Prized University of Chicago Religious Relic is a Forgery!!

One of the University of Chicago's prized religious manuscripts, "Archaic Mark" has been determined to be a fake. The book has actually turned out to be a skilled 19- or- 20th Century forgery. While the codex's authenticity has been questioned since its "discovery," there had been no definitive proof for either side.

The tome was thought to be an authentic, early 14th century copy of the Gospel of Mark, and the nearest document related to the oldest Greek Bible, a text dated to the 4th century.

Archaic Mark was found among an antiquity dealer's possessions after he died. In 1935, the man's nephew contacted U of C to see if they were interested in purchasing the book. Obviously, the university bought it, hook, line and sinker. The amount was never disclosed. 

Debate as to the text's was revived when the book was digitized. The text was now available experts globally, and the investigation began. In 2007, a team of scholars partnered with McCrone Associates, an Illinois laboratory to perform a "cross-discipline, in-depth analysis" of the relic. 

The conclusion? After a battery of tests that I can't pronounce including x-rays and spectroscopy determined that the colors found in the book weren't available prior to the 1800s. Pigments found in the book until around 1874. The canvas the book was written on was dated to the 16th century. Further, there were errors with the books artwork, text, and binding. 

A Biblical scholar determined that the book contained the exact same errors as the Greek New Testament, evidence that the book was a copy (people tend not to knowingly copy false information).

So, instead of a historical religious artifact, a prize in their collection, the university is going to use the manuscript to help teach scholars how to reveal forgery techniques. If the purchasing price is ever revealed, it's my guess is that this will be an expensive lesson.

My Grand Plan for the Afghan

Today's been productive. While I haven't moved from my precarious perch high above the floor, and the cat, I've finished sentences -- mainly those that have been plaguing my melon -- but they're finished just the same. I've not written them down or anything nearly close to that, but I made some sense out of the guacamole dip.

It's a bumpy situation; with the right people, the bumps would would fade, Proactiv staking claim to another victory in the prepubescence that is milkshake America. No longer a stew, or a melting pot, our ingredients are thrust together, wholly different, into the grind and beaten into submission at 500 RPM. Vanilla, chocolate, syrupy goodness, maybe an egg, y leche.

Jody Weiss, the former G-Man superspy and current Top Cop, recently announced that Chicago's crime rate had fallen  9% which, is quite the radical departure from growing crime rates experienced over the past decade. Weiss' took the credit. "I knew 2008 would be a rebuilding year, (this is NOT an exact quote) but I predicted that twenty-oh-nine would be the turnaround. You little soothsayer, you...Nostradamus 0.5. Please stand for the Nobel Peace prize. Inexplicably, the crime rate in the nation fell, amidst a recession known as the "The Suck."

Take the props, Jodes, the limelight won't last and you're definitely not the man on this one. There's a bigger reason not readily apparent, hiding in plain sight, waiting for that moment to enter fashionably late and take the credit for your apparent victory.

The plain-sight anomaly is that the crime rate for the nation fell, meaning every major populated area experienced less crime...hmm. Don't worry...here's a solution that won't get backed, but a fabulous idea...

There were at least 30,000 gangs and 800,000 gang members active across the USA in 2007 according to DOJ (Department of Justice) statistics. The President just called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan and Iraq. So...let's logically mesh the two.

What do Gangs Want?
Money
Territory
Power
A Drug Market
Though unproven, gangs want to enforce their ways using violence

Here is how US Gangs will finalize the Afghanistan problem;

1. Afghanistan is the global leader of Opium production. Strike drugs
2. Most drug dealers don't make any more money than someone in the army, so strike $$
3. Territory? Afghanistan is yours, boys
4. Power? They'd be controlling an entire nation
5. Drug Market? See Number 1
6. Violence? All you want and more. 

It may not be perfect at the start, but think about gangbangers for a sec: They're familiar with weapons, are unafraid of violence, and require little subsistence, taking what they need. They form a family, protect one another, and tend not to to be snitches. Terrorism is striking fear into a population through the use of violence or threat of violence. Although gangs serve no higher purpose, they're certainly capable of inspiring terror. Thus, what al Qaeda does to the United States, we do to al Qaeda. The nice thing is that we could technically pull out, thus not being at war which would free us from "rules of war" bull crap. As far as I know, gangs do not have to abide by the Geneva Convention, but neither do the terrorists, so fair is fair. Plus, the gang leaders and members that have lived through the gang life to eventually get out of the life state that gangs are often looking for a higher purpose...

Google's Cool Tools Not For Chrome...Yet

I am a fan of Google. Not only do I somehow use Google daily, have an iGoogle page, use AdWords, Google Analytics, and a plethora of other applications that are part of the daily routine. With one exception...I hate Picasa. I'm also a fan of 'brand' Google.

As a brand, Google doesn't do much wrong. In fact, it's surprising that a company this large has remained relatively scandal-free, although they have endured their share of criticism, distrust, law suits, bad press, court battles (mainly with PC giant Microsoft), the Google Book's lawsuit, investigations by the FCC, FTC, The Justice Department, foreign governments, and testimonies before Congress. Not to mention that unless you're a huge customer, reaching someone at Google is virtually impossible.

     Internet Explorer (62.69%)
     Mozilla Firefox (24.61%)     Google Chrome (5.02%)     Safari (4.62%)     Opera (1.30%)     Other (1.32%)
Realizing that Google has to cater to the rest of the internet using world, I understand the reasoning behind sites and software not being available for Google Chrome, their new search engine. I began to use it while in beta and ended up keeping (it's fast, easy to use, and meets my needs for surfing the web). However, my choice to use Chrome has some drawbacks, or areas where I have to compromise and use a different browser, or simply not use a certain software. For instance, the email software/service Constant Contact requires Firefox or Explorer, plus, some of the Microsoft sites don't support Chrome. Orbit's downloading tool won't work with Chrome, either.

Let me state the obvious: Google is a smart, well-branded, technologically savvy company. However, I have a problem with the fact that certain Google Applications that were written by Google are not compatible with Chrome. Yes, I realize "the why:" Google has to meet the needs of the majority--users that surf with IE and Firefox. According to W3 Schools' (www.w3schools.com) browser statistics, the current trend as of September 2009 shows that users have Firefox as their main browser, 80% use IE7, IE8, or IE6 (why?), and 7.1% use Chrome. The rest use Safari or Opera. However, Google needs to provide Chrome users with several of their applications before they start losing their share of users. For instance, the Google Tool bar is not available to Chrome users. The Google Sidewiki, Twitter Gadget, Facebook Gadget, etc. do not work with Chrome either although there are third-party apps that can be used to replace them. Plus, when is Google, the search leader, going to install a URL shortening application for their browser or search engine? Tweetdeck will automatically shorten links, so why can't Google?

Google should consider testing their beta apps on Chrome users first. The reason that I suggest this is a logical thought: People that use Chrome are more likely to be Google aficionados. Thus, they would be excited to try new applications, evaluate features, and fill out forms or surveys in regard to improvements. They would also tend to be more honest as they eat, drink, and breathe Google.

Just my frustration turned into a thought, and written down. By the way, I am writing this on the Google Sidewiki, which is available now for Chrome as a bookmark...
in reference to: http://googland.blogspot.com/2009/10/g-bringing-google-sidewiki-goodness-to.html (view on Google Sidewiki)

DDB's Big Mistake

The Error
At an Ad Agency in Sao Paolo, Brazil, an error in judgment has been committed. The facts are sketchy, but it seem that DDB Brasil was working on creative for the World Wildlife Foundation; it is unclear whether it was spec creative or just some ideas that had been shot down earlier in the year brought back to life to be entered at Cannes and The One Show. Unfortunately, this led to several errors...


DDB Brasil concepted some ads that compared 9/11 to other tragedies...actually, Acts of God. The campaign did not run, but the agency held on to the creative. The agency award show time of year rolled around, and the ads appeared again. One print. One TV. Could they submit them? No...they had to prove that they had run. 
Somehow, the agency had the ads "run" without them really running...late at night on TV and in a publication that no one saw. The shows...the Addys, the One Show, Cannes, the Clio's, etc, were right around the corner. 


They submitted the ads.

--Time passes--

---

The print ad wins an award at the One show, and the shit officially hit the fan for DDB Brasil. The attention and accolades that  the creatives sought? They got it: They were fired. 
In the US, the WWF was infuriated... They paid their agencies to keep them away from this type of situation... The 8th Anniversary of 9/11/2001 was days away and they were belittling it!


As the global arms of the WWF and DDB came together to find out what happened, the ad spread like wildfire across cyberspace.
At the WWF and DDB, the phone rang non-stop... the agency and client tried figure who did what, and when, and how to stop it from happening again. In the meantime, questions were pouring in that had to be answered. DDB and the WWF answered some of the questions incorrectly because they did not have all the information. On some, they lied. When asked if a video version of the print ad existed, DDB stated "Absolutely Not."  Yet, out France came rumor that there was a video, submitted for the Cannes Film Festival. DDB had lied. The video inexplicably found it's way to the internet. (When your are screwed, you are SCREWED)


DDB finally admitted everything, but they were hoping internally that their client would accept part  of  the blame, thinking, "Now, if only we can show that the client approved it...."


Later, an announcement from the WWF:

"Earlier this week, WWF-US issued a statement based on information provided by WWF Brazil, a separate and independent organization within the international WWF network, that the ad was created by an outside agency and was not authorized by anyone within their organization. 

"WWF Brazil has subsequently issued statements that have raised doubts about whether the ad concept was approved at some level within the WWF Brazil organization. "

 It seems that the ad had been approved. DB Worldwide breathed a bit easier, but this was not over. The two companies decided to share the blame (what other options were left?):

DDB Brazil posted a statement on its Web site Wednesday, signed by both WWF Brazil and DDB Brazil, claiming that the two companies claimeed creation and initial approval of the ad, which has caused international outrage. 

DDB Brasil concepted the ads expressly for the shock value. By comparing the World Trade Center Tragedy on 9/11 to the Tsunami in 2004, they thought that they could show what a "real" tragedy was like...especially one authored by Mother Earth. Yet, it was act of overt terrorism vs. an act of God. A planned and articulated attack vs. an earthquake in the ocean. It's like comparing two deaths: one man is brutally stabbed, robbed, and beaten unrecognizable. The other is fishing with a buddy when the boat capsizes. Swimming to shore, both accidentally drown. Both tragedies. Both resulting in death. Neither greater than the other. 

One, however, was a cold-blooded murder.


The Proverbial Poop

Below are the ads:

The copy in the upper-right corner shows the following:

The Tsunami killed more than two-hundred thousand. The terrorist attack about 3000. Yet, what is the point of comparison? The amount of violence? The number of deaths? The method of death? The fear prior to death? 
There is no point. The ads have shock value but little else. The creative team had thoughts of shiny gold awards...of being known for a "great ad." Yet, it wasn't well thought-out, there was no plan, or thought of possible consequences. They were intent on the gold statues...


When we, as humans, grow older, the trinkets of our youth become memories...we grow out of the ribbons and awards defined us in Junior High. They get put in less prominent places, then boxes, then boxes in the basement. When we are in our twenties, we probably don't want people to know that we won the 8th Grade Spelling Championship...


Why?


The reasoning is simple: We can't rest on our laurels...the accomplishments of  yesterday. Better yet; 

Our value, as people, is not defined by what we did yesterday; Our value lives in the accomplishments of today, and the dream of tomorrow.  -Jeff Louis

 

"Here is your shiny gold statue."

Carter Roberts, President of the WWF in the US, announced that the WWF:

"...disavows the content of the ad, the message it delivers, and we will do everything we can to remove it from the Internet." Unfortunately, he is probably too late...checking this morning, 8 days after, and videos abound...print ads are prolific."

My guess? The WWF will soon be searching looking for a new agency as might others on their client roster. The WWF has already began to review some of their local shops...