Archive - Current Events RSS Feed

Word snobs are out of touch with reality.

July 11, 2007 in Current Events, Personal with 1 Comment

I don’t like to use big words that sound intelligent. I understand a lot of them, but they are out of place with my everyday life. Most people today don’t walk around using a graduate-level vocabulary. Just look at your most recent text message. You’re more likely to see things like “cya,” “whatsup,” and “how r u?”. We’re a generation that likes to get to the point.

A news story about new words added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary reminded me of my dislike for fancy words and my appreciation for new combinations of words. MW will be adding “ginormous” to its newest dictionary this year (and I have to add it to my Firefox dictionary, too). If you’ve been hiding inside a cave for the past few years, you might not have noticed, but ginormous has become ginormous. I’ve heard it used in everyday conversations, tv shows, movies and more. It makes sense to add it to the dictionary.

Word snobs, like Allan Metcalf, a professor of English at MacMurray College in Jacksonville, Ill., and the executive secretary of the American Dialect Society, don’t get it. Here is what Mr. Metcalf had to say about ginormous being added: “A new word that stands out and is ostentatious is going to sink like a lead balloon. It might enjoy a fringe existence.” There are two things about his statement that irritate me. First off, he’s implying that a word like ginormous won’t last because of its novelty. That might be true, but it might not. All of our language is basically an evolution from previously existing words, so why wouldn’t a new word stick.

The other thing that bugs me is the fact that he used the word “ostentatious” to talk about a word that would fade away. When was the last time you heard anyone use that word? I had no idea what it meant, so I had to look it up at webster.com. Its definition is “marked by or fond of conspicuous or vainglorious and sometimes pretentious display.” Mr. Metcalf is being pretentious with his vocabulary to degrade a word that he considers to be pretentious.

The fact of the matter is that in order to communicate effectively you have to use language and terminology that your audience is familiar with and is relevant to them. I applaud Merriam-Webster for not living up in ivory towers, but trying to stay in touch with the average English speaking person. This should pay off for them in the long run.

Marketing gone wrong, or are they getting their money’s worth?

February 5, 2007 in Current Events with 0 Comments

In case you missed it, the city of Boston was in a frenzy last week over a bomb scare. People reported electronic devices spotted throughout the area, including on overpasses and bridges. The city thought that these were bombs that were planted as part of a terrorist plot. It turns out, however, that is an advertising campaign for the cartoon Aqua Teen Hunger Force which airs on the Cartoon Network. I’ve never watched the show, but I know it has a pretty devoted audience and is, in general, irreverent.

The AP is reporting today that Turner Broadcasting, the parent company of Cartoon Network, and the marketing agency that came up with the idea have agreed to pay $2 million to the city of Boston and Homeland Security. In my estimation, they are getting their money’s worth. Companies pay more than $2 million to get thirty seconds of airtime on the Super Bowl. Many of these commercials are quickly forgotten, but most of the time I don’t think it’s worth the money they spend. Cartoon Network, however, has had people talking about this campaign, and I know that they will getter higher ratings for the show as a result.

I’m not suggesting that creating a bomb scare is a good advertising technique. If that was the intention from the beginning, than I cannot support it. However, I don’t believe that the marketing agency, nor Cartoon Network had any malicious intent. They were just looking for a creative way to get attention for their show, and they found it. I think the city of Boston over-reacted. There were about nine other cities where they had the same devices located throughout the city, but none of these cities had any sort of bomb scare. You can see from the pictures below that they were crude looking devices, but not really scary looking.

My main point is that it is really difficult to find your voice in the media today. With cable and satellite providers offering 400+ channels, being able to stand out and get attention can be really difficult. Cartoon Network has succeeded in a HUGE way with this campaign. I don’t think they will mind shelling out the cash.

My final question is, how can churches learn from this? What are some inexpensive ways we can creatively get attention in our communities . . . hopefully without creating a bomb scare?
Suspicious Device 2Suspicious Device

John Kerry–An Anti-American Leading America

October 31, 2006 in Current Events, Personal with 0 Comments

Senator John Kerry said some of the stupidest, most insulting comments on Monday and then repeated them again today. He told a group of students in California that those who are not able to navigate through the education system “get stuck in Iraq.” Today at a press conference he said, “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” Sen. Kerry tried to claim that he wasn’t meaning to degrade the troops, but he was making reference of President Bush’s leadership.

These comments are some of the most offensive words I’ve heard directed toward the U.S. Military from anyone. It makes it worse that they came from a veteran, and a supposed war hero. I’ve never served in the military, but I’ve known quite a few in my life. I would never call any of them even remotely dumb. Most of them are some of the most upstanding, quality people I know.

I can’t imagine the reaction that people would have if President Bush had made these comments. People would be calling for an impeachment. Senator Kerry needs to retract his statements and apologize. They were anti-American. I’m ashamed that our country is led by people like him.

Read the Yahoo News story.

Disney Boycott Lifted in Summer 2005–Interesting Timing

January 5, 2006 in Current Events, Religion with 1 Comment

Back in 1997, the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) decision to boycott Disney was in the headlines everywhere. One of the biggest denominations was taking on one of the biggest names in the entertainment world. It was set to be a clash of titans, an epic battle. That battle officially ended in June 2005. My question is, who won?

Let’s flash back a bit. The SBC warned Disney in 1996 to return to their family-friendly roots or else a boycott was inevitable. They cited five reasons why they had concerns. They were: “(1) Establishing of an employee policy which accepts and embraces homosexual relationships for the purpose of insurance benefits; (2) Hosting of homosexual and lesbian theme nights at its parks; (3) Choosing of a convicted child molester to direct the Disney movie Powder through its subsidiary Miramax Productions; (4) Publishing of a book aimed at teenage homosexuals entitled Growing Up Gay: From Left Out to Coming Out through its subsidiary Hyperion, connecting Disney to the promotion of the homosexual agenda; (5) Producing, through its subsidiary corporations, of objectionable material such as the film Priest which disparages Christian values and depicts Christian leaders as morally defective.”

Disney didn’t take the warning seriously, so in 1997 the boycott officially began. The official wording of the boycott read: “BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Dallas, Texas, June 17-19, 1997, urge every Southern Baptist to take the stewardship of their time, money, and resources so seriously that they refrain from patronizing The Disney Company and any of its related entities, understanding that this is not an attempt to bring The Disney Company down, but to bring Southern Baptists up to the moral standard of God.”

So, how much did the boycott affect Disney? A boycott is an attempt to persuade a company to make certain changes by impacting it financially. How much money did Disney lose from the boycott? Take a look at the following table of Disney’s finances during an 11 year period:

Disney’s Finances Before & During the SBC Boycott
Year Revenue Operating Income
1994 $10,055 mil $1,965 mil
1995 $12,151 mil $2,466 mil
1996 $18,739 mil $3,333 mil
1997 $22,473 mil $4,312 mil
1998 $22,976 mil $4,079 mil
1999 $23,402 mil $3,231 mil
2000 $25,325 mil $4,112 mil
2001 $25,172 mil $4,005 mil
2002 $25,329 mil $2,822 mil
2003 $27,061 mil $ 3,174 mil
2004 $30,752 mil $4,488 mil

As you can see, there was only one year in which Disney had less revenue than the previous year. That year happened to also be 2001, which my point more to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 than the boycott. However, there was a fairly significant drop in their income from 1997-1999. That downward spiral quickly turned around, and, for the most part, they have been stable in their income.

The SBC wasn’t primarily concerned, however, with “bringing down Disney.” They wanted to make a statement so that they would turn back to making family-friendly films. Did that happen??? Well . . . in a word, no. In 1996, the SBC specifically mentioned Miramax as being one of their concerns. What has Miramax done since the boycott? Here’s a brief list of some of the films they have released from 1997-2005:
- 40 Days and 40 Nights (2002)
- Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001)
- Chasing Amy (1997) Which happens to be about a man falling in love with a lesbian
- Chicago (2002)
- Dirty Pretty Things (2003)
- Kill Bill (2003)

Not really a list of movies you’d want your 5-year old to watch. So, why the sudden change? Why did the SBC all of the sudden decide it was time for the boycott to end? I don’t buy the line they tried to push: “For a boycott to be effective, it must be specifically targeted and of limited duration.” If they really wanted to have a limited boycott, why didn’t they say that in their original resolution??? And nothing really changed at Disney. According to Metro Weekly, a Washington DC gay & lesbian magazine, “the boycott had no effect on its business and the company never altered its policies in response.”

In case you forgot, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe was released December 9, 2005 by Disney. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. The Disney boycott was ended in June 2005 only 6 months before the DISNEY movie Narnia? Was that a coincidence? I think not. I guarantee that the upcoming release of Narnia was discussed behind closed doors in the SBC leadership when they talked about ending the boycott of Disney. Think about it. If the boycott wasn’t ended, how many Baptist preachers would have to ignore the great sermon material that they would have at their disposal by not being able to endorse a Disney film.

I’m not really throwing stones at the SBC. I just think they pulled a very well executed move by ending the boycott early enough in the year that the national media wouldn’t put the pieces together. It also let them gracefully end it without having to admit defeat.

The best result of the ending of the boycott had to be that the grey-haired good baptist grandmothers can take their grandchildren to see one of the best allegories of the story of Christianity without a guilty conscience. So, with that in mind, I’d like to say good move SBC.

ExxonMobil Has Record Proftits 3rd Quarter

October 28, 2005 in Current Events, Personal with 0 Comments

This came as no shocker to me. ExxonMobil had its best EVER quarter in terms of both profits and sales. This past quarter their PROFITS were $9.92 BILLION!!! Let me write that out: $9,920,000,000. That’s a lot of zeros. In the 3rd quarter of 2004 their profits were $6.23 billion.

Hmm . . . where did they make all the money??? This year, gas prices averaged between $2.50 – $3.00 for most of the 3rd quarter compared to $1.80 – $2.00 last year. That’s 50-75% higher than last year’s prices. Pretty simple math in my head.

My point is this. I really believe that ExxonMobil profited by using the Hurricanes as an excuse to raise prices. They said that production costs would be higher, so they had to raise the price. If they were simply trying to maintain profits, that would be one thing. But when the post RECORD PROFITS & SALES, that’s a whole ‘nother story. They used a national tragedy to pad their wallets and they should pay.

I propose that we all write a letter to express our disgust with the company and our intention to NEVER buy gas from any of their gas stations again unless they do something MAJOR to apologize for what they did. To me, this is a textbook example of price gouging at its worst.

Here is their contact info:
Exxon Mobil Corp.
5959 Las Colinas Boulevard
Irving, TX 75039-2298
Phone: 972-444-1000
Fax: 972-444-1348
Web Site: http://www.exxonmobil.com

Once I’ve sent my letter, I’ll post a copy of it as well as any replies that I receive from them.

Page 5 of 8« First...«34567»...Last »