and dreams for her life that did not include becoming a mother at the age of 19. Seeing premarital sex as risky behavior with potentially devastating consequences shows maturity, not naïveté. Every one of us should applaud and encourage a young woman like Bristol Palin who dares to put chastity and life-long goals ahead of her hormones.”

Lashing out at cultural liberals, Bean commented: “Apparently… the advice anti-abstinence types would offer young women like her is: Dream big! As long as those dreams don’t include anything unrealistic like waiting until you are married to have sex.”

That isn’t so much the point though.  Bristol has had sex and what she is attempting is what evangelical “purity culture” calls “born-again virginity” and what researchers call “secondary virginity”.  To qualify, you renounce your sexual past and swear off additional intercourse until marriage.  ”Secondary virgins” consider themselves absolved of their sexual history in a lump deal, closely linked to the Christian concept of absolute forgiveness/salvation that renders the forgiven spotless in the grander cosmic sense.

The concept of born-again virginity has taken a lot of heat, even for basic sexual health reasons.  A study by the American Journal of Public Health, titled Reborn a Virgin: Adolescents’ Retracting of Virginity Pledges and Sexual Histories, found that adolescents that (often out of religious conviction) take virginity pledges until marriage “recant” their sexual pasts, basically seeing themselves as having never had sex. The past is gone and forgiven and they are now pure.  The study notes that this is a dangerous tendency as adolescents that take this approach “may incorrectly assess the sexually transmitted disease risks associated with their prepledge sexual behavior.”

On the other side of the debate are people like Donna Freitas, author of “Sex and the Soul” and a religion professor at Boston University. She is all for born-again virginity.  In a Christianity Today interview, Freitas says of college students that claim the term: “They’re not denying that they were sexually active, but they’re owning it….I think it is a way out of hookup culture.”

Revirginization is not powered solely by evangelical thought, it can be seen as consistent with American culture.  Laura M. Carter wrote the book “Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences”.  She claims that  the idea of “revirginization” is consistent with elements of the American psyche: “In America there is the idea of the remade person… We are all in an endless state of becoming.  You can remake yourself.  That has been deeply ingrained in the culture for a long time.  So why not virginity? Why not sexuality?”

And so we return to the Bristol makeover.  There may be more than just purity points in store for Bristol if she can successfully revirginize.  Double X’s Jessica Grose points out that Bristol may be cashing in on brand recognition as a spokesperson for pro-abstinence organizations. She is already teen ambassador of the conservative Candie’s Foundation (although she apparently does not receive a paycheck from them).  Grose points out that Bristol has also formed her own company, BSMP LLC, a handy arrangement that Rachel Maddow says can allow her to be paid from multiple directions as a freelancer.  Grose also makes the point that a rehabilitated Bristol would be a great asset in a possible 2012 run for president for her mom.

But let’s not get too cynical.  If there is one thing America loves more than seeing famous people fall, it’s seeing them reinvent themselves.  It’s Bristol’s turn.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Bjorn Karlman

Not one to want to stay out of the news cycle for too long, John Edwards made headlines again this week: he has separated from his wife and he made a sex tape during his affair.  Gawker cited two anonymous sources that say the former North Carolina Senator, 2004 vice presidential candidate and 2008 presidential candidate, made the tape with former lover Rielle Hunter. The flick contains many a sex act and was apparently discovered by former aide Andrew Young who stumbled across the unmarked DVD and felt compelled to pen The Politician, a ruthless exposé of his old boss.  Gawker dutifully records that, although they have not seen the tape, their trusted sources say Edwards “is physically very striking, in a certain area. Everyone who sees it says ‘whoa’.”

America already knows that Edwards is capable of shocking things (who in their right mind deems it necessary to add insult to injury by explaining that at least his wife’s cancer was in remission when he had his “pants down”?).  So the tape should not be seen as something scandalous but rather as a sincere attempt to be added to Wikipedia’s Celebrity Sex Tape list.  After all, Edwards would be in fairly hallowed company and should be seen as a noble pioneer in blurring the lines between politician and sleazy celeb.  The over 30 stars on the Wikipedia list have made their passion public intentionally or through clumsy fumble after setting up the trusty camcorder.  From humble beginnings in the ’90s with Pamela Anderson’s indiscriminate romps with one musician or another, celebrity sex tapes have almost become a professional credential for Hollywood hopefuls.  Everyone from Kim Kardashian to Jamie Foxx to Verne “Mini Me” Troyer has been steaming up the web with their bedroom flics.

Let’s remember that the PR boost to be gained from a sex tape does not even require any actual on-screen intercourse.  As PopEater so aptly puts it, “These days, it seems that anyone with a modicum of name recognition can film themselves kissing someone in their underwear and before you know it, it becomes hyped across the internet as a ’sex tape.’”

PopEater quotes adult website AVN.com’s Dan Miller saying that “With all the cable and reality shows out there, everyone has their 15 minutes of fame and they have some name recognition so there could be a potential market for seeing them naked.”

And why should the market for on-screen nudity be limited only to Hollywood stars? With mid-term elections coming up later this year Edwards has done the politicos a favor with his innovative trail blazing.  Sex scandals are nothing new to politics but sex tapes could come in useful for candidates that feel their campaign could use an extra boost. Those needing proof of this theory have but to turn to the spectacular Massachusetts upset that Scott Brown pulled off, robbing complacent Democrats of the Senate seat they had held for decades.  He didn’t even need a sex tape.  All he had to his name was this dignified centerfold that inspired Cosmo to come up with the slogan: Who Needs Joe Plumber When You Can Have Scott Six-Pack?

LEAVE A COMMENT

Bjorn Karlman

For a huge slice of America, the Obama bubble burst in record time.  The initial elation of having toppled the establishment and brought change with a young, sexy black president gave way to the anger of hangers-on when they realized that the new president was mortal, his agenda controversial and the economy he inherited abysmal.  A year later with an as-of-yet jobless recovery, a searingly controversial health care reform agenda in limbo and millions concerned about government spending, Obama’s support is at a record low.  White support dropped from 76% right after the election to a recent figure of 56%. Not so with African Americans.  A recently released Pew Research Center survey on race showed that, economy-be-damned, 95% of black people still have a favorable opinion of Obama and that they were more optimistic about their progress in the last two years than they have been for the last 25 years.

The “Obama Effect” is dramatic.  Despite the fact that, in terms of joblessness and economic suffering, African Americans have been far harder hit than the average American, almost double the percentage of black people (39%) in 2009 say that the “situation of black people in this country” has improved over the last five years, in stark contrast to 20% in 2007.  Also, 53% of black respondents felt that life in the future would be better for black people and only 10% felt it would be worse.  This is quite the jump from the 2007 numbers (44% thought it would be better, 21% thought it would be worse).

Things are looking better in the race relations department too.  Fifty-four percent of African Americans report that Obama’s election has forged progress in this area.  Only 7% disagree.  The perceived gap between black and white also seems to be narrowing as a majority of African Americans believe that the two racial groups have grown more similar in terms of cultural values and standard of living; 52% of black people feel that if blacks cannot get ahead in the US, it is their own fault, not something that can be blamed on racial discrimination.  This figure is not necessarily Obama-inspired but has been changing steadily from the mid-90s when the opposite view was held by most black people.

When it comes down to the economy and jobs, whereas white perceptions of the state of the economy have plummeted since the recession began, black opinions have generally held steady, as has their perception of the state of their personal finances.

Of course, not all black people are fans. African American Chicagoan Isaac Hayes is running for Congress and is attempting the near-impossible feat of stealing Illinois District 2 from Jesse Jackson Jr.  In a BBC interview, he says that Obama “brought inspiration, him and his family, to the White House. I am proud to have a black president – America is proud, but that’s not the issue. He’s brought change, but it’s not the right kind of change. He’s allowed the left to pull him off his campaign promise to work with both sides of the aisle. I don’t think he believes in American exceptionalism: he’s been on an apology tour round the world, and I don’t agree with that.”

Hayes’ point is as widely-held as it is predictable.  With the exception of a well-deserved win in the Jan. 19 special election to fill the Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, Republicans have been spectacularly reliable sourpusses since Obama’s election.  Why wouldn’t they be?  Their former leader was universally despised; their policies blamed for the near ruin of America’s economy and their power to achieve anything more than a red-faced Washington hissy fit, cartoonishly diminished.

So how do you react to record high levels of African American optimism?  I suppose reactionary bigots would claim that black people are delusional, their perception of reality and American misery skewed by having one of their own in the Oval Office.  If little has improved and much has worsened since Obama took office, why else would black people be content?

Another Chicagoan, Reverend Leon Finney, founded the Metropolitan Apostolic Church and now leads The Woodlawn Organization. He has known Obama since he worked as a community organizer in his 20s.  He says that because of their history, black people are patient. “We are very proud. We are elated. Maybe, somewhat underemployed and unemployed still, but we have a lot of hope. You have to remember more than any other ethnic group the African-American population has learned to live with hardship and survive the harshest of situations. ‘Last hired, first fired’ is nothing new for the African-American community. My sense is that we are used to the rigors and better able to adapt and less frightened (by the recession) than our brothers and sisters of different colors.”

Instant gratification is not something that can happen in today’s America, no matter how much it is craved. Historically, the plight of the disadvantaged, while dramatically unjust, has been more the norm in American society.  But maybe, just maybe, the tides could be turning. While those accustomed to luxury and a secure spot at the top of the economic totem poll may protest targeted taxes and an overhaul of healthcare, could it be that Obama’s legacy will mean enhanced quality of life for those in America who need it most?

LEAVE A COMMENT

Bjorn Karlman

Google is good at most things.  Losing is not one of them.  Neither is consistency.  The fight erupted over Google’s mid-December 2009 allegations that the Chinese government had been trying to hack into the gmail accounts of human rights activists; that it had been snooping on a variety of gmail account holders that supported Chinese human rights advocacy and that it had stolen Google intellectual property.  Beefing up its firepower, Google also claimed on its blogspot, that it was very concerned about “attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web…”.  In response, “We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn… this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.”  So far so good. The web was atwitter singing the virtues of Google’s ballsy defiance of the rising superpower.

On January 12, China Digital Times reported that as news spread that Google was considering leaving the country, Chinese citizens brought flowers to Google China’s headquarters in Beijing.   Salon.com comments, “According to a tweet from “jason5ng32,” the action caught the attention of security forces, who promptly coined a new phrase: “illegal flower donation.” You can’t do much better than that, if you’re looking for a metaphor that expresses the Chinese government’s resolve to control freedom of expression — in any medium.”  Google fans were raiding Kleenex boxes, dabbing big tears of pride and admiration from their puffy faces.

But the further you dug, the less you were impressed.  The conversation changed when you took notice of the fact that Google had agreed to censoring by the Chinese government way back when it started Google.cn back in 2006.  “Yes, the Chinese government required that Google censor some of its search results in exchange for doing business legally in the country, and yes, Google’s acquiescence of those restrictions have made it a target of activists all over the world,” states a January 13 Slate.com article. Google’s new fuss about the restrictions on free speech in China lost steam as it tried to justify its 2006 decision by stating, “a more open Internet (courtesy of Google.cn) outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results.”

Google China lost even more of its moral high ground when the fact emerged that, contrary to its overall global trends, it had recently been losing search engine market share (down from 19% in the second quarter of 2009 to 17% in the third) in China. Also, Baidu, a Chinese search engine, was giving Google a humiliating spanking as it towered over the self-assured global giant in Chinese market share.  Now Google’s Holy Joe posturing was making sense.  It was not simply a reaction to cyber scuffles and censorship… this was good, old fashioned face saving.

Google’s threat of retreat was even more undestandable when you considered that, especially in Europe, there are currently huge privacy concerns in regards to the Internet giant’s services.  In ForeignPolicy.com, Evegeny Morozov argued that Google needed a PR boost and that, “Google.cn is the goat that would be sacrificed, for it will generate most positive headlines and may not result in devastating losses to Google’s business…”

In “Soul Searching:  Google’s Position on China might be many things, but moral it is not”, TechCrunch.com is not ashamed to take sides, “Taking a moral position four years too late – whether you’re the first or the last to do so – is like suddenly declaring that you oppose the Iraq war now you’re no longer standing for the Senate or renouncing your own steroid abuse once you’ve retired from professional sports. Which is to say, it’s taking no moral position at all.”  Nuff said.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Bjorn Karlman

“He was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he said privately.”  Nice one Harry. The pre-release chatter surrounding 2008 campaign  journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s new book “Game Change”, has been focused squarely on Harry Reid’s comments.

The Senate Majority Leader is, of course, no stranger to gaffes. Politico.com published an anthology of them yesterday.  They would be on par with the Bushisms that we all miss were it not for the fact that Reid’s are even more offensive. Let’s review a few:

“This war is lost.” (April 2007) – This comment about the Iraq war would be harder to defend today with casualities at an all-time low and troops pulling out.

“I think it’s going to help us.” (August 2009) – Reid’s words of wisdom at the death of Ted Kennedy, spoken as a rallying cry to inspire Democrats to pass health care reform.

“You can always tell when it is summertime because you can smell the visitors. The visitors stand out in the high humidity, heat, and they sweat.” (December 2008) – His views on tourists in the American capitol.

(My favorite) “I think this guy is a loser” (May 2005) –  From one wordsmith to another – Reid’s views on George W. Bush.  What’s even better is how he defended this comment.  Politico says it best: “Reminded later that he’d called the president a ‘loser,’ Reid volunteered that he’d also called him ‘a liar.’ He also noted that he’d apologized for the first line — but not for the second.”

Reid has also apologized for his most recent comments to Obama (who immediately accepted) and a slew of civil rights leaders in a weekend-long effort to mitigate the damage of his words that have caused a veritable firestorm.  As troubling as Reid’s comments were, they only seem to fall in line with an embarrassing pile-up of anachronistic asides, perpetuated by other babyboomer Democratic big wigs.

“Game Change” also references Ted Kennedy’s fury after a conversation with Bill Clinton in which the former president lobbied him to endorse Hillary for president and then went on to deride Obama, saying, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

Let’s not forget Joe Biden’s perky observation that Obama was the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”  This was his view at the start of the campaigning for the 2008 elections, when Biden himself was running for president.

Along with the expected campaign-trail blunders that plagued the paths of the presidential hopefuls ahead of the 2008 elections, check out Hillary’s condescending southern drawl to a mostly black crowd at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network convention.  It is painful.

But let’s not be overly harsh on the Democrats.  Quite apart from Bush’s decade-long monosyllabic babble and most of Sarah Palin’s gone-rogue platform, we’ve been treated to some real gems from current Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele. The verbose RNC leader has been enthusiastically promoting his book lately and has been drawing attention to himself, declaring that he does not think the Republicans will take back control of the House in November.  Steele’s record on political correctness took a nose-dive when in a live Fox interview, he declared that “Our platform is one of the best political documents that’s been written in the last 25 years. Honest Injun on that.” He’s being criticized from every direction, especially by his own party leaders.  Quick-thinking Steele is never without a retort, though.  He told his Republican detractors to “Shut up,” and reminded them, “I’m the chairman. Deal with it.”

And there you have it, the one truly bipartisan position in Washington, DC: Who cares what the little people think when you are the one in power?

LEAVE A COMMENT

Bjorn Karlman