Maybe I am mis-interpretting the actual message being portrayed by certain advertisements or am I just getting the wrong impresson??
After having watched several Vodacom advertisements, a perception has been created in my mind that the advertisers are attemting to make the white person look totally STUPID; just see the adverts for yourself before commenting, please don't beleive me!!!
In a few of the cellphone related advertisements the examples are as follows: The white guy is portrayed as a total dummy when he refer's to, and I quote: "Bill's Gate" instead of Bill Gates, "M3P" instead of MP3 referring to music, "Britney Houston" when getting Britney Spears and Whitney Houston mixed up, "Blueteeth" instead of bluetooth, "all the way from the Amazon" instead of receiving from Amazon (Internet shopping supplier), "Nice" (pronounced as niece) the Italian city when it is actually nice. These are a few examples. I would not be surprised if there are more forthcoming. I would imagine that all and sundry, perhaps get a laugh out of it, but what is the real message in the advertisement. Is the white person being portrayed as a total dummy while the non-white person is the intelligent person? I do not know.
The Kyocera copier advert points in the same direction. The white person "falls in love" with a copier while the non-white person looks on in dismay. In another of the Kyocera adverts the one white person finds another white person "flirting" with the copier (two white dummies in the same advert). Maybe I don't get the real message in the advertisement, maybe I am being too critical when looking "past" the advert and seeing other motives, I do not know, but it is my personal opinion that this borders on racial discrimination, something that we as a country "are supposed to have buried by now after more than 12 years". Maybe, just maybe, I am being too critical and getting the wrong impression, anything is possible in the modern era !!!!
The latest Vodacom advert which is currently running and being shown on TV in the same manner, where again the same STUPID white guy is used: Quote "Trees grow on money, Reverse charge, is it legal?, Don't call you, I'll call me" Unquote. I need say no more. The content of the advert speaks for itself when I am saying the above about ALL the adverts, as the ultimate message is STILL the same after the last few years.
Sunday, 29 April 2007
Friday, 27 April 2007
No play (win), no pay !!!!
In the past all South African rugby players played for country and pride, with specific refrence to the 70's and 80's. Now it's all about MONEY. This simply means that whatever the outcome of a rugby match, the players are paid their fees, don't even want to know how much, as it is not the principle of the matter of this issue.
Why do the powers that be in rugby not look at a different approach to rugby "payouts" as a whole? Work out a fair "salary" for the boys that play the game, this meaning that the player receives remuneration for participation in rugby games at whatever level, which is fair.
Lets take the Springboks as an example. Give the guys a decent salary which is acceptable to all. And ONLY if the boys win a match, then and ONLY then, do they receive an incentive for the win on the day. This will most certainly get the players lifting their games and the team lifting the whole team effort in order to qualify for an incentive. If they lose, NO incentive bonus.
It is guaranteed, without a doubt, that you will get a much more improved performance all round; and who knows, we could still win the Tri-Nations and Rugby World Cup without only pure "luck", but with heart and in the back of the players' minds, an incentive bonus as well, to cap a good performance !!!
Why do the powers that be in rugby not look at a different approach to rugby "payouts" as a whole? Work out a fair "salary" for the boys that play the game, this meaning that the player receives remuneration for participation in rugby games at whatever level, which is fair.
Lets take the Springboks as an example. Give the guys a decent salary which is acceptable to all. And ONLY if the boys win a match, then and ONLY then, do they receive an incentive for the win on the day. This will most certainly get the players lifting their games and the team lifting the whole team effort in order to qualify for an incentive. If they lose, NO incentive bonus.
It is guaranteed, without a doubt, that you will get a much more improved performance all round; and who knows, we could still win the Tri-Nations and Rugby World Cup without only pure "luck", but with heart and in the back of the players' minds, an incentive bonus as well, to cap a good performance !!!
Umpires in Cricket !!
An apsect of the game of cricket which has, for long now, been a focal point of discussion, is the role the 3rd umpire plays in a match, be it an ODI or Test match. It would be totally fair to utilise the 3rd umpire in decisions regarding LBWs as the decisions by the umpire on the pitch is so critical as it can impact or even turn a whole game on it's head. In saying this an example could be a batsman who has a score of 4* and is trapped LBW by the bowler who obviously appeals for the LBW and is turned down by the umpire. In the replays, and with the help of the "hawk eye technology", it is plain to see that the batsman is in fact trapped LBW by the bowler. The same batsman goes on and makes a score of 100 or more. If the decision was referred to the 3rd umpire and the batsman was given out, the games could have a whole different outcome, so much so that the team could actually have lost on the day, which would not be fair on the opposing team.
The argument has always been that if these decisions are referred to the 3rd umpire, then the umpires on the pitch would "have no work". This is a load of hogwash. The umpire is on the pitch is adjudicate different aspects such as no balls, wides, byes, overstepping on the pitch, amongst others. This in itself is already a handful for any umpire, so that argument does not hold ground. Let the 3rd umpire get involved in the LBW decisions and it will be all the better for the game of cricket.
Just looking at some shocking decisions in the 2007 Cricket World Cup, some games could well have ended otherwise. LBW decisions should not be dependant on the split second "sighting" by the umpire at that moment, it should be referred to the 3rd umpire in order to obtain a biased decision which would suit each and every cricket participant, I am sure. Something should be set in motion to get this problem area sorted out in cricket.
The argument has always been that if these decisions are referred to the 3rd umpire, then the umpires on the pitch would "have no work". This is a load of hogwash. The umpire is on the pitch is adjudicate different aspects such as no balls, wides, byes, overstepping on the pitch, amongst others. This in itself is already a handful for any umpire, so that argument does not hold ground. Let the 3rd umpire get involved in the LBW decisions and it will be all the better for the game of cricket.
Just looking at some shocking decisions in the 2007 Cricket World Cup, some games could well have ended otherwise. LBW decisions should not be dependant on the split second "sighting" by the umpire at that moment, it should be referred to the 3rd umpire in order to obtain a biased decision which would suit each and every cricket participant, I am sure. Something should be set in motion to get this problem area sorted out in cricket.
Rugby Referees !!
What is it with the referees in the Super 14 and for that matter, in other competitions as well? They just cannot maintain standards at any given time. If you look at the impact a referee can have on a game of rugby, it can actually be so much that a "winning" team can eventually lose, given the double standards applied, even in one single game. In saying that I am implying that a referee can allow advantage and space to a team for a long period of time while the same referee allows little to no advantage time or even space to the opposing team; that is definitely biased decision making. Obviously hard to prove, but just watch some games and decide for yourself.
I have even observed this in matches between teams that I don't even follow. The understanding and application of certain laws in the game of rugby by referees, can be so far apart, that it negatively influences a whole game of rugby.
One referee can interpret a law in one game, which allows a team to play their "natural negative" game, and in the next game another referee interprets the same law differently, so much so that the same team actually thinks the referee does not know how to handle a match.
There is simply no consistency in rugby matches at all, with particular reference to the referees. The easy way out for any person is to tell me that I should stop fussing about referees because I could not do a better job. They are quite right about me not doing the referee job at all, that is what the referees are paid a stack of dough for.
There should be a panel that actually judges each referee during matches and should offer positive criticism after the rugby matches. That would certainly assist in bringing some sort of consistency to the game. Just watch a few more rugby games and concentrate on the different interpretations of the different referees and decide for yourself, before passing judgement on these comments.
I have even observed this in matches between teams that I don't even follow. The understanding and application of certain laws in the game of rugby by referees, can be so far apart, that it negatively influences a whole game of rugby.
One referee can interpret a law in one game, which allows a team to play their "natural negative" game, and in the next game another referee interprets the same law differently, so much so that the same team actually thinks the referee does not know how to handle a match.
There is simply no consistency in rugby matches at all, with particular reference to the referees. The easy way out for any person is to tell me that I should stop fussing about referees because I could not do a better job. They are quite right about me not doing the referee job at all, that is what the referees are paid a stack of dough for.
There should be a panel that actually judges each referee during matches and should offer positive criticism after the rugby matches. That would certainly assist in bringing some sort of consistency to the game. Just watch a few more rugby games and concentrate on the different interpretations of the different referees and decide for yourself, before passing judgement on these comments.
Thursday, 26 April 2007
Printed ......... a done deal !!!
In the "Huisgenoot", a local magazine #515, a cricket enthusiast wrote a letter in which it was stated that the person purchased Pharos Fact Guide for 2007. This person quoted having looked up on page 455 of this magazine, searching for previous winners of the Cricket World Cup and to the person's astonishment, found that the winner for 2007 had already been printed, and as such, confirmed as Australia, although the actual final is only taking place on 28 April 2007 !!
One must note that this book was on sale even before the semi-finals. Now that must be one hell of a lot of confidence in the team, perhaps rightly so if their performances are taken into consideration, or else there is something else to be pondered !! Rigged games, rigged tournament or whatever else a person can think of !!
It makes me wander about the sport of cricket in general. Who knows, perhaps there is some sinister explanation for all this.
One must note that this book was on sale even before the semi-finals. Now that must be one hell of a lot of confidence in the team, perhaps rightly so if their performances are taken into consideration, or else there is something else to be pondered !! Rigged games, rigged tournament or whatever else a person can think of !!
It makes me wander about the sport of cricket in general. Who knows, perhaps there is some sinister explanation for all this.
Cricket World Cup 2007 Semi-final
Ain't it funny........ how the Proteas have some of the best batsmen in the world from the openers right through to the 5th batsman, yet in the semi-final they collapse to a pathetic 27-5 in 10 overs. Acceptable in a local game of sorts but in the semi-final was uncalled for. Just goes to show, we just have NOT got that BMT (big match temperament) in ANY competition that actually counts for something. The wickets were simply "thrown away" in quick succession, and there AGAIN, we were left to rely on the middle and lower order batsman, as has been the case much too often. I wander why? Perhaps part of a bigger scheme? Who knows? If this situation is not rectified then I don't know !!!
I have to say I absolutely agree with former SA cricketer Fanie de Villiers, who played when the team was still in good nick, when he said that they should STOP getting rid of the coaches and start getting rid of the captain, especially the present one that is just not performing at the right times, one or two good scores and ten poor scores in 12 games just does not cut it, ESPECIALLY if you are an opener, but then again, is it not a tried and tested theory that SA cricket always depend on their middle and lower order to pull them through the bigger percentage of their games.
After all, it is not the coach that is on the field batting as an opener and dictating the context of the game as captain; how could the coach ever be held responsible for the poor performance of the team on the field? The coach can but offewr advice and technique tips, but the players physically play or NOT !! Just makes no sense !!
I have to say I absolutely agree with former SA cricketer Fanie de Villiers, who played when the team was still in good nick, when he said that they should STOP getting rid of the coaches and start getting rid of the captain, especially the present one that is just not performing at the right times, one or two good scores and ten poor scores in 12 games just does not cut it, ESPECIALLY if you are an opener, but then again, is it not a tried and tested theory that SA cricket always depend on their middle and lower order to pull them through the bigger percentage of their games.
After all, it is not the coach that is on the field batting as an opener and dictating the context of the game as captain; how could the coach ever be held responsible for the poor performance of the team on the field? The coach can but offewr advice and technique tips, but the players physically play or NOT !! Just makes no sense !!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
