16322: Just A Thought On The Bud Light Mess.

 

The Bud Light–Dylan Mulvaney scenario is a marketing disaster, at least in regards to the resulting protests and boycotts. It’s too bad that InBev didn’t have Stan Richards consulting during the concept’s early stages.

 

Remember Richards’ infamous utterings that led to his resignation from the enterprise he created? When reviewing a concept for the Motel 6 account celebrating Black artists, Richards dismissed the idea as being “too Black”—and went on to contend that the campaign would not appeal to Motel 6’s “significant White supremacist constituents.”

 

In short, Bud Light could’ve benefited from someone standing up during the first internal review to declare, “This Dylan Mulvaney promotion is too trans—it will not play well with our significant transphobic and homophobic constituents.”

 

Just a thought.

15507: Hungry And Homophobic? Grab A Snickers.

 

Advertising Age reported Snickers was forced to pull an advertisement—created by Contrapunto BBDO Madrid—after receiving accusations of homophobia. Somewhere, Bob Garfield is punching a hole in a wall.

 

Snickers Pulls Ad From Spain After Accusations Of Homophobia

 

The ad for Snickers Ice Cream draws rebuke from LGTBQ groups

 

By Sydney Gold

 

Snickers has pulled an ad for its ice cream bars in Spain after facing accusations of homophobia, a public misstep by the brand in its long-running “You’re Not You When You’re Hungry” campaign.

 

The online spot was removed amid backlash from consumers across Spain, The Guardian reported today. The spot features Spanish influencer Aless Gibaja ordering at a restaurant, wearing pink and behaving stereotypically feminine. The waiter looks back, puzzled, and hands Gibaja a Snickers Ice Cream bar. Suddenly, the influencer transforms into a bearded man, before the tagline appears: You’re not you when you’re hungry (No Eres Tu Cuando Tienes Hambre). The ad was produced by Contrapunto BBDO Madrid.

 

Snickers apologized in a statement: “We would like to wholeheartedly apologize for any harm caused by a recent advert for Snickers Ice Cream in Spain. We recognize that we got it wrong and have removed the online content immediately,” the brand announced.

 

Mike Wilke, founder of AdRespect.org, a website intended to provide guidance to corporations on LGBTQ stereotypes, homophobia and transphobia, criticized the ad. “The way I have assessed things through the years is to look at where is the humor? What are we supposed to be laughing at? And in this ad, we’re supposed to be laughing at how much of a sissy this guy is,” he says.

 

The ad also drew critical coverage on the website LGBTQnation.com, which cited criticism from the Spanish LGBTQ organization Federación Estatal LGTB, which called the ad “shameful and pitiful,” and tweeted: “If you need some training for your next try, we’re here,” according to the report.

 

Several of Snickers advertisements play with the theme of being out of place, as part of the brand’s successful “You’re Not You When You’re Hungry” campaign. Snickers, says Wilke, has been walking “a fine line” in several of its ads that deal with gender as a joke, including a 2018 ad featuring Elton John and a 2016 Super Bowl ad starring Willem DeFoe.

 

“In all of the cases, they’re sort of walking a fine line of, you know you know, the dude looks like a lady,” says Wilke.

 

Still, Wilke says, “I think those do better than this last one from Spain.”

 

It’s not the first time Snickers has been accused of homophobia. A 2008 ad played brazenly into gender stereotypes, as Mr. T shoots Snickers at a feminine speed walker in neon booty shorts. The celebrity shouts “Speed walking? I pity you, fool! You’re a disgrace to the man race!” before pelting him with candy bars from an armed pickup truck. In the end, the tagline flashes: “get some nuts.” And in 2007, Snickers faced backlash for a Super Bowl ad where two men are repulsed after kissing each other.

 

Despite these controversial advertisements, Snickers parent company Mars received the highest possible score on Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s 2021 corporate equality index, which specifically quantifies LGBTQ workplace equity. Another Mars brand, Skittles, has partnered with the organization GLAAD, which focuses on media portrayals and coverage of LGBTQ people.

14371: Burger King Fanning Flames…?

This Burger King commercial is borrowed interest and patronizing bullshit. But that’s just one blog’s prejudiced opinion.

13968: Omnicom Settles Anti-Gay Suit.

Adweek reported Omnicom settled an anti-gay discrimination lawsuit, despite a 2017 statement from an Omnicom representative insisting, “…[W]e believe the claims in this individual case are without merit…” Hey, Bob Garfield would vehemently dispute that belief. Maybe Omnicom President-CEO-Pioneer of Diversity John Wren will pledge to double the number of LGBT creative directors in 2018. And if Wren is a Pioneer of Diversity, the former creative director in the case has earned the privilege to be called a Pioneer of Adversity.

Omnicom Reaches Settlement in Anti-Gay Discrimination Case

DDB creative director alleged harassment

By Patrick Coffee

After more than two and a half years of legal developments, holding company Omnicom has reached a settlement in a discrimination suit brought by a now-former employee of its agency DDB.

The case went through a series of dramatic turns, including a dismissal by a U.S. District Court Judge in 2016, before the plaintiff successfully appealed earlier this year. It also served as a study in whether matters of sexual stereotyping may be applied to sexual orientation.

Conditions of the settlement have not been made public.

In May 2015, lawyer Susan Chana Lask, Esq. filed a civil complaint in the Southern District Court of New York seeking $20 million in damages on behalf of her client, DDB creative director Matthew Christiansen, for “discrimination, harassment and victimization … because of an HIV disability,” as stated in the complaint. She claimed violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees against discrimination based on sex, race, nationality or religion.

The defendants named in the case were Omnicom; DDB New York; that agency’s former chief digital officer Joe Cianciotto; its current CEO, Chris Brown; and its former CEO Peter Hempel.

This week, a holding company representative confirmed the settlement, writing, “the matter has been resolved amicably, and Matt is not returning to the agency.”

“Since I obtained the positive Second Circuit concurring decision now clarifying sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII, I then settled this matter amicably for all of the parties,” attorney Lask told Adweek. “Matt has happily moved on in his career, with the best wishes of all involved.”

Both parties declined to elaborate further.

Adweek reached out to Cianciotto on social media but has yet to receive a response. Davis & Gilbert and Leeds Brown Law, the law firms that represented Omnicom and Cianciotto, respectively, have not responded to emails seeking comment.

Allegations of harassment

In the initial filing, Christiansen, who was identified only as “Anonymous,” claimed that he had been “emotionally and physically paralyzed with fear as a gay man being discriminated by his own supervisor” while working under Cianciotto. According to that document, the other current and former DDB executives named in the case failed to act to prevent this behavior despite receiving complaints from Christiansen and other employees.

“The alleged conduct in this complaint occurred years ago and the employee who filed the lawsuit did not previously file a complaint with DDB about any of the actions cited,” an agency representative told Adweek the month after the case was filed in 2015. “We do not believe the lawsuit has merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously.”

Lask later provided Adweek with a statement calling those claims “inaccurate” before publishing a LinkedIn post that named her client and publicly detailed the allegations in the suit. That post claimed that Cianciotto “commenced a harassment campaign against [Christiansen] by repeatedly accusing Matthew of having AIDS just because he was gay” as soon as he joined DDB in 2011.

More specifically, Lask wrote that her client’s manager had referred to him as “super gay” and told another gay employee, “He sleeps with everyone. He must have HIV, right?” The post alleged that Cianciotto created drawings of “gay employees fornicating” in the agency’s New York office and included an image of another drawing, also allegedly created by Cianciotto, that depicted Christiansen “defecating, urinating and with an erect penis with comments on gay equality.”

The post went on to claim that Cianciotto had “accused [Christiansen] of having AIDS” during a meeting between colleagues and representatives of DDB client State Farm.

Christiansen was HIV-positive but did not have AIDS, according to his attorney’s initial filing.

Lask’s LinkedIn post, which went live in June 2015, also claimed that Christiansen and other employees complained to leadership, and that leadership “defended Joe [Cianciotto] and would threaten them.” In response to that claim, an agency spokesperson told Adweek, “The plaintiff in this action remains employed by DDB and has never been asked to leave the agency nor threatened with litigation by DDB.”

A new twist in the case

In early 2016, the case was closed after a U.S. district judge approved the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the protections of Title VII do not apply to sexual orientation or gender identity.

In her ruling, as reported by Gay City News, Judge Katherine Polk Failla “reluctantly” wrote that Christiansen and Lask had not demonstrated a violation of the Civil Rights Act despite the fact that Cianciotto was “openly resentful and hostile toward Plaintiff because of his sexual orientation.”

The plaintiff appealed, and nearly one year later, chief judge Robert A. Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York ruled in his favor. In that decision, Katzmann cited the 1989 case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which concerned executives at the professional services network who allegedly told a female senior manager that she needed to “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled and wear jewelry” if she wanted to become a partner.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against PwC in that case, and judge Katzmann’s ruling overturning the earlier dismissal cited the decision, noting: “We disagree with the district court’s conclusion that Christiansen failed to plausibly allege a Title VII claim based on the … stereotyping theory of sex discrimination articulated in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.”

Katzmann wrote, “The gender stereotyping allegations in Christiansen’s complaint are cognizable under Price Waterhouse and our precedents,” implying that the earlier case had conclusively established discrimination related to gender identity and sexual orientation as a potential violation of Title VII.

In March 2017, an Omnicom representative responded, “While we believe the claims in this individual case are without merit, Omnicom supports any change to the applicable federal law that would extend protection to employees who experience harassment on the basis of sexual orientation.”

13631: DDBullying, Bigotry & Bias.

AgencySpy posted on an anti-gay discrimination suit against DDB New York, involving some heinous alleged behavior from an ex-DDB creative director. Once again, it looks like Bob Garfield might have been onto something after all. The post included the following quote from the Gay City News:

“Reading [the complainant’s] factual allegations, it’s amazing that a supervisor behaving the way [the ex-DDB creative director] is alleged to have acted would be tolerated by a socially conscious employer in New York, much less a large advertising agency.”

Newsflash to the Gay City News: Using “socially conscious” and “large advertising agency” in the same sentence demonstrates complete cluelessness on the subject.

Judge Rules That $20 Million Anti-Gay Discrimination Suit Filed Against DDB and Omnicom Can Proceed

By Patrick Coffee

This week saw new developments in a 2015 sexual harassment/discrimination case as the Chief Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York ruled in favor of DDB New York creative director Matthew Christiansen, reversing a previous dismissal of his complaint.

Just under two years ago, Christiansen and his lawyer Susan Chana Lask, Esq. filed suit against DDB and Omnicom, alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

The claims specifically regarded former DDB chief digital officer Joe Cianciotto, who was Christiansen’s supervisor when the alleged harassment occurred between 2011 and 2013. According to the complaint, which Lask later described in a LinkedIn post, Cianciotto began making fun of Christiansen’s status as a gay, HIV-positive man directly after he came to work for DDB.

The filing claimed that Cianciotto “drew multiple sexually suggestive and explicit drawings of Christiansen on an office whiteboard” and “accused him of having AIDS” during a meeting with DDB and State Farm employees.

The case was dismissed last year, and both that ruling and this week’s hinged on one issue: whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights act, which forbids discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex and national origin,” also inherently extends to sexual orientation.

Just over a year ago, US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla “reluctantly” ruled that the complaint held no merit because it amounted to an attempt to “squeeze the case into the sex stereotype theory,” as reported by New York’s Gay City News. The judge did state that Cianciotto was “openly resentful and hostile toward Plaintiff because of his sexual orientation” but dismissed the complaint because sexual orientation—even in the context of effeminate stereotypes of an openly gay man—does not equal gender.

But Christiansen appealed. And in the new filing, Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann wrote, “we reverse the district court’s dismissal of Christiansen’s Title VII claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

This means that the case can proceed. From the ruling:

“…we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that Christiansen failed to plausibly allege a Title VII claim based on the … stereotyping theory of sex discrimination articulated in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.”

The PwC case mentioned involved a (female) senior manager at the firm who was repeatedly described as “macho” and told that she needed to “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make‐up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry” in order to increase her chances of becoming a partner. The Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled against PwC in that 1989 case, thereby establishing gender stereotyping as a form of sex discrimination. This week’s ruling held that “The gender stereotyping allegations in Christiansen’s complaint are cognizable under Price Waterhouse and our precedents.”

Omnicom’s argument in court essentially stated that, while the holding company believes discrimination based on sexual orientation should be included in the Title VII law, its absence renders Christiansen’s complaints invalid.

The holding company’s statement:

“While we believe the claims in this individual case are without merit, Omnicom supports any change to the applicable federal law that would extend protection to employees who experience harassment on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Another issue that will almost certainly be addressed in future hearings is the 300 Day Employment Law Statute of Limitations, which requires Title VII charges to be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the alleged incidents in question.

Regarding those incidents, the Gay City News wrote last March:

“Reading Christiansen’s factual allegations, it’s amazing that a supervisor behaving the way Cianciotto is alleged to have acted would be tolerated by a socially conscious employer in New York, much less a large advertising agency.”

Several parties have told us since news of the case first broke that Cianciotto apologized and later left DDB to work at Translation—again on the State Farm account.

“The question is, how much longer does Omnicom want to bleed this out?” said Lask when we discussed the case with her this week.

She stated that she intends to deposition various agency leaders to “find out why this happened,” adding, “everyone will be called in.” The initial post mentioned former DDB New York chairman and CEO Peter Hempel (who is no longer employed by Omnicom) and current CEO Chris Brown (who was not in that position when the alleged harassment occurred).

12731: Omnicom Is Homophobic…?

AgencySpy reported on a $20 million sexual harassment suit against DDB New York and Omnicom—and no, it doesn’t involve discrimination against White women. Rather, a male creative director is charging he faced homophobic harassment from the DDB NY Chief Digital Officer. It’s bad enough that Omnicom boasts having a Chief Diversity Officer, is led by Pioneer of Diversity John Wren and essentially bankrolls ADCOLOR®. And it’s even worse that Omnicom shareholders voted against annually disclosing EEO-1 data. But it’s outrageously pathetic how the scenario shows former Advertising Age columnist Bob Garfield was probably right to address a 2008 open letter to Wren, demanding an end to homophobic advertising produced by Omnicom shops.

12647: UK Adland Homophobic?

Campaign asked, “Is the UK’s ad industry homophobic?” Gee, does the exclusivity escalate to sexclusivity?

Is the UK’s ad industry homophobic?

Adland gets regular flak for lacking sufficient ethnic diversity in its workforce and giving women a raw deal. But Dave Buonaguidi’s claim that it is also institutionally homophobic is new to the charge sheet. It is, after all, 17 years since Ogilvy & Mather and Unilever debuted a commercial for Impulse body spray that was the first to feature an overtly gay couple.

Today, major brands including McDonald’s and Coca-Cola direct campaigns towards the 3.7 million gay people in Britain who are worth between £70 billion and £80 billion to the economy. Moreover, the sight of Sal Romano, the closet gay art director in Mad Men, getting caught in a compromising situation with a bellboy doesn’t shock anybody as it would have done in the 60s.

But, according to Buonaguidi, Karmarama’s former creative chief, homophobia lives on in a lot of agencies where attitudes have not changed since the days of Mad Men. Is he right? Or has the industry lost what Scott Knox, the gay Marketing Agencies Association managing director, remembers as the “boys’ club mentality” that led to him being made to feel inferior during his agency days?

Agency chief

Damon Collins, founder, Joint

“The aggressively macho behaviour within our industry in the Thatcherite 80s dissipated at the dawn of the 90s with the arrival of the ‘new man’. That trend has continued and adland has turned into a much more tolerant place in recent years. Maybe Buonaguidi was setting out to be deliberately provocative. In my entire career, I’ve never worked in a place where gay people have had the piss taken out of them. Agencies want to hire the most talented staff irrespective of their sexual orientation. And the more diversity we have in agencies, the better we will be at engaging with a very broad range of people.”

Trade body

Karen Fraser, strategy director, Advertising Association

“I don’t know why Buonaguidi would make such a claim. It certainly doesn’t seem as though homophobia is an issue within the industry. The problem is that we don’t have the data. And that data would be hard to get. In Advertising Association surveys that have asked the public about representation in ads, we’ve found that LGBT issues are the most difficult for people to talk about. We as an industry find it difficult too. What’s more, the IPA census questionnaire doesn’t ask about sexual orientation. Nevertheless, it would be useful to know how reflective agencies are of the population as a whole.”

Agency chief

Sarah Todd, chief executive, Geometry Global UK

“As an industry, we’re not perfect in terms of diversity, but I was very surprised to hear us described as ‘institutionally’ homophobic. The fact is that we want the best talent to reach all the markets we need to talk to. And while we can’t ask people to disclose private information about their sexual orientation, we do need more role models to make sure people feel safe and secure. Changing the way we recruit could help. The system should be less interview-based and with more emphasis on psychometric testing and getting the right cultural fit. That we’re still talking about this issue means there’s still work to do.”

Agency activist

Andrew Barratt, founder, Ogilvy Pride UK; account executive, Ogilvy Public Relations

“Diversity has always been part of Ogilvy’s DNA. ‘In recruitment and promotion, we are fanatical in our hatred for all forms of prejudice,’ David Ogilvy said in 1968. Last year, we set up Ogilvy Pride, our LGBT and straight ally network. The introduction of the Glass Lion this year at Cannes, which recognises communications that address issues of inequality and prejudice, is further evidence of adland making progress in this area. That said, there is still work to be done. We need more senior role models to come out and for agencies to foster environments where people can be their authentic selves.”

11544: Hallmark Is So Gay Fun.

From The New York Daily News…

Hallmark swaps ‘gay’ for ‘fun’ on ‘Deck the Halls’ Christmas sweater

The greeting card company’s decision to change the lyrics to the classic carol on a tacky holiday sweater has sparked controversy. Hallmark said it regrets removing ‘gay’ from the jingle but will continue selling the product.

The Associated Press

Greeting card giant Hallmark said Thursday that it shouldn’t have changed the lyrics to “Deck the Halls” on a new holiday ornament that stirred a backlash from customers online.

The Kansas City, Mo.-based company has been defending itself after it began selling a miniaturized version of a tacky holiday sweater that changes the lyrics to the holiday carol. The ornament removes the word “gay” and emblazons the sweater with the phrase: “Don we now our FUN apparel!”

Critics took to Twitter and Hallmark’s Facebook page, accusing the company of making a political statement by using the word “fun” to replace “gay.” Some Facebook commenters said they would never again buy Hallmark merchandise and that the change amounted to the company rewriting Christmas classics in the name of political correctness. Others suggested removing the word “gay” demonstrated a homophobic bias.

The company initially responded by saying the multiple meanings attached to the word “gay” meant the sweater’s lyrics would be “open to misinterpretation.”

“The trend of wearing festively decorated Christmas sweaters to parties is all about fun, and this ornament is intended to play into that, so the planning team decided to say what we meant: ‘fun.’ That’s the spirit we intended and the spirit in which we hope ornament buyers will take it.”

The company updated its statement Thursday, saying it was surprised by the public’s response and that it now realized it shouldn’t have changed the lyrics.

“We’ve been surprised at the wide range of reactions expressed about the change of lyrics on this ornament, and we’re sorry to have caused so much concern,” the statement read. “We never intend to offend or make political statements with our products and in hindsight, we realize we shouldn’t have changed the lyrics on the ornament.”

But Hallmark spokeswoman Linda Odell said the company has no plans to stop selling the ornament.

11487: Misogynists Meet Feminists.

Adweek reported Elle U.K. asked three advertising agencies—Brave, Mother and Wieden + Kennedy—to rebrand feminism. Um, asking ad shops to rebrand feminism is like assigning the heads of Barilla and Chick-fil-A to rebrand LGBT. Or charging the KKK with rebranding diversity. Or letting The Richards Group rebrand Summer’s Eve. Why, it’s a wonder no one thought to call in Neil French.

11473: Guido Barilla Lost His Noodle.

From The New York Post…

Barilla: ‘Gays can eat someone else’s pasta’

By Bruce Golding and Post Wires

His company still makes fusilli and elbows, but the head of Barilla has made it clear he prefers his pasta straight.

Guido Barilla sparked international outrage when he said he’d never feature a gay couple in ads for his firm’s foodstuffs — adding that if homosexuals don’t like it, they can buy another brand.

“I would never do [a commercial] with a homosexual family, not for lack of respect, but because we don’t agree with them,” the company chairman told Italian radio Wednesday evening.

“Ours is a classic family where the woman plays a fundamental role,” Barilla, 55, said, adding that if gays “like our pasta and our advertising, they’ll eat our pasta. If they don’t like it, then they will not eat it and they will eat another brand.”

Anger at the remarks boiled over Thursday, with gay-rights activists announcing a boycott of the world’s largest pasta maker.

Aurelio Mancuso, head of Italy’s Equality Italia group, said: “We accept the invitation from the Barilla owner to not eat his pasta.”

Rich Ferraro of GLAAD said his mom, Linda, had emptied her cupboard of the company’s products.

“I was raised on Barilla,” Ferraro said. “My mom told me that this morning she looked in her cabinets and they were still filled with Barilla pasta, and after I told her what Mr. Barilla said, she said she was going to be dumping out all those boxes of pasta and switching brands.”

Even Mayor Thomas Freeman, of upstate Avon — where Barilla operates one of two US plants — said he “totally” disagreed with the remarks.

“I feel sorry for Mr. Barilla that that’s what he feels,” Freeman said.

But the two-term Democrat said he hoped anger at the company didn’t damage sales too much, noting that the Avon plant had brought 140 jobs to the village of 3,700.

“Barilla makes a very wonderful product. They are on all our shelves here,” Freeman said.

At Mario Batali’s Eataly Italian food mall in the Flatiron District, shoppers slammed Guido Barilla’s remarks as “inappropriate” and “harsh.”

“I actually sent my roommate an e-mail saying it’s a fine family tradition not to buy Barilla, so this strengthens that,” said Cassandra Evanisko, 26 of Brooklyn.

John Rhymes, 28, of Brooklyn, said he never buys Barilla because “it tastes like chalk.”

“Being human beings, where we all have to get along, we should just be tolerant,” he added.

Guido Barilla issued a statement saying he was sorry for hurting anyone’s “sensitivity” but insisted that traditional families “have always been identified with our brand.”

He also re-iterated his support for gay marriage, which is illegal in Italy, although he is against gay adoptions.

The controversy trended on Twitter, where Alessandro Zan, a gay member of the Italian parliament, tweeted: “You can’t mess around with consumers, including gay ones.”

Other users blasted Barilla in multiple languages, labeling the brand “hate pasta” and calling Guido Barilla “horrendously sexist and homophobic.”

“Thanks Barilla, another reason to buy quinoa pasta instead of your white flour poison!” tweeted Tif Lowder of Chicago.

11409: Heartless, Brainless & Clueless.

Flora Margarine in South Africa uses hearts to show a lack of brains.

From Ads of the World.

(Here’s a special version for Madison Avenue.)

UPDATE: copyranter reported the campaign is comprised of scam ads. A spokesperson from Unilever (the parent company for Flora Margarine) stated the following: “This advert was prepared by an external agency in South Africa and was not approved by anyone at Unilever. The advert is offensive and unacceptable and we have put an immediate stop to it.”

10947: Super Bowl Offensive Karma.

In 2011, MultiCultClassics successfully predicted the NBA Finals winner by utilizing the Offensive Karma formula. Specifically, Offensive Karma is defined by a team’s display of offensiveness in the form of words or actions rooted in bigotry, discrimination and ignorance—which then leads to the team’s ultimate demise in a championship tourney. So let’s apply the notion to Super Bowl XLVII to determine which squad will be hoisting the Lombardi Trophy on Sunday.

So far, San Francisco has a slight Offensive Karma edge, with 49ers backup cornerback Chris Culliver making homophobic remarks. Baltimore Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco tried to counter by calling the decision to play the next Super Bowl outdoors in New York “retarded.”

There are still a few days—and press conferences featuring Randy Moss and Ray Lewis—remaining to heat things up. Stay tuned, sports fans.

10264: Chuck Norris Blasts Away.

Chuck Norris pulled an Amar’e Stoudemire move to uncover a conspiracy theory involving the President of the United States and the Boy Scouts of America—at AmmoLand.com.

‘Nuff said.

(BTW, here’s an ad that appeared alongside Norris’ editorial, hawking Scout Rifle accessories.)

10256: Oreo Cookie Controversy.

Kraft sparked a little controversy with its Gay Pride Oreo that appeared on Facebook. It must have created confusion for Bob Garfield, who once saw hints of racism in an Oreo campaign starring Randy Jackson—and also blasted Omnicom for perceived homophobia in advertising. Whatever. MultiCultClassics is still waiting for the Black Pride Oreo to be unveiled.

9985: Studying Homophobia.

From USA TODAY…

Study examines the roots of homophobia

By Michelle Healy, USA TODAY

Acceptance of gays and lesbians has never been higher, but anti-gay bias still exists. A new study suggests intense hostility toward homosexuals may be linked to a repressed same-sex attraction, combined with an authoritarian upbringing.

Though such factors are not the only cause of homophobia, the findings suggest those “who have a discrepancy within themselves about their expressed vs. unconscious sexual attraction find gay and lesbian people more threatening and are more likely to express prejudice and discrimination toward them,” says University of Rochester psychology professor Richard Ryan, co-author of the study, which is published in the April Journalof Personality and Social Psychology. Also an author is Netta Weinstein of the University of Essex, England.

The blocking of unconscious desires by adopting an opposite view is a well-known psychoanalytic concept, suggested by Freud and others. The new study uses “modern methods that allow us to more reliably peer into these less explicitly available parts of peoples’ psyches and see what’s arising,” Ryan says.

Among those methods: studies that measure discrepancies between what people say about their sexual orientation and how they react during split-second timed tasks. Study subjects — four groups of about 160 college students each, in the USA and Germany — also rated the attractiveness of people in same-sex or opposite-sex photos and answered questions about the type of parenting they experienced growing up, from authoritarian to democratic, as well as homophobia at home.

Researchers also measured homophobia — both overt, as expressed in questionnaires on social policy and beliefs, and unconscious, as revealed in word-completion tasks.

The findings suggest participants with accepting parents were more in touch with their innate sexual orientation. But, Ryan says, “if you come from a controlling home where your parents do have negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians, you’re even more likely to suppress same-sex attraction and more likely to have this discrepancy that leads to having homophobia and feeling threatened.”

Some in the field are skeptical.

Psychology professor Gregory Herek of the University of California-Davis has done extensive research on anti-gay bias and violence, and he says measuring unconscious same-sex attraction is “incredibly difficult.”

“This study is asking the right questions,” Herek says, but “it’s a pretty big leap to say it’s revealing sexual orientation.”

Psychiatrist T. Byram Karasu of Montefiore Medical Center in New York has similar concerns. The suggestion that parents play a role in homophobia fails to address the importance of “identifying with the authoritarian parent” and then taking that oppression “and projecting it outward. The study skips the self-oppression part,” he says.

Ryan says the study may help explain the personal dynamics behind some bullying and hate crimes directed at gays and sheds light on high-profile cases in which public figures who have expressed anti-gay views have been caught engaging in same-sex sexual acts.

“Some people who are threatened by gays and lesbians and are most vociferous in their opposition to them are suffering internally themselves,” he says.

8922: Coming Out And Coming Clean.

A Midweek MultiCultClassics Monologue…

• Tracy Morgan returned to Nashville to officially apologize for his anti-gay comedy routine. Morgan then announced to the world—as the photograph above reveals—that he is indeed a gay man himself. Just kidding.

• Journalist, documentary filmmaker and Pulitzer Prize winner Jose Antonio Vargas admitted he is an undocumented immigrant. A native of the Philippines, Vargas has held positions with the Washington Post and the Huffington Post. He probably took a Spanish-sounding name to throw people off. Hey, Vargas is no Salma Hayek.

8895: Tuesday Turnarounds.

Turning around the news in a MultiCultClassics Monologue…

• Tracy Morgan has done a complete turnaround, now partnering with Russell Simmons and GLAAD to rebound from his anti-gay comedy routine. “Of all the sicknesses, there is probably none more abusive than homophobia,” said Morgan. “What I am most sad about is the comments I made about kids and bullying. I would never want any young person to think that I wasn’t on their side and if any young person thinks they can bully a young gay kid, come see me at 30 Rock. On the corner, I would be happy to meet you. Or Brooklyn if you can’t make it into Manhattan.” Great, now he’s picking fights with homophobic bullies.

• Wendy’s/Arby’s Group is seeking to split and go in separate fast food directions. The majority stake of the struggling Arby’s brand is being sold to Roark Capital Group, a private equity firm in Atlanta. Guess the accountants at Arby’s have not been in a Good Mood Food mindset.

8889: Between A Rock And A Hard Place.

Sunday Evening News with a MultiCultClassics Monologue…

• Chris Rock initially defended Tracy Morgan’s anti-gay comedy routine, but later backtracked and condemned it. Perhaps Rock could show Morgan how it’s done…?

• A new Gallup poll showed the general economy and unemployment are Americans’ top two concerns. While Whites rated the general economy as the top concern, Blacks felt unemployment was the number one issue. Both groups, however, agreed that Tracy Morgan’s anti-gay comedy routine deserved condemnation.

8885: Saturday Sorry Statements.

Apologizing with a MultCultClassics Monologue…

• Tracy Morgan released an apology for his anti-gay comedy routine: “I’m not a hateful person and don’t condone any kind of violence against others. … While I am an equal opportunity jokester, and my friends know what is in my heart, even in a comedy club this clearly went too far and was not funny in any context.” Hey, looks like homophobia is completely curable when your professional livelihood is threatened.

• Russell Crowe issued an apology after being labeled anti-Semitic over comments the actor made about circumcision. “Circumcision is barbaric and stupid,” declared Crowe via Twitter. “Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that GOD requires a donation of foreskin? Babies are perfect.” The anti-Semitism charges emerged after Crowe exchanged tweets with a Jewish pal that included, “I love my Jewish friends, I love the apples and the honey and the funny little hats but stop cutting yr babies @eliroth.” When the complaints escalated, Crowe apologized. Hey, Crowe—babies are perfect, but adults are not.

• Rep. Anthony Weiner received some unexpected support from Rep. Charles Rangel. “I know one thing: He wasn’t going out with prostitutes, he wasn’t going out with little boys, he wasn’t going into men’s rooms with broad stances,” said Rangel, alluding to the respective sex scandals of Republican Sen. David Vitter, GOP Rep. Mark Foley and GOP Sen. Larry Craig. Great, a guy found guilty of multiple ethics violation defends a pervert by comparing him to even bigger perverts.

8881: TGIFools & Freaks.

Working towards the weekend with a MultiCultClassics Monologue…

• Tracy Morgan is catching heat for a stand-up routine featuring homophobic remarks, as well as the N-Word. Fortunately for the Miami Heat and Dallas Mavericks, Morgan isn’t a fan of either squad—the Offensive Karma would absolutely doom a team.

• Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich saw his campaign team stage a mass exodus on Thursday. The reasons behind the departures covered everything from campaign direction to finances. “We were living a Cadillac campaign on a Bud Light budget,” said one staffer who bailed out. Hmmm. No clear vision and unable to manage finances. Throw in his extramarital affair and you’ve got the perfect candidate—for a new reality TV series.