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.

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.