Archive for May, 2010

Personal Computer Devices and Personal Insults

I can’t pretend to be any kind of expert on the whole Apple vs. Adobe debacle. I know it has to do with Apple not supporting Flash on most of their mobile devices such as the iPod and iPad. But I was once told by quite a reliable source that a lot of it stemmed from some person vendetta between Apple CEO Steve Jobs and Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen. So when I saw this Adobe advertisement in the Financial Times yesterday it really caught my attention.

The full copy reads:
“We (heart) Apple
We love creativity
We love innovation
We love apps
We love the web
We love Flash
We love out 3 million developers
We love healthy competition
We love touch screens
We love our Open Screen Project partners
We love HTML5
We love authoring code only once
We love all devices
We love all platforms

What we don’t love is anybody taking away your freedom to chose what you create, how you create it and what you experience on the web.

Learn more at”

One approach to the marketing of large corporation’s that has increased in popularity in recent years is an attempt to appear less faceless by putting their CEOs in quite prominent public positions. This means we might often associate our new Microsoft Office package with Bill Gates, our new iPod with Steve Jobs and our new American Apparel t-shirt with Dov Charney (please excuse my painfully hipster examples!) Clearly when this advertisement says “What we don’t love is anybody taking away your freedom…” the “anybody” they are referring to is Steve Jobs. So it seems that with this new approach we also see personal vendettas and snide comments making their way into advertisements. Quite interesting, no?

(Oh and yes, that photo was taken using my macbook’s webcam. I do ‘heart’ Apple.)


Ceci est un Hipster Stupide

Yes that is a tattoo, you idiot. The whole point of Magritte’s ‘Ceci n’est pas un pipe’ was that it wasn’t a pipe but a painting of a pipe. You clearly know nothing about his artistic concepts, you pretentious fuck. Now go get that removed at great expense.

(Pardon my French, in both regards…)

Go Kendra, Go Kendra

That former playmate Kendra Wilkinson (one of Hugh Hefner’s ex-girlfriends) has a sex tape really comes as no surprise. But what I have found surprising is her own reaction to the story, as she described herself as “humiliated” and “betrayed” It’s a relatively complicated story; some sources reporting that she was already aware of the tape and others even suggesting that she previously tried to sell the tapes. The blogosphere is full of articles relating to it. But I want to talk about a slightly different aspect to the story that concerns me… Why is she so ashamed?

For someone whose entire career (and I use the term “career” lightly) is based around her sex appeal it is surprising that a sex tape could cause such a reaction. One of Ms. Wilkinson’s main concerns is that her husband or young child may see the footage. This same concern was never expressed about her Playboy photographs. Apparently highly sexual, revealing and pseudo-lesbian photos such as the one below are okay by Ms. Wilkinson standards. She seems to take little issue with her family seeing pictures of her in a state of undress with her mouth open. (A woman’s mouth in pornography, as well as in popular culture usually symbolises her openness to penetration.) But if anyone was to see her actually perform fellatio, well that’s downright disgusting, no? One thing that has always bothered me is society’s obsession with women as “sexy” but never sexual beings. We do not live in Victorian times. We know that women do receive pleasure by having sex. These kinds of reactions also perpetuate the idea that it is acceptable for a grown woman to dress, dance and act sexy, but to actually have and enjoy sex is wrong or shameful.

Her numerous photographs for Playboy serve only as sexual stimulation for men. A women takes no physical pleasure (although she is often encourages to look otherwise) from having her nude photo taken. There is numerous images of women faking orgasm in Playboy and other magazines. But Ms. Wilkinson and her PR reps seem to think that if the public watch her actually orgasm that it could be damaging to her “brand” and “image”.

Just another typically stupid response and double standard from a country obsessed with porn but critical of sex.